•  “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.”

That’s really NOT the ‘rationale’ at all Marie, so you’re talking to the wrong people in search for a rationale, because all you really need is a bit of common sense.

It really IS more basic. It’s about TIMING Marie, and it’s about who is the best PERSON for the job right now, and it’s NOT Hillary Clinton, for the same reason’s that it’s NOT John McCain, for the same reasons that we are in the shape we’re in now because of Dick Bush. I really don’t understand why you guys don’t get that.

It’s like this Marie..It IS true that HRC has a ‘polarizing’ persona. On the other hand, she would be an able enough administrator, (and I’d like to believe much better than GWB) and everything would be peachy, if we were in a different reality. Like even 30 years ago. Timing is everything, and her dictatorial and polarizing uncompromising demeanor could have been easy enough to deal with, as long as there weren’t any pressing issues, or more specifically, JUDGEMENT CALLS to make.

So, you really do have to stop pitting this as a decision or ‘inspirational quest’ between a ‘first this’, or a ‘first that’ because we are in truly dire straights in case you hadn’t noticed, and we don’t have time to deal with all of the social niceties of gender and race, when you just need THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON THAT HAPPENS TO BE AVAILABLE, AND WILLING TO DO THE JOB!

Nobody said that out of the 100 or so million US citizens that might actually have the right combination of qualifications for what we need NOW, Obama is the very best. He just happens to be the very best available that is in the running for the job! I’m sure there are others out there, who would probably be even better than him, but it just ain’t Hillary. And if she changed herself into a black male, and get everything else the same, it STILL wouldn’t be Hillary.

What you’re asking us to do here Marie, (as you have for months) is to give Hillary the job, NOT because she’s the best one for it at the time, but because we just need to have a woman in the office.

So, our world is on fire, (because of GW) and we have to have a fireperson, and fast. We can select one that will put it out, (using fire retardants and other things like diplomacy and stuff like that) or we can select a fire chief who will just bring a whole bunch of fuel in with her, and proceed to dump it on the already burning fire that is currently destroying us. You want us to choose somebody who changes their positions on everything from A-Z, all within a week, so that we remain in a constant state of instability, and chaos, and not knowing what she might do from one minute to the next, over someone who has been consistent, while at the same time making it clear that he is flexible enough to deal with changes as they occur.

Marie, you think we’re as stupid as the same people who voted for the assholes that we have in there now. WHY would we do that Marie, if we have other and far better choices?

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

Nope, this question does NOT ‘remain’. The answer is simple enough; for NOW, (because no one else is otherwise qualified among those running) we’ll have Obama. Sorry, he probably has no desire to turn himself into a 60-old white woman, and I can’t say that I much blame him.

Meantime, there are SEVERAL woman who ARE qualified for the job, but they aren’t running. Now when any one of them decides to do that, we’ll hire her. Until then, get over it.

The dynamics of sexism and racism are clearly at play in this election, and so I would expect Truthdig to explore these twin terrors of white male power in the thoughtful and insightful way it does with most everything else it publishes.  Do you publish Reports like this one by Marie Cocco because you really can’t find better-reasoned and more provocative analysis?  “If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?”—these questions should be irrelevant to any voter’s decision-making process for choosing the next President of the United States.  But the best is saved for last: “Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”  Cocco, are you really asking this question or is this just another clever use of false choice?  Do you mean to imply that it’s one or the other, a sexist country or a flawed candidate?  If you’d like this reader’s thoughts (and by your absurd Report I’m fairly confident that you don’t), I’d say it’s quite obviously both: white male power is still around (I don’t mean to state the obvious, but Cocco’s Report forced my hand) and Hillary Clinton is losing potential voters because of her frequent dishonesty, her willingness to pander to fear and prejudice, her support for this war, her threats to Iran, her support of the bankruptcy bill—but that’s enough, huh?  It’s the year 2008, and these people are running for President of 300 million US Americans, not to mention the 6 billion or so other humans whose future is threatened by our country’s disastrous ways.  We all know that this is a crazy moment in history, right?  Why is Truthdig dithering with Cocco’s continued Reports of false reasoning and fear mongering?  We can do better!

It’s Hillary. She lies. All the time. Like Bush.