Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Dateline Havana

Dateline Havana

By Reese Erlich
$17.90

more items

 
Report

Who if Not Hillary?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 21, 2008

By Marie Cocco

    WASHINGTON—A woman? Yes. But not that woman.

    It is the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately—and so far unsuccessfully—to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female.

    It isn’t the woman part, the rationale goes. It’s the Clinton part: That “polarizing” persona and “unlikable” demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President “Billary.” The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country’s first black president.

    Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

    The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    “Maybe a generation from now,” says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “My feeling is, I don’t see who’s coming after Clinton and I don’t feel like it’s going to be easy for whoever comes next.”

    The United States already lags miserably behind the rest of the world in electing a woman as head of state. To look around the globe is to see a stark truth: Americans seem peculiarly averse to female leadership.

    Women have had some success in gaining legislative office. Yet only eight women currently serve as governors, the springboard to the White House for four of the last five presidents.

    So which woman, exactly, would be acceptable?

    Readers—that inexact approximation of vox populi—typically answer: Someone like Margaret Thatcher or Elizabeth Dole or Condoleezza Rice or Christine Todd Whitman or maybe Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas. The roll call itself illuminates the barriers.

    Thatcher, for instance, never ran for executive office on her own. She became the first (and only) female prime minister of Britain by reaching the leadership of the Conservative Party. That is how many women heads of state have risen—through parliamentary systems that often use quotas to guarantee women legislative seats. Americans don’t like quotas much.

    And we don’t like political wives who strike out on their own. Yet around the world, presidential spouses, widows and daughters are elected with stunning regularity. Indira Gandhi of India, Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Cristina Fernandez, the current Argentine president—who succeeded her husband—all rose to power through family connections.

    Here, though, revulsion often is expressed at the prospect of the Bushes and Clintons trading the White House among one another. But the “dynasty” argument didn’t impede other American political families: not the Adamses, nor the Roosevelts nor the Kennedys. It sure didn’t keep George W. Bush from becoming president.

    Though it never sparked the rancor attached to Clinton’s White House drive, Elizabeth Dole’s brief presidential bid in 2000 was a preview. Dole, now a Republican senator from North Carolina, served as a Cabinet secretary in two administrations and headed the American Red Cross. Yet a review of media coverage by Rutgers political scientists showed that when Dole received in-depth coverage, nearly two-thirds of the stories mentioned her marriage to Bob Dole, the former Senate Republican leader and presidential candidate. Elizabeth Dole’s marriage to a powerful politician often drowned out discussion of her own record. 

    No woman on the political horizon possesses the portfolio that Clinton brought to this campaign: national name recognition. A record as a prodigious fundraiser—for herself and scores of other Democrats. Winner of two Senate races in New York, a rough-and-tumble state with a trove of 31 Electoral College votes and Democratic donors with deep pockets. And a huge, loyal base of support within her party.

    Who can compare? Not Secretary of State Rice. She’s never run for elective office, and it’s tough to run for president with no experience in those muddy trenches. Not Whitman. The former New Jersey governor has openly broken with conservatives who dominate the Republican Party. Not Sebelius. She heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.

    Clinton cleared the hurdles often cited as holding American women back, yet she is unlikely to surmount the final barrier. So you have to wonder.

    Is it something about Hillary, or something about us? 
   
    Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By kath cantarella, June 16, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i’d like to retract a part of my comment on this thread that accuses Barack Obama of voting for early parole for sex offenders. There was no specific vote as far as i can find. He has worked to get young gangmembers out of jail time and into rehabilitation, but i’m not sure this includes violent offenders, or more specifically gang rapists.

It seems to be a very bad chinese whisper generated by his efforts in this respect.

More info at ‘TalkLeft: the politics of crime’, credit to Jeralyn.

Report this

By Louise, May 24, 2008 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps he was referring to the need to send an incursion into Pakistan should bin-laden appear again. After all, Obama like most all the folks in our government seem to really be sold on the concept of the Bush GWOT and the notion that bin-laden is still running around in them thar hills. Along with al-qaeda.

I suspect our grandkids will be telling their grandkids about that bad guy bin-laden who’s still running around in them thar hills, right behind [or maybe in front of] al-qaeda.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and someone will help Obama understand, once he has access to all the real [and otherwise] intelligence our man Bush has crafted [or ignored] ... how to stop the enemy both foreign and domestic.

Then hopefully he [Obama] can focus on the REAL bad guys, with such mundane, but fruitful activities as dispatching liars and frauds.

And exercising diplomacy.

BTW, sorry about my double post below ... not sure how that happened!

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

No, Cyrena, Sen. Obama apparently didn’t actually use the word “bomb” when stating that he would authorize a strike inside Pakistan.  So you can play “Gotcha” with Nomdeplume.  But what does that leave him:  missiles fired from off shore naval vessels, a ground incursion, or what?  Take your pick.

Also, the original statement was made Aug. 1, 2007.  He reiterated it in Elko on Aug. 6th and Council Bluffs Aug. 17th; “clarified” it on Aug. 7th; commented on Benazir Bhutto’s assasination on May 7, 2008; spoke about Pakistan’s seriousness about democracy in the Feb. 21 Austen debate.  So, no, it is not true regardomg Sen. Obama that, “This speech is the ONLY comment that Obama has made on the subject of Pakistan,”

And, yes, that statement was made months ago.  However, it was made as part of his campaign positions, and to my knowledge, he has never contradicted himself, but only reinforced that position in subsequent statements, even in the face of negative reaction (mostly from Pakistan and its surrogates).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 24, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

A little refresher and review is sad for the soul, all well known garbage under the bridge.  Using principles with the Clintons is like using integrity with them.  Neither word is seen anyplace in their presence.

We have seen the same kind of tactics and attitudes prevalent from the present White House, how can anyone expect anything different from the Clintons? They have shown only that they can move in without missing a beat from Bush.

Let’s face it most of the Clinton supporters are in some phase of denial.  Seems some Clinton supporters have seen the handwriting on the wall and moved on.

It does not bother me if Bill and Hillary want to drag this to the convention, it is the constant hypocrisy, miss truths and outright lies that permeate from their presence that is stomach turning.
Even sadder is the blind faith kind of support of such tactics by fellow citizens, which really tells us our county is in dire straights. 

A religious right approach to supporting the Clintons, meaning they are always right does not cut it for everyone, especially the sexist Obama supporters.

Report this

By Louise, May 24, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Jane, May 23 at 6:21 am

“The woman VS the black dude”

In reading this article, I don’t know that I grasp the real point. It sure seems to teeter on the theory - if you don’t vote for a woman now, we won’t get a chance again for a long time - and we better do something about it.

*

The presidential race isn’t or at least shouldn’t be about sex or race, simply qualifications. In my humble opinion, Hilary simply doesn’t fit the bill, no pun intended, and as a woman, I’m certainly not going to vote for her based on some woman’s lib need about showing the world a she can do it just as well as a he.

*

Followed by:
kath cantarella, May 23 at 9:12 pm

Re: The woman VS the black dude

you seem to be missing the point. The point is about how a woman running for the top office is perceived. Hillary wasn’t just assessed intelligently on her record: she was mostly ridiculed or devalued on a gender basis, and running against men who are over-valued on a gender basis.

Election after election, women who care about other women are constantly forced to choose between one sexist pig and the next. This time, you ladies have to choose between a man who votes for early parole for sex offenders (sex crimes have extremely high rates of recidivism, btw), and a man who thinks women generally get paid 15% less for doing the same job simply because they are less qualified and don’t work as hard. (The lazy over-entitled witches.) And also that their wombs belong to society and not to themselves. (I.E. women = chattels, things, objects, property, slaves)

Thinking of feminists as ‘selfish’ is the most deeply stupid hypocrisy. The selfish attitude for the most part lies elsewhere. In women who won’t disturb their personal peace to fight for their fellow women, and in men who believe they have the right to own their own space and most of a woman’s space as well. If society is falling apart, it is not because women have progressed, it’s because the male attitude has resisted changing, and too many women are in love with the idea of sacrificing themselves for the comfort of the people around them. The trouble with that is you sacrifice your daughters and the women around you at the same time. Thanks very much you saintly heroes …

*

Now skip over to:

“Clinton Brings Up Assassination” truthdig.com/eartotheground

And read
TheRealFish, May 23 at 7:37 pm
Some of which I’ve copied:

About the victims: As a result of abuse these victims sometimes also become abusers. More often, though, they feel themselves continuously victimized by (typically) men, “the system,” or society in general. And even more insidious, they seem themselves as somehow responsible for it all, and feel worthless. That utter sense of worthlessness, in the strongest among them, can lead them to attempt achieving higher and higher signs of “success” — just to prove to themselves and others that they have *some* worth. All the while, they subconsciously self-sabotage (because they know in their heart-of-hearts they are “worthless”).

What are we seeing here?

That Hillary has lived for so long with a man whose actions fairly perfectly define “misogyny” should appeal to all our better angels that she needs some level of professional help in overcoming the damage — sheer carnage — such a relationship can inflict on the psyche.

But, until she actually finds a path leading away from all the dark places being a victim of such abuses can leave you (and her remarks may just be the iceberg’s tip poking above the water), we really can not trust her in command of troops or with her finger anywhere near The Football.

Before I am similarly accused of making sexist remarks here (that this is some kind of sexist attack on Ms. Clinton), I assure you that I have equally great reservation about putting someone in command of troops or putting the nuclear Football in the hands of a person who endured five years of torture.

My (55 year old white) wife agrees.

Report this

By Louise, May 24, 2008 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

Jane, May 23 at 6:21 am #

“The woman VS the black dude”

In reading this article, I don’t know that I grasp the real point. It sure seems to teeter on the theory - if you don’t vote for a woman now, we won’t get a chance again for a long time - and we better do something about it.

*

The presidential race isn’t or at least shouldn’t be about sex or race, simply qualifications. In my humble opinion, Hilary simply doesn’t fit the bill, no pun intended, and as a woman, I’m certainly not going to vote for her based on some woman’s lib need about showing the world a she can do it just as well as a he.

*

Followed by:

kath cantarella, May 23 at 9:12 pm #

Re: The woman VS the black dude

you seem to be missing the point. The point is about how a woman running for the top office is perceived. Hillary wasn’t just assessed intelligently on her record: she was mostly ridiculed or devalued on a gender basis, and running against men who are over-valued on a gender basis.

Election after election, women who care about other women are constantly forced to choose between one sexist pig and the next. This time, you ladies have to choose between a man who votes for early parole for sex offenders (sex crimes have extremely high rates of recidivism, btw), and a man who thinks women generally get paid 15% less for doing the same job simply because they are less qualified and don’t work as hard. (The lazy over-entitled witches.) And also that their wombs belong to society and not to themselves. (I.E. women = chattels, things, objects, property, slaves)

Thinking of feminists as ‘selfish’ is the most deeply stupid hypocrisy. The selfish attitude for the most part lies elsewhere. In women who won’t disturb their personal peace to fight for their fellow women, and in men who believe they have the right to own their own space and most of a woman’s space as well. If society is falling apart, it is not because women have progressed, it’s because the male attitude has resisted changing, and too many women are in love with the idea of sacrificing themselves for the comfort of the people around them. The trouble with that is you sacrifice your daughters and the women around you at the same time. Thanks very much you saintly heroes …

*

I would like to suggest you all skip over to:

“Clinton Brings Up Assassination” [truthdig.com]

And read:
TheRealFish, May 23 at 7:37 pm #
Some of which I’ve copied here:

About the victims: As a result of abuse these victims sometimes also become abusers. More often, though, they feel themselves continuously victimized by (typically) men, “the system,” or society in general. And even more insidious, they seem themselves as somehow responsible for it all, and feel worthless. That utter sense of worthlessness, in the strongest among them, can lead them to attempt achieving higher and higher signs of “success” — just to prove to themselves and others that they have *some* worth. All the while, they subconsciously self-sabotage (because they know in their heart-of-hearts they are “worthless”).

What are we seeing here?

That Hillary has lived for so long with a man whose actions fairly perfectly define “misogyny” should appeal to all our better angels that she needs some level of professional help in overcoming the damage — sheer carnage — such a relationship can inflict on the psyche.

But, until she actually finds a path leading away from all the dark places being a victim of such abuses can leave you (and her remarks may just be the iceberg’s tip poking above the water), we really can not trust her in command of troops or with her finger anywhere near The Football.

Before I am similarly accused of making sexist remarks here (that this is some kind of sexist attack on Ms. Clinton), I assure you that I have equally great reservation about putting someone in command of troops or putting the nuclear Football in the hands of a person who endured five years of torture.

My (55 year old white) wife agrees.

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 5:59 am Link to this comment

“In the speech he gave in Washington on Wednesday, Mr. Obama outlined his plan for combating terrorism and raised the possibility of military strikes inside Pakistan.
‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Mr. Obama said.” Michael Falcone, “The Caucus,” N. Y. Times Politics blog, August 3, 2007.
So what, Cyrena, do you think he meant by that, if it wasn’t to drop bombs in Pakistan?  Drop “Dove” bars? “

So glad you asked, since it SO proves my point. This is the ONLY comment Obama has made on US military intervention in Pakistan, and it was made long ago. (At a debate nearly 10 months ago, but HRC and her sleazy echo chamber keep repeating it with their own misinformed interpretations) Maybe they/you should actually READ/hear the words used.

The post by nondeplume says that he threatened to BOMB Iran, and HRC accused him of the same in their last debate. Do you see a single solitary mention here, of him BOMBING Pakistan, or do you read this quote the same way that I read/heard it.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Do you see anything in there about BOMBS Blueboy? I don’t, which is why I called nondeplume on it.  What I heard/read, was that if Musharraf, who has been provide with over $17 BILLION of our dollars since 9-11-2001, didn’t act to contain the terrorists within his own sovereign nation state, that WE WOULD! YOU appear to be even LESS qualified than I am, to imagine what that ACTION might entail. Does your imagination take you no further than dropping bombs or dove bars on an entire population to MAYBE catch a few cave dwelling extremists? That’s sad. Our military is actually far more advanced than that now.

The CIA has managed to ‘act’ on intelligence about alleged ‘terrorist targets’ for years now, WITHOUT dropping bombs or anything else. So, your sarcasm only shows your ignorance and limited view points, not unlike the rogue regime in place now, with whom Hillary obviously agrees…JUST BOMB EVERYTHING. Never mind any other type of ways or means to perform the same objectives, as long as we’ve got plenty of BOMBS!

On a different note, this is one of 2 area positions where I do not agree with Obama, but the disagreement is based on a difference of interpretation about the threats of terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly that terrorism is a global threat. It has been for a while now, thanks to US and Israeli policy. It is of PARTICULAR concern in respect to Pakistan, because Pakistan has NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and we know that Pakistan does house/host an extremist element, and we also know that Musharraf is a dictator of an Authoritarian regime, with ties to them. But of course, this is GW’s best friend and ‘ally’ which is why he’s given such enormous sums of OUR money to Pakistan and it’s military regime.

Where Obama and I disagree, is that Obama believes that 1) Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and 2) that OBL and AQ are being sponsored and/or protected by the Pakistani regime.

He is probably CORRECT that OBL and AQ were at some point protected by the Pakistanis. I believe he is INcorrect in believing the official story that OBL and/or AQ had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, or that they are even powerful or organized enough to do any serious damage with the nukes that are part of the Pakistani State apparatus.

Regardless, that does NOT mean that Pakistan, with its nukes and it’s sponsorship of some extremist elements, is not a danger. So, if they can get REAL information on these people in Pakistan, then yes, they SHOULD ‘act’, if Musharraf cannot be convinced to do it himself. Since then, the political scene in Pakistan has changed. It may not even be necessary now, since Musharraf doesn’t the clout that he did.

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

“In the speech he gave in Washington on Wednesday, Mr. Obama outlined his plan for combating terrorism and raised the possibility of military strikes inside Pakistan.
‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Mr. Obama said.” Michael Falcone, “The Caucus,” N. Y. Times Politics blog, August 3, 2007.
So what, Cyrena, do you think he meant by that, if it wasn’t to drop bombs in Pakistan?  Drop “Dove” bars?
I’m SO glad you asked blueboy, because it SO proves my point. This speech is the ONLY comment that Obama has made on the subject of Pakistan, and it was made long ago. (At one of the many debates, nearly 10 months ago, but HRC and her sleazy echo chamber keep repeating it with their own interpretations)
The post by nondeplume says that he threatened to BOMB Iran, and Hillary accused him of the same in their last debate. Do you see a single solitary mention here, of him BOMBING Pakistan, or does it ‘read’ to you, the same way that it sounded to my OWN ears, and registered with my own eyes?
•  “‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’”
Do you see anything in there about BOMBS Blueboy? I don’t, which is why I called nondeplume on it.  What I heard/read, was that if Musharraf, who has been provide with over $17 BILLION of our dollars since 9-11-2001, didn’t act to contain the terrorists within his own sovereign nation state, that WE WOULD! YOU appear to be even LESS qualified than I am, to imagine what that ACTION might entail. Does your imagination take you no further than dropping bombs or dove bars on a few cave dwelling extremists? That’s sad. Our military is actually far more advanced than that now.

The CIA has managed to ‘act’ on intelligence about alleged ‘terrorist targets’ for years now, WITHOUT dropping bombs or anything else. So, your sarcasm only shows your ignorance and limited view points, not unlike the rogue regime in place now, with whom Hillary obviously agrees…JUST BOMB EVERYTHING. Never mind any other type of ways or means to perform the same objectives, as long as we’ve got plenty of BOMBS and war machines.

On a different note, this is one of 2 area positions on which I do not agree with Obama, but the disagreement is based on a difference of interpretation about the threats of terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly that terrorism is a global threat. It has been for a while now, thanks to US and Israeli policy. It is of PARTICULAR concern in respect to Pakistan, because Pakistan has NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and we know that Pakistan does house/host an extremist element, and we also know that Musharraf is a dictator of an Authoritarian regime, controlled by the military, as many dictator regimes are. IOW, Pakistan, under the control of Musharraf, is a potentially dangerous rogue state. But of course, this is GW’s best friend and ‘ally’ which is why he’s given such enormous sums of OUR money to Pakistan and it’s military regime.

Where Obama and I disagree, is that Obama believes that 1) Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and 2) that OBL and AQ are being sponsored and/or protected by the Pakistani regime.

Obama is probably CORRECT that OBL and AQ were at some point protected by the Pakistanis, and some may still be. What I believe he is incorrect about, is that OBL or AQ had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, or that they are even powerful or organized enough to do any serious damage with the nukes that are part of the Pakistani State apparatus.

Be that as it may, that does NOT mean that Pakistan, with its nukes and it’s sponsorship of some extremist elements, is not a danger. So, if they can get REAL information on these people in Pakistan, then yes, they SHOULD ‘act’ in order to contain them. 

IF Musharraf doesn’t.

Report this

By cyrena, May 24, 2008 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

What Game Is Hillary Playing?
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/story/86359/

I could answer this question, but you’ve already heard enough from me. So, here are a few excerpts.

•  “Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party’s Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary’s recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida.”

I will say this, only because I posted the same here yesterday: the comparison that Guy references here was among the lowest of the gutter levels that Hillary has been trolling in, for the past 9 months, and that’s already about 100 ft. down into the gully wash.

•  “Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton’s representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton [who fudged the rules] was even on the ballot in Michigan.”

I’m not sure that he’s correct on this. (about Rodham being the only Dem on the MI ballot). I think that there may have been another one or two, (since Kucinich had NOT agreed to these rules) but I’ve lost my copy of that ballot, so I don’t want to swear to it. Obama however, was NOT (on the ballot) and there were explicit instructions that ‘write-ins’ would invalidate the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for other than Hillary, needed to vote as ‘uncommitted’. Most folks didn’t bother to vote at all, since it was already clear, that the delegates would not be acknowledged. 
Here’s the point that most of us already recognize:

•  “Harold Ickes, one of Hillary’s representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary’s chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, “You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?” Ickes replied, “What has changed is that now we are behind.” So, there it is—there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position.”

So yes…THERE IT IS….not a single iota of principle in the Clinton position, and that’s ALWAYS been the Clinton position..TOTALLY LACKING IN PRINCIPAL OR INTEGRITY.

Rules…What rules? Laws. What laws? That is the Clinton position. Not just Hillary’s, but hubby’s as well. Wanna invade another country unilaterally, and in violation of the laws? What the hell…just ignore them. (Willie Clinton in the unilateral invasion of the former Yugoslavia, based on lies of Humanitarian intervention) Helped him and the corps out a whole lot though.

The wife….blast away at Iraq. We need the oil, and we need to control the availability of it. Keep it in the ground, it’ll be worth more. The Saudies are counting on us for that. Besides, that’s OUR oil under Iraq’s soil. How dare they keep us from it!

Clinton ‘principles’. Bush-Cheney “principles.” All the same.  Dynasty partners in war crimes, and crimes against the state, and crimes against humanity.

The Clintons decide with rules apply, and when.

The rest of the article is at the link

http://www.alternet.org/story/86359/

Report this

By Juan, May 24, 2008 at 1:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She is solely responsible for the failure of her campaign to capture the imagination of the voters in the primary season.

Her ambition to win at any cost, her hubris and her dirty campaign tactics reminded voters of what we have gone through during the past eight years.

The wave of change is real, and Hillary missed the boat.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Rea writes:
•  “In fact, the charge is doubly painful because Hillary has said flat out that she does not want votes on the basis of her color. She wants people to vote for because she is the best qualified. That’s always what it’s been about.”
For the record Rea, I realize that charges of bigotry have been leveled against the Clintons. HOWEVER, many of us, (old enough to have been around and followed her career, and investigated her career) do NOT believe Hillary Clinton to be a racist or a bigot. I personally don’t believe that. I have NEVER heard her say, (though I’ve heard John Edwards and few others say) that she doesn’t want votes based on her color. If she did, that’s great. But there is a paradox here, (a few actually) because if she really wants people to vote for her because she is the best qualified, and there are individuals who do not FEEL that she is the best qualified, (because I don’t) then exactly where does that leave us, and why do WE then have to be labeled as sexist, because we don’t feel that she is the best qualified, and NOT because we think that she is racist?
•  “It is shocking and repugnant to suggest that Hillary is a bigot. She is not and the charge is capricious, as well as vicious.”

I would agree that she is not a bigot, (as I said above). However, you get carried away here with you adjectives in admonishing anyone who MIGHT interpret her as such, BASED ON WHAT SHE HERSELF HAS SAID!!! How easy is it for any individual to interpret some of the things that have come out of Hillary’s mouth, as being racist? No, I didn’t see them as such. But I can clearly understand how many people of color could have been offended by some of the things that have come out of Hillary’s mouth, because I’ve been offended (and embarrassed as an American woman) from some of the stuff that she’s said. So, it is NOT ‘shocking’ that some might suggest that Hillary is a bigot, because for some people, that is exactly what she appears to be!

And, please explain WHOSE problem that is? Is it the problem of the voter attempting to interpret what she means from his/her own view of the world, or is it a problem for Hillary, who is asking for that person’s vote, to PROPERLY COMMUNICATE to ALL of the members of the US constituency? I mean, how’s THAT for some qualifications? Ms. President, CAN YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC, WITHOUT PISSING THEM OFF, and/or otherwise INSULTING their intelligence? Seems like a simple enough qualification to me. I had to manage it in my job for nearly 30 years, and I didn’t get paid even a 1/100th of what Hillary earns, and I took a hell of a lot more abuse.
Here’s another paradox, though that might not be the best word.

•  “I frankly think that Clinton’s capacity to be a powerful person in her own right, with the perspicuity and drive that correlates with success actually has worked against her.”

I agree with you that this is often the case in a society that still has a strong, strong rope of misogyny running through its social fiber, and the patriarchal mindset upon which it was founded. So, yes, SOMETIMES, this drive and success are ‘perceived’ in negative terms. And, while this SAME PHENOMENA exists with powerful and successful men AS WELL, I do suspect that it is far more of an occasion with women.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 4
What far too many people fail to grasp, is that while this does in fact happen, (where the drive that correlates with success works against them) there are OTHER reasons that can exist as well. Because having the personal ‘drive’ to be powerful, is not the same as behaving like a bulldozer. If one is only ‘successful’ because they have mowed down those who might share in the success or provide benefits as well, (because they are competitors) then it comes at a price that can come back to kick one in the ass. If success is achieved at the expense of others, that has a tendency to do the same thing. Again, not always, but it’s a chance that responsible and yes PRAGMATIC people take. So when it DOES come back to bite one in the ass, if one is that strong in their own right, than one is prepared to accept the consequences. But when the INEVITABLE consequences have come back to Hillary, she and her worshippers all holler that it’s because she’s a woman. THAT does not help her! And, I don’t see why you all don’t get that.

On the one hand, she wants to be treated just like any other person vying for the office, and feels (if we’re looking at it about equals being equal) that because many people (men) in politics are ruthless, low-down, and dirty, she should be able to be just as ruthless, low-down, and dirty as they are. When that is pointed to as unacceptable by the majority of the Democratic constituency, she cries foul, “it’s because I’m a woman” when instead, she should be working that sort of an agenda on a Republican platform, because Dems (as a whole) don’t like those kinds of politics. It is FAR more acceptable in the Republican mindset.

You’re right on this:

•  “And yes, rejecting a woman because of her strength and intelligence is, in fact, sexist.”
IF that is why she is being rejected, than it IS sexist. If she’s being rejected because there is a portion of the public who appreciates a strong and intelligent woman WITHOUT the ruthlessness and hawkishness and ego problems that we’ve seen all too much of, then it’s not sexist at all. It means we reject it, because we have better choices.

So, I suggest that Hillary’s supporters help her out. Strength and intelligence in a presidential candidate is essential. We’ve had neither for nearly 8 years. (Hillary’s husband IS an intelligent man, and he had the appropriate strengths required for the job, and she may have as well). BUT, strength and intelligence are not in any short supply, unless maybe there was a major shortage among the American population at the time that they actually selected GWB for the job. He has neither, and was obviously never vetted in the least. It was only required that he might be a good guy to have a beer with, though apparently he never did. (have a beer with the morons that is).

So, it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s IQ is 593.7, and she’s strong enough to say NO! to every single proposition put to her, and strong enough to say BOMBS AWAY as she blasts country A, B or C off of the global surface. (or maybe all 3). It doesn’t matter if she, you, or I have all of the right ‘tools’ and can’t discern how or when to use them. When this one single gray hair pops up every few months in my left eyebrow, I don’t use my pliers or wrench to pluck it out, (and yeah, I ALWAYS take it out) I use my pink tweezers. And when I cut the fabric for my niece’s graduation gown this afternoon, I didn’t use the chain-saw that my ex left behind, because the sewing sheers obviously are the correct tool for THAT job. (I could always use the chain saw on HIM, if he ever came back around)

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment

Part 3 of 4
Now I’m gonna tell you when and how Hillary’s intelligence either failed her, or how her integrity and character appeared to be non-existent. Hillary is a smart person. She’s a lawyer, although corporate law is clearly not government legislation. (or at least it isn’t supposed to be) and Hillary’s legal expertise is in corporate law, NOT government. Still, that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t know the whole ball of wax, since she’s so smart and strong and all.

As a senator, HRC supported the illegal invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation state. She did it without waiting for a resolution by the UN Security Council, and even a rookie knows the UN Charter and Int’l Law well enough to know that is a serious violation of the laws. She also said, with a great deal of passion and venom at the time, that it HAD to be done, because Saddam Hussein never did ANYTHING without being FORCED.

Now, even if that horrible decision had somehow NOT turned into the horrific disaster that it has, the decision itself disqualifies her, at least in my citizen view, from the job for POTUS. I can assure you that I am not the only citizen who strongly holds this position. I should also remind that many, many, many US citizens were aware at the time, that Saddam Hussein did NOT have WMD. (at least 1/3 of the citizenry, because all one had to do was follow the news). We also largely suspected that this was not planned as a quick in and out attack. We suspected that it was planned as a forever occupation. This is an unforgivable violation of international law and the commitments that the US expects the rest of the world to honor as well. As far as I know, (and I could be missing something) Hillary has failed, (in the past 7 plus years) to address any of the other grotesque illegalities that have been perpetrated against our democracy, despite the fact that she’s been in a position to do exactly that.

One SHOULD be able to assume, that if THAT MANY of the US citizens were aware of these realities, not to mention the sure disaster awaiting the millions of innocents in the targeted countries, than we should be able to assume that a candidate for POTUS, IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME, could figure that out as well. IF she knew, (and she’s smart, so she must have, since IT’S HER JOB to know these things) then she obviously didn’t give a shit, or didn’t have the COURAGE to go against the popular iron fist. (so much for the strength thing) Or, maybe she just REALLY APPROVED of the idea, regardless of all of those laws and things. One could certainly imagine that, based on the fact that Hillary never registered a single complaint about the NECESSITY for destroying Iraq, but only that it wasn’t happening fast enough. Then about 4 years into it, (and when she officially entered her campaign posture) she all of a sudden decided that it was a bad thing. That…is even MORE troubling, if one can believe it.

In 2003, HRC postured for a position on the Armed Services Committee, in preparation for her POTUS run. So, she was on that committee when she approved that invasion and occupation. In the 5 plus years SINCE that time, HRC has done virtually NOTHING (legislatively or otherwise) to provide for the strategic, tactical, or logistical needs of the members of the military that have spent tour and after tour after tour, in that hell hole that Dick Bush created with her blessing. While I will NOT say that our troops and our Veterans have not received shabby treatment from past conflicts, (they have) this time around, when they were AGAIN asked to fight in illegal conflicts, they have been totally abandoned by this administration. Hillary is a sorry ass excuse for a Senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee, so it is very difficult for those of us who have actually paid attention to HER RECORD, to find your claims of her intelligence and personal strength to be of any value.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

Part 4 of 4

And, if Hillary was a man, with that very same record, running for the POTUS, I would not support his candidacy either. For me, just those reasons alone, are enough to reject her bid, and I will. Other US voters will vote based on the criteria that is important to them. For many voters, these issues with these millions of Iraqis dead and/or displaced, or thousands of our own troops dead and/or wounded, raped, (the females) and sometimes murdered to cover it up, are simply not important. As a matter of fact, bert informed us herself quite some time back, that the concerns of Americans in the political process were NOT about the war, but rather the economy. Bert obviously hasn’t a clue that over $3trillion dollars spent on war mongering might affect the economy as well. Hillary obviously wasn’t worried about it though, any more than she was about the millions of lives that would be impacted, and again, we have to assume that if she’s smart enough to be the POTUS, then she would most certainly have worked through all of this, right?

So, if she didn’t, she’s not qualified. If she did think these things through, and STILL did NOTHING to alter the course of these actions, she’s as much a fascist as those she would choose to succeed.
I won’t even bother with all of the other things she’s done that can only be seen as destructive to large portions of the world population. Still, I will agree that she’s probably not a racist, and I can assure you that I’m not a racist, or a sexist. I do have my own prejudices however. Fascists, opportunists, and war mongering hawks are not among those I choose to support. I make no apologies for that. I don’t support the male versions of them either, regardless of their race, or creed or political affiliations.

Lastly, since ALL of this information can be found in the public record, I’m not bothering to cite any sources for it. As a general rule, I don’t make statements here that can only be cited by one source, particularly if it is a media source. Specifically, in nearly everything that I post, there is no ‘question’ for the reader, about whether or not it is my OPINON, or can be supported by some specific facts. If something seems outrageous, (like the claim that Obama is planning to send US troops to Saudi Arabia for oil) then I would most certainly post the source of that, just because it IS so outrageous.

Most of the readers on this blog are informed enough on their own, to be able to check the sources of this information that I’ve posted here. They are also able to discern readily enough, the difference between fact and opinon. When opinion is derived from fact, it is often helpful to include those sources, for convenience if nothing else.

If one is NOT aware of the above information in reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record in Government, then certainly one should attempt to check the official record, because it’s important to know more about your next president than his or her IQ and ‘strength’ of personality, and how one actually measures ‘success’.

She’s looking for a government job. She’s had over 7 years to prove how well she does at it. You decide, since many of us already have.

Mike Mid-Cities…if you’re out there. Hello. We miss you.

Report this

By kath cantarella, May 23, 2008 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

you seem to be missing the point. The point is about how a woman running for the top office is perceived. Hillary wasn’t just assessed intelligently on her record: she was mostly ridiculed or devalued on a gender basis, and running against men who are over-valued on a gender basis.
Election after election, women who care about other women are constantly forced to choose between one sexist pig and the next. This time, you ladies have to choose between a man who votes for early parole for sex offenders (sex crimes have extremely high rates of recidivism, btw), and a man who thinks women generally get paid 15% less for doing the same job simply because they are less qualified and don’t work as hard. (The lazy over-entitled witches.) And also that their wombs belong to society and not to themselves. (I.E. women = chattels, things, objects, property, slaves)

Thinking of feminists as ‘selfish’ is the most deeply stupid hypocrisy. The selfish attitude for the most part lies elsewhere. In women who won’t disturb their personal peace to fight for their fellow women, and in men who believe they have the right to own their own space and most of a woman’s space as well. If society is falling apart, it is not because women have progressed, it’s because the male attitude has resisted changing, and too many women are in love with the idea of sacrificing themselves for the comfort of the people around them. The trouble with that is you sacrfice your daughters and the women around you at the same time. Thanks very much you saintly heroes… (bite me!)

I am depressed that these two arseholes are the best the USA can come up with in this desperate time.

I’ve tried very hard to like Obama, but his voting record lets him down in so many ways. Where can you find a politician’s sincerity if it is not in their votes?

And McCain has killed innocent people. You can praise him for it if you like, give him ribbons and medals, but i despise him for it. That’s just my way.

Go to hell, politics USA.

Report this

By bert, May 23, 2008 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

Nondeplume writes:    “Please note, that you, (cyrena) on the other hand, have not stated any facts.  You are making an assertion unsubstantiated by any evidence.  In addition to attacking me personally.  Both of which are logically fallacious and misleading arguments.  Though they may serve the purpose of campaigns along the lines of the old politics of division.”


Nondeplume – So you noticed that? Welcome to Alice in Wonderland Truth Dig style. Alice is down the rabbit gone and nothing makes any sense any longer. Doesn’t have to. These folks have drunk so much cherry kool aid their urine must be permanently red now. You’ll get used to it.

Report this

By bert, May 23, 2008 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

In your reply to Nondeplume you say:

    “Like, tell us exactly when and where you’ve come up with the claim that Obama has ‘talked about BOMBING Pakistan’. Also, it is quite critical that you also CITE references (and direct quotes from Obama…”

Again, as so often her at TD your lack of knowledge of current events and/or the most basic of positions of Obama are on display for all to see.

Re bombing of Pakistan:

From Reuters

By Steve Holland

August 1, 2007

    “WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama’s stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.

The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief.”

Report this

By bert, May 23, 2008 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

You are so very right susanc, therefore I thought you might like to read the following editorial/letter to Hillary

Kansas City Star (MO): Memo to Hillary Clinton: Please don’t quit
By Lewis Diuguid

Last summer, I shook Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hand and gave her my business card when she met with the Trotter Group of black columnists. I wished her well in her presidential bid.

Ever since then I’ve received e-mails from her, Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, with video links promoting Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Oval Office. A half-dozen arrived last week.

I hadn’t replied until now.

Dear Sen. Hillary Clinton:
I have greatly appreciated all of the e-mails from you and your family. I have only two words to share with you about your valiant quest to become the 44th president of the United States and the first woman to hold the highest office in the land:

Don’t quit.

A ton of pundits and political operatives have asked you to give up. Ignore them.

They have asked you to step aside for the good of the Democratic Party and let Sen. Barack Obama stand as the presumptive nominee. His rise to that post would be historic, too, making him the first African American to go that far.

The pundits and political operatives repeatedly have professed that you would be doing more harm than good to the party if you don’t surrender now. But for all of your supporters, the country and our way of life, I say don’t quit.

It doesn’t matter whether women in the United States have seen you in person, heard you in the debates or voted for you in the primaries or not. What matters is every woman who believes in America needs you to stay in the race all the way to the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Every girl needs you to go the distance. You have come too far to fold now. For every woman’s and girl’s sake, don’t quit.

Men and boys need to witness your perseverance, too, and know that the force of your will is in the hearts and minds of every female. Such drive, determination, duty and character have helped to make this country a superpower.

Even though no woman has been president up to now, every woman has given endless amounts of sweat, blood and true grit to make this nation what it is today.

There would be no America if women had folded under the strain of child birth or if women hadn’t endured the misery of scratching out a living from the land, traveling across the vastness of our countryside. Women have been treated like chattel and second-class citizens, working in sweat shops, remaining in the shadows endlessly serving others and maintaining the home front while their sons come home from the wars.

Still, women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.

Don’t quit. Our men and boys need to see you go the distance.

Many other countries have had women leaders — Germany, Israel, Argentina, India, the Philippines, Great Britain and Pakistan. For the sake of women and men all over the world, don’t quit.

After eight, long, horribly regressive years of George W. Bush as president, the world needs to see a better image of America. They need to see how progressive the people of this country truly are. For their sake and ours, don’t quit.

People need to see a real convention with all of the political wrangling and elbowing. So many conventions in the last 30 years have been neatly staged.

The power elite control the outcome. Give the convention back to the people. They need to see politics being made like sausage from the squeal to the plate. For America’s sake and our way of life, don’t quit.

Yours truly,
Lewis

Report this

By bert, May 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

“Not true, there was a lot of anger about that in 1980.  The Carter people were furious about it, as were a lot of the delegates.”

That is not what the previous poster was referring to. She stated a FACT. No one in the press called for Kennedy to drop out of the race as they are today calling Hillary to drop out, and as they have been since right after Iowa. Just the opposite. Many wrote editorials praising him and telling him to continue - Go Teddy Go.

  “The debacle of 1968 was still somewhat fresh in memory, and it very likely did cost them the election… Carter was polling pretty well that summer, but the Kennedy challenge wounded him deeply at the national level that fall.”

While it is true Kennedy further hurt Carter’s chances, he would have lost anyway. His was a failed Presidency and people were upset with him for many, many reasons. Kennedy’s behavior was just one of about 99 nails in Carter’s coffin.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2008 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

If Hillary is not a bigot, she used bigotry to obtain and endorse racist voters.  So even if she is not a bigot, she takes advantage of their simple minded hate to foster her advantages, after all the kitchen sink is no holds barred. How about the fear monger thing?  Come one get your heads out of your ever loving arses.

Make war with Hillary.

Report this

By JulieKay, May 23, 2008 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I keep hearing that the media was sexist without any specific examples.

As cyrena said, Hillary claims considerable experience while her senate record is no accomplishments.  No sponsored bills were passes.  Yet I repeatedly hear the media state as if it were fact that Hillary had many years of experience to be qualified, while Obama did not have any experience.

It is also a fact that people often vote by whether they “like” a candidate, which cannot be assumed to have anything to do with Hillary being a woman.  Many men have lost because they were not likable.

Check out Drew Weston’s book, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.”  He has be quoted in many articles, just do a search on “Drew Weston” and any of the candidates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-psychological-dynamic_b_100136.html

I am embarrassed as a white woman to have Hillary whining that the media picked on her or she is more electable because white hard working American’s will vote for her rather than an African-American man.

She has displayed scary multiple personality. One day she is a touch fighter than no one can beat, next day she is claiming sexism by the media. 

It is time for Hillary to prove see cares for the American people by campaigning for Obama.  She should go back to the hard working white Americans and tell them why they should vote for Obama.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 23, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

When the Presidents of both NARAL and Emily’s List come out and publicly denounce the rampant sexism from the media (which they should), but at the same time do not accept that as a contributing factor to her primary results, I think you are on very dangerous ground.

You cannot take every women’s civil rights issue of the past 200 years and put them on Hillary to resolve (or else use them to explain why she lost), it’s not fair to her, and it’s not fair to the rest of us that are able to look through the nonsense that spews forth from TV pundits every day.

Whether you think that the networks are guilty of perpetuating the worst kind of misogyny throughout the primaries, do you honestly believe that it changed one person’s mind about whether or not to vote for Hillary?

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

Not true, there was a lot of anger about that in 1980.  The Carter people were furious about it, as were a lot of the delegates.  The debacle of 1968 was still somewhat fresh in memory, and it very likely did cost them the election… Carter was polling pretty well that summer, but the Kennedy challenge wounded him deeply at the national level that fall.

This is not to say that Matthews and others aren’t sexist low-lives, but you don’t have to re-write history to make your point.

Report this

By Rea Howarth, May 23, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You know, Marie Cocco is on to something.  The fact is, Hillary Clinton inspires the worst in some people, including the press. Some members of the press accuse her of raising the issues of racial bigotry. They have raised the issue so often that now people of color believe it’s true. In fact, the charge is doubly painful because Hillary has said flat out that she does not want votes on the basis of her color. She wants people to vote for because she is the best qualified. That’s always what it’s been about.

It is shocking and repugnant to suggest that Hillary is a bigot. She is not and the charge is capricious, as well as vicious.

I frankly think that Clinton’s capacity to be a powerful person in her own right, with the perspicuity and drive that correlates with success actually has worked against her. Had she been a male, I don’t think people would hold it against her. And yes, rejecting a woman because of her strength and intelligence is, in fact, sexist.

I have heard people talk about Hillary Clinton, applying the “b” word without hesitation, and with a great deal of emotional vigor. Yet, I have yet to hear a rational explanation for the dislike that accompanies such a viewpoint.  Some ascribe vile motivations to her, i.e., she’s willing to drive the party down to defeat rather than sacrifice her shot at the presidency—she’s thinking ahead to 2012. 

Rubbish! That is just more nasty speculation.

There is no way that any of the Clintons would rather see Senator McCain win the presidency.  It is just that both strongly believe that Hillary is the best qualified, most experienced candidate left standing. (I actually preferred Joe Biden at the start.)

But if you expect Hillary Clinton to stop battling for every vote and conceding before there’s an actual victor in this race, forget it.  Will she fight to win? You bet.  Just as       Sen. Obama is fighting to win.  That’s the way the game is played.  It’s right to expect civility and mutual respect.  It is wrong to expect one to give it up before it’s time to do so. 

I think the press has played a major role in this barrage of complaints that the race has continued for so long. Frankly, they are tuckered out from packing their bags and racing from plane to plane.  They want to go home and they are whining, because Hillary is keeping them on the run.

It’s about time the press earned their paychecks and stopped whining about having to work for them.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 23, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

“In the speech he gave in Washington on Wednesday, Mr. Obama outlined his plan for combating terrorism and raised the possibility of military strikes inside Pakistan.

‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Mr. Obama said.”  Michael Falcone, “The Caucus,” N. Y. Times Politics blog, August 3, 2007.

So what, Cyrena, do you think he meant by that, if it wasn’t to drop bombs in Pakistan?  Drop “Dove” bars?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

We need more windbag women on tv, so they can tell us how Hillary won the Senate. 

Tripe and lies, go both ways, Hillary has proven how effective it works.

This self righteous sanctimonious woman sexist misogamy is really becoming quite old, but it seems to be working, for we have not discussed the real issues. 

Let’s face it Hillary is one of the good old boys, she is not and never has been a women. Bill’s infidelity’s   is a case in point.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 23, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

The special interest mass media has destroyed Hillary. Sexism has destroyed Hillary. Everyone hates Hillary because she is a women.  All about Hillary.

Do not blame Hillary for the insipid way she ran her campaign.  Her divisive attacks using bigotry and race to attack Obama, while talking up McCain.  Using the Democratic platform to promote a Republican? Shoddy campaign run by Hillary, would be for me an indication of what is to come if she becomes President. 

Hillary is about Hillary, and don’t you forget it, if you do forget it, you will be labeled a sexist.

Report this

By cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the links nondeplume.

I will definitely look at them. I too have followed Hillary’s political career for quite some time now, and certainly remember the harassment that she and bill took from the repugs. Most of it, (at least at the time) did not seem to me to be justified. However, there was much that I did not know.

I was exceedingly annoyed over the big stink over Monica Lewisky, and the fact that the repugs made such an issue of it. In my opinion, that was NOT an issue for which the people of our country needed to be distracted.

So, as another poster put it in this thread earlier, they would have voted for Hillary last year, but not now. I can’t say that I would have voted for Hillary last year, but I was pleased when New York selected her as a Senator in 2000, and I would have supported her myself, until SHE supported the War on Iraq.

EVEN AT THAT POINT, I may have supported her, had she accepted that it was an error in judgment on her part, (as did John Edwards) and had she not continued to display such hawk like behavior in nearly ALL of her votes of record in the Senate.

She was indeed ‘ahead’ until such time (as jackpine savage points out) the American people actually started to VOTE, at which point it became obvious that she was NOT ‘ahead’ of anything.

So we continue to hear from people like Marie Cocco and others, that it’s all because of her gender. Needless to say, that only diminishes her in the eyes of progressive women, because it insults our intelligence, (not to mention the rest of the population) by suggesting that we are not capable of following and researching not only what Hillary claims in her stumps, but what she’s actually DONE (or failed to do) in the 7 years since she’s been a Senator.

In that regard, her record is abysmal, and that is the thing that the average American does look at. Maybe they didn’t before now, but the lessons of the Dick Bush regime have alarmed even the most politically apathetic among us.

I can’t pretend to speak or think for the repugs, aside from what I know, (and read) to connect the obvious dots. Those dots tell most of us that the Republican Party has been virtually destroyed by the behavior of the neo-cons over these past several years. So, in all sincerity, I don’t believe that John McCain could beat EITHER of the Democratic candidates, unless the dems allow it, by voting AGAINST Obama for McCain. (I did just read however, that Karl Rove had already assigned a team to dig up dirt on Obama.) What that means of course is…make stuff up, because there’s just nothing ‘on’ him.

This is by no means to say that I overwhelmingly agree with every position that Barack Obama has taken. I don’t. I do believe that it is his candiacy that has brought phenomenal numbers of people into the democratic process however, and that is historic.

I have no doubt that Hillary will be ‘tuff as nails’ as she has already proven that. And it is my greatest fear. The regime in charge now has been the same way, and we are certainly in the midst of a national decline as a result.

In short, I find little difference between her positions and those that have created the disaster that we are in now.

There is an incredible irony to the suggestion that her ‘withdrawal plan’ is better than that of Barack Obama, when SHE’S the one that put our troops in harms way to begin with.

If there is any American that is unaware of Hillary Clinton’s fundamental ties to the corporate oligarchy that has brought us to our knees, then we have to accept that there is still a great deal of ignorance that must be addressed in our collective awareness.

Report this

By Ruth Knollmueller, May 23, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Edward Kennedy and others “took” the nomination of their candidacy for President to the party convention, that is considered appropriate and acceptaable but if Hillary does it, it is considered sour grapes and worse, b____y. She has much more tangible support than any previous Presidential candidate had but her gender is wrong.
Your observations are clear and true. Chris Matthews is the worst offender of most things and specifically of what he said on tv of how Hillary won the Senate.  Shameful and we do not approve and are not amused by the wind bags who are paid more than women to spout out tripe and lies.
Thank you for your entry.

Report this

By Jane, May 23, 2008 at 7:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In reading this article, I don’t know that I grasp the real point. It sure seems to teeter on the theory - if you don’t vote for a woman now, we won’t get a chance again for a long time - and we better do something about it.

The press has been such a pain in the ass about this because the whole democratic “fight” is a woman vs a black guy. Who could do it better?
—>(give me a break while I roll my eyes)

The presidential race isn’t or at least shouldn’t be about sex or race, simply qualifications. In my humble opinion, Hilary simply doesn’t fit the bill, no pun intended, and as a woman, I’m certainly not going to vote for her based on some woman’s lib need about showing the world a she can do it just as well as a he.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

It wasn’t a put-down, bert.  I was replying to your post about how terrible the sexism in this campaign is.  Well, you’re right.  The campaign has been tinged heavily with racism and Islamophobia too.

My point was that all of that crap is small and petty compared to what we really face.  I said that you are not part of the solution because constantly making the point about sexism keeps us all focused on the small and the petty.

It wasn’t a “momma joke” or an ad hominem attack on your person; it was a reference to you staying blindly focused to what’s least important.  If the media is being sexist and you take the bait, who’s fault is it?  (In my book it becomes the fault of both.)

Report this

By vcjpolitics, May 23, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Only a middle- or upper-class white woman has the luxury to make this statement. Sexism is the least of the hurdles that I have to jump.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

Again, sir, she had a huge lead until people actually started voting.  Moreover, the media that you blame for her downfall built her “immense” lead by using words like “inevitable” to describe her candidacy.  Your boogey men aren’t very convincing…

Report this

By Nomdeplume, May 23, 2008 at 6:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena/continued

I don’t agree with you about the Republican view of the candidates.  Even at the beginning of this campaign, when Hillary Clinton was way ahead of every Democratic and Republican candidate, and John McCain was last among the Republicans, McCain’s argument was that he was only one who could beat ‘the Clinton machine’, which was why the Republicans needed to unite around him, even though so many were disgusted with what they perceived as McCain’s liberalism, and his willingness to work too much with the Democrats.  The Republicans promptly corralled, which has ever been one of the strengths of their group;  i.e. an ability to put differences and personal glories aside for the sake of longer term goals and shared strategic interests.  I have also had a number of Republicans tell me as much (i.e.  Clinton was tougher to beat).  If you’ve known Clinton as long as I have, you know the Republicans have hated the Clintons for some time.  They went after Bill Clinton with a vengeance, and Hillary Clinton has seen just about anything a female politician could encounter, I’d imagine.  It’s part of Hillary Clinton’s political genius that she now reaches across such a diverse landscape that is America.  Can embrace and be embraced by so many people.  After going through so much, too.  Could even sit down for a FOX interview with Bill O’Reilley.  Where they used to really lock horns.  But I think you have to ‘know her’ in a certain way, and over time, to see that it’s not so much ‘selling out to neocons’, but simply part of her political intelligence and independence, her growth and ability to work across differences.  For just as you apparently have a certain trust in Obama as a human being, I too have a certain trust in the goals and interests that have remained constant in Hillary over the years.  I have a certain perception about how she strategizes and approaches problem-solving.  How she feels about people and certain issues.  Now that is not say that I think she’s perfect, either.  I’ve just known her as a politician for a long time.  The way rural persons in Kentucky *know her* from Bill Clinton’s days, and have a confidence in how she’ll handle the unsteady economic issues.)  I don’t know Obama as well.  I am rather cynical, too, and do not believe that Obama is so pure of the political machinery as many of his followers seem to truly believe.  Or that what will happen, once he is in office, is so predictable and necessarily so good for the country.  He may indeed be much more vulnerable to corruption and influence than someone like Hillary.  He has attracted many Republicans and conservatives into his camp for reasons which I think are less than honorable.  And not so related to this generic message of ‘unity’, ‘hope’ and ‘change’.  Which I know rings genuine to many.  I guess I’m just an agnostic there.  And, I perceive problems and issues in campaign around the women’s movement that trouble me very much as to the leadership.  IMO, he is also a lot weaker on healthcare, which I think is very important to a number of conservatives (seeing it derailed, that is).  And that is a top issue for me, but in another respect.  Hillary Clinton will be tough as nails there, which I think they know, and which I think we need.

Well I don’t know how soon I’ll be able to respond again, but it’s been interesting.

Report this

By susanc, May 23, 2008 at 4:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No it is not Hillary, it is setting standards for women which are not set for men. It is the prejudice that transposes the attributes needed to win into less attractive, and less “likeable” attributes for female candidates. It is the boys in the Party ignoring the sexism as just another day on the campaign trail. It is the complicity of the media which would rather discuss Hillary’s tears than her strengths. It is Howard Dean who pushed the DNC to frame its “solutions” regarding Super Ds and the uncounted votes in MI and FLA toward Obama. It is Dean who never took to the media to assert that Hillary deserves a race free of sexism.  It is the men in the Senate and the House who benefit from her fundraising who have not stood up to say “enough”. It is evil words repeated in major broadcast outlets, ie “first wife”, “she-devil”, “pimping out Chelsea”, that make it clear that the Pillory of Puritans has been applied to Hillary.

No it is not Hillary. It is a wonder that any woman runs for office beyond the local Board of Education—clearly exactly where the boys want to keep us!!

Report this

By Wytworm, May 23, 2008 at 3:46 am Link to this comment

I have heard over and over this season:

I would have voted for her last year, but her actions during the campaign would have me voting for McCain before I would vote for her. It seems more like the application of critical thought than sexism to me…

Report this

By john polifronio, May 23, 2008 at 3:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Everwhere in these posts you see a continuation of the fantasies, the insipid nonsense and delusions that people entertain in their minds, about Sen. Clinton.  All the cliches are moronic.  All the preconceptions, silly.  Media destroyed Hillary’s campaign.  Hillary held a unstoppable lead in this contest for the first 8-10 months.  Her lead was immense.  It lasted so long, every other dem candidate resigned.  Only Obama remained, whose poll numbers were also dismal throughout.  Hillary was deliberately destroyed; it was a planned and executed media hit.  This has finally demonstrated to me, the extent of the corruption in media and in our government, and in the pursuit of political power in this country.  Unless you’re content with the status quo, there is no hope.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, May 23, 2008 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

I give in.The reason Hillary is not getting elected has nothing to do with her vote on the war.Has nothing to do with voting for the bankruptcy bill.Absolutely nothing to do with starting to give the weapons necessary to start a war with Iran.Nothing at all with the rhetoric of obliterating Iran.Of course nothing to do with the denunciation of Obama’s stated policy of talking to our enemies through diplomacy.You are right Maria it has to do with the fact she is a woman.Maria in one of next columns would you please list the delusional drugs you are taking. There are some things I would like to see in a paranoid way and I think those drugs would help.I hope someday you will see in the Democratic arena what is working against Hillary is her stands on issues not her gender.

Report this

By Nomdeplume, May 23, 2008 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, I haven’t posted here before.  I mostly wanted to respond to the writer’s article, and via another comment by a poster accusing her of a feminist somethingorother.  But, then, I got your response and the other poster’s, so I have been responding to some of the points you bring up. 

Here are some references on Obama’s Pakistan remarks:

Tough Talk on Pakistan from Obama
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Obama terror vow angers Pakistan
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html

I heard his Saudi Arabia military statements on youtube through an Afghanistan portion of an interview that was posted by the Obama campaign itself.  Obviously in an attempt to bolster a more conservative perception of his international posture.  I’ve been searching but can’t seem to find it.  There are hundreds that come up.  I’m sure, if you’re interested, the Obama campaign would probably know which one and could provide you a link. 

Here is some analysis on the electoral vote.  Starts with McCain/Obama, further down, McCain/Clinton.  My ‘territories’ reference meant U.S. states and electoral votes.  With consideration to regional differences that go beyond state lines.  Such as prioritized emphases on the economy, the war, healthcare, education, oil prices, etc.  Depending on where you are.

http://hominidviews.com/

continued

Report this

By i,Q, May 23, 2008 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Thank you for noticing.

In the heat of the moment i forgot that the terminology i had settled upon was in fact female chauvinism and not misogyny for describing the effect.

But seriously, i can’t wait to be beyond the discussion of who’s-more-like-whom and the petty insults and hurt feelings over our general inability to take responsibility for ourselves and not hide under the covers of group identity. Sticks and stones people! Racism, sexism, bigotry in general is intended to spark a reaction and generate divisions driven by fear. When we toughen up and stop taking everything so personally, we diminish the intended effect and can recognize the ignorance of an attitude without allowing it to damage our self.

i think it’s encouraging to see that polls show a general trend towards a new mindset emerging in younger voters. A sense i like to think of as sanity.

A generation has now blossomed for which there was no prohibitive message pulsing in the culture, a generational fabric woven from “Just Do It” and “Where’s the Beef” and “everyone plays” soccer matches on Saturday mornings. (i know i’m over generalizing and will probably offend someone’s sensibilities by omitting all the exceptions which my glassy-eyed nostalgia overlooks, so sorry) but i think that opportunity has been extended to far more people than ever before, although the reward of the opportunities may in fact be diminishing as a result of inflation and the continued extraction of discretionary income from the working class by the corporate class. Other than that, the culture has improved greatly in many ways since the youth of my parents. It will still be a handful of years before the cultural shift is complete and is reflected in exit-polling data, but things are definitely in motion.

i’m one of those post-modern generationals myself, and i think a lot of us recognize the ineffectiveness of many old-school attitudes. There is something ludicrous about all of this. To us, the problems are obvious and the solutions straightforward (though difficult and counterintuitive to contemporary capitalist goals), yet we don’t even inch toward taking the most appropriate action because old attitudes about money and power continue to manipulate entrenched attitudes about fairy tales and identity.

We need to take a good hard look at what global corporatism is doing to our economy and our ecosystem and refashion the government in our own image, as it was meant to be. We need it to push back against an insider culture which favors a few at the cost of many. From my personal (and i’d like to think generational) perspective, these great debates over race and gender are a dangerous and unnecessary distraction. But my perspective is probably analogous to what you described earlier as your experience in CA vs. elsewhere. i’m not saying that race and gender issues don’t exist, i’m saying that we cheapen our election process and we cheapen ourselves when we let ourselves be manipulated by the obsession over them.

Report this

By Nomdeplume, May 22, 2008 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The “obliterate Iran” reference, I further clarify in my response to other poster, below.

Your response to “seized upon” just seems rather circular in its reasoning;  that is, the part about “hillary doing it to herself”.  Is “Hillary doing it to herself” in your remark, or are you doing it to Hillary?  I think the later.  Obviously, you’re seizing upon a remark and making an interpretation.  But that doesn’t mean your interpretation is correct.  I note that you, too, do not respond to any of the points I make.  You just continue with this assertion.

The Kyle Lieberman Amendment is another issue that be debated at length.  It passed overwhelmingly, with some modifications, if I recall correctly.  With many Obama supporters going ‘yea’.  And Obama *absent* again, on that one.  Along with McCain.  Which I do not see as any feather in either of their caps.  And certainly shows that it can’t be interpreted as a peace statement.  They could have voted ‘ney’.  Clinton, though, is usually very above-board.  Which I prefer in a candidate.  And which, I think, is part of her broad appeal.

I’m not clear which Clinton remark you specifically reference as to Obama’s willingness to speak directly with people like the President of Iran.  In an interview, I understood her position as to how the power of the Presidency is used;  not that diplomacy is not embarked upon.  That is, she supports diplomacy, but through other channels, initially.  And I agree with her position, there. 

My last pasted remark references the Iranian President’s likely preferences as to whom the American people elect.  I don’t vote based on who other foreign leaders prefer, nor do I think most Americans.  Though you are certainly free to base your ballot choice accordingly.

That, I think, however, is a fundamental question facing this primary.  It’s really no one’s business as to why people cast their ballots, or whether or not you think they’re idiots, or educated and informed.  Whether Kentucky is racist, and Oregon is sexist.  It’s not the role of the Democratic Party, either, or the Press/Media, to moralize as to the choices of various states (or, usually what is really pretending they’re moralizing, when what’s really going on in Washington are petty political interests within the Party, that have little to do with the interests of the American people), and, while ignoring the People’s mandate. 

And, in the long run, if the Democrats lose the election, it won’t serve my interests, at least.  If the Democrats lose.  Insofar as effectively getting out of Iraq is concerned, obtaining universal health care, redressing the economy, and tackling our failing education system.  Nor will it serve my interests if our Democratic process is circumvented by a ship of fools.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

Nondeplumes propaganda continued..

•  “Now, consider that Obama, on the other hand, has talked about bombing Pakistan.  And sending American troops into Saudi Arabia to defend oil.  He actually has made far more militaristic statements than Senator Clinton has, at all.  In addition to his troop removal plan observed as being far weaker.”

You’re new here nondeplume, and remain unregistered I note.

So, just as a sort of ‘welcome aboard’, please be advised that when trolls sprouting propaganda appear on this thread, there are a few purists among us, who would ask that you CITE SOME SOURCES!

Like, tell us exactly when and where you’ve come up with the claim that Obama has ‘talked about BOMBING Pakistan’. Also, it is quite critical that you also CITE references (and direct quotes from Obama) that he has considered or otherwise suggested sending American troops into Saudi Arabia to defend oil.
Unless you can cite these exceedingly outrageous statements that you’ve just made here, we recognize you immediately as the troll that you are. And yep, at least I will continue to point out your lies. I’m very committed to truth and reality, because it is EXACTLY this sort of subversive propaganda that has us in the position we are in as it is. Lies and myths perpetrated by people like you with perfidy, intended to advance their own treacherous agendas.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

•  “Senator Clinton also has the most popular primary votes in Democratic Party history.”

Except for Barack Obama, who has the most popular votes in THIS Democratic primary contest.

•  “Certain states must be won in the general election, and Senator Clinton has established that she can win these states against John McCain, while Senator Obama has not.”

Please explain how Rodham has ‘established’ this, and Barack Obama has not. You’re obviously looking at a different set of criteria that our reality suggests.

•  “Indeed, clearly he may very lose in a number of key territories.”

“Territories”. Humm, that’s kind of telling. How long has it been since the various demographics that make up the USA have been referred to as ‘territories’?

•  “The fact that John McCain and the Republican Party participate in this charade, as if the process had been already decided, is only evidence as to which candidate is the one they prefer to compete against, and therefore, which candidate they believe they can more easily defeat.

You’ve got this totally ass backward nondeplume. There are a couple of political realities here, that you totally miss. The first one is that if John McCain were to have a shot at all, it would ONLY be against HRC. And, that would only be among the most hard core of the bigots that are part of the repug party. The SAME ones that have crucified her for a couple of decades now.

FAR more importantly is the other point. HRC is the repug neo-con backup. Oh yes. If they have to ‘lose’ to anyone, they wanna make sure it is to HRC, their associate REPUGLICAN and neo-liberal. (the neo-cons and the neo-libs share some ideological standards). Bottom line, if McCain has to lose, the Repugs BEST HOPE, is that he would lose to HRC, which wouldn’t really be a ‘loss’. There is next to NO difference at the basis of the political ideologies of John McCain and Hillary Rodham. NONE that are measurable, or would make even an iota of difference in the majority interests of the American people. NONE.

Now because of the horror and trauma that the Dick Bush regime has visited upon us, the repugs KNOW that they are in a very bad position. Their reign is over. The American public, (including Repuglicans and Independents) are clearly ready to REJECT these highjackers of our country. THEY KNOW THIS. And they ALSO know that HRC is their ONLY hope, of keeping even some of their limbs in the door, or within the apparatus that has so far destroyed us. In other words, Hillary is their girl, if they can’t have John.

That’s why this is stupidity when you suggest the opposite. Obama is the one that the Repugs fear, because he represents an end to their reign, without any residual. In other words, he represents a different political party…a new one. A progressive party that has no space for the corrupted and corporate fascist politics that have brought about our ruin.  Rather, he represents the principles of what the Democrats USED to stand for, (and probably even some repugs as well) as opposed to this blurring of the political landscape that has produced these dynasties of Bush-Clintons. There is very little difference between the past 3 decades of Dems and Repugs who actually control the political landscape in the halls of power. Rather, they come from the ranks of both parties, and have (until 8 years ago), simply been the Corporate Oligarchy. Needless to say, the Dick Bush regime has broken that down even further, to create what has become a totalitarian regime that represents an even smaller number of ‘them’ while destroying a much larger portion of the US Republic.

And this process isn’t ‘just becoming’ corrupt. It’s been ‘corrupt’ for decades, and the last 8 years have finished us off. Hillary will continue it in that vein, and Obama is the only chance we have NOW, of a correction.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 22, 2008 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

As far as rants go, a very good one indeed.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

In response to Hillary’s remark about obliterating Iran, nondeplume writes:

•  “…Of course, this remark was seized by the Obama campaign to paint her up as a hawk….”

And, you are WRONG nondeplume, because it was NOT ‘seized upon’ by the OBAMA CAMPAIGN. (and the wording makes clear that you see as a Hillary campaign supporter or advisor, because ‘seizing upon’ is exactly what her own campaign has been about). No, what happened as a result of her remark on this, is was a REACTION by the American public at large, (including the media, which we know is divided as well) on her comment.

As for it being used to ‘paint her as a hawk’ (another thing that the Hillary campaign has focused on, relied on as a campaign strategy since day one…’painting the other candidates as something for the purposes of negative character and other assassinations) HILLARY DID THIS HERSELF!

In short, the Obama campaign didn’t tell her to make that comment. NOBODY DID! The Obama campaign didn’t tell Hillary to give authorization for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. SHE DID THAT, in her capacity as a Senator from New York, and against a huge popular position that made it clear that they were OPPOSED to such military action!

When she supported legislation against Iran in the form of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, the Obama campaign didn’t make her do that either. In other words, HRC IS A HAWK, and not a single other person, whether they are Obama supporters or not, has to “paint’ her as such! Christ on a cracker! Would somebody simply look at the woman’s record, that she established for herself, and call a spade a spade, or a hawk a hawk, without trying to blame it on somebody else when these TRUTHS don’t ‘set well’?

How about a little accountability here? How about…if you love her so much, just say that “yeah OK, I agree that she’s a hawk, and that’s OK with me”, instead of trying to ignore the truth of her positions, which are supported by her OWN actions, and her OWN words, rather than blame it on Obama or any other candidate in the same contest, JUST BECAUSE WE DO PAY ATTENTION?

As for the reaction of Iran, it was typical (and should be expected) from any UN member state that has been verbally threatened by another country’s leadership. In this case, it was Iran. If she had threatened to obliterate Venezuela or Hungary, or South Africa, or Norway, they would have undoubtedly had a similar response. It damn sure doesn’t help (in the case of Iran) that she had already supported the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, and called her opponent naïve for considering diplomacy, before hawking the threats of obliteration.

As for this…you must surely be joking:

•  “…But since when did the preferences of other governments dictate our best interests as a nation?  Especially when the representative speaker is a political idiot?”

Since when you ask? Are you familiar with Israel at all? Calling the president of Iran a political idiot is harmless enough, since you obviously are not an Iranian citizen, and it is THEY who elected him. But when OUR national interests ARE in fact ‘dictated’ by the political terrorists of the Israeli regime, I’d say….THAT’S WHEN, and it’s been a damn long time now too!

So, who is the political idiot here?

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

•  “It is because many Hillary supporters are sexist…..The knife cuts both ways, and female misogyny is blinding a vast number of voters from seeing the pubic hair for the bush. Women shouldn’t be making Hillary into a monolithic symbol of vaginal ascendancy. That is akin to putting all of your eggs into one fallopian tube.”

i.Q, you are one smart brain…and it is always appreciated.

I’ve been trying to find a word/term for this. “FEMALE misogyny”. I was looking at the trees in the linguistic forest, instead of the obvious. So, I’d had to so far settle for “Sexism perpetrated by females”.

•  The FEMALE misogyny works well enough for me, although if we wanted to be really pure about it, (linguistically speaking) it could confuse, since the –gyn- base of the word is clearly intended for description only to the female gender. (which is why I hadn’t been able to come up with an already existing term/word that applies to females who hate men, based on the fact that they are men. That’s not to say that such a word doesn’t exist, (since the mentality certainly does) but I haven’t been able to find it.

So, maybe somebody can get to work on that. Suggestions might be to take something from the word ‘prostrate’. (I don’t know…just a thought).

Meantime though, I’m inclined to believe that IN THIS CASE, (the Hillary/Barack issue) there is ALSO some racism inherent in the mindset of the female misogynists. More than a few of them have said that they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. And, lets face it, racism and misogyny are both subcomponents of the broader mindset of bigotry. And, a bigot is a bigot, regardless of the particular dynamic of it that is most on display. Racism just sounds so much worse, and is so much less tolerable in the eyes of the current society, so if it can be covered up by any other means, it’s a given that it will be. But since racism has never actually ‘gone away’ but rather been forced to find other means of expression, we mistakenly attribute it to other things.

Still…progress marches on.

Thanks again.

Report this

By Nomdeplume, May 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You fail to make critical distinctions.  I have not made any statement as to factual future outcome, beyond what should already obvious to the Democratic Party as a highly reasonable projected future outcome, based on present facts.  i.e.  Certain states must be won in the general election, and Senator Clinton has established that she can win these states against John McCain, while Senator Obama has not.  Indeed, clearly he may very lose in a number of key territories.  Senator Clinton also has the most popular primary votes in Democratic Party history, and is a major contender being whited out by the media.  By all accounts, the superdelegates who disregard this information, which is information in the interests of the Democratic Party winning the election, are either completely irrational or corrupt.  The fact that John McCain and the Republican Party participate in this charade, as if the process had been already decided, is only evidence as to which candidate is the one they prefer to compete against, and therefore, which candidate they believe they can more easily defeat.  And thus ... further evidence as to either how irrational the superdelegates may behave, or how corrupt the process is becoming.  Perhaps due to whatever internal political disputes exist within the Party.  Disputes that have virtually nothing to do with our interests, as American people.  American people, that is, wanting universal health care, wanting the economy redressed, wanting an effective withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Please note, that you, on the other hand, have not stated any facts.  You are making an assertion unsubstatiated by any evidence.  In addition to attacking me personally.  Both of which are logically fallacious and misleading arguments.  Though they may serve the purpose of campaigns along the lines of the old politics of division.

Also, throwing out two words, “obliterate Iran”, and out of context, does not address any of the points I have made about the entire conversation and how it was distorted by the Obama campaign.  I do think, however, Senator Clinton is aware of what her future strategic position as a commander-in-chief would be, and, she has established that she is capable of not only taking troops out, but acting in exactly the same way a male commander-in-chief would, too.  (That is, don’t be so naive to think that Obama would not nuke Iran, if necessary.  Or have the boys in the back room tell the Iranian President so.)  In sum, I think her statements need to be understood in a broader context, and not as simplistically, as I hear you portraying them. 

Now, consider that Obama, on the other hand, has talked about bombing Pakistan.  And sending American troops into Saudi Arabia to defend oil.  He actually has made far more militaristic statements than Senator Clinton has, at all.  In addition to his troop removal plan observed as being far weaker.

Report this

By i,Q, May 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

Sweet, another example of the assertion of some unknowable future outcome as if it is fact. Another limp argument that HIllary deserves to be the candidate since she almost won enough support to be the nominee. Another victimhood complex for which i somehow have to answer for another’s inability to perceive reality objectively.

i’m sorry, but if you don’t think “obliterate Iran” was Hillary going for the hawk’s balls in a calculated way, then you really are delusional. Or the suggestion Hillary has been made “invisible” by the man-media — laughable! (She gets mad media currency just for being a Clinton.)

It’s not my sexism that makes ridiculous words come out of her mouth while the cameras are rolling.

Report this

By i,Q, May 22, 2008 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

@tdbach
ummm, so far as i can tell, you are now the only one to use sexist terminology on this thread (see below)... which is confusing to me. i suppose that by offering sexist language up in your argument that sexism is present in the culture of the debate, you prove your argument.

Report this

By i,Q, May 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

tdbach makes an interesting point about the focus of comments directed at campaign supporters vs. candidates. i would argue that it is not a fear of going near the “racial” issue of attacking Barack Obama directly has anything to do with it, but more that there is little to attack him on. He has been generally gracious and straightforward during this campaign season. So much so that HIllary knee-cappers are limited to likening the vastly superior number of event participants to cult members or nazi-youth. Hillary on the other hand has provided numerous opportunities which invite criticism of her character directly. Frankly, i don’t see how the Hillary supporters can sit there and drink up the pandering, rule-bend/breaking, whining, and out-right telling of mis-truths (often called lying). The contortions of reality she ego-maniacally effuses drives me up a wall, but not nearly as much as trying to understand how it isn’t obvious to all of these starry-eyed grandmothers.

It is because many Hillary supporters are sexist. Women who embrace Hillary as their “voice” may not be thinking with their heads, but with something a little more southerly. The knife cuts both ways, and female misogyny is blinding a vast number of voters from seeing the pubic hair for the bush. Women shouldn’t be making Hillary into a monolithic symbol of vaginal ascendancy. That is akin to putting all of your eggs into one fallopian tube. There are plenty of women out there to get behind so that you can have your woman-president in four more years (once you ruin our chance now to remove the Republican disaster machine from office because you are sore losers).

Defenders of Hillary like to call Obama supporters zealots, tell me then why exit polling shows that Obama supporters are more reasonable when it comes to supporting the Dem nominee in the fall should it not be Obama?

i’m so glad that this election will be focused on whether old ladies will forgive Barack Obama for snatching their woman presidency away from them and on whether he can “make inroads” with the un-educated racist set. It would be a shame to have to resort to the underhanded tactics of outlining a plan for the economy, the war, the environment, health care, inflation, corporate pillaging of federal moneys… etc.

Report this

By Nomdeplume, May 22, 2008 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clinton never said she would obliterate Iran.  She said, in the course of a conversation, when pressed for various reasons as to why she believed that Iran was not a threat, that we had the capacity to obliterate Iran.  That is, they were aware of our military capacity.  Of course, this remark was seized by the Obama campaign to paint her up as a hawk.  When, in fact, her Iraq plan, for example, is far more effective than his.  As many involved in the anti-war effort from the beginning, will attest to.  As for the President of Iran’s reaction, well, clearly he needed better translators, or has his own presidential preferences, as well.  But since when did the preferences of other governments dictate our best interests as a nation?  Especially when the representative speaker is a political idiot?

This article is not a feminist polemic.  With all due respect to the writer, IMO, it’s actually another example, of sexism in the campaign, and sexism legitimized by women, because—if you look clearly at the facts—Hillary Clinton is NOT out of the race by any logical accounting.  Would the media be acting this way if her performance was by a male candidate?  Say, John Edwards, instead?  Nancy Pelosi stated clearly during a recent news conference that both candidates had a good chance of obtaining the nomination.  Yet this statement was ignored by the media.  In fact, the video was even played up as who Obama was picking for a VP candidate, when, in answer to a media question, she clearly stepped away from the context in which the newsperson was attempting to put her answer in.  As yet another example, an article in the NY Times about the Jewish vote in Florida whited Clinton out of the conversation among voters entirely.  This is absurd, since Senator Clinton is highly popular in Florida, and, among Jewish voters.  Senator Clinton has more popular votes than any Democratic primary candidate in American history, and she has already established that she can obtain the electoral vote, while Obama remains highly questionable on that field.  Pretending that a female candidate who is performing at this level of success, and in a historic election, doesn’t exist—if the very essence of sexism—and is tantamount to a coup within the Democratic Party.  A coup only possible because of the degree of sexism that has operated in the campaigning.  And those who aide and abet it.  As this article unfortunately does, too.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

“It’s her, not us”

Just these few words sums it up, and thanks to whomever said them.

Sometime back, in one of the many threads here, a regular poster, (I THINK jackpine savage, but forgive me if it was someone else) said that this campaign thing or ‘fight’ (if that was the word used) was between Hillary and Obama, and not us. (That’s a paraphrase). The important parts of it (or the message that I took from it) was that this was about/between them, and NOT US.

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree with that, because it IS about US, and should ONLY be about US, and unless ALL candidates KNOW, UNDERSTAND, and make that the cornerstone of their efforts, they will FAIL US.

At this point in time, Barack Obama is the only candidate who KNOWS that this election is about US. NOT HIM, NOT HILLARY, but US. ALL of US!!

Report this

By AgathaX, May 22, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That I cannot name the person who will be the next viable female presidential candidate concerns me not at all.  How long have I known Obama’s name?  Not very long at all.  And yet there he is on the cusp of the presidency.  And how long did I know the Clinton name before Bill won the presidency first time?  Again, not long at all.  Neither Obama nor Clinton came up through a process that isn’t wide open to women at the moment.  Women are not unusual in state government, and increasingly are becoming governors, senators and representatives. 

I would prefer that the next candidate not be a former first lady: if you want to be president, go for it; don’t sit back while your husband goes first.  It just doesn’t seem very presidential. 

In this country it doesn’t take much time at all to go from unknown to widely known.  So, she’s out there somewhere.  Her friends probably even suspect her plans and are already saying to each other that if she ever goes for it she’ll be amazing.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

No, he didn’t campaign in either MI or FL, bert.

You don’t know how media blocks work. When you buy media coverage in certain areas, occasionally it will overlap with others. That is the only case of reported Obama campaigning, and it was not his intention.

Furthermore, I noted that every candidate, except Kucinich, signed. Of course Obama would be in that group. You’re not reading again, and just trying to perpetuate lies that have been disproved multiple times.

Report this

By KYJurisDoctor, May 22, 2008 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

ANYONE ELSE BUT BILLARY!

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

A couple of things jps.

There have been several occassions where signs saying words to this effect have been seen at Hillary functions: “Iron Mt Shirt.” That is kind of like ‘making dinner.’

Until your last sentence/jab and putdown this was an excellent post and I could have agreed withh you.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Always good to hear from you tdbach. You are a voice of reason and moderation. I thought you had gone away. Good to have you back.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

“Just better informed, and apparently a lot less insecure than you are.  So, as to the charge of better-informed-than-thou, yes… guilty.”

You forgot to mention that you lack humbleness.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Obama signed it too. And he campaigned in both MI and FL too.

Report this

By marlowe, May 22, 2008 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excellent comment.

Report this

By Sarge, May 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe if she didn’t run some kind of fairy tale smear all in my way sympathize with the possibilty of groundbreaking history campaign she’d be doing much better.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

Felicity, since you brought it up, I thought I would remind all the Clinton people of exactly what the pledge Hillary Clinton signed in 2007 states. So, I will post it, verbatim:

“WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.


THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.”

Every Democratic presidential candidate, except Dennis Kucinich, signed this pledge. Hillary signed away the delegates of Michigan and Florida last year without a batting an eyelash.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Sexism is more tolerated in America, true. There have been some gender-bias comments made at Hillary because it is more accepted; however, I’ve heard plenty of racial epithets and bias thrown Obama’s way. Both have dealt with prejudice in an intimate way, but Obama rose above. That’s merely the fact of the matter.

Be mindful, as well, that I’ve called out on more than one occasion, people drumming up Obama with no substance and rudeness towards Hillary supporters. It would be easier for people like me to remind them of the viciousness of their behavior if myself and other well-spoken Obama supporters weren’t constantly being falsely accused of sexism, being in the ‘cult of Obama’ and generally insulted ad nauseum.

Usually, I like to help people explain their opinions more concisely to win hearts and minds, but it’s hard to guide folks to complete and thoughtful arguments when they are still pissed about being insulted several times by several people for their valid belief.

Report this

By tdbach, May 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

I wasn’t talking about all opposition, let alone any specific individual. You have been an outspoken critic of Hillary from the get go, but I don’t recall you lapsing into sexist drivel. But either you like a good argument so much that you ignore comments from people on your side, or you’re being disingenuous. The vitriol that has spewed in Hillary’s direction on the blogs has been breathtaking.

It has been my observation that the “argument” on the net between Clinton and Obama supporters has boiled down to this: Clinton supporters ridicule Obama supporters; Obama supporters ridicule Clinton, the person (and often in sexist terms). Clinton supporters call Obama supporters pie-eyed cultists, who follow their leader like lemmings. Obama supporters call Clinton a war-mongering, ball-busting bitch, liar, scum-of-the-scorched-earth uber-politician who wouldn’t be where she is if it were not for being married to Bill. Odd, don’t you think?

But it’s that latter impulse – to ridicule the candidate – that ends up coming out in sexist terms so often. No one dares ridicule Obama. They may question his experience, call him on his choice of pastors or choice of words, but they wouldn’t risk a personal assault, because it is too easy to see that as racist. But no one on the other side has any reservation about heaping on the ridicule to Clinton, because sexism, whether intended, implied or accidental, doesn’t carry the same stigma.

Report this

By felicity, May 22, 2008 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Sorry, I’m not really repeating myself.  This site screwed up.

Report this

By felicity, May 22, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Hillary’s latest proclamation sounds oh so very democratic - all votes must be counted.

But, behind the scene, she is insisting that all Florida and Michigan votes be counted while at the same time votes from caucuses be not counted.  If true, this sounds very undemocratic and, true-to-form, very Hillary.

Report this

By felicity, May 22, 2008 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Well, Conservative Yankee, you rather put the lie to all this heated discussion on is-it-sexism-no-it-isn’t-yes-it-is.  Congratulations.

Speaking of megalomania, Hillary does seem obsessed with doing extravagant or grand things, to the point where her obsession seems to cloud any rational thinking she may possess. 

If I heard correctly, her latest gambit is that Florida and Michigan votes must be counted and the votes from caucuses must be discounted, or at least not counted.  She supports her argument with the declaration that every vote should be counted.  Am I making this up?  Did I hear this correctly?

Report this

By tdbach, May 22, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

You know, bert, I’m one of your biggest fans and far more an ally in your arguments than a foe. But I have to differ with you a little here. God knows I’ve read a lot of sexist-tinged rants about Hillary on this blog adn others, but the comments in this string are pretty mild.

I do agree with one point you made: sexist terminology and references are far more accepted in the media than racist ones. The difference is stunning and in the long run this fact did work against Clinton and for Obama. But as I said in another comment, I don’t believe it was determinitive.

Keep up the good fight, though, bert!

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Good points, but Obama’s managerial efficiency and acumen in running his team was no accident. 

For all the hot air about his inexperience, he ran one hell of a campaign.  Responding to issues with the right amount of toughness, making staff changes when necessary, and putting together a fund raising machine.  On the other side, HRC’s campaign was like a bloated old guard company that couldn’t adjust when the market had clearly shifted away from their principal product.

If the only thing by which we have to judged each’s executive capability is they way they ran their campaigns, Obama beats Senator Clinton hands down.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

I swear, it’s absolutely ridiculous how you perceive our outrage, legitimate outrage, at her policy decisions regarding military force is hateful, tbach.

The conclusion you have come to is relieving, but I don’t understand the purpose of the initial statement. When I read about tactical problems with her campaign, war votes, Free-Trade waffling, unrest regarding Hillary supporters talking up McCain and everyone’s completely befuddlement as to how people can focus so much on a gender success story… Hillary has been a success!

We don’t understand what is so wrong with her losing. She’s shown everyone that a Democrat can fight till the end, show tenacity and rise against opposition. How is her loss going to lessen any of those accomplishments? Most Obama supporters are frustrated and annoyed with the campaign tactics, but everything will subside eventually.

It seems a little odd how criticism of Hillary’s policy decisions and campaign tactics is seen as sexist or hate, and racially charged comments about the lies of Farrakhan, mis characterization of Reverend Wright and the focus on Obama’s middle name as part of some anti-semitic/Manchurian candidate are repeatedly defended as valid and without racial prejudice.

That’s what I’m confused about.

Report this

By tdbach, May 22, 2008 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

If the real world is anything like the blogs, than Hillary lost because she is the most reviled person on the planet. Adn when you hate that much, all kinds of nonsense comes sputtering out of your mouth, including sexist drivel that you might otherwise not be inclined to utter.

But fortunately, the real world is a lot more civilized and circmspect than the virtual world. In some fashion sexism may have influenced the vote against Clinton, if only because so much of it clouded the airwaves (the most influencial of media) it might have worked on voter attitudes subliminally. But I think Clinton primarily lost because she was unlucky enough to be challenged by another “first” candidate who happened to be phenominally charismatic and supported by an extraordinarily resourceful and entrepreneurial campaign team who made the most of web technology to raise money and rally the troops. Her failure was more an accident of history than either a personal failure or something “wrong” about us.

She was beat at her own game.

Report this

By middlepath, May 22, 2008 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sexism is the last form of bigotry? I think not. It’s illegal to discriminate based upon one’s sex and upon one’s race. However, it IS legal to discriminate based upon one’s sexual orientation. Just one example.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, May 22, 2008 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

HRC’s campaign suffered from two errors; one strategic, the other tactical.  As for the strategic error it was believed by her campaign staff and advisers that BHO was a candidate akin to JFK in 1956——his time would come, but not now and he would lose support and falter much in the same fashion as JFK in ’56.

The tactical error and perhaps the more critical was portraying herself as the candidate of experience while a majority of the country’s electorate wanted change.  BHO picked up the mantle of change and the rest is history.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Ferraro was a somewhat junior, little known Congresswoman from Queens, NY at the time.  She was a fall back and selected when Dianne Feinstein’s ( husband was found to have engaged in some illegal dealings.  Feinstein still rocks, it was a damn shame.

Having said that, the field is pretty rich with qualified up and coming female candidates: Kathleen Sibelius, Janet Napolitano, Christine Gregoire, Claire McKaskill, among plenty of others, all of whom would be better, more transformative candidates than HRC. 

As far as it goes, I’d love it if Obama were to pick Sibelius, but I’m not sure if Joe and Jane Sixpack is ready to vote for OBAMA/SIBELIUS.  That’s probably too much change all at once.

Report this

By don knutsen, May 22, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think a point is missed when saying its because she’s a woman that she isn’t gaining more ground. Its because this war of Bush’s is something she has continually voted to start and continue funding for years. The public’s dislike for this war of lies is what helped the democrats take back a slim majority in the Congress and that along with a part of her husbands legacy of bending over for big buisness ( Nafta ) that is hurting her. Voting on gender is as stupid as voting based on race. Obama represents a bigger change in direction for the country and a majority of folks know that is what is needed. The women who are mad that another women isn’t going to become president this time are just as short-sighted as the people who say if Obama is the nominee they will vote for McCain ( Bush re-run ).How about we all vote on ideas for a change.

Report this

By TrevorAlan, May 22, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It took a generation after Ferraro because… it was a generation ago. The nation did need to grow and it did.  Dems were destined to loose that race but running Ferraro probably helped both parties get used to the idea of a woman running for the office.  If democrats win without Clinton it will take nearly a generation not because the nation will backslide BUT BECAUSE OBAMA MIGHT BE THE PRESIDENT FOR 8 YEARS.  We all HOPE it will be 2016 before Dems have to go through this primary nonsense again.

but here is the most important things Clinton supporters should be ashamed for not recognizing—There ARE CURRENTLY a large number of women in national political life ready to take the torch from Hillary.  Perhaps in 2016 we’ll see 2 or 3 women vying in the primaries.  Perhaps we need to give one of our female midwest or western governors the party convention keynote speech—always a good springboard for major presidential candidates.

The answer is, if not Hillary, than about a dozen women.

PS—I could have supported Hillary for President, definately over McCain.  But she wasn’t the strongest candidate, many of her positions taken while Senator stand in stark contrast to the progressivism she claims in this race. Are you saying a woman this year is the most qualified or saying damn qualifications, how do we get a woman nominated?

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 22, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Now, bert, no one has used the #1 phrase from The Sexist’s Handbook of Ready Phrases:

“Well behaved women rarely make history, but they always make dinner.”

I’ll agree with you that this campaign has been a sad reflection on the state of the nation in the 21st century…but not for the reasons of sexism or racism.  It is a sad reflection because the problems and issues that face us are so great, yet our politicians and their supporters are so petty.

We are a broke joke, indebted and beholden to the seeds of our own destruction.  We’re tearing up the planet and the lives of countless innocent people to satisfy our petty wants…yet, here we are, wholly concerned with sexism and racism and he said/she said.

A preponderance of sexism isn’t the problem with this election; the dearth of humanism is the problem.  You and Ms. Cocco are NOT part of the solution.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

I’m far from holy.  Just better informed, and apparently a lot less insecure than you are.  So, as to the charge of better-informed-than-thou, yes… guilty.  But honestly, you’re going to allow your own insecurities to dictate whom you need to vote for (or moreover against) because your feelings are hurt?

That’s just pathetic.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

I’m afraid that Hillary’s record is not what she wanted to show to the American people. Had she done so, because she is a qualified and valid candidate, she would have LOCKED UP THE NOMINATION in February like she expected.

Stop this endless finger pointing because it isn’t getting your candidate elected. Hillary lost because she took bad advice from Mark Penn. It isn’t anyone’s fault for perceiving Hillary in a different light because her campaign put a different light on her as a person.

Obama ‘08

Report this

By Gary Lapinsky, May 22, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m afraid you Ms. Cocco is probably correct.  While I realize she is a politician, check out her speech at Wellesley.  She has always tried to make things better for others.  I am willing to bet my paycheck that there are less people with health insurance now than when she tried to reform healthcare in the United States.  As a First Lady, she tried to help people rather than be known for china patterns and designer dresses.  In the Carter Administration Roslyn Carter was criticized for attending her husband’s cabinet meetings.  As a Senator she has shown a willingness to cross the aisle to get things done.  She may have to fill the role in the Senate that Ted Kennedy does now.

In the future, Maureen Dowd and others who have been snarky to Hilary Clinton, are going to find a female candidate they like and she will be relentlessly attacked and they will be shocked.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

•  “Shirley Chisholm, reviled in some circles, was a much more serious choice and an eminently qualified one.  Shirley kicked ass, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.”

YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON IT HERE!!

Shirley was simply too far ahead of the mindset of most American’s at the time, to appreciate her. Talk about kicking ass! She did!! And, she was a feminist to boot!

I guess I never knew why she was reviled in some circles, (or maybe I never really thought about it). But, I have a feeling it was because she was too honest. That can be problematic for many.

I would add just one (for the moment) to your current list of women who would make excellent presidents, and that is Barbara Lee, also from here in California. (upstate). She’s another progressive, and the only one in Congress to vote against the War ON Iraq. She heads up the Out of Iraq Caucas, and she’s pretty amazing. I also don’t think that she would ever run. That’s the way it is with a lot of people who are REALLY good at what they do. They don’t need to hold any power or limelight. They just do what they gotta do. And, I don’t know if we would be even as far as we are, if we didn’t have people like that working on our sides, and for us collectively.

Now CY mentioned that Maine is ‘women friendly’ and I can see that it is. But I’m tootin’ my own state of California here for the moment, because we have now, and have had for a very long time, SOME PHENOMENAL WOMEN in our state’s political administration.

That is why I have a tendency to have quickly become so disgusted with all of these charges of ‘sexism’ ‘sexism’ everywhere is ‘sexism’ because Hillary isn’t winning. It’s all because of ‘sexism’ or the old boy’s club, or whatever! As a 55 year old female who has worked HARD, the majority of my life, and in some very responsible positions, I would still be the LAST person to deny the existence of sexism in this country! Add being a woman of color, and that puts one at the VERY bottom of the socio-economic ladder, or at least it did for quite a long time.

However, so much depends on the times and circumstances and locations of our INDIVIDUAL upbringings and experiences. Like pmeasley, my sister and I were NEVER given ANY indication, (not even the slightest hint of one) that we could NOT do, anything we wanted, unless we somehow decided that we didn’t want to use our brains. But, that was here in California. It was a far different story, (and mentality) that I encountered once I began to move around to live and work in other places of the country.

So, I’m not denying the existence of sexism, NOR am I denying what has always been a patriarchal mentality in the social fiber of this country. Obviously, that is…THE WAY IT WAS! But, as I’ve said so many times before…times change, and quite frequently for the better. It is of no benefit to anyone, to IGNORE those changes, and stay stuck in a past mentality that quite obviously wasn’t GOOD.

Report this

By louis stroud, May 22, 2008 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

there is a woman who could be a fine president, she is currently the governor of alaska——sarah palin
YES!!!! SHE IS THE ONE.

louie-louie

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 22, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

Calling wolf is fooling with reality, you seem to love calling wolf. 

Your candidate sucks big time and you cannot accept the simple fact some folks dislike the Clintons for who they are and what they stand for. (themselves). 

Everyone who can not stand Hillary,  your candidate is a sexist, an argument of frustration, the fact that she seems quite the war monger evades the point.  Her divisive nature ignored in your blindness.  Nope, just plain old sexist. 

In support of Mid Mike City, Hillary voted to go to war, I will not vote for Hillary.  Call me a sexist, call all the Obama supporters sexist, and never address the real issues.

Report this

By HG, May 22, 2008 at 7:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

psmealey writes: “The party base is all of us who protested this obvious and predictable mess of a war while the cowards on both sides of the aisle”

The party base you’re referring to is not dictating this election.  It’s the super delegates, among whom are hiding those cowards you mention.  It’s a convenient place to be for one’s survival wouldn’t you say.

Also, please quit patronizing.  You don’t know anything about me, nor can you extrapolate anything from my statements, to say how I’ve been victimized.  The holier-than-thou attitude you express is what’s alienating the Clinton Democrats and undermining any chance of Obama winning us over.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Well reason, I just got to this comment from you, and it is indeed a keeper.

My sentiments EXACTLY!!

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

bert, you have no idea what sexism is.

You want a better person than Hillary Clinton? Yvette Clarke.

Report this

By cyrena, May 22, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

Well reason, I thank YOU! I so much enjoy participating here, but you have to admit it can be frustrating to listen to these oldsters who just so much want to hold us back, (and I’m 55 myself) based on what has simply NOT worked yet, and has put priorities on things that simply are not the right priorities, FOR THE TIME AT HAND!

And, we need ALL of us thinking progressively. I keep hoping.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

It is sad that sexism is the last form of bigotry to be quashed.  I agree with you there.  But your efforts to paint everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you asa “mean spirited sexist” is an extremist position (not to mention ridiculous).

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

The party base voted with Clinton on Iraq and Iran.

The party base is not in US Houe of Representatives.  It is not in the Senate.  The party base is all of us who protested this obvious and predictable mess of a war while the cowards on both sides of the aisle (except Byrd and Wellstone) cratered to the goading of the President and the media.

Cut it out with the straw men and false dichotomies.  Yes, I know you’re feeling victimized, you’re just not a victim in the way you think you are.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 22, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

Be careful, Ms. Cocco…people have been known to cut themselves pretty badly with Occam’s razor.

Cry us a river of sexism.  Is your progressive soul not enlightened enough to realize that neither sexism nor racism has (or ever will) gone away?

You’re disappointed.  Well, so am i.  I long for the day when a presidential candidate displays wisdom and common sense…when i might be given the opportunity to vote for someone who tells the truth, both big and small.

Somewhere over the motherf*cking rainbow we’ll all get what we want…but it isn’t going to happen here.  It’s like my grandfather says, “Who ever told you that life was fair?”

You don’t care, do you?  As long as you get what you want, the rest of us be damned.  Now how about writing an essay on how the previous sentence illustrates America’s fundamental problem?  No, i didn’t think so…

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

What Marie doesn’t grasp is how all the positives she suggests are really not as important as the negatives of her record to the majority of Americans.

Hillary failed to connect with the majority of Americans. Her fans can be the most fervent and motivated people in the world, but if two people held up a five ton brick with ‘Hillary ‘08’ etched into its side people would look, be impressed and leave.

It’s so frustrating dealing with this residual Clintonitis. You shouldn’t think of this campaign as ‘it’s our turn’ regarding either race or gender. I’m happy for the debate, and enthused about the discussion of these topics. Still, it isn’t just about your specific group. This is about America, and every one of Obama’s supporters would be far more graceful if we were on the losing side.

How can I prove that? Most of us were voting for Kucinich or Edwards beforehand. We’re used to losing good candidates. You guys played the favorite and lost.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

“Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”


Except for one post so far, all (90%) of the posts on Marie’s comments prove her point a billion x billion times over. You proved her point with your inane sexist parroting of phrases straight from the Sexist’s Handbook of Ready Phrases. Look inside yourselves. You are mean spirited sexists. And I include former hero of mine, Robert Scheer in that category.

What this campaign has shown me is that there us less racism in the country today than sexism. Further, it is far more acceptable to express sexism in this country today than racism. This campaign has been a sad reflection on the state of the United States of America in the 21st century. And it is not a pretty picture and will hasten our demise as a world leader.

Report this

By HG, May 22, 2008 at 5:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

psmealey writes: “Of course, the Iraq and Iran resolution votes did not endear her to the party base”

The party base voted with Clinton on Iraq and Iran.  It was the failure of Bush’s prosecution that failed to endear ‘the’ base.

You’re among that party base, predominantly lead by males (including Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, etc. etc.), who are too eager to rewrite history, have us forget their responsibility in the matter, and who find it politically easier to scapegoat a woman than a black man.

Women will have to burn down their cities to get respect in this country.  I hope they begin this summer.

Report this

By reason, May 22, 2008 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, you never cease to impress me with your logical and clear writing. I am a sixty one year old man that has only one hope in this election and that is, that the people of this country will put aside the petty prejudices and do what is right for themselves (our country). Thank you for your writing.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 22, 2008 at 5:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We had the first elected Woman Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, and we have currently two woman Senators. We haven’t elected a woman to the Governor’s chair yet, but give us time. Only one woman ever ran for that position, and she really didn’t want it very much, She is currently our junior Senator.

So my question is this. In a State which has no trouble electing women to high office why did Obama win by a high margin?

Must be latent sexism right?  Or is it that Maine voters saw that HRC is a self-serving megalomaniac who cares for nothing save power and money?

Report this

By reason, May 22, 2008 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

Would I vote for a woman as president?
Yes
Would I vote for a woman because she is a woman?
No
Would I hold a woman to the same standards as man in making my decision to vote for her or not?
Yes
Do I think many women could offer positive qualities as president that many many men lack?
Yes
Would I encourage my daughter to emulate Hilary Clinton?
No
Does Hilary Clinton espouse ethics and values of women who would seek to unite and lead our country in ways that I would be proud and confident in as a citizen?
No
Do I think Hilary Clinton would sacrifice the best interests of our country to be president?
Yes
I THINK HILARY CLINTON REPRESENTS THE VERY SAME INTERESTS THAT HAVE ALL BUT DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY AND IN MOST RESPECTS WOULD NOT SEEK TO CHANGE ANYTHING. IN THIS PRIMARY SHE HAS USED EVERY POLITICAL DEVICE POSSIBLE TO DIVIDE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THE CALCULATED RUTHLESSNESS MANY MEN WOULD FIND HARD TO MATCH (THOUGH I AM SURE THERE ARE SOME WHO WOULD AND COULD).
When we vote, it is an act of faith. There is not any guarentee that the nominee we vote for will honor his or her political promise.
What I have witnessed from many of the nominees of both parties is a willigniess to twist the truth and mock the intelligence of the American people using race, gender and, fear. Hilary Clinton portrays a person who would do anything to promote herself, even at the cost of demeaning herself and her country. Gender is not an issue, her character and integrity are.
I am not a Democrat, I would vote for a Republican if I believed that their nominee was the countrys best hope for a leader that embraces qualities that would serve our country (not just its government).
I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA WITH FERVENT HOPE HE WILL SERVE AS PRESIDENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE, CHARACTER AND DIGNITY HE HAS SHOWN IN THE PRIMARIES.

Report this

By Jim Yell, May 22, 2008 at 5:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am voting for Obama. Not because he is Black and not because he is Male. I am voting for Obama because of the probable candidates he is the only one who hasn’t fallen into step with the crimes of the Bush Administration.

I don’t like Hillary and didn’t like her when she was first lady. She may be likeable in person, but she hasn’t succeeded in being likeable otherwise. However, I was more than prepared to vote for her if she ran, when I thought she was a progressive, but the pattern she has developed over the years since Bill left the White House has been one in hand in glove with Corporate America and against the American People. She voted for a War she should have known was nonsense and then when it became clear that it was nonsense she still refused to repent. Her medical insurance idea is just a reworking of the Pharma plan which is more about keeping Pharmacy and Healthcare profits huge than it is about providing affordable health coverage. It will further push the poor into a corner and for the cost they will get no better treatment than they get at this time, but the Health corporations will make even bigger profits. It is a scam.

If you are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman than you are missing the whole point of the exercise. You want the candidate that is most likely to be progressive and she is not that candidate.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

Agreed, Cyrena (love your posts!).  Cocco is tilting at windmills.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 22, 2008 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

Not surprisingly the Obama machine will portray Clinton’s campaign as failed but 17 million votes is not a failure. 

Straw man.  I agree with Arianna’s piece, it has been enormously successful. The Obama campaign has not been anything less than magnanimous and respectful of Clinton’s campaign, despite Clinton supporters’ pathology in trying to paint it as something else.  But I digress.

As others have said, Clinton’s failure to win the nomination she was so heavily favored to has little to do with her gender and everything to do with who she is and the baggage (fair or not) that is associated with her.  Of course, the Iraq and Iran resolution votes did not endear her to the party base, but she has nevertheless been a good Senator for NY.  Poll after poll has shown that not only has her gender not been a factor, it’s actually been a positive. 

From personal experience, having grown up in Connecticut (Ella Grasso) and then moving to Washington State (Dixy Lee Ray), I am part of a generation that grew up without a mind that there were any limitations to what women could achieve.  I’m just surprised in retrospect that it has taken so long to get here.

I can think of any number of potential future candidates for the Presidency that I would have no problem voting for (Barbara Boxer, Kathleen Sibellius, Olympia Snow ... yes I know she’s a Republican, )

As for Geri Ferraro, she was a relatively little known congresswoman from Queens, NY when she was selected by Mondale.  She was definitely an odd choice for the first female VP candidate, but Mondale’s campaign never really got going anyway.  It was an academic point at best that she was on the ballot.

Shirley Chisholm, reviled in some circles, was a much more serious choice and an eminently qualified one.  Shirley kicked ass, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.

Report this

By louis stroud, May 22, 2008 at 1:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i’ve also thought a woman should be president, not that i’m the national guru to do the selecting, just a small part,but the reasoning is that a woman would be more reluctant to start a war that could be avoided. however hrc is tearing down that wall, she is business as usual in washington, and that means that rich get richer and the poor?, nope only the haves and the have mores, just ask the dumbwaiter, and hrc is just too phony, not sincere, wants only the glory,and look at me stuff,  i’m somebody, well lady that is not what it takes to be president, i’ve noticed she has junked the i’ve got the experience slogan, but that is exactly what we don’t want or need, just take that buick rear bumper and go home.

louie/louie

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook