<p>what I find interesting is “big time” feminists- who use their husbands last names 
</p>
<p>“How is it relevant today what happened in Vietnam/Cambodia? Seriously”</p>
<p>It is relevant if someone calls either the Swiftboat Veterans or Senator Kerry liars on this 2008 thread. Otherwise, not so much.</p>
<p>There is ugliness on both sides and it is unacceptable either way. Neither party has a monopoly on righteousness in American politics. To think so is either disingenuous or naive. I’m not betting on naive.</p>
<p>"what I find interesting is “big time” feminists- who use their husbands last names "</p>
<p>Zoosergirl will either take her husband’s name or choose one of her own because we have a really ugly, tease-worthy last name courtesy of DH. Which proves your point. I should have kept my own name and given it to my kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>agree totally</p>
<p>“what I find interesting is “big time” feminists- who use their husbands last names”</p>
<p>I don’t find this interesting at all. I find it to be a personal decision. I don’t know that Hillary’s claimed to be a feminist anyway, but my mother (Hillary’s contemporary and likewise at the pinnacle of her profession) certainly is, and she has my father’s name.</p>
<p>It doesn’t comport at all with my understanding of feminism to suggest that feminist women have to choose from a shorter menu of options in life than other women.</p>
<p> This thread was headed downhill; the mods have deleted several ad hominem posts and the responses to them. </p>
<p>PLEASE keep all posts on topic and well within the courtesy guidelines of the Terms of Service. It is going to be a long election year and we hope the forum - and the moderators - will survive it! ;)</p>
<p>Thanks for your anticipated cooperation. </p>
<p>I thought this was an interesting analysis that some others might like to read:</p>
<p>[RealClearPolitics</a> - HorseRaceBlog](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/clintons_plan_b.html]RealClearPolitics”>RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Clinton's Plan B)</p>
<p>Zoosermom - classic right wing logic - “I don’t have an answer to that statement so I’ll change the subject and attack you for not following my red herring.” Classic.</p>
<p>FF, it’s beena long time since I looked at this but at the time I checked out the Swiftboats website and followed their blogs. They were a puppet group funded by Bob Perry and many of their claims were debunked. What I found interesting was that when solid proof of the falsity of a claim was available they were firmly instructed to move on to something else. What was left were personal remeniscences which could neither be proved nor disproved. As to the “withering fire” on the day of the mined boat:
I don’t doubt that the recollections people reported thirty years after the fact were sincere; people experience and remember things differently. You and I have discussed this here before; it’s not worth going over again. But the fact remains that the people who passed themselves off as “serving with” Kerry in Viet Nam, with a sole exception, never set foot on his boat. But you won’t let that get in the way of a good right wing slime job, will you?</p>
<p>
And why should I not? My birth name is my father’s name - also a male. And if I took my mother’s birth name? That’s the name of her father. Also a male. So the only choice a feminist might have is to adopt an unusual name out of whole cloth? Sorry, don’t buy it. I have the right to choose whether I want my father’s name, my mother’s name, my husband’s name or any other name. Which I choose is no one’s concern but mine and my family’s.</p>
<p>That’s why I also see no contradiction with women who are feminist, and want women to have choices, and who nevertheless choose to become work at home mothers. It’s having the choice that’s important; which an individual chooses is irrelevant.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom - classic right wing logic - “I don’t have an answer to that statement so I’ll change the subject and attack you for not following my red herring.” Classic.”</p>
<p>No Kluge, I wasn’t in the fight. I asked a respectful question within the TOS of this site. You chose not to answer and then decreed that the question shouldn’t have been asked. Who died and made you king? I did and still do want to know the answer the question. I’ve apologized to you in the past for things that I shouldn’t have posted, but you are completely and utterly wrong here and you have no defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen. Whoopee! So true, so true.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, let me spell it out: my issue with the sleazeboat crew was their basic mendacity in claiming to have “served with” Kerry in Viet Nam. You brought up the question of the inability to determine with certainty what happened at various times in Viet Nam. My response was that that inability is irrelevant - we’ll never know, and the question of the mendacity of the Sleazeboat crew isn’t going to be determined by “who was right and who was wrong” - a question we’ll never know the answer to, as the above excerpts make clear. By changing the subject from the sleazeboater’s lie about “serving with” Kerry to an ultimately unknowable question about whether or not there actually was “withering fire” from the banks of a river on a day forty years ago when a dozen people who were there say yes and a dozen people say no is a red herring.</p>
<p>OK?</p>
<p>“But the fact remains that the people who passed themselves off as “serving with” Kerry in Viet Nam, with a sole exception, never set foot on his boat. But you won’t let that get in the way of a good right wing slime job, will you?”</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>What is your defintion of “serving with”? If four airplanes (or four tanks) are sent out on a mission and a battle ensues, are not all of the crews on all of the airplanes/tanks serving with each other? Do they not all hang out together back at the base? Do they not all have the right to tell their side of the story about the battle? When the version of those on the other planes contradict the story of a single plane, is it appropriate to say that they are part of a slime job?</p>
<p>“You and I have discussed this here before; it’s not worth going over again.”</p>
<p>I agree with this, but when this is brought up as part of an attempt to smear Republicans in general as tommybill did, am I expected to just sit back and allow the smear to go unanswered?</p>
<p>I was gone all morning and must have missed all the “ad hominem posts,” but I just wanted to respond to an earlier post from a day or so ago.</p>
<p>Someone commented that Hillary has no experience, either (in relation to Obama’s lack of experience). </p>
<p>I will just say that Clinton has certainly spent more time in the Senate. My problem with Obama is that while he is certainly charismatic and can sure bring in a crowd, he is-- sadly-- full of fluff. Someone on another thread mentioned that he would make a great motivational speaker. I agree. Another person on that same thread added a link to Obama’s website, so I suited up and went in. Has anybody actually read it? Similar to his speeches, his “plans” are simply vague ideas, phrases people like to hear, and cliches. There is absolutely no substance. </p>
<p>Let’s take his health care-- uh-- plan. What plan? That’s right. His ideas for “change” are vague, exactly what everyone wants to hear, and he does not outline how he would go about instituting any of these ideas. He says the money for his “changes” will come from cutting out the current tax breaks for those who make over $250K a year, but let’s face it-- he can’t do that by himself. He can’t just say he’ll stop those breaks, and that will make it so-- far from it.</p>
<p>In addition, Obama has taken so much money from the health care industry. In fact, he’s #2 (after Hillary) on the financial support he’s received from them-- among any of the other candidates, in both parties. Do you really think he’ll make substantial changes in our health care system, given the financial support he’s received from them? </p>
<p>As ever, Americans are voting on who is the most charismatic. He has zero experience, so I guess we’ll have to trust that he will hire the right people. Well, we did that with Bush, and frankly, I didn’t think Cheney did a great job as President.</p>
<p>An interesting article is in the NY Times today by Gloria Steinem, entitled “Women are Never Front Runners,” is well worth a read. Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Steinem continues, but this is really an illuminating and worthwhile read.</p>
<p>At any rate, in my opinon, people really need to listen to what Obama is saying (or, more accurately, not saying). He’s charismatic, though, I’ll give him that. </p>
<p>A disclaimer: I’m an Edwards supporter. For starters, check out Edwards’ website and his detailed plans-- on health care alone. Edwards has a viable plan; it’s detailed, and it makes sense. Then go read what Obama has to say about his healthcare “plans.”</p>
<p>Oh, did they not cast John Kerry in the latest Rambo? Actually, was he not in the original movie before he was out? Or was out in before he was in? After all, it is hard to follow the tales of Flip Flop John Rambo Kerry. </p>
<p>On a serious note, why is this of any importance anymore? Kerry has returned to his status of long term insignificant Washington empty suit; the dirty political machines are still running at full speed on both sides of the aisle, if not planning “unscripted” little scenes where a 60+ plus lady can force Mrs. Bill to shed a few emotional quasi-tears, and show another side of her persona. Yeah right! </p>
<p>Panem and circenses.</p>
<p>Kluge, this is the post at issue. I asked a question. Nowhere in that post did I defend the Swiftboaters because, frankly, I’m not interested in them. The question was fully appropriate in the TOS of this site and would have involved either a “yes on ____ date” or “no” answer. Or no answer at all, but not a judgment on the post by another poster. I ask again who do you think you are? I’m not sure where your rant is coming from because I didn’t ask anyone’s opinion of the Swiftboaters’ veracity. My point of reference was Senator Kerry’s appearance on Meet the Press where he promised to sign the release. I was casually curious as to whether he had done so. Accusing me of an attack in this case is beyond the pale and a little out there even for you. Is it so completely outside the realm of your experience that there are human beings in this world who have different thought processes than you and could actually ask a question with no motivation other than getting an answer? </p>
<p>The post: "when were the last of Kerry’s military records released? Last I heard was that a chunk were redacted, but I’ve not heard further about that. Anyone?</p>
<p>Until all relevant records are released, it’s impossible to tell who, if anyone, is lying. There were certainly some irregularities, whether intentional or not, to Senator Kerry’s public statements about the Christmas 1968 incursion and being fired upon by Khmer Rouge raised some legitimate questions."</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, let me spell it out: my issue with the sleazeboat crew was their basic mendacity in claiming to have “served with” Kerry in Viet Nam.” </p>
<p>Who asked you that? Not I.</p>
<p>Ok?</p>
<p>FF, this is a simple, finite situation. For Kerry, in Viet Nam, “serving with” him there meant serving on his boat. Plain and simple. I’ve got no issue with guys who were involved in a battle stating their opinion of what happened. But the sleazeboat guys expressly advertised themselves as men who “served with” Kerry. From their website:
</p>
<p>Those statements are fundamentally misleading - to the point where, in my opinion, they are “lies.” The force of the Sleazeboaters was their claim to have personal knowledge of Kerry’s character - the kind of knowledge you have if you have worked side by side with someone in trying circumstances. The men who actually fit that description supported Kerry. The sleazeboaters are a group of guys who are understandably ****ed off at Kerry for his anti-war activities after he left the service, and felt justified in exaggerating their personal relationship with him to increase the force of their opinions. In doing that, they crossed the line between truth and falsehood. I understand them. What I find more interesting is the willingness of the consumers of right wing propaganda to ignore the obvious mendacity in that basic position, to make excuses, cavils and parsing of facts to try to make it OK. It’s not. They didn’t serve with Kerry - that is, simply stated, a lie.</p>
<p>And to get back on topic - the fact that consumers of right wing propaganda are so inured to casual lies like that is what makes any target of the right fodder for the same thing. Watch for it.</p>
<p>“And to get back on topic - the fact that consumers of right wing propaganda are so inured to casual lies like that is what makes any target of the right fodder for the same thing. Watch for it.”</p>
<p>Whew. Thankfully you’ve put us back on topic. We’ll always be sure to ask you next time what a thread should evolve to.</p>
<p>You are clearly over-parsing and defining a term to your specification in an effort to smear the swift boaters. What’s next, are you going to define what the meaning of “is” is? I’m sorry, but as a member of the jury, I find your tactic to be typical lawyer-ese … the kind of tactics that lead to all of the lawyer jokes.</p>