So for those who maintain that they have nothing against women presidents in general, but object to Senator Clinton in particular, I ask this question:
What women would you endorse for president, were they to enter the race tomorrow.
We’ll set aside his weird hostility towards the safety of the workers who keep this country running and focus on the question. I’ll also ignore that two out of three of his picks are “safe” for a conservative, in that those women couldn’t muster up a decent chance of winning, and even Christine Todd Whitman has managed to alienate some party elite, so possibly all three are candidates he can safely endorse in the hypothetical because he’ll never be called up to endorse them in reality. But I would gladly support Nancy Pelosi if she ran, and governor of Kansas Kathleen Sebelius is getting some attention that indicates that she’s a contender in the future. (I would really love Pelosi, in all honesty. She’s not perfect, of course, but she was right about the war from the beginning, and that buys a lot of credibility with me.) And Clinton has my full support if she wins the nomination—any Democratic contender does, which is why I’m upset by all the dirty politicking going on in the primaries. Someone’s got to win, and when they do, it’s important that their win doesn’t alienate the people who voted for someone else in the primaries, and these kind of dirty politics are polarizing.
There is a reason I bring up possible future candidates of the female persuasion, and it’s to point out that opposition to sexist pandering against Clinton isn’t an endorsement of her, nor is it just about patting one’s self on the back for one’s righteous feminism, though the latter is not an unproductive way to spend your time. It’s about good politics and long-term thinking, which we need a lot more of. Because if we luck out and get to support Candidate Pelosi or Candidate Sebelius in the near future for a presidential bid, we can expect that these images will immediately be transferred from being anti-Clinton to anti-whatever-Democratic-woman-is-running.
There are Republicans out there who find this sort of sexism distasteful, just as there are those out there who are pro-choice. Unfortunately for them, they’ve been effectively shut out of the party at large, which has banked on fear-mongering over gender as a vote-getter in an environment where they represent an elite minority and oppose the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. Women are an attractive scapegoat to a percentage of working class men who feel emasculated by the decreasing opportunities in America, and the Republicans are not about to give that up.
By the way, the CUNT website has the ubiquitous modeling pose that appears on 99.5% of right wing websites hawking T-shirts—skinny white woman with big boobs, wearing a tight T-shirt (maybe a big of belly skin) and otherwise sporting clothes that make you flinch because they are so tacky. It’s embarrassingly transparent. But then again, so are a lot of right wing artifacts, like the Confederate flag.
They don’t do us the favor of being subtle, and yet there’s still this fair-and-balanced tendency to try to take this crap seriously.
On another note: I suspect the belief that open racism won’t show its face like open sexism will was an overblown hope.
104 Responses to “Can we keep the sunroof on the glass ceiling open?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
State Senator Sheila Kuehl of California would be high on my list. So would Rep. Barbara Lee, whom I’d far, far prefer to Pelosi. Oh, and I was really impressed with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) a few years ago when she ran for Minority Leader against Pelosi and Harold Ford.
There’s a lot of women that I’d rather see running than Hillary Clinton, including Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano, and Christine Gregoire.
Unfortunately, I think that women have a much harder time running for president, so I don’t know if any of them could make a credible run for the nomination. In particular, Gregoire and Sebelius would be strong candidates if they were men. Maybe things will change by 2016.
All viable. That’s why I’m both not concerned and concerned about all the banking on Clinton for a shot at a female President. On one hand, I think there’s a good chance she could flame out for reasons that are only partially about her gender in a general, and that will get rewritten to be all about gender and no other woman will get run forever and ever. But if she does well in the primaries but is beaten by Obama, I don’t know, I think it will not be as much a gender issue. It won’t hook as much. Of course, if she wins a general, that’s a big fuck you to the sexists. I think it’s possible, but she doesn’t really get people going like Obama does.
She’s much too liberal for national office but my Reb. Jan Schakowsky
That’s ReP Jan Schakowsky
Senator Barbara Boxer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I also like Gov. Sebelius (she’s unjustly ignored, IMO) and Gov. Janet Napolitano. These women are extremely highly qualified to run for president.
It’s so nice when the assholes actually wear signs. I’d love to see some guy wearing one of those tee shirts.
Something just occurred to me - as regrettable as it is to see this particular insult(the C-word) expressed in public, the mere fact that these people are ripping of their mask of civility and showing us their true colors reveals how close we really are to change, and how scared some people are of it.
And, of course, now we can much more easily say, “your civility was just a front - and it always was”.
p.s. This observation applies to the embarrassing racial stuff I’ve read people saying about Barack Obama lately, too.
Would you believe that it took me three readings of the “I Love Country Music” shirt to get the intended meaning? I kept associating Hillary’s face with the whole word “country” because she’s running for President of the COUNTRY.
Colour me naive.
As ginmar notes above, it’s nice when the assholes wear signs.
I used to think that Diane Feinstein would have made a good choice as POTUS.
However, the last decade has shown the folly of my thinking…
Having enough women as senators, governors, and VPs - so that being female and in those positions of power is not seen as unusual, is the key to a smooth POTUS campaign for a worthy woman.
But when it’s unusual for women to be corporate officers, when there have only been a relative handful of women who have ever held national office, a small number of women who have been state governors, and only one serious VPOTUS candidate ever - That’s not enough.
It’s embarrassing that several other countries have had women as head of government - why not the US?…
I see nobody’s mentioned Senator Claire McCaskill yet, though she’s backed Obama and she’s getting rave reviews.
One thing about Obama; if he wins the nomination, he might pick Sebelius as his VP; she could add the Midwest and other red states. With Hillary, there’d be no chance of that.
Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano - both popular govs of red/purple states who’ve made a good impact. I thought of McCaskill too, though I don’t know as much about her politics as I should to say I’d endorse her tomorrow. I’d be ambivalent about Pelosi, but I would support her, if not endorse her.
Also - i clicked on that last link - how disgusting. And how telling that it’s not (only) coming from the places that a lot of progressive assume will be the most racist (rural, southern) but from a paper from the New York outer ‘burbs.
I’m with PixelFish on misunderstanding what Hillary’s pic on the T-shirt was supposed to mean for the longest time.
Those T-shirts make me ill. I suppose they are good as assberet-labels, but the fact that they exist at all makes me so very sad.
Maybe it’s me, but that model pose looks like a crude Photoshop job rather than a woman actually wearing the shirt. (The lines of the logo and text are all perfectly straight rather than following the contours of the fabric, the colors are too perfect, and the angle of the logo doesn’t match the angle of the model’s torso.)
Which suggests that they couldn’t find an actual woman willing to wear the shirt. (And yet, they hide behind the idea that a woman would wear the shirt as if that proved it wasn’t sexist.)
Hmm. Good question. I’d vote for Barbara Boxer (probably not Feinstein though), and I’ve heard good stuff about Jennifer Granholm, but I think she was born in Canada. Hell, I’d vote for Nancy Pelosi, although my confidence in her commitment to doing stuff right is not high at the moment. Sebelius is a strong candidate too. And I’d give Christine Gregoire a decade more, but then I’d totally vote for her, if she keeps going the way she’s been.
And I’ll probably vote for Clinton in the primaries, because Kucinich dropped out and I really don’t care which one wins — I might as well throw my vote against sexism.
JP, I think in their circles the expectation that women play along with the idea that we’re all one misstep away from being relegated to cunt status is so much a given that there’s no way this was an attempt to undercut the sexism. I think it was just an attempt to feed into a larger narrative of tying lust for women to hatred of them.
Blue Jean, don’t you think Obama as well as Clinton, if nominated, would pick a white guy from a red state as a running mate? And even if the nominee were gutsy enough to be open to Sebelius, Kansas is still crimson, with not enough electoral votes to be worth chasing (assuming you believe that Veep candidates bring in their own states; they haven’t been reliable for Democrats on that front lately).
Right now, my dream ballot is Clinton-Obama, in only that I think Clinton is both much, much tougher than she’s given credit for, and not the evil, heartless robot she’s so often painted as. I don’t agree with her every decision/voting record, but completely understand why she’s made the choices she had (as Amanda has pointed out earlier, I think, it’s easier for Edwards to be more liberal than both Clinton and Obama precisely because he’s a white male, and his identity politics so less threatening than either of them.) She also does have more experience, and I think Obama could use the time as VP to season himself and put himself in a great position to run for President in either 2012 or 2016.
That said, I would easily welcome an Obama-Clinton ticket as well. Or an Obama-Edwards. Or a Clinton-Edwards. Hell, I kind of like all of them. JUST GIVE ME A DEMOCRAT, PLEASE.
Blue Jean: McCaskill gets a definite thumbs-down after her vote this week to grant retroactive immunity to telecoms (in the FISA debacle). So, too, do Feinstein and Off-the-Table Pelosi.
One woman I’d vote for, though she’s a long way from actually being a national candidate, is NY City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Top of my list is Digby, though, if she were crazy enough to accept.
Alas, what I hope will happen and what usually does happen are often totally different things. I don’t know if Obama will even win the nomination, let alone who he will pick, but I still say there’s a better chance of Sebelius being chosen as his VP then being chosen as Hillary’s VP. A black guy and a white woman might go over; a couple of white women, never.
Besides, how many big shot white guy Democrats from red states would be willing to be VP, regardless of who the top spot goes to? Probably not Edwards, maybe Richardson, but outside of that, who knows?
Of course, Obama could always pick Bill as his VP; and wouldn’t that make everyone freak out?
Hillary does have to fight the perception that she’s this Total Bitch of the Western World, and her husband’s comments about Obama are seriously not helping.
So why does Bill–a politician of extraordinary talent–run his mouth like this? Honestly, I couldn’t imagine him saying stuff like this when he himself was in office.
I’m just guessing (and could be wrong), but: The assumption’s always been that he’s got his wife’s back, but what if he doesn’t? Is it possible that he’s trying to tank her campaign?
I think Bill’s trying to put the ideas out there as memes, but somehow hoping that if HE says them they won’t be quite so tied to Hillary. Which makes him a little off his game, yes.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he’s just a little ambivalent about going back into the fishbowl, all things considered.
Geez, I feel dumb. I didn’t get the “country music” shirt either until I read these comments. I guess that isn’t the word that pops into my mind when I see her picture. I have to wonder how many people have the nerve to wear something like that in public. Besides being vulgar they might also cause some serious fighting.
UI, I suspect they only wear them at the kinds of functions where everyone’s screened for functioning brain cells at the corral gate…
I got it only because I live in the city in the swamp and I’m quite familiar with how the reptiles and amphibians think.
And I take about seven showers a day during political season, just to be able to walk.
I’m not an American so I don’t have a vote, but if I did, I simply couldn’t vote for Hillary.
That 29 years ago I was delighted to vote for Margaret Thatcher (and again several more times subsequently) to be Prime Minister might show though that it’s because I’m a rightie, not a sexist.
I don’t know that much about them, but McCaskill and Sebelius both strike me as people that Democrats should look at seriously in the future. Sebelius is quite popular in very red Kansas and has roots in Ohio (he father was governor there). If it is Obama vs. Romney, she would be a pretty logical VP choice. McCaskill beat a Republican incumbent in a red to purple state that is demographically a lot like the country as a whole. Her opponent didn’t self-destruct either, so that is arguably the most impressive Dem Senate win of 2006.
It is also worth noting that it is not as if there is a long list of Democrats who are clearly strong Presidential candidates in the future (Obama and Mark Warner are all I can think of now), so there could be a big opening for someone like Sebelius or McCaskill in four or eight years.
Tim,
I don’t know that much about politics in the UK, but here “rightie” and “sexist” pretty much go together. You’ll find some sexists who aren’t right wing, but virtually none going the other direction.
Ok, let’s nip the “Bill as VP” idea in the bud. The only qualification for VP is that one be qualified to be President. Bill’s served two terms and is therefore disqualified. I think he’d be a fantastic Secretary of State, though. And Edwards for Attorney General, Biden at Interior, Clark as Chief of Staff. And if you really want to see RW heads explode, Joe Wilson as NSA and Valerie Plame as CIA Director of Operations. Any other ideas for Dream Cabinet?
If you look at the progressive blogopshere, this is a much bigger problem when it comes to race…
Way too many people think black people are monolithic in tastes and political preferences. We don’t always vote for the black canidate, you know, and my defense of Obama tended to be taken as direct political support for Obama rather than just an interest in not seeing a brother unfairly maligned, no? I want to vote for Edwards, and I would bet that many black people in many states liked what Clinton and Edwards had to offer. However, Clinton has made it increasingly repellent for many black people to support her, and for me, Edwards is increasingly appearing less viable, such that, given I want to vote against Clinton more than I want to vote for Edwards at this point, I will probably vote for Obama. Everyone makes strategic decisions based on needs, wantsm, likelyhoods and they vote based on a matrix of vectors. It’s easier to say sexist/racist, when you’re not the woman or minority doing the voting…
If you want to see a silly analysis on these lines, check out Ian Welsh’s latest blog post about South Carolina. Usually, making a bunch of facile points based on really shallow reasoning, and then making the I’m-mature, of-course-it’s-not-pc-but-it’s-real, realpolitik capper on that shitty reasoning is the province of wingnutty people. Eh, given how many people that I respect in the progressive blogosphere are making themselves so silly, especially among the DKos oldtimers, I just have to assume it’s primary fever.
A much more fun variant of the question Amanda highlighted above would be:
——-
So for those who maintain that they have nothing against minority presidents in general, but object to Senator Obama in particular, I ask this question:
What minority would you endorse for president were they to enter the race tomorrow?
——-
Even though minorities are, given a very conservative estimate, 35% of the country, we should see oh, say 5 names at least. Barbara Lee was the only minority woman mentioned above. I could only think of Deval Patrick, Bill Richardson, and Ken Salazar (and the last is *very* white hispanic). I can’t think of any of the Congressional Black Caucus with any real national exposure, though I’ve gotta be skipping one or two, but the western women senators and governers all have real political machines behind them that any of the CBC can only envy. It is also fustrating how much more access to machines that republicans give to minorities like JC Watts, Mel Martinez, and Bobby Jindal, when the most notable long term machines that have backed minorities over the years have almost all been at the mayoral level, and very few have really been handed down to successor politicians after the death of the machine’s creator.
Just another spin.
RobW, Sushi No Gakusei, how exactly did I manage to miss the Bill Richardson presidency? Is it like 2015 or something?
Most all of the women mentioned would be good choices (maybe not Feinstein, but the others).
But I’m old enough to have felt that Pat Schroeder, Elizabeth Holtzman, Shirley Chisholm, and Geraldine Ferrarro all would have been good choices as well.
don’t you think Obama as well as Clinton, if nominated, would pick a white guy from a red state as a running mate?
I’ve been thinking it’ll be Webb for weeks now. You have to think about which states were *that* close to going Kerry last time around, as well as which states are transforming demographically. If a native daughter or son can deliver just those few electoral college votes needed …well, that would be the safest route to take. They’re probably looking at Virginia, Colorado, etc. in addition to Florida and Ohio.
There’s not a single woman who can do what’s needed to be done to make a TRUE frontrunner of herself without being seen as a cunt. Period. The only woman that any man could “really” get behind is a woman who he can pat on the head as the game and plucky second-place finisher.
Sorry, ladies (and gentlemen). Clinton is what you need to be to have a snowball’s chance of winning: a REAL POLITICIAN. Call her or her politics whatever you like, but if she doesn’t do it, ain’t no woman EVER gonna do it. Get over your post-feminist selves about how you’d lurve to vote for a woman, just not THIS one.
She is doing what needs to be done to win — as a woman, and as a serious politician who honestly does want the brass ring. And no, she’s not all that awful and evil and “oh but I just wish she were truer to her feminist roots and I’d vote for her in that event.” In that event, she wouldn’t even have gotten this far — like every other female candidate in the history of the country, she’d be a safe little loser who bowed out before the first debate ever made it on the air for lack of any funding or anyone but a few feminist die-hards even knowing she was in the race.
I’m serious. I truly, truly do think that if Clinton doesn’t do it, we’d just better resign ourselves to voting for pro-choice men, and acting like we like it, because it’s the best we’ll ever get. Sucking up to men who like us enough to call themselves pro-choice, and hoping that as we demonstrate how Devoted And Loving we are, Mr. Sir will have the scales fall from his eyes and see how wonderful we have been all along, just like in the fairytale. Or else we stay in the rose-colored Realm of Denial where we can pretend that because we went out of our way not to vote for the woman, it means that every man out there will see out empowerful post-feminist ass and recognize us for the real tough take-no-prisoners feminist deal. Don’t, like, mess with me! I’m, like hardcore!
Sorry, but I see no alternative to that. We kick its ass now, or we get used to being the Sidekick Chick for the rest of our fucking lives. I wasn’t exactly happy with Clinton when she decided to run, mostly because I didn’t feel like having my post-feminist covers yanked. Because I didn’t feel like having her expose the horrific shit under the “we’re all like equal, right?” hypocrisy of the liberal left. And because I didn’t feel like having to stare women in the face who would pull this “anyone but her” shit, thus condemning our entire gender to playing second fucking fiddle in American politics for the rest of MY goddamned life. Can’t she just stay a Senator? Can’t she just do that and let me think the glass ceiling is gone and not have to confront this because I have to get up and go to work tomorrow and don’t have the goddamned TIME for this? Can’t we all just stay in our happy denial bubble and keep voting for pro-choice men? Fucking HELL, Hillary — thanks for nothing.
But you know what? SHE DIDN’T. She WANTS that post, she’s QUALIFIED, and fuck it — why the hell shouldn’t she run? If she were a man, she’d be the motherfucking shoe-in candidate. But because she’s not, we’re got men walking around in CUNT shirts and women proving how empowerful they are going, “I’m not gonna vote for her JUST BECAUSE she’s a woman!” and thereby NOT voting for her for that reason, and white guys besides themselves over the opportunity to campaign for a black MAN and thus wallow in the Very Special Wonderfulness that comes from being able to prove one’s liberal cred AND hate pussies at the same time.
The whole thing is fucking disgusting. Fucking shame on AL OF US — me included for being pissed with Clinton initially for forcing me to see all this, for bringing it up, and MAKING me have to watch all this shit go down. It’s all fucking sickening.
Just off the top of my head: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Carol Moseley-Braun.
Looking over the thread I don’t know how I forgot Rep. Barbara Lee. Is she likely to be at some point viable, do you think? What about Lynn Woolsey, for that matter?
Gov. Sebelius (she’s unjustly ignored, IMO)
I think she may start getting some attention before long. Tomorrow she is slated to give the response to the State of the Union address and that could be something of a breakout moment.
I’m not a huge fan of Hillary, although I really, really want to like her. I just can’t. That said, if she’s the nominee, I’ll support her and do my part with the local organization (calling, going around neighborhoods, etc). Unfortunately, Kucinich is out and it’s looking less and less likely that Edwards has a chance. I’d prefer Obama to Hillary, but I can live with her being the nominee.
However, if I could pick any woman I wanted, I like Marcy Kaptur (my own rep.–she’s not as liberal as I’d like, but she’s got some great ideas, is really personable, and would be a good leader, I think), and Maxine Waters. I know she probably wouldn’t have a hope in hell of winning, but I absolutely adore her. I also like most of the others mentioned above.
Jennifer Granholm is pretty good, although the republicans in the MI legislature have doomed every effort she’s made to turn the state’s economy around, plus, she is Canadian, so not eligible anyway. Pelosi would have my support, but I’ve been severely disappointed in her as majority leader. And I don’t know enough about the others to say anything either way.
There’s a confusing typo….
Janis, it’s early in my day but you’ve already won the thread.
(In such a delightful fashion that, if I weren’t already married to a woman who’s way smarter than I am, I’d be asking for your number.)
Yes, the attributes that make a person want to sit in (what used to be) the world’s most powerful chair make that person not-nice. Yes, sexism dictates that a woman who isn’t nice and compliant is…what’s that nasty word again? Maybe I should buy a t-shirt to remind myself.
Oh, and whoever referred to Marcy Kaptur above, seconded.
Though I think that we might be better off trying to send a woman who is verifiably hetero through the sunroof.
But if gender is off the table, then I want a Kaptur/Kiehl ticket.
re: Christine Gregoire
Gregoire is my governor, and she has all the charisma of over-boiled spinach.
I think a president should PROJECT a little bit more. Pelosi, H.Clinton, plenty of other f.politicians have much more PRESENCE than Gregoire, for god’s sake. Also, she had a tough time beating an obvious Rethuglican neon-drathal in Washington State, I don’t think there’s any way she’d make it on the national scene.
Also, I don’t think she has the sheer stamina required. Hillary looks like she could punch through a mountain in comparison.
We have a tradition of electing wonkish govs here in Washington.
Amanda- were you aware Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques in 2002 and didn’t have a problem with it?
I would vote for Rep. Louise Slaughter for President.
MikeEss:
The statistic I saw was THIRTY ONE, but that may have been individual chief executives, not different countries.
I-CAN’T-STAND-Hillary. Never have, never will. But I’m not voting for a pal- if she gets the nod, she’s got my vote.
But if she wanted the job, this woman is someone I respect and listen to whenever she is on C-SPAN or any of the various talking bobblehead shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jackson_Lee
Phoenix, I’ve just gotten sick and effing tired of women holding other women to far, far, far higher standards than those to which we hold men,and then wondering why MEN continue to stab us with swords when we’re so fucking anxious to fall on them ourselves. Fucking HELL.
Politics requires gamesmanship and juggling of one’s opinions.
If we aren’t willing to do that, and to support a woman who is PRETTY MUCH THE BEST WE’LL EVER HAVE WITH A SNAIL’S CHANCE OF WINNING, then we should just shut the fuck up and stop whining about how bad we have it and boo-fucking-hoo we’re so disempowered.
And I won’t even go near how we’re holding her to far, far, higher standards than those to which we would hold ANY MALE POLITICIAN. Is this an excuse so that when she loses, as we secretly fear she will, we can pretend we meant for it to happen so it’ll hurt less?
As for the shirts, this is the same sort of “hyuck-hyuck” mentality of some of the men in my family. My mom’s favorite nephew/”son” is fond of saying, “Can’t-Understand-Normal-Thinking” in regards to women as a whole. Charming.
Could someone try and explain how Barbra Lee could possibly be POTUS? Might as well add Cynthia McKinney to the list.
I won’t even go near how we’re holding her to far, far, higher standards than those to which we would hold ANY MALE POLITICIAN. Is this an excuse so that when she loses, as we secretly fear she will, we can pretend we meant for it to happen so it’ll hurt less?
Janis, if you keep this up we’re going to have to take it somewhere more private (/swoon). My wife won’t put up with another woman inspiring me to shouts of ‘Yes!’
The conscious feminist is placed in a bind by Hillary: We said we wanted a woman to shatter the upper limits. But as long as we don’t want THIS woman, as long as we can disavow HER, our beliefs about having overcome sexism in its rankest form can remain intact when she loses. If she loses because of her gender, not her imperfections, we all lost and we’re not doing enough.
Denial is a wonderful thing.
So, Isopluvial, does owning a vagina disqualify you for POTUS, or is it specifically the combination of having a vagina and being Black?…
What sort of comments has Bill Clinton been making of a racist nature lately? The only thing I remember hearing about was that Jesse Jackson thing (which seems to be getting a little overblown). What else has he said?
Or maybe I missed the context of the Jesse Jackson thing and that somehow made it worse than it originally sounded to me? What’s so scandalous about saying that a southern state with a large black population and a history of picking black candidates in primaries is probably going to do it again?
Would you believe that it took me three readings of the “I Love Country Music” shirt to get the intended meaning? I kept associating Hillary’s face with the whole word “country” because she’s running for President of the COUNTRY. - PixelFish
Me too. I thought the connection between “country music” and Clinton was an AK Hillbillies sort of joke, and figured the sexism was that they didn’t also put on a picture of Bill Clinton, who is the actual rural-Southern-American.
Sorry, ladies (and gentlemen). Clinton is what you need to be to have a snowball’s chance of winning: a REAL POLITICIAN. Call her or her politics whatever you like, but if she doesn’t do it, ain’t no woman EVER gonna do it. Get over your post-feminist selves about how you’d lurve to vote for a woman, just not THIS one.
Well excuse the fuck out of me, I didn’t know you’d been given a direct line to the future! But you can stop condescending. I am not a “post-feminist,” I am a feminist, and I do not need you to tell me I’m not a feminist because I’m not voting for Clinton. You know why? Because what she has done is RACE BAITING. No one in the goddamn democratic party should be rewarded with the nomination for that shit. Clinton’s had to put up with a ton of unfair sexist bullshit, but none of it has come from the Obama camp. Much of the race stuff, however, has originated with her people. And that is TOTALLY unacceptable to me.
And secondly, it is absurd to say that if Clinton can’t get it, no one can. All the women I listed have as good a chance or better of getting. You’re damned right that I would vote for a woman, but not this one. (At least not in the primary - I’ll vote for whoever the Dems put up in the general.)
Neither. I could go for Diane Feinstein, or even Gregoire, or Maxine Waters. But Barbra Lee isn’t qualified IMHO.
“…but none of it has come from the Obama camp.”
Jesse Jackson Jr. isn’t part of Obama’s campaign?
“Is this an excuse so that when she loses, as we secretly fear she will, we can pretend we meant for it to happen so it’ll hurt less?”
Yeah.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why any progressive would want the Clintons back on office for a third term; other than an awesome economy (which I admit I benefited from) the eight years of the Bill & Hillary co-presidency resulted in decidedly anti-liberal policies. Rather than looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses maybe we need to remind ourselves of the horrible legislation the Clinton’s passed back then:
* Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - The federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses.
* Communications Decency Act - Criminalized “indecent, but not obscene” speech.
* Telecom Reform Act - Eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.
* Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act - Limited welfare funds to no more than 24 consecutive months and no more than 60 months over a lifetime.
* Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) - Had a tremendous impact on the law of Habeas Corpus in the United States by limiting the power of federal judges to grant relief
* Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Allowed states and the Federal government to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages. Bill Clinton’s pre-signing statement on DOMA, “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.”
* Waco Siege - A month-long fiasco that ended with the deaths of more than 80 men, women, and children. This was the deadliest government action taken against American citizens on U.S. soil since the Civil War.
* Extraordinary Rendition - Clinton authorized the kidnapping and transport of persons to foreign countries to be tortured. Refer to the ACLU Fact Sheet on Extraordinary Rendition at: aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html
* Regardless of how your feel about Bill “getting a little” on the side, the way he humiliated Monica and tossed her under the bus by calling her a liar wasn’t gentlemanly particularly when you consider the fact that Monica adored and idolized Bill.
* Controversial pardons and commutations signed on final day in office.
* And so on…
========================
“I could go for Diane Feinstein, or even Gregoire, or Maxine Waters. But Barbra Lee isn’t qualified IMHO.”
If you thought GWB was “qualified”, your judgment as far as POTUS goes is highly questionable.
There are very few people on this planet who could have done a worse job than The Boy King…
Yep, folks, we’re going to rip away the pearls and pumps and the pastel suit and the lying foundation garments and then we’re going to show you Ye Abhorrent Partes in all their full monstrosity!!! Tremble with dismay!!!
…or something like that.
Edwards for Attorney General, Biden at Interior, Clark as Chief of Staff. And if you really want to see RW heads explode, Joe Wilson as NSA and Valerie Plame as CIA Director of Operations. Any other ideas for Dream Cabinet?
My “Deam Cabinet” includes Kerry as Attorney General (ex-DA, led the BCCI investigation). My first choice for Edwards would be VP. Barring that…hm…he’d be great at Labor, but that’s not a very high profile gig…yeah, I guess Attorney General would be good. Dean for Surgeon General, especially if they move health care reform and management under the Surgeon General’s office.
What rjl said. Jan Schakowsky rocks.
Not only is she liberal, she’s a good soldier. When the decent Democrats split their vote between two candidates and allowed a right-wing DINO to get the nomination for governor in 1998, Schakowsky was out there, gamely trying to get liberals to vote for the guy. (I didn’t, but I gave her props for trying.)
That’s funny, I could have SWORN Obama said something about Clinton playing the gender card. In any case, there’s a bit of difference between race-baiting coming from “Clinton’s people” and race-baiting coming from Clinton herself. If she’s not saying it, she’s the one we’d be voting for… what’s the damn problem?
However, Clinton has made it increasingly repellent for many black people to support her, and for me, Edwards is increasingly appearing less viable, such that, given I want to vote against Clinton more…
Help me out here. What is newly repellent about Hillary? Yes, I understand that many people of all colors have characterized her campaign as engaging in racism as a tool.
I’m sincerely asking this as a committed anti-racist activist who isn’t black. I’m asking you because you have shown yourself to be thoughtful and resistant to knee-jerk thinking. (Although if you want to put on your official www.blackpeopleloveus.com Speaks For Black People hat, feel free)
Seriously, while I get that referring to Obama as ‘clean and articulate’ was racist, the racially coded attacks on him that I can think of have come from Charles Rangel and Bob Johnson…who, I’m positing, neither Bill nor Hillary has the power to stop. (Because it’s not about this race, or about Race–it’s about Obama’s failure to kowtow to their version of how a black man gets his shot at power.) So I’m not following how those attacks make Hillary repellent.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/27/roland.martin/
Said far better than I can- caught the discussion live between Martin and Bernstein on CNN last night.
What’s “newly repellant” is that Hillary’s husband is out on the campaign trail, not detailing HER particular messages, plans and ideas, but using the media like this, to stir the pot and divide the Democrats. And by remaining silent rather than shutting him up, she’s condoning every word falling out of Bill’s mouth.
I’m with PhoenixRising. What was so dastardly about Hillary’s pointing out, with perfect accuracy, that it took a president who was committed to civil rights before actual, measurable progress took place?
As for Charles Rangel, he’s a useless grandstander. (I admired the late Steve Gilliard no end, but I was really annoyed by his snottily dismissive attitude towards Obama. It seems like more than a few New York-based African American liberals, like Rangel and Gilliard, are absurdly provincial when it comes to Obama.)
“http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/27/roland.martin/”
You should follow the trail and read what they’re actually saying versus what reporters are SAYING that they’re saying (the referenced AP article is fairly tame). There seems to be an effort on in the media to engage in the same mischaracterization of words that the right has been practicing for decades. Whether Obama is behind it or not I do not know (I’d be impressed in a way if he were), but he’s certainly reaping the benefits of it.
I think I just need to avoid political diaries everywhere from now till the general. The rose-colored glasses and double standards and people just swallowing whatever crap narrative the media feeds them are getting on my last nerve.
We’ve got Huckabee and Mitting give me an effing break Romney running for president and people are caviling about the qualifications of democratic women governors, senators and representatives?
Actually, the Constitutional amendment says nobody can be elected President more than twice, so if Bill was elected VP, and something happened to the top spot, Bill would be free to serve as President, as long he didn’t stand for election as President again.
But I’m afraid Jennifer Granholm’s out no matter what you think of her. She was born in Canada, and you’ve got to be a native born American.
If she were a man, she’d be the motherfucking shoe-in candidate.
If Hillary Clinton was a man, we would have already had a female president…
…which is all by way of saying, she wouldn’t even be a contender without her primary experience as Bill Clinton’s spouse.
Interesting that you would endorse the Head Speaker of the House right now this minute. I don’t care about the gender of the Speaker of the House. I care that they actually take their JOB seriously. The fact that the Speaker of the House has taken IMPEACHMENT off the table and refuses to acknowledge the criminal actions of the President, yeah REAL ISSUES with that.
And that you would endorse her for doing so? WTF is wrong with you? THIS is why our country is going down the damn toilet.
“If Hillary Clinton was a man, we would have already had a female president…
…which is all by way of saying, she wouldn’t even be a contender without her primary experience as Bill Clinton’s spouse. ”
Oh please. Men benefit through nepotism all the time, whether they gain traction through their fathers, brothers or cousins. Or through their membership in all male clubs, elite school chums or drinking buddies. Really, let’s cut the shit when it comes to nepotism. Yes, one women has broken the ranks through her connection with powerful men, men do this as a matter of course and no one bitches about it.
PhoenixRising, it’s mostly the pattern of emphasizing that Obama is the “black” canidate, especially with tactic of damning with faint praise.
As far as more specific stuff, go to jack and jill politics at blogspot…plenty of stuff like this http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/medias-three-fifths-compromise.html
As far as more personal connections, ie friends and family, is concerned, the time-period around the time Bob Johnson alluded to Obama being a drug dealer is what sunk the Clinton campaign. The use of black subordinates to try and tear down Obama’s image was the crucial element that fueled genuine antipathy. Alot of the other stuff, like Clinton’s fairy, and Cuomo’s jiving, were disliked, but you know…politics. It’s just that, once you really cross that line, you can’t uncross it.
Personally? I was a long ways ahead of most people, since I was pretty familiar with the Clinton (especially as I was a forensic debator during the latter half of the Clinton years) era. I’ve gone over alot of the stuff he did in my head in the years since as well. I knew from the start that Bill Clinton had a terrible habit of throwing people (especially women) under the bus–Sister Souljah, Zoe Baird, Jocelyn Elders, Lani Guineer , etc. He also never really supported the women he put in place as well, like Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, or on occasion Madelene Albright. While the big stuff was with women, he also backed off on quite a bit of gay and minority rights issues.
My image of Hillary, is obviously influence by what I think of Bill. I was willing to support Hillary, if not very enthusiastically because of all the establishment connections she has… I was largely prepared to think of Hillary seperate from Bill. However, when she shows the same interest in expediency that her husband does, it puts me off.
Towards the larger elements of my personal antipathy, I empathise so much with Obama. I was the only black person in the AP courses in high school, and I was the only black guy in my entire engineering college at Georgia Tech. I personally came face to face with many of the media issues that Obama has. Being that “black guy”. People being alot more happy that they have a “black guy” on their team than that he might have opinions. Having to be as unthreatening to people as possible because attitudes change just like that. Not being thought of as very black since aside from my time at Morehouse, I wasn’t exactly hanging around very many black people. Most of my friends were jewish, east asians, and a few western asians. The general campaign to make people see in terms of ethnicity reminded me very much why I don’t have many white friends. Just too much bullshit comes with it.
The last part is that way too many supporters of Hilary Clinton (not her fault, but still accrues to her detriment) adopts such a complete tool atitude along the lines of Peter Beinert. That kind of idiotic we’re the knowlegable ones and you’re just some sort of Obamamaniac (even when the person supports someone else). There was way to much condescending support of sleaze such as : Who ya going to vote for anyways…Huckabee? If Obama can’t take the heat, maybe he should just go away.
Bitter Scribe…The MLK/LBJ thing is not anything like an accurate analogy. One, MLK more or less forced LBJ’s hand. JFK or Nixon will have almost certainly signed something similar, because they wanted to hold the largest coalition, and the CRM was part of the largest coalition of voters.
Hillary Clinton as some kind of Ceres is not appealing. She’s running for president, not for Supreme Benovolent Dictator who gets to hand out candy. It is a strong reminder of the struggles that H Dean had as he worked that Democratic Party Leadership and the 50 states movement, and just where Clinton was in that ideological struggle. In general, sometimes I don’t think Hillary thinks very much of the masses.
“And secondly, it is absurd to say that if Clinton can’t get it, no one can. All the women I listed have as good a chance or better of getting. You’re damned right that I would vote for a woman, but not this one.”
That’s very nice. Of course, it’s doubtful any other democratic woman will get this far. History shows us they simply don’t get the money to run these campaigns. They do get a pat on the head and a “ain’t it wonderful this fine women is running, you’ve come a long way baby!” from the men just before they are forced to pull out due to lack of funds.
Ask Carol Mosley Brown or Pat Schroeder or Shirley Chisholm (RIP) what they’d say about your commitment to some other woman, someday. They all heard that before.
“this fine woman, that is.”
Pardon me, my eyes are shot.
Bitter Scribe
I had the same attitudes as Steve Gilliard wrt to Obama…I googled a couple of his post.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JYe&q=stevegilliard.blogspot.com+obama&btnG=Search
My attitude with Obama has never been that favorable, and it isn’t so now. It’s not a new york thing.
Amen, Gayle.
It’s easy for people to say, “I’d support this woman and that woman…” when they’ll never actually have to prove it. It’s like fantasizing about what you’d do with a million dollars.
I am exasperated by the accusation that Hillary is where she is because of her husband. She is an incredibly intelligent, driven, strong woman and politician. Her relationship with Bill helps, but it’s not everything. She is still a worthy leader all on her own. The same can’t be said for someone like Bush (and his brother). But he’s a man, so it’s expected that he’ll take over “the family business.” Many, many men are in positions of power because the had the good fortune of being born to successful, powerful fathers. Nobody blinks an eye when it’s a man.
They do get a pat on the head and a “ain’t it wonderful this fine women is running, you’ve come a long way baby!” from the men just before they are forced to pull out due to lack of funds.
Brilliant.
I third Gayle and SarahMC. Somehow, all these folks who are objecting to the “Clinton/Bush Dynasty” were mysteriously silent when Shrub was running, and they’ll be mysteriously silent again when/if Jeb or one of the rest of the Bush clan steps up to the plate. Never mind that it’s been 36 years since there was a Republican ticket without a Bush or a Dole on it, or that the Bushes have been on the GOP ticket a total of 6 times while Bill Clinton has been on it twice and Hillary never. It’s always the Clinton ‘dynasty” they object to, never the Bushes.
Well, not that she’s even constitutionally allowed to run but Madeline Albright would have my unwavering support regardless of who else was in the race.
Yes, one women has broken the ranks through her connection with powerful men, men do this as a matter of course and no one bitches about it.
I think we should pull this out and hold it up as a shining object lesson in what happen to women who are Good Wives and put their husband’s career first, working full-out on his behalf out so he can advance, because they know if they just wait and work, it’ll be their turn next. Second, of course, but does that really matter?
Yes. It matters. This is what happens: people don’t respect you or the astonishingly hard work you did, and your husband gets the credit for his success AND yours.
Any asshole who thinks Clinton is a Wife before she’s a politician can direct their umbrage at Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush first, thanks. She’s a fantastic senator, and she has no need to apologize for also having first-hand experience of what a presidential campaign is like from the inside, or for knowing countless world leaders personally. These are some of the things that make her the most qualified candidate in the race.
Illinois AG Lisa Madigan. She’s going to be Senator or Governor in very short order.
Betty Castor might get some interest for the VP slot on an Obama ticket and certainly deserves consideration for a cabinet spot in a Democratic administration.
I’d work for Barbara Boxer in a heartbeat. I’d work for Chris Gregoire, but we really need her in this state as our Governor (and she’s doing an excellent job).
There are many progressive women (and men) I’d gladly work for. I do not see Hillary as any sort of progressive, and I’d have a hard time even voting for her, let alone working for her. But if it came down to it, and she were the Democratic nominee, I would of course vote for her rather than vote for a Republican or sit it out.
I third Gayle and SarahMC. Somehow, all these folks who are objecting to the “Clinton/Bush Dynasty” were mysteriously silent when Shrub was running, and they’ll be mysteriously silent again when/if Jeb or one of the rest of the Bush clan steps up to the plate.
Bush got elected governor of Texas largely because of those Texas voters who thought they were voting for the other George Bush, freshly sprung from the presidency. Say what you like about Hillary, at least her supporters can tell her apart from Bill.
Although I voted for Ferraro (and thought she’d be a better presidential candidate than Dukakis), I’m hesitant to vote for Clinton because she cosponsored an amendment to ban flag-burning a couple of years ago. It was pure political pandering at its worst. I knew that she did it for a run at the presidency, even though she never said anything before or since about what a terrible thing flag-burning was in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t remember a flag that’s been burned (in the US) since the 80’s, but flag-burning is a big issue for conservatives still.
That all being said, Edwards and Obama have my support now, but I’ll be voting for whoever’s on the Democratic ticket in November, no matter their race or gender. If I had my druthers, I’d put H. Clinton on the Supreme Court in spite of the flag-burning amendment because I know she’d stand up for women’s rights.
I object to the history in which no one raised the dynasty card against W. I remember it quite clearly. But let’s say you’re right. Is it wrong for progressives to expect and demand more democracy from the Democrats than from the Republicans? It is not surprising that the far-right party would tend toward monarchy. It is distressing to think that the center-right party might follow that lead.
Would the “better fucking vote for the first woman you can, or feminism is over” argument have applied to Elizabeth Dole or some Thatcher retread? Or does it only work for warmongering DINOs?
I’m just asking because I can think of a few good reasons to look at a candidate’s voting record before their gender. Senator Clinton is not a generic woman upon whom we can all project our hopes. She has a specific political career and a voting record, much of which is objectionable.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/75104/
Yeah, you’re right, sheesh- just because I wasn’t there to witness Bill talking in person and instead watch CNN, Fox, MSNBC, C-SPAN as well as MSM, and read online practically non-stop, then have the audacity to link to reports/stories that I agree with, I’m negating my ability to think for myself, am “just swallowing whatever crap narrative the media feeds me” and therefore my opinions and vote don’t count.
Shall I send you my absentee ballot so you can fill it in for me? Because apparently, you can think for me far better than I can…
Maxine Waters? What, you like the idea of a KNOWN corrupt official as POTUS versus the potential ones?
From Mark K; Madeline Albright.
Agreed; sharp inteiigent, incredible woman. Another would be the late and great Ann Richards of TX. I would have LOVED to have seen her make a run for it…
I would love to have Barbara Boxer for president. I was hoping her book meant she was getting ready to run. I like her voting record pretty well, and she has stood up and said things that need to be said in the Senate, not played it safe.
As for “Might as well add Cynthia McKinney to the list.” Well, why not? I think she’s on the Green Party ballot.
In any case, there’s a bit of difference between race-baiting coming from “Clinton’s people” and race-baiting coming from Clinton herself. If she’s not saying it, she’s the one we’d be voting for… what’s the damn problem?
You can’t be serious, can you, R.E.? A single inappropriate comment, swiftly punished, sure. I get that that can happen. But a pattern of reinforcing that Obama is the “black” candidate, that he’s a “kid,” etc., you’d be a fool to think that’s not strategy. Of COURSE she’s not saying it; that would be suicide. But that doesn’t mean she’s not responsible for it.
And for everyone who thinks referring to Obama as a “kid” is neutral or harmless, imagine how you’d feel if he were a woman, and the older, more powerful candidate’s people were referring to her as a little girl.
Carol Mosley-Braun would have been a great President. Her positions were similar to Kucinich when they were both running, and she had won statewide office. She’d at least have carried one state, possibly making her a good VP choice for a candidate swinging their ticket to the left. Meanwhile, when Shirley Chisolm ran, i find it hard to believe that many people who support Edwards wouldn’t have supported her– her slogan was “unbought and unbossed.” Maxine Waters would make an excellent Speaker of the House, while Barbara Lee- remember when she was opposing the Bush national security power grab? I had a button that said “I agree with Barbara Lee.” Cynthia McKinney has beaten back the political machine a couple times, and i really wish the Green Party were a more viable force so that we could elect a McKinney-LaDuke ticket. Now Lani Guinier, i don’t support for President. Attorney General, yes– she’s more necessary as an advocate for the American people than the Executive branch, something woefully missing from both the Clinton and Bush administrations. But i’ll vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. So i guess it’s a moot point.
Ugh. And the rest of my family, loyal democrats all, completely deny there’s any sexism aimed at Clinton. What more evidence do you need?
On a related note, there’s a Facebook group now saying Texas will secede if Clinton wins the election. I mean, talk about embodying the stereotype of a sexist, separatist, bigoted Texas. I’m ashamed of having to share a state with these people.
I am exasperated by the accusation that Hillary is where she is because of her husband.
You don’t think that’s born out by her own campaign being so centered on Bill’s record, and his public appearances on her behalf?
I don’t think it’s just Sullivan-style paranoia; her own campaign seems to make it abundantly clear that First Gentleman Bill Clinton isn’t just going to be a spectator in the White House, a figure in the President’s private life - he’s going to be a kind of extra-legal executive officer at best and, at worst, a President who’s found an end-run around the 22nd Amendment.
There’s a lot of sexism directed at Hilary Clinton, probably not more than any female candidate would receive. But it’s not sexist to have serious concerns that Bill is going to be Hillary’s Dick Cheney - someone exerting far more pressure on the Executive branch than their nominal office should allow. Dick Cheney was rebutted by the Constitution itself when he asserted that he wasn’t an executive, and therefore immune to the legal strictures on the Executive branch. What argument will we be able to raise when Bill Clinton asserts the exact same thing?
Chet: Bah. When Bill Clinton was president, bumper stickers proclaimed, “I don’t like President Clinton or her husband.” Now that she’s running, people like you are giving us the exact same thing in reverse. Why should we listen now?
Can someone please explain to me why, other than being the establishment’s choice ala John Kerry (something which would probably not be the case if she were a man, because she wouldn’t have the tie to Clinton, as anything other than a cabinenet figure ala Bill Richaradson), “Hilary would be a shoe-in if she were a man”?
I mean maybe I’m dense but I don’t see how a one-and- a-half term Senator with massive negatives, and no discernible charisma, would be a shoe-in if she wasn’t tied directly to the Clinton machine (which unless one is assuming she’s his son ala’ Bush or his Brother ala’ RFK would not be the case), its not like she’d have some sort of compelling resume’ (she doesn’t match up to Kerry there) or direct tie to the Clinton administration (as Gore did), and without these factors I don’t see what other than perhaps race, would make her a more compelling canidate than Obama (who not only has a longer record of public service than Clinton, but also was elected in a far more “swingish” state). Seiously if you want to play the what-if card, Obama could be a Edwards 04 standin, but Clinton wouldn’t be Kerry, she’d be Cuomo, or Dodd (though less experienced than either, I honestly can’t think of someone who combines Hilary’s lack of Charisma with limited experience in such a way).
I’m going to venture that there is no other reason. Hillary is the top DLC candidate. The DLC runs the party these days.
Now that she’s running, people like you are giving us the exact same thing in reverse. Why should we listen now?
Because it’s true?
If your bumper sticker example was meant to prove something, I missed it. Can you elaborate?
Chet: My point was that when Bill was president, Hillary was seen as this pernicious influence on him. Now that she’s running, he is this nefarious influence on her.
So which is it? Critics of the Clintons can’t have it both ways.
Grammar RWA, I’ll say it explicitly:
1) Given that this blog post essentially asked a shitload of FEMINISTS about which woman they’d like, and
2) Given that no other woman in this thread has been required to state that they weren’t talking about ol’ “Mussolini with tits and a pearl necklace,”
I didn’t feel the need to specify that. I should have been a bit more remedial, apparently.
The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues, and if women can’t get behind her,then I simply don’t want to hear any more of them whining about why their health insurance doesn’t cover their birth control pills or why we’re left out of the process. She is the best left-female candidate we are ever going to get, period; if we don’t back her, we don’t WANT to be part of the process for real. Period.
… many of whom happen to be progressives as well …
No one else appeared to be suggesting that feminists have to either vote for a hawk and a surveillance state, or turn in our feminist cards.
Margaret Thatcher was a demon, but she voted for the Abortion Act. She was not a demon on reproductive rights. Which of your criteria does she fail to meet?
… if women don’t care about the Patriot Act, or Real ID, or their families and their own selves getting slaughtered in Iraq and soon Iran.
Well, I’m a pessimist too, but I don’t share your view on this one.
It sounds like you’re telling me I have to either be a feminist (which for you means a vote for Senator Clinton) or a progressive (which for me means a vote against Senator Clinton in the primary and maybe for the Green in the general). I just don’t agree with that; I think it’s a false dilemma.
Why not? Haven’t you ever heard the expression, “those two are bad for each other”?
But if we’re taking these concerns in historical context, it was conservatives who complained about Hillary during Bill’s term. I still don’t understand what their complaint was, unless it was as simple as “she’s a woman and so mustn’t be given power”, which I suspect it was.
Now, at least as far as I am aware, it is progressives who are worried that Hillary will be as bad to us as Bill was, regardless of whether Bill is hanging around the Oval Office, or on some diplomatic appointment and out of Hillary’s hair, or back in Arkansas with a comfy chair and a stiff drink.
I really don’t think those concerns are historically comparable.
My point was that when Bill was president, Hillary was seen as this pernicious influence on him. Now that she’s running, he is this nefarious influence on her.
When Bill was president, he wasn’t married to a former US president.
Hillary would be. I still don’t see what bumper stickers have to do with your incomprehensible dismissal of the potentially troubling issues here.
The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues,
In what sense is that true? She has a vagina, therefore she can’t possibly throw women’s issues under the bus for political expediency?
How well has that assumption worked in the past?
Janis–
That’s bullshit. ‘Women’s issues’ aren’t limited to suburban women. There’s more to the movement than abortion, equal pay, day care, and family leave.
Hillary likes to say that serving as First Lady has prepared her to be president, so you really have to count Bill’s legacy as hers, just as you would if she’d been a member of the cabinet. That was the administration that cut off welfare benefits for millions, and that pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act.
Health care is also a women’s issue, and Hillary has been and continues to be one of the single biggest roadblocks to a single payer health care system.
In short, Hillary’s been middle of the road on women’s issues. And in the areas where she’s strong, Obama is generally in agreement with her.
Also, I don’t think it’s correct to say that she’s a dream candidate who would be a shoo-in if she were a man. She’s relatively new to the Senate, her highest-profile stint in the spotlight was her failed health care initiative, and she has the unique ability to inspire the opposition, while leaving Democratic party activists in the doldrums. I still think that she’ll win if she’s nominated, but that will have more to do with the political winds being at the Democrats’ backs than it will have to do with her being a great candidate.
You seem to support Hillary for reasons that have to do entirely with identity politics. Frankly, I think that’s a silly reason to support any candidate. It’s just the flip side of the sort of thinking that inspired the “I love country music” T-shirt.
That’s what that amendment says, but the 12th says anyone standing for VP has to be eligible for election to the Office of President.
I was looking at it, and I think that if a former president was the Speaker of the House, Pres. Pro Tem. of the Senate, or held an appointed office; in the order of succession, it could be argued (though USC 3, 19(e) of the federal statute on succession makes it a hard sell, and almost certainly one the courts would use to negate the accession to the office of one who was previously, twice elected, to office.
As for the “if you mean it about being a feminist you have to vote for Hilary,” no, I don’t.
I don’t like her voting record, I don’t like her policy stands, I don’t like that Edwards had to chase her (and Obama) back to Washington to do their jobs.
She ought to have been lobbying Reid to honor Dodd’s hold on FISA. She ought to be saying, “where the hell are Bolton and Meiers” she ought to be doing her job, and part of her job is oversight.
I don’t like a candidate who isn’t fond of oversight; and I am certain, given the way she was treated when Bill was in office that she is going to be hard to keep an eye on, and that interest in perpetuating those aspects of the present administration give me great pause.
That she tried to rig the vote in Michigan (which looks to be planned; since she could have done as Edwards and Obama did, and stayed off the ballot) bothers me. It shows a lack of respect for the people.
If she gets the nomination, she gets 110 percent of my support, but right now, she’s not the top of the list for me. I am not a single interest voter (though some, like reproductive rights are deal killers… if you aren’t for them, I’m not for you; you may be the lesser of two evils, and so I will vote for you, but you will see me trying to find a better candidate, and holding your feet to the fire, but presidents’ feet are hard to grab).
Would I like to see a woman in the office? Sure. Would I want it, just because she’s a woman, and nominally qualified? No.
Chet and Grammar: Critics of the Clintons can’t seem to make up their minds which of them is the Svengali and which is the dupe.
When critics hold mutually contradictory opinions on a subject, it’s a sure sign that at least some of them, and probably all of them, are full of shit.
If that’s “incomprehensible,” sorry. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension skills.