I have dared to hope that we had moved beyond any relevance being assigned to a person’s presidential credentials, or lack there of, as being related to gender, skin color, or ethnicity.

The fact that Clinton seems to not be able to understand that her falling behind in the primaries has had more to do with her lack of honesty, integrity, and insight is of great concern. Although, admittedly the lack of these qualities has been demonstrated to us before.

I have always had the sense that Clinton is more concerned about image management than she is concerned about any real issues.
She has never impressed me as a particularly independent woman unlike some of the other bright, capable and strong women we see increasingly moving into politics.

Ms. Goodman, you are correct about some of the vehemence and vitriol to be found on various blogs. But, it seems to me that it has been Clinton herself who initially began stirring the pot with her accusations of others as being sexist in her regard. From what I’ve been reading and hearing, she has been very active in encouraging her supporters to see things the same way that she does.

Frankly, I would hate to have to support her in any way for the presidency. If she were for some reason at this point get the nomination, I would support her only because I could never vote for McCain.

Clinton was never my first choice as a candidate. I don’t like her and I think she lies too much. I liked Edwards, but after listening to him during debates and interviews, I thought he sounded just a bit too angry to be a unifier.

A few months ago, I decided to support Obama.I won’t go into all of my reasons for this decision. Suffice to say that I find him to be the most brilliant, dynamic and intellectually gifted candidate to run, since the Kennedys. I am convinced that our country needs an intellect of the caliber his seems to be. To my view, he also seems closer to being of the true model of a progressive that any of the other candidates.

By the way, I am a 57 y.o. white woman, a grandmother, was a single mother, and have had my own professional career for the past 35 years. I have been a progressive Democrat “forever” it seems and a feminist since I was 18.

That fact that Clinton is the first woman to have a serious run at the presidency is great, but not enough to make me want to vote for her.

Misogyny as the cause of her failing bid? No, I disagree with that analysis. It she herself that is the cause.

Actually I agree with some of what Bayareavoter has to say.  BUT then I also must ask, how did a man with an admittedly “paper thin resume” a freshman senator nobody whose best know for “skirting heavy issues” by voting “present” How did this man tie up an “experienced” politician like Hill-the business shill.

and oh yeah, lets put this “Hillary-helped-children” myth to bed. The business shill spent less than one year on the board of CDF. she spent eight on Wammart’s board. Marian Wright Edelman head of the Children’s defense fund is not supporting the business shill, because Hill fucked the CDF that’s right, outright betrayal.

I find it curious that you chose to respond merely to one fact that I will charitably assume that you thought was incorrect (that Hillary supported NAFTA)and not address the many other relevant points that Jonesy had to make, particularly regarding Hillary’s unapologetic support of a war that she knew to be unnecessary, illegal, misguided and contrary to the interests of the American people (not to mention the interests of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq).

If you want to make the case that Obama and his (in your view) sleazy associates and fact-ignoring supporters (of which I am proudly one) are in fact wrong about what is best for the country and who would make the better president, I for one would be more likely to seriously weigh your comments if you included some relevent facts in them.

Whether or not Hillary registered minority voters or has supported policies that benefit women and children is, by itself, largely irrelevant to the question of whether she would make a good president.

Your contention that Obama “depended on the media-both mainstream and so-called progressive bloggers to label Hillary racist and never once, to declaim the misogyny so prevalent in the media,” I find frankly baffling, but would take seriously were you to offer some facts to back it up.

As for your comment about Obama’s “thin” resume, I agree that experience counts, but only if it’s good experience. Hillary’s support of the Iraq war, her warmongering language concerning Iran, her stint on the board of Wal-mart, her (well-documented) support of NAFTA constitutes is not good experience. No experience at all would be preferable to that.

Lastly, as a lifelong feminist, I am committed to judging candidates for all positions based on their record and policy agenda, not on how the unreliable media in our country happens to treat them. If it is true that Hillary received negative media coverage in some instances due to sexism (and I’m not sure it is true, at least not to a greater degree than the contention that Obama received negative coverage for being black, having “Hussein” as a middle name, etc.), that fact alone doesn’t make her the better candidate.

We’ve endured nearly 8 years of a White House that plays fast and loose with the facts. I do not feel that we can afford to ignore facts as we make the all-so-important choice of who we send in to clean up the mess that Bush & Co have made.

“Hillary was never for NAFTA…”

Sources that expose this falsehood are numerous and easily found on-line.  John Nichols of The Nation summarizes nicely:

“Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary’s heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?”

(22 March 2008)

The answer, of course, is that it never did. Only when her true stance on NAFTA threatened her road to the White House did she attempt to revise her history.

While it’s nice that Ms. Clinton helped to register minority voters it doesn’t jibe well with Bill Clinton’s attempts to “dismantle welfare as we know it” (and I only bring up her husband because she does - repeatedly - as her primary qualification for the presidency).

And I repeat: What has Hillary Clinton done for the women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan? Answer: Supported two illegal, immoral, and unnecessary wars that have devastated their countries and created refugee populations in the millions. Over one million Iraqi civilians and over 4,000 US troops are dead because Ms. Clinton wanted to look tough, and she doesn’t even have the decency to apologize for her role in the fiasco. On the contrary, she went on to vote to define part of the Iranian national guard as a terrorist organization, helping pave the way for yet another neocon war.

What any of this has to do with Obama’s “paper thin resume” or the Gonad Wars (ovaries vs. testes) is beyond me. Given the ludicrously limited choices we the people are offered once every four years for a new leader I will indeed vote for Mr. Obama. Frankly, his slight record is more impressive to me than Ms. Clinton’s far longer one.

Get ready for four years of “Seamless” John McCain.

Brought to you by the DNC.

should be the front runner is ridiculous. Obama has no credentials. Mr Hope and Unity based his campaign on divisiveness and race-baiting. He depended on the media-both mainstream and so-called progressive bloggers to label Hillary racist and never once, to declaim the misogyny so prevalent in the media.

The first commenter doesn’t even know the facts: Hillary was never for NAFTA—it’s documented that she was against it. And she started her professional life registering minority voters in TX and working for women and children.

But the facts never mattered to Obama’s supporters. Nor did his sleazy associates. I’m a Hillary supporter that is done with the Democratic party after 35 years. And don’t expect many of us to vote for the fraud that is Obama, IF Hillary is not the nominee.

Hoo boy, I guess it’s true.  Half of the Democratic Party - you know, the half that supports Hillary Clinton - really isn’t welcome in the new Democratic Party any more.  It’s sad.

Why is it so difficult for boomer liberals to comprehend that many younger progressives are perfectly capable of choosing a candidate that represents their values minus considerations of race or gender?

Hillary Clinton is an old school, DLC style pseudo-liberal who is as hawkish as John McCain. She voted for the Iraq War, refuses to admit it was a mistake, has helped pave the way for a war with Iran - a nation that she psychopathically threatened to “obliterate” - and has taken no meaningful stances against the militarist, statist, interventionist policies of the noecon Right.

She supported NAFTA, was on the board at Walmart, ignores the plight of the Palestinians but is an uncritical, AIPAC-loving ally of Israel. As for her “feminist” credentials, what the hell did Hillary Clinton ever do for poor women in this country? Let alone the women of Iraq and Afghanistan? Maim or kill their children and husbands? Destroy their homes? Wreck their countries?

Gloria Steinem, Ellen Goodman, Robyn Morgan and other second wave feminsits should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this wretched phony. The fact that she has ovaries should have no bearing whatsoever on the evaluation of her character, which should be based - as any kindergartner could tell you - on her actions and the moral values they express.

So Tell me Ellen, why did Hillary lose Maine A State with two woman Senators? 

Must be misogyny right?  Or could it be that this particular woman couldn’t beat an unknown freshman Senator because we know her too well?