@Mike Healey - Kelly can speak to an audience without a teleprompter.

Have you heard her speak?

Have you ever seen her give a speech WITHOUT a teleprompter?

Watch her eyes scroll across the teleprompter in this gem of a speech.
http://www.tjwalker.com/2011/01/02/senator-elect-kelly-ayotte-of-new-hampshire-delivers-awful-teleprompter-speech/

Jack,

"Kelly Ayotte is a piece of garbage" does this comment constitute criteria for the "War on Women" or is that just when Democrat women are refered to using similar phrases?

While I may not agree with the way that Jack articulated his frustration, there was nothing at all in there that was gender based or even alluded to a gender based rational for his frustration.

So Hilltopper, this straw man post of yours receives an F for the day.

@Watts - Funny that when conservatives are preceived as using derogatory terms to describe others, they are labeled as racist, women haters, anti this and anti that, etc. When liberals refer to a fellow citizen as "a piece of garbage", they are "articulating their frustration."

@ Joe
I suppose that it would be funny (if by funny; you mean odd), if anything that you just said had any basis in reality. Go to this thread that we both engaged in just a couple fo days ago and look at Brad Potter's post about a fifth of the way down the page (or just do a search on page for "brad potter"):

http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/articles/mayor-spear-wants-obama-to-repay-city-for-campaign-visit#comments

There isn't a day that goes by that people don't hear conservatives using racist and/or misogynistic rhetoric like this toward those that they disagree with. On Patch, sites like Patch or even in their day to day lives. It took me about two seconds to find the post above from just two days ago from a neighboring Patch to provide as an example. I could sit here all day long and pull out post after post like this; where conservatives have lowered themselves to using racism or misogyny in an attempt to tear down certain ideological opponents. Personally, I think that calling somebody a piece of garbage is excessive, but it is gender neutral. There is nothing at all in there that even faintly alludes to a gender based issue toward Kelly.

I am not saying that there are absolutely no racists or misogynists that may politically lean to the left on other issues, but to allude that this is an issue that is equally distributed across the full ideological spectrum of liberals and conservatives, but is only later described differently, is to be ignorant of reality.

And Joe, if you think otherwise, please provide a link on here to a thread that contains a liberal leaning ideological post where the person used racist or misogynistic rhetoric in an attempt to diminish their opponent.

No Hill, not because she's a woman, but because of her behavior as you can see by the words after the ellipsis. It may be rude, but not sexist.

Jan

I was raised that one is not rude to a lady, which because of a lady being a lady, it can be considered sexist.

Mr. Watts,

Aw I got an "F". That really hurts coming from you. I'm crushed

From your post: "I was raised that one is not rude to a lady, which because of a lady being a lady, it can be considered sexist."

Do you realize just how little sense this makes? Honestly, I grew up the same way and act accordingly. But, in giving special consideration to a person specifically because they are a certain gender, is still a gender based objectification. It isn't sexist to be rude to a lady, but is sexist to not be rude to a person based solely on their gender. As I said before, I wouldn't call somebody a piece of garbage, without a significant stack of violations that probably would have to have been personally directed at me first. But women have won all rights of equality and for those who wish to participate in careers in politics, they are on equal footing for all the positive and negative criticism that goes along with that.

For you to say that she is due special considerations based solely on her gender is to diminish her as a person capable of participating as a public politician. I share your gut feeling based on my upbringing, but luckily I don't think with my gut, I think with my brain. I wouldn't call somebody a piece of garbage because I think that most of us are due more respect than that, but not because somebody is one gender or another.

Mr. Watts,

We are all soooo lucky here to have somone who always thinks with his brain instead of his gut to point out those of us who are sexist and who continualy dole out "special considerations based solely on gender", like opening a door for a lady, standing up when a lady enters the room and not using rude terms or language to or around a a lady (and even object to those that do).

I guess I'm an doomed to a life of "continual gender based objectification of giving special consideration to a person specifically because they are a certain gender".

I guess I'll just have to live my life knowing I will never be as "brainy" or "gender" correct as you--

Personally, I rarely swear, unless it is a retelling of a story that requires accurate quoting and I only curb such talk based on if there are children present. I hold the door for people; both men and women. I am very courteous in that way. And as far as standing when a women enters the room, I have only ever seen that in B&W films or period pieces released since and how it appears to me is that women received that one consideration, but only to me mocked if they actually tried to contribute to any serious conversation that may be taking place in that room. The women that I know are confident, well educated and for the most part, well accomplished in their careers and/or as business owners. They are my equal in every way.

You can romanticize the past all that you want and talk about how people dressed better in the old days or whatever else you wish for a return to, but the reality is that "the good old days" were not so good for everybody, like women who wanted to vote or blacks that wanted to eat at certain all white diners or partners of different races who had to hide their love and were not permitted to marry. As we reach a time in this country where levels of inequality of all sorts are close to being completely behind us, I don't think that many of us wish for the same return to the good old days that you are referring to.

At this point, I have to presume that you are far older than myself and maybe far older than most people here, so it would become inconsiderate to argue further about your reflections on the good old days. All that I can say is that women have fought hard for equality in this society and there is nothing rude about treating them as equals. Now what Jack had said is rude to anybody of either gender, it is not more rude specifically because it was to a women and it is not sexist that the target of his comments was a women.

Rude is rude, sexism is sexism... They are different.

I appreciate that you hold women in high regard, you had good parents Hill.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say Jack is single. As in unmarried, unattached... Anyone who uses these words in reference to a woman is destined to be alone. What a classless individual.

Gee Jack.......such an intelligent comment. You must have worked long and hard to come up with such a remarkable piece of prose. And they say school dropouts aren't too bright!!!

She has more relevant experience than Obama had in 2004...

You are correct. She was a token. Ayotte has been virtually invisible since she arrived in the Senate so John McCain and Lindsey Graham picked Ayotte to join them as a spokesperson on their attack of Sec Rice about the reporting of Benghazi. After the last election, the party was concerned that 2 men attacking the female Sec. Rice could have looked insensitive so they chose Ayotte to appear with them. That was a wise move on their part and gifted Ayotte some much needed national exposure for someone who is ranked #99 in seniority. Ayotte hasn't done anything to overly impress me plus I thought she fumbled and bumbled some of her one-on-one interviews with the networks. Not sure public speaking is her strong suit. She certainly hasn't done anything to be considered Presidential or VP material.

I agree that Ayotte is not presidential material. But you ask "what has she done to justify being the chief executive"? More than Obama ever did before he ran in 2008, that's for sure.

Is this your opinion or Wikipedia's?" Under investigation" is not an indictment anymore than the current President's actions concerning the events in Libya are. They are also "under investigation".

Except that Obama's actions regarding Libya are not under investigation.

The difference is that Obama IS a Chicago politician, exemplifying the absolute worst characteristics of that corrupt group.

The difference from what?

I am sure that the Secretary of State goes to bed each night, envying the accomplishments of Bob Sampson.

As somebody who has participated on Patch sites in numerous parts of the country, I have to say that New Hampshire really provides the most uniquely goofy set of conservative posters. From News Fish, to Proud Conservative to Joe to Bob Sampson; do you all realize how infinitely entertaining the ridiculousness of your posts can be?

Do you really want to try and create a corollary with Benghazi attack and 9/11? I don't think anyone in the administration at the time suggested that 9/11 was a "spontaneous" event.

"And the women who operate on emotions rather than reason..." I am sure that the women reading this really appreciate this gender based stereotyping.

Besides her own undeniable abilities, Hillary comes with one of the biggest inherent benefits that nobody else in this nation can bring and that is Bill Clinton. Year after year, poll after poll has asked the "what if" question by placing Bill Clinton as a candidate and he always polls overwhelmingly better than any actual running candidate. Now we all know that is not going to happen, but using Hillary as an example of how she redefined the role of first lady into being far more involved in policy than any first lady before her, such would logically be the expectation that Bill could play a similar role as First Man. And arguably, Bill Clinton's high visibility and blitz campaigning on behalf of Obama played a huge role in the success of Obama basically sweeping the projected swing states.

The question should more be; who of the Republican field would dare to campaign against Hillary, who would appear to be a shoe in candidate should she run? Chris Christie has the general popularity to do so, but certainly not many other Republicans come to mind who would stand a chance.

I had no idea that women with emotions were considered a demographic. I learn something new from conservative jerks every day.

Watts - Hillary is not Bill. And if you vote for Hillary because Bill tags along, you're a political ignoramus. It's tough to fathom what's behind such failed reasoning.

@PC

So your answer is that you can't think of a single Republican that would stand a chance against a Hillary presidential run.

Latest poll shows 66% of women would like to see Hillary as president. Among those under 50, 75% would like to see her in there. Women favoring a woman candidate just like the blacks favored a black candidate in the last two elections. Votes based on emotions rather than reason.

Maybe it's because the conservatives have been anti-women lately? Everything from going after birth control, calling them sluts on national radio, going after abortion, yelling hysterically from the bully pulpit about the role of women in society, not knowing what to say about the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, and "binders full of women."

Take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. Look at what you wrote about women. You have no clue, you are boorish, and otherwise ignorant. Not coincidentally, this is the same as your party. That's why women favor Democrats.