Meanwhile... according to the NYT, Obama's win makes black people feel really good.
[Kwabena] Sam-Brew, a bus driver living in Cottage Grove, Minn., said Mr. Obama’s achievement would change the nation’s image around the world, and change the mind-set of Americans, too.Yeah, but she's a girl, so aren't her hopes dashed?
“We as black people now have hope that we have never, ever had,” Mr. Sam-Brew said. “I have new goals for my little girl. She can’t give me any excuses because she’s black.”
IN THE COMMENTS: Amba writes "Read Geraghty's column again ... I think he's actually saying 'Yes.'" Okay, I agree. He's being sarcastic. It's the National Review Online, and I have to assume they would like to say the Democrats — and their candidate — are sexist. I honestly read all those quotes and felt that was really nothing much. I mean, in politics, insults are hurled, and candidates are mocked for whatever you can come up with to mock them about. There were jokes about John Kerry's horse face, for example. It wasn't hippophobia. I think the kinds of things that were said about Hillary were actually quite toned down compared to what they would have been if people felt completely free to be unfair and outrageous about her the way they were with John Kerry or My Little Pony. That said, I do think that some voters did reject her because she's a woman and they aren't ready to believe that a woman could be President. But I don't think any of the quotes Geraghty has dished up are evidence of that. I think the people who really don't want a women to be President kept their mouths shut. Anyway, as for Geraghty's quotes: Get ready for endless books — from gossipy fluff to the weightiest academic volumes — analyzing them to death.
Amba has some analysis of Hillary and sexism here:
Hillary Clinton has actually done a great service to women, if she doesn't ruin it all by whining that her defeat was due to sexism. She has in fact shattered the glass ceiling by being completely, plausibly presidential, and even believable as Commander in Chief. She has also shattered the glass ceiling by being rejected (and narrowly at that) for her character, not her gender.More at the link.
AND: More elation about Obama:
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.As pure text, that sounds demented. But I think he was intentionally wielding hyperbole. Jackson sounds very sane and grounded as quoted again at the end of the linked article:
“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
Despite Obama’s singular position in American political history, his backers said his race would not be a focus in his campaign. He will stick to economic matters, foreign policy and other topics with broad appeal. Obama rarely describes himself as an African-American candidate. He will not start now, backers said.He's successful because he offers to transcend race. He does this in his words and by example. This is why he has such wide appeal and why, for me, it is not as overwhelming a phenomenon as all-night weepers like Jackson think.
“It should be downplayed in the campaign. ... We’ll have to leave that to the historians to consider, because we have an election to win,” said Jackson. “I hope the least historical thing about Barack Obama is his being black and the most historical is that he solved our health care problems, ended the war in Iraq and made life better for Americans.”
MORE: This is relevant, from Isaac Chotiner:
The "amount" of racism that Obama has faced over the past two years, in other words, is not necessarily directly proportional to his political fortunes. Racism can lead to backlashes against racists, or better media coverage, or sympathy, or overwhelming black support or God knows what? To understand how Obama achieved what he has achieved, you have to know just as much about politics as you do race.
It's precisely this issue that some of Senator Clinton's supporters seem to be stumbling over. It's one thing to be justly furious at the sometimes sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton; it's quite another to dispute that her gender and the sexism directed her way were not a gigantic boon to her political fortunes. Not only did a backlash against the media save her candidacy in New Hampshire, but it proved an inspiration to her supporters over the past few months, as her chances dimmed.
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
I gather that means we can permanently end affirmative action and measures intended to 'increase diversity' immediately.
The only change that I see with an Obama presidency, is that after 4 years, America will look more like the south side of Chicago in terms of educational graduation rates and job (lack of) creation.
A good run-down of the crappy comments that were made by a lot of people including Obama, but Geraghty's tongue-in-cheek "no" isn't really demonstrated nor is its intended reverse. Clinton may have been hindered by the sexism that generated those kinds of comments, but neither the sexism nor the comments are why she lost.
She lost because she voted for the war and refused to apologize. She lost because she doubled-down on that vote when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. But mostly she lost because she didn't run as smart a campaign as her opponent.
"Did Hillary lose because of sexism?"
No. Hillary lost because (1) she changes positions based on expediency and polling data, (2) she surrounded herself with the bitter and vindictive advisors present during her husband's perpetual campaign, (3) voters rejected her campaign's notion that she is entitled to be president by virtue of having been first lady, (4) the party faithful saw Obama as a plausible alternative candidate who could free the party of another 4 or 8 years of Bill Clinton.
Sexism had nothing to do with her loss, other than providing a handy excuse that helped mask the real reasons for her defeat.
Americans are, by and large, fair and reasonable people who have looked beyond the issues of gender and race in the Dem primary campaign. To believe otherwise is nonsense, given that 28 million voters cast a vote for either a woman or a black man.
Last, isn't it just a bit pathetic for Hillary's supporters to claim that she lost because men didn't like her? If that was truly the case, (and I believe that it wasn't), then why did her campaign not make efforts to win over male voters rather than engage in perpetual whining about how they wouldn't vote for her?
If Americans are, by and large, a fair and reasonable people, then I suppose that means the minority won't pitch a fit when Hillary supporters cross the aisle to vote for John McCain. That is, of course, unless the exceptions to your rule are the hardcore Obama supporters.
If Clinton endorses and campaigns for Obama, how many of her supporters will vote for McCain? And why would they do that?
Michael_H said...
"[I]sn't it just a bit pathetic for Hillary's supporters to claim that she lost because men didn't like her? If that was truly the case, ... then why did her campaign not make efforts to win over male voters rather than engage in perpetual whining about how they wouldn't vote for her?"
You can only do so much - at the end of the day, if your problem is a voting block that doesn't like you, feels threatened by you, "win[ning] over" that group may not be possible.
mcg and Trevor - I don't see how disgruntled Hillary supporters voting for McCain rather than Obama is evidence of sexism. It's political, to be sure, but not sexist.
Trevor Jackson said...
"If Clinton endorses and campaigns for Obama, how many of her supporters will vote for McCain? And why would they do that?"
Perhaps because they agree with her criticisms of Obama, and/or because they support her strongly enough (and feel sufficiently unthreatened by McCain) that they believe that the chance of electing her in 2012 makes it worthwhile to see Obama go down in flames this year.
Simon said: "..a voting block that doesn't like you, feels threatened by you,..)
Disliking a candidate isn't sexist, it's political opinion. There is little evidence that male voters (remember, this was a Dem primary)voted for Barack Obama simply because Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Sigh. Here goes. 90% of black folk in some places voted for Obama. I have friends who worked the voting locations during the primaries in Texas who told stories of black people coming in to vote, saying that they "wanted to vote for that black guy". They didn't know his name and they didn't know what party he belonged to. They just wanted to vote for that black guy".
What happens when a white man beats their black guy? Do we really have to have the election to be able to answer this question?
There is a huge reservoir of bitter prejudice and hatred in black America and we are all about to take a good long and hard look into that pool.
I'm not optimistic.
Simon sez . . .
they believe that the chance of electing her in 2012 makes it worthwhile to see Obama go down in flames this year
So those supporters know what's better for her and the country than she does? Or do they only see her endorsement and support for the Democratic nominee as a necessary evil? I'll bet that's not a large enough bloc to hurt Obama's chances once they see him and his policies next to McCain and his.
cherrick/paul a'barge: You're not a minority, are you? After being forced to vote for a white man for the last forty years or so, I imagine I might be excited about Obama too and not need to know much about him. I'll also bet that party plays a role in helping make that decision. How many of those black people who voted for Obama also voted for Alan Keyes?
It's also worth noting that a majority of AA support for Obama didn't emerge until after he started winning.
Disliking a candidate isn't racist, it's political opinion. There is little evidence that white voters voted against Barack Obama simply because John McCain is white.
Just how likely we are to hear this from the Obama supporters currently claiming that sexism had *no* role in Hillary's loss if Obama loses in November?
"Sigh. Here goes. 90% of black folk in some places voted for Obama. I have friends who worked the voting locations during the primaries in Texas who told stories of black people coming in to vote, saying that they "wanted to vote for that black guy". They didn't know his name and they didn't know what party he belonged to. They just wanted to vote for that black guy"."
Excellent point, Paul. It suggests that some who voted for Obama were motivated by race.
There is, however, little evidence that they were voting against Clinton because she is a woman.
The Clintonistas will continue to look for false reasons (i.e. sexism) to explain why Clinton didn't skate through the primaries on her way to an inevitable coronation. The reasons for her loss cannot be explained by 'sexism', unless her advisors are prepared to argue that male Democrats are sexist, an argument they are certain to lose.
If Clinton endorses and campaigns for Obama, how many of her supporters will vote for McCain? And why would they do that?
well maybe some of those bitter working class folks in fly-over country that cling to their guns and religion may have been Reagan Democrats and soon will be McCain Dems
I would not have voted for either, because I don't like their policies or ethics, but given a given, I would rather have had Hillary in the WH. If she proved one thing, its that she's tough enough to be POTUS, and that clearly isn't an outcome of sexist views.
Trevor Jackson said...
"[Simon sez . . . they believe that the chance of electing her in 2012 makes it worthwhile to see Obama go down in flames this year.] So those supporters know what's better for her and the country than she does? Or do they only see her endorsement and support for the Democratic nominee as a necessary evil? I'll bet that's not a large enough bloc to hurt Obama's chances once they see him and his policies next to McCain and his."
First, I said perhaps they believe that - the initial perhaps modifies the clause on each side of the conjunction. Second, the issue isn't whether you or I might think that behavior is sensible, or even rational. The issue is whether any Hillary supporters could conceive it to be; one can't hope to understand the behavior of voters without getting past the assumption that they share your conception of what's a good idea. (For instance, I don't understand how an intelligent person could support Obama, yet intelligent people support Obama; it is far more likely that my predicate is wrong than that the voters are being irrational.) If we are trying to predict how people will act, the issue is what they believe, not whether what they believe is accurate. For example, if we assume that Hillary wants the nomination in 2012, whether she will seek the veep nomination this year is conditional on whether she thinks the latter aids her quest for the former, not whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with her conclusion.
Third, they may not buy the sincerity of Hillary's "endorsement," for any number of reasons. For example, they could understand that she is under enormous pressure to patch up party unity (at least on the surface), and is backing Obama now purely to preserve her chances in 2012.
Fourth and lastly, what is a "large enough bloc to hurt Obama's chances"? Suppose Al Gore had said during the 2000 campaign "scrabble players are a bunch of c***s," and it so happened that five hundred Al Gore supporters refused to vote for him. Nation of millions, five hundred scrabble players. Large enough bloc to hurt Gore's chances? Large enough to scuttle them, if those five hundred lived in Florida. Or go ask Dino Rossi if he regrets not going the extra mile to get, what was it, fifty more votes? Be careful about assuming that a small number of votes can't make a difference.
Read Geraghty's column again . . . I think he's actually saying "Yes."
I took on the issue of "woman jokes" about Hillary here.
If Clinton endorses and campaigns for Obama, how many of her supporters will vote for McCain? And why would they do that?
It’s difficult to estimate an en exact number but more than a few people I know who were backing Hillary Clinton said that if she wasn’t the nominee, McCain and not Obama was their second choice. The reason being that many of them voted for Clinton because they were women who wanted to vote for a the first woman for president – not because of her policies – and when that option disappeared they decided that McCain was ultimately the more honest and experienced canddiate and would make a better President than Obama.
As difficult as it may for some to believe, a lot of voters (maybe even a plurality or a majority) don’t vote based on issues but “vote for the person.” The Democrat primary where there was precious little daylight between Obama and Clinton on the issues but an immense difference in how the candidates were perceived personally is a pretty good testament to that fact. Given how many first time voters were motivated to vote for Obama but had no previous loyalty to the Democrat Party or its politics, I wouldn’t find it that surprising that many of Clinton’s supporters weren’t necessarily strong Democrat voters or chose her because of the issues but either (a) wanted to vote for her because she would have been the first female candidate or (b) wanted to vote against Obama.
her little girl better hope that someone younger and male does not come along to trump whatever credentials she may have.
Ann,
Just to let you know, Tom McGuire says that you have mustered up the will to go on.
Just.
Bitter! Cling!
Section9, perhaps I'm misreading Tom, but it seems to me that his post says that Althouse is embittered by Clinton's defeat. That seems a tough row to hoe given that Althouse voted for Obama.
This comment was probably written in jest:
"Yeah, but she's a girl, so aren't her hopes dashed?"
But, it does point out a common failing among feminists. Many black women would say that their color, more than their gender, is the characteristic that most determines how others identify and treat them. The guy in the article, unlike many white feminists, knows that race is the more immediate challenge for his daughter.
It's a huge flaw when feminists don't put equal effort into both race and gender issues. What, they only care about advancing white women?
As to why HRC lost: she lost because a lot of the public and her colleagues (SDs) knew that she was more of a tyrant than a persuader and leader. It's not complicated (or sexism.)
I think she lost because of her Iraq vote.
She could never explain how she voted for the war and now wanted the troops home.
It didn't play well with democrat voters.
1jpb said...
"It's a huge flaw when feminists don't put equal effort into both race and gender issues."
I couldn't disagree more. The legitimate office of feminism is, at least in my view, dealing with gender issues and its necessary incidents. In other words, feminism should be concerned with issues that affect women qua women. Issues of race and sexuality may be deeply important vel non, in and of themselves, but I don't agree that they are or ought to be feminist issues.
It's a huge flaw when feminists don't put equal effort into both race and gender issues. What, they only care about advancing white women?
I have watched this issue play out in the feminoblogosphere. Intellectually white feminists care, but like people anywhere they tend to identify with their own struggle more than anyone else's, and this unconsciously colors (ha!) what they think and write. (Except for those who take vicarious offense to everything on behalf of women of color, as pointed out by the stuffwhitepeoplelike blog). This lack of identification with the struggles of people of color goes by the name of "white privilege."
You are all wrong: Hillary lost to Obama because he's tall and she's short.
Height discrimination is rampant in this country and can explain a lot of what appears to be discrimination based on sex.
Simon,
It's simple: Black women are women too. If their color is more of a hindrance than gender, they will never be helped by white-centric feminism.
The irony (and therefore inherent selfdefeatism) of arguing that feminists should only only focus on solutions that work for women of the majority racial group is (at best) sad.
jimbino,
Have you been reading "Blink?"
Don't forget "Blink" also has interesting research showing that people are affected by subconscious preferences for white people.
the thing I noted was that as the interminable campaign wore on, HRC did better in the popular vote culminating in SD with a big win. My pet theory is that the longer the electorate (versus caucus goers) saw Obama, the less impressed they were with him. That doesnt auger well for the general where there will be no caucuses.
Clearly Obama ran a great campaign, focused on caucuses, and used the rules to his advantage. The Clinton campaign was an nearly unmitigated disaster and confirms Brad deLong's opinion about her management abilities. If she can't manage a campaign; went through 100 million dollars plus, how would she have run the country?
Amba wrote:
Hillary Clinton has actually done a great service to women, if she doesn't ruin it all by whining that her defeat was due to sexism.
Exactly.
If she can clam up about that, what people will remember is her dogged determination and toughness. Those are brilliant qualities to have as a potential leader, not the woe-is-we complaints of frustrated feminists.
There is no Title IX for politics. Get over it.
Cheers,
Victoria
My view is that the big reason that Hillary lost was because Obama was better able to organize and energize for caucuses. His margin of victory is I believe less than his margin of caucus wins. Texas was esp. egregious where she won the popular vote and he made up for it in the caucuses later that night. Ann's son Chris' experiences that night were blogged here.
Obama doing much better in the caucuses indicates a couple of things. First, his campaign was apparently much better organized in that area. And while he may not have had any more supporters than she did, his were much more fervent.
Yes, Hillary lost because of sexism -- her own.
With a plethora of hard headed veteran male Democrat campaign managers and strategists to pick from she chose to go with two gal pals who hadn't the foggiest about strategizing, prioretizing, money managerizing or counterizing Obama's white male strategizers' strategy. Such a tragedy. G'bye bitch.
Obama's win makes black people feel really good.
Thomas Sowell seems to be off the plantation.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates.
Maybe he doesn't absorb the NYT as eagerly as your typical black.
John Kerry's horse face? Tee hee. I remember a liberal arguing once that his horse faced daughters where "empirically better looking" than W's, IMHO, girl next door sexy daughters.
Ah what great times those were. It seemed to me at the time the funny part was the liberal thought it mattered.
Sometimes I think that liberals look at life the way the rest of us look at movies. In the movie, chances are the ugly ones are going to be the bad guys and the good looking ones the good guys, for example.
The "glass ceiling" thing is nonsense. The only real issue for the last forty years is a credible female candidate. There are still precious few of them. If Diane Feinstein had run, she probably would have handily won the nomination.
The most amazing thing about Hillary Clinton is how well she did in spite of her very high hard negatives--i.e. people who would NEVER vote for her.
"Did Hillary lose because of sexism?"
No. How does George Soros buying up everything count as 'sexism'?
rhhardin: what's good for the goose...
p.s. If I delete this post it's because I fail at linking...er..of course if I fail and delete this post...no one will read my reason for deletion.
hope it works!
god damn it.
anyway, it links to Andrew Sullivan quoting condi rice on how great it is that obama's the I fail at teh internets
god damn trackbacks.
About Geraghty's column Ann wrote:
"Amba writes "Read Geraghty's column again ... I think he's actually saying 'Yes.'" Okay, I agree. He's being sarcastic. "
So I went and read Geraghty's column. The sarcasm is overwhelming. But his point is not that HRC LOST because of sexism, (no need to account for the over-determined) but rather how striking it was that so many leading democrats,and even more figures in the press were perfectly happy to turn to the most blatant anti-woman tropes & odious stereotypes to defeat a candidate they opposed or had come to dislike, and in some cases, to hate.
Just imagine the reaction in the liberal commentariate if HRC had won the nomination, and at some point in the general election Rush compared her to Glen Close's character in Fatal Attraction, or someone on Fox commented on her cleavage. To say nothing of JMcC calling a female reporter "sweetie". One is already covering one's ears because of the screams and denunciaations that one knows would have erupted from the democrats' chorus (i.e. the national press).
In other words, nothing these "progressives" have said over these many decades about "sexism" or misogyny actually meant anything at all.
That's Geraghty's point.
"...and the most historical is that he solved our health care problems."
Part of the problem with our health care is that they employ people like his wife, Michelle. Who makes $300,000+ per year. What does she do? Are operations safer? Are there less infections? What a joke.
Why is anyone whining about Obama getting 90 per cent of the black vote? When Gore and Kerry each got over 90 per cent I didn't hear a peep from the left. Us conservatives understand going in to a presidential election that the blacks are going to vote as one for the Democrat.
gallup: 62/29 hispanics for obama. Bush got 35 in 2004 but he speaks spanish and his brother is married to a latina.
Looks like obama's problem vis a vie hillary's supporters isn't panning out for mccain.
I don't think Hillary lost because of sexism. I think she lost because most people don't like her.
rhhardin said...
Obama's win makes black people feel really good.
Thomas Sowell seems to be off the plantation.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates.
Maybe he doesn't absorb the NYT as eagerly as your typical black.
Sowell is full of shit. I have no doubt which side of the 1972 Nixon landslide Sowell was on - or that in 1972 Nixon was generally regarded at home and abroad as an enormously successful President that got things done. (Perhaps Sowell the economist is bitter that Nixon proclaimed himself a Keynesian and imposed wage and price controls, next to Watergate and starting affirmative action, his stupidest folly in an otherwise visionary and consequential Presidency.)
2. I agree that Hillary, McCain, and Black Messiah are painfully inadequate, but you had in Nixon and McGovern two veteran politicians with a rep for getting things done with almost two decades of national elective office experience, both with executive experience. Both bona fide war heroes, both personally brilliant scholars.
If Sowell is looking for "hold your nose" elections, he has the choice between the boob Bush in 2004 against the dishonorable Kerry, the politically hapless Pappy Bush running against the ACLU member Dukakis in 1988, and that famous battle of the mental titans in 1976 between Ford and Carter.
3. Reading the NYTimes has little to do with black victim politics and everything to do with blacks realizing that after the 60s riots, endless grievances and demands result in nearly endless government and shaken-down institutional rewards for the black leaders and select elite of blacks to be the only beneficiaries of such grievance and identity politics - while leaving the black leaders followers mostly in the ditch or worse off than before.
Bruce Hayden is right. Obama won by organizing better than Clinton. Obama was an organizer, trained in Alinsky techniques. Obama played Rules 1, 3, and 4 most skillfully. He mastered the Party's nominating rules, while Hillary looked like she was playing a different game entirely. She really looked stupid when she argued that the game she was playing was the one that should count.
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating.
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I'm going to agree with Jesse Jackson Jr. (although certainly not for his reasons)...if as I expect Obama wins, I'm going to cry for the next four years too. So long America, land of the free. Big Brother is coming. No more eating what you want. No more SUVs. No more 72 degree air conditioner settings.
No more SUVs.
Stock up now - you can't beat the prices! Drain the fluids, pack in cosmoline, pull one out of storage every 4-5 years.
One of the problems HRC ran into was her inability to use her favorite, Rule Twelve.
She simply could cut through his personality. She tried very hard, but he did not bite. McCain has a real understanding of this, but it really frustrates much of the Republican base which wants BHO's public dismemberment and humiliation.
As Frank, over on VariFrank put it back in April:
5. Obamas numbers will go up, and Clintons down. She is the anti-particle to Bill Clinton. Where he could charm even his enemies, she can only annoy; even her friends and allies.
All the bad things that happened to her tie to crap of the past. Edwards coming out for Obama on the day after her WVA victory, blunting it? The result of her refusal to support Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Turnabout is always fair play.
This isn't sexism. Hillary's just a bitch. She's always been one. And that has nothing to do with the fact that she's female, it's to do with the fact that she doesn't know how to handle people other than to scream and yell and rip off heads for daring to suggest she isn't right. Bill knew how to charm people, to get them to do what he wanted, regardless of what they wanted. Hillary has no clue about this sort of interaction.
Eizzer Yu Du It Her Vey, or Yu Getz Der Shtuppin!
The only people who want her to be PotUS are people who want a woman to be PotUS more than they want a GOOD CHOICE to become PotUS. And that's a limited segment of the populace at any time.
> Clinton may have been hindered by the sexism that generated those kinds of comments, but neither the sexism nor the comments are why she lost.
More critically, it is her inability to deal with those issues which show precisely why she could not be a good leader.
Does anyone reading this ACTUALLY think that Ahminajad or Kim Jong Il are going to be sexual egalitarians? That THEY aren't going to do their best to humiliate and rip her a new one because she's "a mere female"?
If she can't deal with -- strangle in its infancy -- this sort of thing, what's she going to do later when dealing with people who are openly sexist and don't give a rat's patootie if she doesn't approve of that?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा