Email this article to a friend

Why Women Hate Hillary

She reinforces the Genghis Khan principle of American politics that our leaders must be ruthless and macho

BY Susan J. Douglas

Hillary wants to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, leaving some basic tenets of feminism in the dust. She is like patriarchy in sheep's clothing.

We sat around the dinner table, a group of 50-something progressive feminists, talking to a friend from England about presidential politics. We were all for Hillary, weren’t we, he asked. Hillary? We hated Hillary. He was taken aback. Weren’t we her base? Wasn’t she one of us? Why did we hate Hillary?

Of course, a lot of people seem to hate Hillary. According to some polls, anywhere from 39 to 50 percent of respondents claim they’d vote against her no matter what; her “negatives” continue to be high. Many of these are Republicans and men. But many are not. According to a Harris poll in March, 52 percent of married women said they would not vote for her. Nearly half of adults say they dislike her personality and her politics. Unlike her husband, people seem to find her cold and don’t see her connecting with everyday people, and this is especially true for married women. Ironically, it is Gen Xers, those between 31 and 42, who give her the most support.

So what gives? For people like my friends and me, her hawkish position on Iraq and her insistence that the U.S. maintain a military presence there even after the troops are withdrawn have been very disappointing. But it’s more than any specific position. Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her. Why?

Baby boomer women grew up with the Feminine Mystique and then came of age with the Women’s Liberation Movement. As a result, millions of us have spent our lives crafting a compromise–or a fusion–between femininity on the one hand and feminism on the other. And for many of us feminism did not mean trying to be more like men. It meant challenging patriarchy: trying to bring equity to family life, humanizing the workplace, prioritizing women’s issues in politics, and confronting the dangers of militarism and imperialism. And millions of us fought (and continue to fight) these battles wearing lipstick, skirts and a smile: the masquerade of femininity we are compelled to don.

Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.

One of progressive feminism’s biggest (and so far, failed) battles has been against the Genghis Khan principle of American politics: that our leaders must be ruthless, macho empire builders fully prepared to drop the big one if they have to and invade anytime, anywhere. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president in 1984, the recurring question was whether she had the cojones to push the red button, as if that is the ultimate criterion for leading the country. And while American politics has, for years, been all about the necessity of displaying masculinity, Bush, Cheney and Rove succeeded in upping the ante after 9/11 so that the sight of John Kerry windsurfing meant he wasn’t man enough to run the country. But now, with the massive failures of this callous macho posture everywhere–a disastrous war, a deeply endangered environment and more people than ever without health insurance–millions are desperate for a new vision and a new model of leadership.

All of this frames many women’s reactions to Hillary. If she’s a feminist, how could she continue to support this war for so long? If she’s such a passionate advocate for children, women and families, how could she countenance the ongoing killing of innocent Iraqi families, and of American soldiers who are also someone’s children? If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?

Maybe women like me are being extra hard on Hillary because she’s a woman. After all, baby boomer women couldn’t be “as good” as men in school or the workplace; we had to be better, to prove that women deserved equal opportunities. And this is part of the problem too. We don’t want the first female president to be Joe Lieberman in drag, pushing Bush-lite politics. We expect something better.

Clearly, Hillary and her advisors have calculated that for a woman to be elected in this country, she’s got to come across as just as tough as the guys. And maybe they’re right. But so far, Hillary is not getting men with this strategy, and women feel written off. After the dark ages of this pugnacious administration, many of us want to let the light in. We want a break with the past, optimism, and a recommitment to the government caring about and serving the needs of everyday people. We want what feminism began to fight for 40 years ago–humanizing deeply patriarchal institutions. And, ironically, we see candidates like John Edwards or Barack Obama–men–offering just that. If Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president, then maybe, just maybe, she should actually run as a woman.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).

View Comments
She actually would make a good 1st lady, in that it would appear that she's actually a lady, and not a cold hearted political cutthroat opportunist like HRC. However, if she really does have ambitions for the position, she should have picked someone else. I do see why DK appeals to you. He's really just a wimpified version of Hugo Chavez, and would no doubt be in favor of shutting down media unfavorable to him, and taking everyone's land away and giving it to "the poor" to mismanage. His problem however, is that his brawny latin brain-twin would no doubt generate better poll numbers if he were to join the race. Nothing wrong with a little fantasy, I guess.
Posted by Natalie on 2007-05-23 09:19:12
miat, I must express my gratitude to you for leading me to this VIDEO of Elizabeth Kucinich. What a marvelous, beautiful, intelligent woman, radiating with spiritual strength. Can anyone doubt what an extraordinary First Lady she would make?
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-23 06:56:45
Think cockroaches, Natalie. And let's not forget Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick and... who hired Craig Livingstone, anyway? [L]ong after the bomb falls and you and your good deeds are gone, cockroaches will still be here, prowling the streets like armored cars. ('Modern Saint 271,' Slaves of New York) If more people would only heed the warnings of 'registered Democrat and avowed liberal,' Mark Goodman...
Now that the senator from New York has announced "I'm in to win," voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch.
and clinton administration veteran and Berkeley economist, Bradford DeLong...
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.... there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.
December 7, 1941+64 Dear Concerned Americans, Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will? In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst? Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival. What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times. AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO (excerpt) by Mia T December 7, 1941+64
Posted by miat on 2007-05-23 06:33:43
What's less clear is how you can portray Clinton as totalitarianism's dour answer to Miss Jean Brodie, plugging into the right wing's witchiest caricature of her, and insist there's no ill will.--The YouTube Election, James Wolcott, Vanity Fair, June 2007
Wolcott's confusion about Phil de Vellis' "Vote Different" follows inexorably from this error: The portrayal of missus clinton is no caricature. NB: Neither, of course, is her portrayal in "VOTE SMART: a warning to all women about hillary clinton," my mashup of the de Vellis mashup. Both videos are discussed in these articles: "Hillary Clinton 'Big Sister' Ad Makes Big Ripple: Creator Revealed," MTV News, and "A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery? Anti-Clinton Video Shows Ease of Attack in the Computer Age," Washington Post. This confusion is yet another manifestation of missus clinton's Saturday Night Live problem, to wit: The reason the Saturday Night Live sequence is so devastating is that it is not the usual SNL farce based on fact. Rather, it is fact based on farce. And missus clinton's "I'm in!" video confirms it.
[C]onsider missus clinton's recent 'conversation' (with herself). It was risible. Unintentional theater of the absurd: A chintzed-and-powdered villain, a soulless, angry, arrogant scold, oozing cloying, saccharine-coated evil, pulsating to the metronomic swing of stubby appendages-- claws too short to grab its prey. (Gesticulation is a dud's only sign of life... and then only if she has a speech coach to prod her.) HILLARY! Can a chintzed-and-powdered villain win the White House? LEADING INDICATORS SAY 'NO' by Mia T, 3.01.07
Let down the curtain: the farce is done. (Rabelais) Somebody stick the fork in that baby, already. Please.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-23 05:28:33
Holy crap. Why can't the Clintons just go away? The Bush haters at least can rest easy knowing that sometime in Jan. 09 George will make a bee-line for his eco-friendly ranch, and will thereafter rarely be heard from, and that his wife would no more run for Senate and then the Presidency than would Barney or Miss Beazley. But we continue to live in fear of another eight years of a Clinton, actually by many accounts the one who was really in charge during the first eight, not to mention all the Strobe Talbot/Sandy Burglar types she'd appoint. What to do, what to do? I think Mia's got the right idea. Spread the word and expose this woman for the power-mad-to-the-exclusion-of-ALL-else person that she is.
Posted by Natalie on 2007-05-22 12:35:46
'naked ambition incarnate' Even the most casual observer of the American political scene would agree: It's a tossup as to whose stage presence, hillary clinton's or Al Gore's, is the more ridiculous. But as opposed to hillary-on-stage, Al thereon has a saving grace: He doesn't try to appear human. To the contrary, Al Gore embraces his humanoid essence. (In fairness to missus clinton, 'inhuman' is a measurably less salable descriptor than 'humanoid.') To better understand why this is such an advantage for Mr. Gore, simply consider missus clinton's recent 'conversation' (with herself). It was risible. Unintentional theater of the absurd: A chintzed-and-powdered villain, a soulless, angry, arrogant scold, oozing cloying, saccharine-coated evil, pulsating to the metronomic swing of stubby appendages--claws too short to grab its prey. (Gesticulation is a dud's only sign of life... and then only if she has a speech coach to prod her.) The performance was nothing if not humiliating: A direct measure of hillary clinton's hunger for power. Which reminds me... enough of that red Klingon power jacket already. The fatal problem with the clinton machine's extravagant, fanciful and elaborate construction is not the absurdity, however. It is the architectonics. A precarious 20th-century conceit, the hillary! construct totters on a crumbling foundation of clinton lies, abuses and betrayals. It should have been no surprise that David Geffen's comments to Maureen Dowd would so easily topple it. But to the average clinton lackey, it apparently was.... HILLARY! Can a chintzed-and-powdered villain win the White House? LEADING INDICATORS SAY 'NO' (excerpt) by Mia T, 3.01.07
Posted by miat on 2007-05-22 05:05:29
For most Americans from multiple parties, her name by itself evokes negative thoughts of ambition gone awry (like a modern Lady MacBeth, I once read somewhere)--313expat
Indeed. Naked ambition incarnate. Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight. Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great. On Neutered and Neutering Mia T (Mia T and Edward Zehr) also: MacClinton (Mia T)
Posted by miat on 2007-05-22 04:09:22
I'm not against a woman being president. If anything, a woman may provide representation for those who have been neglected these past 12 years. Hilary Rodham Clinton has name recognition and fund-raising prowess which, with this country's mindset, are of utmost importance in running for office. However, these things won't help her gain office! For most Americans from multiple parties, her name by itself evokes negative thoughts of ambition gone awry (like a modern Lady MacBeth, I once read somewhere), socialized medicine (which Americans have been brainwashed into thinking is bad, and I personally know it is not), and being the antithesis of what people think a woman's place should be. Even the "feminists" of the 60s, who should be the most supportive of an accomplished woman with presidential ambitions, dislike her for not representing their idea of a woman in power! If America needs anything right now, it's a positive, assuring, informed, and decisive voice in the Oval Office. It seems that everyone is fed up with this war and the lies that pulled us into it. I don't think Hilary is the person this country needs. If Hilary is doing such a great job in NY, then maybe she should keep serving as senator for her district. American is not ready for a female president, or at least one with Hilary's political and social baggage. If the Dems want half a chance in winning the presidency, they need candidates who can voice the needs of the people and don't have so much negativity in their wake. If you go by the pattern in which disenfranchised groups gained power in the U.S., it's probably going to be a different group that first becomes president, such as a Black (Obama? Rice?), Hispanic (Richardson?) or Jewish person (Lieberman?). Women will probably be able to take the helm once these others are able. (P.S. I'm a woman, Northerner, and leftist. I'm not slamming this candidate because she's not my "idea of a woman in power". It's from my observations of her political maneuvering which would barely win my respect if she were a male. )
Posted by 313expat on 2007-05-21 20:27:31
to Natalie: an interesting conjecture 2/2 Now — what has all this to do with Hillary? One of Hillary Clinton’s closest friends and traveling companions is a lady named Brooke Shearer. She retains her maiden name, for she is Strobe Talbot’s wife. She also just happened to be working at the White House in charge of the White House intern program. The thinking goes that it is inconceivable that Talbot would not tell his wife that one of her interns was fellating the president and being blackmailed by the Russkies for it — and that she would not tell Hillary. One can easily imagine how explosively Hillary would have reacted, and how she would have demanded Bill cave to the Russian IMF demands. Thus her fingerprints would be all over a blackmail payoff of billions of American taxpayer dollars, and the resultant impoverishment of millions of Russians. She'll be questioned on this during her 2008 campaign — as she will on so much else. The Russian Blackmail story will be one of many skeletons lurking in her presidential wannabe closet. It’s yet another example of why so many Dems, desperate to recapture the White House, are so busy flogging alternatives to her. Alternatives such as Barack Obama. That the Dems would hysterically hype a guy whose total national experience has been being a Senator for 21 months (since January 2005), and whose total real world business experience was working one single year for a company while in his early 20s (an entry-level job with the Business International Corporation), shows how terrified they are that Hillary will doom their White House dreams. The Russian Blackmail scandal will make an interesting addition to the Democrats' Hillary Nightmare.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 18:11:41
to Natalie: an interesting conjecture 1/2 Boris, Bill and Monica: trouble ahead for Hillary? Dr. Jack Wheeler BrookesNews.Com Monday 13 November 2006 Will the saga of the world’s most famous fellatrice return to haunt Hillary in 2008? There’s this fascinating whisper making the Washington rounds that says yes. While convoluted and circumstantial, a number of plugged-in Washingtonians believe it. The story starts with Boris Yeltsin who was President of Russia from its emergence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to 1999. In October of 2000, part three of his autobiography was published, Midnight Diaries. In it, there was an astounding revelation: That in “late 1996,” after Bill Clinton’s re-election in November, he (Yeltsin) received a highly classified report from his Foreign Intelligence Service (Russian acronym SVR, formerly a branch of the KGB). Russian intel had learned that the President of the United States was having an affair with an intern named Monica Lewinsky. This was over a full year before the world learned of the scandal via the Drudge Report internet website on January 19, 1998. Lewinsky's first tryst with Clinton was in November 1995. Her last ones were March 28 and 29, 1997, as shown by White House Security logging her in to visit the Oval Office. In her testimony for Ken Starr’s Grand Jury, she told of a curious comment of Clinton's after she performed her services: that he was worried about a “foreign power listening in” to their activities and conversations. He was especially concerned about the many phone-sex conversations he had with her, calling her from the White House and Air Force One. Somehow, it seems, Clinton had learned of Yeltsin’s SVR memo. Who told him? Suspicion has focused on a meeting in Moscow between Clinton confidante Strobe Talbot and Russian power-broker Anatoly Chubais on March 5, 1997 — three weeks before Clinton told Monica of his “worry.” Talbot was far more than just Deputy Secretary of State. A fellow Rhodes Scholar with Clinton at Oxford, he was one of Bill’s most closely trusted friends. Fluent in Russian, his contacts among the Russian power elite were deep. One of his best contacts was Anatoly Chubais. Yeltsin had placed Chubais in charge of the “privatization” program selling off Soviet state enterprises. It was a multi-multi-billion dollar scam, creating “oligarch” billionaires, of whom Chubais became one himself. The scam, however, was threatened with exposure by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). By early 1997, Chubais’s looting of the Russian economy was so vast that a complete crash was imminent. A “rescue package” of billions in IMF loans was required to stave off disaster. The green eyeshades at the IMF examining Russia said no way, José. Chubais was desperate. Yeltsin told Chubais of the SVR memo. Chubais asked his buddy Talbot to come and see him in Moscow, where he explained that if the IMF loan wasn’t approved, he might not be able to keep the lid on Lewinsky. The President of the United States was being blackmailed. Thus Larry Summers, Clinton's new Treasury Secretary, who had before was aghast at even the hint of approving IMF loans to Russia, suddenly began calling Chubais and his cronies a "Dream Team" for their "superb" job of running the Russian economy. The IMF loan was approved, the lid on Lewinsky kept on, and not until Linda Tripp taped her phone talks with Monica in November 1997 and Drudge got wind of it, did the scandal break. The IMF loan did its job, temporarily staving disaster off until August, 1998, when the Russian economy collapsed into almost total meltdown.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 18:10:39
P.S. to luminous beauty: 'There is something bizarrely unhinged about someone who focuses on form to the exclusion of substance on a political forum.' 'Exhibiting an obsessive need to assert superiority is a marker for someone with low self-esteem.' Do you see the connection?
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 17:38:35
to luminous beauty: I am quite serious. Is the argument too subtle for you? Or does it hit too close to home? As I said earlier, your Jews/fascists comment is a non sequitur. As for the excerpt (the highlighting is mine), that section is the nub of the matter, the smoking gun. Mary Jo White put the clintons and Gorelick on contemporaneous notice about the Wall vs. terrorism; yet the clintons kept the Wall in place. The ass-covering bureaucratic noise that followed is irrelevant. Re mathematicians 'shunning psychology': This one hasn't. Went so far as to develop a mathematical model to measure attitude systems, which received honors from the American Psychological Assn. DYSFUNCTION: Anyone claiming to be informed who is 'agnostic' about the clintons is a priori dysfunctional. Nuts, if you will. And its correlate: There is something bizarrely unhinged about someone who focuses on form to the exclusion of substance on a political forum. And your chronic ad hominem lapses only underscore that dysfunction. Exhibiting an obsessive need to assert superiority is a marker for someone with low self-esteem. Perhaps you should consider that psychologist, yourself.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 17:20:38
"Re your name: I expected that comeback. But your name isn’t posted with a clarifier attached; your intentions are irrelevant. Perception is reality. But you already know that, don’t you?" Are you serious? "As a mathematician, I don’t require the likes of you to lecture me on the finer points of logic and argumentation. Someone has to. I suggest a professional psychologist. Its an area of expertise often shunned by those who go into mathematics because it doesn't provide clear precise solutions. Much like political theory is avoided by ideological zealots." "Ad hominem: Whether the descriptor is accurate or not is not the determinant. It is whether the descriptor is used in lieu of logical argument. (And as for ‘dysfunctional,’ as I noted previously, projection seems to be your defense mechanism of choice.)" I am arguing that you are nuts because your arguments are irrational, not that your arguments are irrational because you are nuts. Do you see the difference? You're the one who is aggressively pushing their point of view, I'm just sparring with you. I have nothing to defend. It seems you are the one accusing me of having feelings you refuse to countenance in your own psyche. It is common for obsessive personality types to complain that anyone critical of their behavior is projecting. Why don't you see a therapist and he can help you sort it out? If I were to accuse you of projecting, it would not be on me, but on Hillary Clinton. "If you examine my posts and yours, you will find that your posts consist of name calling and very little else. Mine contain rational argument." 'Very little else'? I'm crushed. Arguments based on pathos, supposition, opinion, and circumstantial evidence. Not much in the way of facts. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Easy to rebut. "btw, I never discussed Jews and fascists. You did. You are one confused person." You did say, referring to another poster's comments. you found equating Bush and Hitler absurd and offensive. I provided information that reasonably indicates it is not quite so absurd of a connection. You then accused me of being, and I quote, "a run-of-the-mill rabid anti-Semite." Am I projecting for defending my self against such a scurrilous charge? Pot, meet kettle. You might try reading the entire Gorelick memo with the subsequential modifications by others, which include the White memo, in context, as the policy is being punched into shape, rather than cherry-picked high-lighted portions of an excerpt. You may have some training in math, but you are no scholar.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-21 15:21:56
Please. Citing salon women is hardly appealing to authority. It was merely illustrating that even some reasonably intelligent leftists understand that the clintons are rapists. You finally get it, tho. Appealing to an authority whose area of expertise is outside the matter in question is such a fallacy. Well, you can learn, after all. Good for you. As for the source I relied on, you are precisely right. I was referring to this.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 13:11:56
Have you viewed the interview, luminous? JB is completely and totally credible, and I submit that is why this interview was shown once and only once on MSNBC on a Sun. afternoon as I recall, and AFAIK was never mentioned on the NBC nightly news or any other Democrat run media outlet. Perhaps in extremely brief passing terms, but I believe that was about all. Like they said, the problem JB, is that you're TOO credible. Now if you want to deny that if there was someone equally credible who came forward with the same kinds of allegations against GWB, that the media would be equally as uninterested, fine, and I've got a patch of prime farmland in Venezuela and a "controlled demolition" theory to sell ya. No, the media is not as "liberal" as you would like it to be, but they are virtually all Democrats. They are happy when Democrats are elected, as I used to be, and they do what they can, while still maintaining the outward appearance of objectivity, to help them get elected. It was a very easy thing to do not to pick up on the interview, and say that well, you see, this was a long time ago and the statute has expired, and it wouldn't be "fair" or "productive" to stir up the nation with this. Perhaps this was actually a prudent call, but the problem is that they would never apply the same standard if the parties were reversed.
Rather than seeing all sides of an issue and weighing the evidence of fact, you are doggedly promoting your own monological beliefs based on shared and subjective self-serving opinion.
What you're missing though, is that in addition to JB, there is mountains of evidence, testimony, and even self-admissions as to Bill Clinton's abusive and lustful extra-marital behavior. The issue of his womanizing HAS been examined from all sides, and the Broaddrick incident fits perfectly. Add to that accounts from Gennifer Flowers and Bills own brother as to his cocaine abuse, which would help to explain his reckless and selfish acts back then. What you're also missing is that Bill's obsession was directly related to his ability to perform his CIC duties and so is extraordinarily relevant. When he engaged in an affair while in the oval office, and was discovered, and refused to simply admit it and apologize, he himself made it impossible for he or anyone to focus properly on the issues of bin laden and al Qaeda and terrorism in general. This period of time, in the late 90's, during the planning and prep. for 9/11, was when bin laden needed to be killed or captured. By the time Bush came into office, was finally able to get his admin. organized after having to fight tooth & nail for his slim victory over the poor losing Gore, it was essentially too late to stop 9/11, especially given the protocols within/between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The fix was in, minus a very lucky break, which did not happen. If you can't recognize the clear and convincing evidence of Clinton's sexual predation, and Hillary's enabling roll, and you can't see how his behavior -- and the general personality of which it was a symptom -- kept him from taking decisive action when it needed to be taken, well then you are the one who is being "emotionally and cognitively dysfunctional". As Mia has pointed out, it's not just a bunch of "right wingers" making these kinds of accusations, it's former supporters like me and Juanita, and other people who were closest to the Clintons.
Posted by Natalie on 2007-05-21 13:10:24
to luminous beauty: Re your name: I expected that comeback. But your name isn't posted with a clarifier attached; your intentions are irrelevant. Perception is reality. But you already know that, don't you? As a mathematician, I don't require the likes of you to lecture me on the finer points of logic and argumentation, (about which you obviously know little, in any case). You were wrong about vericundium; you are wrong about ad hominem. The truth or falsity of the descriptor is irrelevant.The fallacy occurs when a descriptor, true or false, is used in lieu of logical argument. 'Dysfunctional': As I noted previously, projection seems to be your defense mechanism of choice. If you examine my posts and yours, you will find that your posts consist of name calling and very little else. Mine contain rational argument. btw, I never discussed Jews and fascists. You did. You are one confused person. As for Juanita Broaddrick, I have communicated with her. She has thanked me personally for all that I have done. Exploitation? Hardly.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 12:58:46
Concerning argumentum ad vericundium, citing the opinion of someone that agrees with your opinion is an abuse. Correct citation of authority means refering to authoritative sources. For example: These are authoritative sources, Gorelick memo M.J. White memo Editorial opinions that purport to interpret the significance of these sources are not. If you carefully read the sources you will discover the arguments for the various opinions that infer some sinister meaning just aren't there. In fact they represent an evolving strategy to make it easier for FBI and DoJ offices to coordinate with foriegn intelligence offices. the reality of that strategy is made clear if you watch the Frontline video.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-21 12:48:54
miat, "It is unclear whether you are simply clueless, a run-of-the-mill rabid anti-Semite, a clinton operative trying to bait me, or all of the above, but I’ll play along for awhile." None of the above. Unsupported assumptions and demonstrably false ad hominem assertions on your part. As is jumping to the conclusion that the handle 'luminous beauty' is intended as an eponymous descriptor. It is much more along the lines of a mnemonic device to remind myself not to get caught up in the flaming rhetoric and trollish zealotry of propagandistic demogogues like yourself. It is not easy. I am only, "Human. All too human." I hope that clarifies matters for you. I am agnostically indifferent to the subject of the Clintons, particularly as you would force its definition, but quite interested in the formal structure of principled argument and rational debate and how it is abused. If some Jews can be, in effect, fascists, it does not follow that all Jews are fascists. To leap to that conclusion is probative of an irrational hyper-sensitivity. As Shakespeare said, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." I hope I'm not being too subtle and I hope this answers your questions as to my 'cluelessness'. A note on argumentum ad hominem; it is fallacious when one rebuts the facts of a person's argument by asserting one's opinion of their unreliability based on denigrations of their character or simply as a consequence of their partisanship. This appears to me as generally your modus. It is not so fallacious when one impunes the reliability of a person's argument according to their improper conclusions based on fact or their misconstruing of opinion as such. Things of which you have been a repeat offender. Simple name calling is just that. It is not a form of argument per se, but a red herring in lieu of principled argument. I apologize if you feel I have engaged in such against you (not so much Zell Miller, Chris Hitchens or the Chimp-in-Cheif), but I would like you to understand that I am sincere in my observation that you are emotionally and cognitively dysfunctional. That you would exploit the tragedy of Juanita Broaddrick for political purposes, exposes you as just as indifferent to women's justified concerns as what you claim of the Clintons. You should seek professional help.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-21 11:49:04
luminous beauty 2/2: 3. BROADDRICK: Before I correct your errors, permit me to give you a bit of advice. Your constant attempts to discredit me with ad hominem only call attention to your own low self-esteem. You are obviously threatened not only by beautiful women--witness your pathetic screen name--but by intelligent women. Grow up. Broaddrick did not 'repress memories' of the rape and revictimization by the clintons. She was simply cowered by the clintons. You must remember that her rapist was Attorney General of Arkansas--the top law enforcer--and was running for Governor. And Juanita Broaddrick depended on the state for her livelihood. Your insight is underwhelming. The disposition of most rape cases reduces to a 'he said-she said' determination. Rape cases invariably turn on credibility. And whom should we believe? Broaddrick, who refused millions for a book, or, a documented pair of perjurers and congenital liars, the predatory, rapacious and opportunistic clintons? Either the clintons did the rape or they did not. (I would argue the mountain of evidence supports their guilt. Check Chris Shays at delete hillary and YouTube on this--links in cites, above.) Rape specialists who interviewed Broaddrick during impeachment found her account very credible and consistent with a victim of rape. The clintons, on the other hand, have a long history of threatening, auditing and otherwise abusing their victims of rape and predation in order to coerce them to signing false exculpatory affadavits. Broaddrick had contemporaneous witnesses to her account, her injuries by clinton and her torn clothes. A majority of the audience who viewed the Dateline interview believed Broaddrick. Lisa Meyers told Broaddrick the problem was that she was TOO credible (causing NBC to spike the interview until clinton was safely acquitted by the Senate.) Even leftist women believe Broaddrick. (see Salon article, 'Mothers who think') Conversely, clinton biting Broaddrick's lip as a method of control is consistent with the behavior of a serial rapist. (Check the FBI on this.) Finally, Broaddrick's account of hillary clinton threatening her 2 weeks after the rape is consistent with the testimony of others about this event and about the clintons' methods of intimidation, generally. But perhaps most indicting of all is this: The clintons never denied the charges. If you were falsely accused of rape, wouldn't you deny it, and deny it vigorously? The clintons dare not do so because doing so would de facto vitiate the statute of limitations. You can read what the Wall Street Journal has to say about this. ('Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?' | The Wall Street Journal | October 18, 2000). It is excerpted at delete hillary. "When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near." (Will Durant) 4. re 'circumambient'--I rather like the wordplay, the counterpoint: counting spun heads vs. not discounting circumambient brains. "Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of small minds!" (Emerson)
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 11:48:46
luminous beauty 1/2: You are a poster child for projection. Perhaps worse, you continue to misunderstand 'vericundium.' ;) 1. BARRETT: Your point is patently absurd: David Barrett knows precisely what was redacted... and what was obstructed... and by whom. Check out his website. You apparently are missing the dynamics, if not the irony and the gravity, here: Evidence of clinton abuse of power was gutted by clinton abuse of power. This is what they do in police states. This is what Putin does. Is this the sort of country we want? I suspect many, if not most, Democrats want to be rid of the clintons already, but 'long after the bomb falls and you and your good deeds are gone,' the clintons, like 'cockroaches will still be here, prowling the streets like armored cars.' ("Modern Saint 271," Slaves of New York) Looks like the Left is stuck with them. Pity. 2. GORELICK WALL: The June 13, 1995 memo by Mary Jo White (U.S. Attornery for the Southern District of NY) is evidence of the clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance. NB: White, no right-wing flack, was appointed by none other than bill clinton. White's 1995 memo effectively put the clinton-Gorelick cabal on contemporaneous notice that Gorelick's Wall was placing America at grave risk from terrorism. The memo explicitly warned that the protective wall the clintons and Gorelick were busy erecting (doubtless to blind domestic law enforcement to the clintons' illegal foreign schemes) would (also) blind domestic law enforcement to terrorist plots foreign and domestic. From this it follows that Gorelick's Wall was not the clintons' and Gorelick's simple (albeit monumental) blunder. Rather, Gorelick's Wall was no less than the clintons' and Gorelick's malfeasance--willful, self-serving and seditious--with the metastasis of al Qaeda, 9/11 and everything that flows therefrom the sorry endpoint. NOTE: Bin Laden declared war on America throughout the clintons' watch. Had the clintons understood that this was war, not crime, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, that they had only two options, fight or surrender, Gorelick's Wall would be just another clintoncorruption footnote. "The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." [Do not miss the significance of that last phrase, 'though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.'] bill clinton Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 11:43:37
miat, You're analytical skills are revealed in your posts as entirely argumentum ad hominenem and vericundium. It is all what he or she said about him or her without reference or grounding in substantiated facts of the matter. As evidenced by: 1.) What you infer from ignorance about what is missing from the Barret report. 2.) Your reliance on specious, partisan and second hand speculation about the so-called Gorelick Wall that is simply de-bunked by a thorough reading of the memo itself in its historical context. (Some facts I would submit are; that memo was designed to give John O'Neill, who was the lead anti-terrorist agent in the NY FBI office, direct access to Foriegn Intelligence through a designated Deputy US Attorney explicitly to work around established Posse Comitatus constraints. As the situation evolved, O'Neill began to work directly with the White House . It is tragically ironic that when Bush came into office, O'Neill was pushed out of the FBI, soon to die at the WTC on 9/11 and his key working partner in the NIO, Richard Clarke, was pointedly ignored by administration officials. 3.) As to the Broaddrick matter, the credibility of repressed twenty plus year old memories reconstructed through the meat grinder of a prosecutorial clique that has shown itself to be less than ethical in attempting to extort testimony it wants over seeking the facts by any means is uncertain, to say the least. In any case, human testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is, even when memories are fresh. It is just a case of he said/she said and nothing even bordering on proof, no matter the layers of cosmetic emotional rhetoric you apply. 4.) Your use of the word circumambient is filled with risible irony. Rather than seeing all sides of an issue and weighing the evidence of fact, you are doggedly promoting your own monological beliefs based on shared and subjective self-serving opinion. You definitively have no grasp of objectivity in the slightest. You are trying to impress with your vocabulary, but you give every indication that you have little comprehension of the organic subtlety of the meanings of the words you use. You are using ideas as attack dogs, throwing out phrases like a spray of machine gun fire, disconnected from any rational coherence; certainly not as a connective means of arriving at mutual and illuminating understanding. You are creating FUD. You are engaged in the very game of spin and sophistry which you percieve the targets of your obsession as playing. Insofar as it is true that is what they are doing, then they are playing it much better than you, because in addition to understanding the political game, they have a grasp on policy and empirical realities and their inter-dependent compexities that are beyond your ken. Unfortunately, that is the superficial game of politics as it is played through the manufacture of consent decreed by the corporate press and its corollary partner, the public relations industry in their implicit service to the militarist, oligopolist and mercantilist interests of the shadow-hidden real rulers of the US hegemonic Empire. You are their willing accomplice, no friend of democracy and just another political hack.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-21 08:19:14
You're welcome, Natalie. We must understand that missus clinton was no passive actor in the rapes and predations. She routinely-- reflexively-- actively--revictimized her husband's victims. She was an accessory after the fact in the rape. And Broaddrick is just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Broaddrick's description (confirmed by others) of her encounter with the clintons 2 weeks after the rape (see above or play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0) suggests that MISSUS clinton WAS THE PRIME MOVER in the revictimizations, revictimizations that invariably included the Stalinist tactic of the IRS audit. (See the Barrett report; see Mark Goodman's piece, above.) "Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation."--Dick Morris "I got the letters from Pellicano to these women intimidating them. I had tapes of conversations from Pellicano to the women. I got handwritten letters from the women."--Mary Matalin, 1997, CBS NOTE: Pellicano played a critical role in Mr. Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign by "suppressing" "inconvenient" accounts from several women, by concocting fraudulent "proof" (later discredited) that Gennifer Flowers doctored the damning tape of clinton, and again inside the clinton operation in January 1998, four days after the Monica Lewinsky story broke, to falsely paint Monica as simply a lying stalker, a claim later discredited by clinton's own DNA. It is surreal that this pair of documented rapists and abusers of women and power are still on the national stage. It is surreal unless one realizes that this was effected largely by the clinton jackboot, a few well-placed useful idiots in the press... and a plurality of credulous voters.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-21 07:31:14
To luminous beauty: 2/2 Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché. In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding). Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, "Can the President Think?" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/29549.html) A wasted brain is a terrible thing. 4. The BBC: Your circular argument reminds me of this one by Martin Luther King: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."  Ironically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching. King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular. The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance. Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls. The Curious Candidacy of Carol Moseley Braun: an Extension of clinton drag and drop and legacy of lynching by Mia T, 2.20.03 http://www.deletehillary.com/balkanization.htm 5. "Still, I'd much rather have a president who fucks around, than one who fucks over the Constitution."--luminous beauty That tired turn of phrase is wrong on all counts. (1) This isn't about the clintons' marital 'arrangements.' It's about their abuse of women and power. What is it about clinton rape and predation that you can't understand? (2) Surely you must be joking. The clinton years were a postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction. Goto http://www.deletehillary.com/corruption.htm. Read the Barrett report. No one in modern American history has done more than the clintons to eviscerate the Constitution. No one has done more to set back women's rights. No one is more corrupt. No one. (3) ... as opposed to Bush, who has done nothing inconsistent with the powers of a wartime president. (4) Notwithstanding, your choice is a false one. Bush is irrelevant. Unlike the clintons, Bush isn't running for a third term.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-20 21:57:05
To luminous beauty: 1/2 It is unclear whether you are simply clueless, a run-of-the-mill rabid anti-Semite, a clinton operative trying to bait me, or all of the above, but I'll play along for awhile. 1. My IQ: I make it a rule to let my assets speak for themselves. I do not feel compelled to label myself, *luminous beauty*. (Am I being too subtle here?) 2. Ad hominem: If you cannot see that your posts are riddled with them, I cannot help you. 3. The clintons' supposed smarts: In keeping with your Einsteinian theme, the perception is relative to one's own. Haven't you ever noticed that it doesn't take much gray matter to impress an idiot? I wrote about this long ago, but it still applies today: With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth. The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . . Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do. And thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity. Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments: "At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."
Posted by miat on 2007-05-20 21:53:15
to Ophelia: "A woman's choice?" hillary clinton's unfitness has nothing to do with the abortion issue. It has to do with hillary clinton's 30-year history of abuse of women, abuse of power and essential ineptitude. I challenge you to tell us exactly what this woman you call 'brilliant' has actually achieved. This "amazing intellect," as you call her, had, in fact, flunked the 60%-pass-rate DC Bar and failed utterly in the only administrative job she ever held, the endpoint of which being her infamous healthcare debacle. (Read Brad DeLong on this--and don't miss his warning to voters; DeLong is a Berkeley economist and clinton administration veteran who worked with missus clinton; he saw her lack of smarts up close.) Read not what Republicans, but what LEFTISTS--and in particular, leftist women-- who know hillary clinton well--have to say about her abuse of women, abuse of power and fundamental unfitness for office. (See my prior posts on this.) You are obviously buying into the clinton-machine PR. Why are you content to remain ignorant of the facts? Do the research. Get informed. Stop spouting generalities and clinton talking points. Think critically, (if you can). Simply having two x chromosomes is not enough. Candace Jackson said it best: "When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband." There are so many truly amazing, talented, brilliant women of high character and real, meaningful achievement who would make a great president. Missus clinton, by contrast, has achieved nothing except raw power, and achieved that on the backs of the clinton victims of abuse and predation. From the leftist site, salon.com: Thank you, Gavin McNett, for your tribute to the incomparable Tammy Wynette. (TAMMY WYNETTE, 1942-1998) Too many pundits, usually leftist and privileged, sneer at country music. To these critics, any music created by poor, Southern whites (at least those poor, Southern whites who didn't attend an Ivy League university) must be held in contempt, along with its correlatives: incest, racism and trailer parks. Hillary Clinton? Who would even know her name were it not for her attachment to a man? Where would she be now if she as a child had to pick cotton from sun up to sun down? Tammy Wynette stands alone, a legend; and she will be admired wherever people appreciate the honesty of the human experience. Human beings are vulnerable. We all should be thankful to any artist courageous enough to bare her soul on the public stage so the rest of us who are listening and know whereof she speaks might benefit. Sean Smith Fresno, Calif. Salon.com Bottom line. Do the research. Limit your research to leftist sources, if you must. (My advice is to examine everything.) This election is too important, the times are too perilous, to do any less. We cannot survive another clinton. (Indeed, we may yet not survive the first.)
Posted by miat on 2007-05-20 18:34:47
Mia, thanks for hosting that MSNBC Broaddrick/Meyers interview. I watched it when it aired, and I thought I had taped it but could never find the tape for some reason. That interview is what finally made me realize --- along with all the other accounts of affairs, unwanted advances, cigars inside interns, etc etc --- that we had a genuine sexual predator in the White House. I guess it's one thing to have a President carrying on illicit, supposedly consensual affairs ala JFK, even though that in itself is reckless from a national security standpoint, but the rape of Broaddrick and the sexual harassment of Jones, Wiley and who knows how many others puts it in a completely different category. This is not a man who by any stretch should have been in the White House, but more fittingly should have been in jail years ago. What sickens me is that I started out fans of the Clintons, and cheered when he won in 92. I even cheered when he won in 96. Thankfully laziness and a safely Democratic state saved me from ever actually voting for him. But now, like thousands of others, I vote Republican thanks largely to his shenanigans, and also from the realization of how tightly Democrats --- elected, in the media and even friends and family --- were willing to tie themselves into knots in order to defend him. Of course this is about Hillary now, but the thought of Bill back in the White House, in the spotlight, with all but a relative few of us who care or are even aware of the Broaddrick thing and what it really means to have a rapist as first man much less President, turns my stomach. And of course, it's all too apparent now that Hillary was always well aware of Bill's carrying on, even of the Broaddrick rape, and was perfectly willing to keep quiet, defend him, to even threaten Broaddrick, all the while keeping her N.O.W. membership current. Surely the Democrats can do better than this. I'm not too jazzed about any of the R's either, and I've even lost the temporary love I had for GWB. But if Hillary is nominated I can assure you I'll get up off the couch and pick an R, any R, even if I have to spin a homemade wheel of fortune.
Posted by Natalie on 2007-05-20 13:27:42
It's nonsense that Hillary doesn't support a woman's choice. Hillary is fully supported by Ellen Malcolm and the entire reproductive rights community. Her support continues to grow, why? Because all the nonsense that the Republicans can toss in her direction has already been tossed. They fear having her run because they know that she has a real opportunity to win and bring the Dem's back to the Whitehouse. Hillary has an amazing intellect and is easily recognized as one of the brightest stars around. She is also pragmatic. I'm proud to support her. I'm proud of the other women and men who stand in her camp giving her support. There are many who attack her without really having a clue as to what they are talking about. Regarding her being cold, I've seen her speak in person, I've seen her connecting with people one on one - no one who has had that opportunity could say she doesn't connect. She's a woman fighting in a predominately male world. She is an amazing woman doing hard work, and doing it very well. She is the single most qualified candidate, Republican or Democrat.
Posted by Ophelia on 2007-05-20 11:03:59
miat, Zell Miller is an avowed liberal and a registered Democrat. He's a fruitcake. Nothing ad hominem about it. Just a rational observation. As is the case with your sweet demented self. If you can't connect the dots from Hitler to Schmitt to Strauss to the neo-cons to the Worst President Ever, you must have an IQ even lower than mud. But I will admit that equating Bush to Hitler is unfair to Hitler. You know there are broadcasting laws in Britain against mispresentation of views and facts. Quite strong libel laws to boot. The BBC is reputed to be as objective as any broadcaster in the Anglophone world, with fact checkers second to none. Where you have gotten the notion as to otherwise is peculiar, but knowing you are insane, not surprizing. But then, you probably believe the mainstream US corporate press is liberal. A chimpanzee could earn an MBA. Especially if his family practically founded and financed the school. Grades and intelligence do not necessarily correlate. Consider Einstein. Whatever things you say about Bill Clinton, not being smart isn't one of them. Hillary either, really. She's not a top notch intellect it's true, but compared to most of the Republican's in Congress, she's a genius. Except that you will say any kind of fiction you surmise from ignorance or 'noble' lies straight from William Kristol's butt. Are you saying Chris Hitchens has a sense of morality? A pickled brain is more like it. If you think I'm being swayed by Clinton agitprop, you haven't understood a word I've written. Ask me why I'm not surprized? Still, I'd much rather have a president who fucks around, than one who fucks over the Constitution. That's what real character is about.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-19 22:04:10
P.S. to luminous beauty: I wasn't implying that all leftist publications are devoid of objectivity, only that the BBC is notoriously so. The distinction, I think, has in part to do with the publication having an institutional sense of morality: This publication and The Nation are examples of publications that do. As for individuals, Christopher Hitchens and Pat Caddell come to mind. I was a longtime subscriber to the NYT, but when the Times endorsed bill clinton for re-election, (and later the wife), contingent on their getting a brain transplant of the character lobe, I dropped my subscription faster than you can say 'bin Laden.'
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 20:26:12
To luminous beauty: Your Nazi comments are a non sequitur. They have nothing--zip--to do with equating Bush with Hitler. As for relative intelligence, I happen to think the professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens that is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition. That said, Bush's SATs were higher than Kerry's, Bush earned an MBA from Harvard while Gore flunked out of divinity school, dropped out of law school and hillary clinton flunked the DC Bar, which had a 60% pass rate. (She did, however, manage to pass the Arkansas Bar, with a ~90% pass rate... and the rest is history--albeit continuously 'revised.') "Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. 'In his sophomore year at Harvard,' the Post reported, 'Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale.' Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of 'Inventing Al Gore,' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's." All while Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard.... You really must try to think critically, resist the clinton agitprop machine and goto original sources.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 19:46:09
to luminous beauty: You are confused. The SOURCE is Mark Goodman, an 'avowed liberal and a registered Democrat.' Put on your thinking cap. Do you really think The New York Times et al. would publish Goodman's exposé detailing the clintons' abuse of power gutting evidence of the clintons' abuse of power (note the irony) when the Times, itself, is guilty of the same thing, namely, redacting the redaction of the Barrett report? By the way, resorting to ad hominem does nothing to advance your position. To the contrary.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 19:14:47
miat, The Washington Times editorial page is your idea of left-wing? The BBC is hardly an objective source? You are freeping batshit insane. Do you even realize you are writing in the comment section of an article in a leftist publication that is critical of Hillary Clinton? Speaking of shrinking leadership, at 5'4" Dennis Kusinich is heads above any candidate in the Democratic field, and towers like a giant over the ten Republican midgets running. FYI, Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-cons applied through his college friend Carl Schmitt, who went on to become Hitler's Chief Justice, for a position in the Third Reich, citing his philosophical agreement with the Nazi program. Since Strauss was a Jew and Schmitt realised he would not be acceptable to the Nazis, Schmitt arranged for Strauss to go to Princeton. The neo-con philosophy is Nazism, where the anti-semitic element has substituted Muslims for Jews. So, yes, a Jew can be a Nazi. As responsible as George Bush is, he doesn't have the smarts nor the moral sense to understand how monstrously criminal his administration has been. Until he and his cohorts are removed from office, tried for crimes against humanity and rotting in prison, he will be at the center of any and all national political discussions. Deal with it.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-19 18:50:22
THE BARRETT REPORT (By Mark Goodman, January 31, 2007) -- continued -- (part 2/2) As it happened, I had trod a path parallel to Mr. Barrett's in my own investigation into corruption in the highest precincts of a global media conglomerate which led in turn led to evidence of obstruction by President Clinton. An abiding theme in the redacted pages, insiders say, is the Clinton camp practice of using the IRS to punish its enemies. Mr. Clinton plainly did not leave this illegal practice behind in the Oval Office. By all accounts he has maintained a tight grip on a number of government departments and agencies, notably the Justice Department and the IRS, the folks who can deal the deadliest damage. I can personally vouch for the Clinton-IRS strategy. In 2002, after I had learned of Mr. Clinton's intrusion into the case I had reported to the IRS, I informed Mrs. Clinton of the facts I'd uncovered. Soon enough the IRS came calling with unwarranted tax demands and threats of criminal investigation. I replied accusing the IRS of conspiring with the Clintons and the media conglomerate to perpetrate "institutionalized terrorism." The agency, finally grasping the irony that it was seeking to punish its own whistleblower, quickly backed off. So: You really can Just Say No to Clintonian bullying. All of which brings me back round to the 120 missing pages of the Barrett report, still smoking in some nether Beltway trash barrel. I tried to pry the pages out of Florida Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (who, in this tale's one comic episode, referred me to my local Democratic representative) and even appealed to Mr. Snow and the chairman of the Republican National Committee — and got nowhere. It's a puzzlement: Why would the Republicans sit on a report they think destined to deep-six the presidential campaign of the Democratic front-runner? Alas, there are several unholy answers to that riddle. The first is the cynical theory that we don't really live in a democracy but in a series of autocracies changed at fixed intervals. Thus the inevitable corollary: At the top, power-brokers stick together. It further must be clear to the Republican brain trust that the party is on course to take an even worse drubbing in 2008 than it did in 2006, so they're surely counting future cards. And if they have to suffer a Democrat in the White House, who better than Mrs. Clinton, poster girl for moral ambiguity? In that event, it follows, the sequestered pages of the Barrett Report would surely give the Republicans a dandy wild card when upcoming hands are dealt on Capitol Hill. Bluntly put, they'd have Mrs. Clinton at least halfway in their pocket. Finally, under the law of unintended consequences, it occurs to me that Mr. Bush's Roman abuses of power have provided welcome cover and concealment for Clinton crimes and misdemeanors. I'm an avowed liberal and a registered Democrat, but I do understand that a wrong Bush doesn't make two right Clintons. I submit that in this crucial election season the American public — which, after all, paid $20 million in hard tax dollars for the Barrett report — has every right to access of all pertinent information available on presidential candidates. Now that the senator from New York has announced "I'm in to win," voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch. Mark Goodman is a veteran journalist and author of the novel "Hurrah for the Next Man Who Dies." http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070130-085828-2771r.htm
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 16:42:53
THE BARRETT REPORT (By Mark Goodman, January 31, 2007) (part 1/2) The bell has just rung on the 2008 presidential sweepstakes and already more entries have crowded into the gates than the American grandstand can count, much less account for. That's all to the good, as the only winners over the past two decades have been named either Bush or Clinton. Still, since nothing less than the fate of the nation seems to be at stake, it is imperative that all candidates be measured as closely as possible for merit and accountability, beginning with the most visible pretender, Sen. Hillary Clinton. The disturbing problem is, neither the Democrats or Republicans on Capitol Hill are disposed to brace Mrs. Clinton, even though it is immediately within their power to do so. Let's return one year to the yellowing Barrett report. In February 2006, after nine years of hard labor, Washington lawyer David Barrett, the independent counsel appointed to investigate the Henry Cisneros scandal, finally published his 684-page report. His study provoked commentary mainly for what was missing — 120 pages of evidence, reportedly devastating to both Clintons, which Democratic congressmen, led by Sens. John Kerry, Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan, had redacted by attaching a rider to another bill. Deeply frustrated by nine seasons of blockading by Clinton lawyers and Democratic congressmen, Mr. Barrett issued a statement saying, "An accurate title for the report would be, 'What We Were Prevented from Investigating.' " What, indeed. In an online column written before he signed on as President Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow reported that by all accounts the redacted pages contained enough damning evidence to sink Mrs. Clinton's presidential ship. Mr. Snow's widely held view made sense, else why would the Democrats go to such extravagant lengths to shield the pages from the light of day? However, there was a catch to the redaction: Any congressman could secure a copy of the vaulted evidence merely for the asking.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 16:41:39
P.S. to aikanae: I am not asking you to goto right-wing sources. I am not even asking you to goto objective, neutral sources (their likely nonexistence notwithstanding). I am asking you to goto LEFT-WING sources. Read what LEFTIST intellectual women think of the clintons and their rape and revictimization of Juanita Broaddrick. (salon.com, 'Mothers who think.') Read what a clinton administration veteran, Bradford DeLong, has to say about hillary clinton's unfitness for office: "My 2 cents' worth + I think it is the 2 cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994 is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do and she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly. There is no reason to think she would be anything but an abysmal president." Read what an "avowed liberal and a registered Democrat," Mark Goodman, has to say about hillary clinton's massive abuse of power. IT IS A LEFTIST, NOT FOXNEWS, who warns us: "Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch."
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 16:39:56
To aikanae: As a Jew, I find your Hitler comment not simply absurd. I find it offensive. That said, this discussion isn't about Bush. Bush isn't on the ticket. Bush isn't the 2-term president trying to defeat the 22nd Amendment by transposing the 'twofer.' The clintons are. What we must decide is simply this: Do we really want to put back in the White House two demonstrable abusers of women, abuser of power and willful, self-serving failures to confront terrorism? I wrote this in 2005: NANO-PRESIDENT: the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton (by Mia T, 7.31.05) Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies." Our leaders are inexorably shrinking. According to our current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack. At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s. The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for 1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t. The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound. (Can anything be lower than a clinton?) "Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92-- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough? [Certainly, they do now.])-- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size. History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president. The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do. The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide. ------ Reducing the above to a 'nano' comment, the clintons are small people who do only small things. And this clinton legacy of smallness will only diminish over time. (See historian Douglas Brinkley on this.) These are consequential, perilous times that require a serious, capable leader, not these two ethically, psychologically and cognitively challenged demagogues. As for your cite, the BBC is hardly an objective source, but I will take a look at it and get back to you. I only ask that you do the same. Check out the clintons. Check out the alternatives. Certainly the Left can do better than those two miscreants.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-19 15:39:54
aikanae, Good find. But don't imagine it will have any effect on the likes of miat. Such true believers and fanatics have abandoned the principles of critical reasoning and empirical evidence in favor of clinging to and spreading irrational fear and hatred with the sole intent of preserving their megalomanic sense of superiority. One bit of supreme irony I picked up from that well done documentary was how Robert Bork could, with such apparent rationality, project the sociopathic nature of the neo-con movement on Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton who, in spite of his Democratic Party affiliation, did more to enact the traditional conservative agenda than any Republican president ever did.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-19 10:27:11
Bush is a million times worse than anyone else, alive or dead including Hitler. There is no compromise. Your right about one thing: 80% of the voters have no political party to represent them. Whitewater was a smear campaign. I'm saddened to see someone with half a wit to question the marketing and p.r. schemes not realize that. you might want to watch this. it's BBC, so it's well resourced and has passed several critiques with only minor errors. it's been shown several times around the world - except here. It's not even distributed. http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/power_of_nightmares.htm The concepts presented can simplify alot. i.e. The neocons clearly hate the Clintons. I'm no fan of the Clintons but the neo cons are much scarier. Anyone the neocons hate is ahead of the game just based on that.
Posted by aikanae on 2007-05-19 02:40:48
To aikanae: As for sock puppets and 'front men,' consider this from Katrina vanden Heuvel's progressive journal, The Nation: Hillary Inc. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman In a packed ballroom in midtown Manhattan, Hillary Clinton is addressing hundreds of civil rights activists and labor leaders.... The junior senator from New York starts slowly but picks up steam when she hits on the economic anxiety many in the room feel. "We're not making progress," she says, her sharp Midwestern monotone accented with a bit of Southern twang. "Wages are flat." Nods of agreement. "This economy is not working!" Applause. She's not quite the rhetorical populist her husband was on the campaign trail, but she can still feel your pain. "Everything has been skewed," Clinton says, jabbing her index finger for emphasis, "to help the privileged and the powerful at the expense of everybody else!" It's a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. "She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists. It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-18 05:45:44
To aikanae: I happen not to like McCain, either--for many reasons--but he--no one of either party, for that matter--comes close to posing the danger to our country that the clintons pose. Anyone on either side is infinitely preferable to the clintons. It isn't close. All I ask of you is to do the research on the clintons, and to do it with your eyes open and your mind clear of the PR, especially the stuff coming from the clinton agitprop machine, (which is not easy to do because clinton PR is insidious, it permeates old media, it is encapsulated and protected by the clinton agitprop, it has even become part of the conventional wisdom). (For example, the clinton machine line on hillary is that she is 'the smartest woman in the world.' Did you know she flunked the D.C. bar--(DC bar had a ~60% pass rate), that she followed clinton to Arkansas because that was the only bar she passed? (Arkansas bar had an 80-90% pass rate) Read what clinton administration veteran and Berkeley professor, Bradford DeLong has to say about hillary clinton's supposed smarts. (You can find it at deletehillary, incompetence page.) And do not miss his warning: 'Hillary Rodham Clinton must be kept far away from the White House for the rest of her life.' He worked with her. He should know. We humans are imperfect. Voting is always a compromise. But I do agree with you about the mediocrity that is invariably served up. The problem is the professional pol. The professional pol is mediocre, self-serving, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition. The root cause of our problems is entrenched power. We will not solve our problems unless and until we purge DC of the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians, people of exceptional ability, achievement and character who will lend their expertise for a term or two and then return to their day jobs. But we must also produce an electorate that is informed and capable of critical thinking, and an electoral system that is free of fraud. No easy task. But doable. For starters, we must make certain that these two miscreants--the clintons--never again take the White House. As for Bush's ranking, the C-SPAN poll obviously did not include GWBush as his presidency is not yet over. It is not clear how history will view Bush. Unlike clinton, who failed to do his only job, namely, 'to protect and defend the Constitution'--(indeed, clinton could not have done more to undermine and weaken it), Bush 'protected and defended the Constitution' in spades. The question will be how well. And that determination likely won't be made for decades.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-18 03:01:16
I am not sticking up for Hillary, but I'm not jumping on bandwagons either. Bill shouldn't even factor into this conversation other than Hillary does have more experience in the WhiteHouse than the average 'first lady'. So much about voting for the president ends up being based on comparability, or the 'lesser of the evils'. Very rarely have their been canidates running that I've fully supported. In fact I'm usually holding my nose when I walk out of the voting booth. I would vote for Hillary over McCain just for the fact that with Hillary I would at least know who was running things. McCain is another bit player and front man. His terrorism bill turned out to be nothing more than a show of how ineffective Congress had become. I've watched McCain for decades in AZ. He couldn't get the respect to have anyone show up at the table for a panel. It doesn't look like Republicans have a wide field of canidates that look any better. I'm sure Bush gets top honors for 'worst ever'.
Posted by aikanae on 2007-05-17 22:33:07
Your comment is a non sequitur. It is absurd. Did you play the Estrich video? Estrich tells us that hillary clinton habitually, reflexively plays the victim for votes. Listen carefully to Susan Estrich, a progressive, a feminist and someone who knows hillary clinton very well. Missus clinton plays the victim for votes because she understands that she cannot get enough of them otherwise. (Legally, anyway.) You might also want to research Estrich's book, 'Real Rape.' It describes the clinton kind of rape. As for your claim that there is 'misinformation' at deletehillary.com, please give us examples. Everything is documented, often with the clintons' own words--most often in their own voices!... and there are many links to primary sources. Take, for example, the Dateline NBC interview of Juanita Broaddrick, the clintons' victim of rape and predation and IRS abuse. There is a link at deletehillary.com to the video of the entire Dateline NBC interview. Are you aware that most people who saw the interview believe Juanita? Goto salon.com, hardly a right-wing site. 'Mothers who think' details the reaction of progressive, educated, 'elite' women to the interview and to the clinton rape of Broaddrick. They believe Juanita. Play the Chris Shays interview. Shays saw the government rape evidence, as well as ovewhelming and horrifying evidence the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women. (Some congressmen actually CRIED when they saw it.) Play 'Virtual Kill' to hear former CIA hunting bin Laden chief, Michael Scheuer--among others--on the utter, willful failure of the clintons to confront terrorism FOR THEIR ENTIRE TENURE. The clintons are abusers of women and abusers of power. Perhaps worse, they cannot be entrusted with our national security. Three decades ago, this was clear to Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat, who wrote the following: "In Dec '74, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust. Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as 'establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment.' A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons." Zeifman then outlines her numerous abuses of the rules during her time on the investigation. Ugly stuff. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is this: Presidential character counts, and counts most. In a C-SPAN poll of US Presidents by 90 historians and presidential scholars, bill clinton came out dead last in moral authority, lower than Nixon, and middling at best in most dimensions. clinton's moral authority ranking ensures for posterity his place at the bottom of the presidential heap. That is, unless we are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-17 18:20:23
Bush (and the entire Republican army) plays "the victim for votes Dunno why, but relying on delethillary.com doesn't seem like a reputable source beyond misinformation.
Posted by aikanae on 2007-05-17 17:32:52
Re hillary clinton's scheme to use and abuse women to retake the White House, listen to Susan Estrich--(no right-winger, she): HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes http://www.deletehillary.com/estrich-hilvictim.html
Posted by miat on 2007-05-17 03:05:39
'When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.' (Candice Jackson-'Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine') I take issue with Ms. Jackson on one point: Arguably, missus clinton's abuse of women--insidious and malignant--has done far more to harm women than the overt acts of predation by her misogynist husband.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-17 02:46:44
To aikanae: As your ignorance of the facts, your reliance on clinton agitprop sources and your credulousness demonstrate, the outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, failures and betrayals, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage. The clintons are counting on the ignorance and dupability of people like you. If functional assassination is a clinton sucker punch, the REPUTATION for assassination-in-fact is the clinton coup de grace. (For details, goto deletehillary.com/latest.htm): 'Stalinist Rising? hillary clinton abuse of power. (Where is the UNREDACTED Barrett report, anyway?)') To make sure their scandalous repulation always precedes them, the clintons never miss an opportunity to spread the rumors around themselves. By repeating every allegation of clinton murder and mayhem--while affecting an incredulous air, of course--the clintons dupe the uninformed and intimidate and silence their critics even as they marginalize the 'enemy.' The outrageousness of the clintons' crimes, failures and betrayals, actual and apparent, will always work to the clintons' advantage, making the disabling of these flagrant psychopaths all the more challenging. But disable them we must. 'For the children.' (The clintons' fav refrain, you may recall.) (You can start by not swallowing the clinton machine PR hook, line and sinker and do the research for yourself. You can begin at deletehillary.com; there you will find some primary sources and links.) Re your comment about women: With a 30-year history of using and abusing women, missus clinton's cynical targeting of women now to recapture the White House--using and abusing women yet one more time--should outrage all women (of which I am one). Candace Jackson may have said it best: 'When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.' (Candice Jackson-'Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine')
Posted by miat on 2007-05-17 02:24:32
Hillary had a role model visit last week. The Queen. Only Mrs C. wants absolute power. If the recent near attack of Ft. Dix doesn't remind you of 9-11 events, then perhaps IEDs on the our highways and attacks in our schools and malls will. Face reality. We must prevail or vanish from the earth. Being nice will not cut it with our foes. They respect brute force. Condi for President. Experience versus fretting about gender or race. Alternately Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller on a moderate ticket. I don't understand why Joe stays with those that shat upon him.
Posted by CPTJohn on 2007-05-10 15:20:10
Hola aikanae, It is incorrect that congress was controlled by the Republicans in Clinton's 1st term. It was still Dems in the majority even after Republicans made some gains in 1992. That makes it even worse, that they were unable to get Nat. health care legislation passed in Congress. One Clinton ally that worked with them said: They either didn't DO the politics or they they didn't WANT to do the politics. Clinton was very much influenced by people like Greenspan who told him how things WORK here in WAsh.. Greenspan was probably channeling Ayn Rand. That is why NAFTA was passed so easily. NAFTA is more accurately a Republican issue but here is Clinton, jamming through NAFTA and goodbye outsourced jobs. Clinton is remembered well, even by me,only because of what has followed him. I am of course referring to the Texas Trail Biscuit. But Bush's election is also a critique of Clinton. Clinton was a two term president and should have made the Dems stronger not weaker. This means to me that Clinton, Hillary or Bill see the Presidency as an end in itself and not as a means to make things better. Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on 2007-05-10 07:01:27
"When Clinton
Posted by aikanae on 2007-05-09 22:44:31
Bobbyanna made some good points, and I was sorry to see the discussion take a turn for the worse since then. When Clinton's candidacy is framed as a women's issue, what follows is a lot of unpretty pandering and lack of clarity on the concerns we all share. American women are dealing with all the cultural and economic"stuff" that goes along with being a grownup of either gender in modern corporate America. This particular woman dislikes Clinton and will not vote for her for these reasons: 1. We get a chance at universal medical insurance once every two decades or so. The last chance was presided over by Clinton and she blew it, primarily because of her arrogance and refusal to listen to all the stakeholders. While the members of her group were developing an employer-based health insurance program, American companies were replacing permanent employees with contract workers as fast as they could to avoid paying benefits. I see no sign that Clinton has learned much from this episode, and we don't need another president who doesn't learn. 2. If she is nominated, she will lose. I believe she will lose because: a) she is the most disliked of all the candidates; b) she projects most strongly a somewhat robotic, never-consult-the-right- hemisphere type personality; c) she still practices "identity politics," d) she is pro-war, e) she is pro-big corporation, and last but not least, f) she is supported by the same party establishment that always favors candidates who can't connect with most people and who always lose.
Posted by jkat on 2007-05-09 14:09:48
"Hillary's superior experience, one commentator said, is that she 'sat next to a President for 8 years.' THIS qualifies her to lead the USA?" I heard that one, too. Notice that the commentator did not say "lay next to a President for 8 years." ;) (He could have said "LIED next to a President for 8 years" and would have been factually correct, and perhaps even somewhat on point.) google: HILLARY DOES NOT RECALL, DOES NOT REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE SAID IT BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IF SHE DID. google: "I DON'T RECALL" (THE CLINTONS COMMIT PERJURY WITH IMPUNITY) play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRXFpHH0ClY play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QekJGaIi_1k
Posted by miat on 2007-05-09 07:31:07
CARBON FOOTPRINT, CLINTON JACKBOOT AND ISLAMOFASCIST-TERRORIST JIHAD (http://www.wideawakes.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3672#Item_1) by Mia T, 5.09.07 hillary clinton's 'position on the issues' will always be whatever is good for HILLARY CLINTON -- witness her supposed flip on the war the minute Obama surpassed her in a national poll. Did it escape anyone's notice that missus clinton's 'flip' is non-implementable? Another Kerryesque move--(remember Frank Rich*)-- the 'flip' is standard-issue clinton sleight of hand engineered to dupe gullible kumbaya-types on the left who are more concerned with carbon footprint than with clinton jackboot, who are busy pushing specious 'carbon offsets' instead of thwarting real-time islamofascist-terrorist jihad. The clintons do whatever is good for the clintons. Period. That is why they ignored terrorism for 8 years. That is why one would have to be NUTS to want them back in power. Indeed, there is a collective insanity out there that allows this grossly defective pair to remain on the national stage. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites like Mrs. Clinton's look out of touch. (Mr. Obama's bare-bones Webcast and Web site shrewdly play Google to Mrs. Clinton's AOL.) Besides, the belief that an image can be tightly controlled in the viral media era is pure fantasy. Just ask the former Virginia senator, Mr. Allen, whose past prowess as a disciplined, image-conscious politician proved worthless once the Webb campaign posted on YouTube a grainy but authentic video capturing him in an embarrassing off-script public moment. The image that Mrs. Clinton wants to sell is summed up by her frequent invocation of the word middle, as in "I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America." She's not left or right, you see, but exactly in the center where everyone feels safe.... This how she explains her vote to authorize the war: "I would never have expected any president, if we knew then what we know now, to come to ask for a vote. There would not have been a vote, and I certainly would not have voted for it." John Kerry could not have said it worse himself. No wonder last weekend's "Saturday Night Live" gave us a "Hillary" who said, "Knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it." (SNL video-plus here: http://www.deletehillary.com/im_in.html) (Also see 'HILLARY! Can a chintzed-and-powdered villain win the White House? LEADING INDICATORS SAY 'NO'' @ http://www.deletehillary.com/latest.htm) Compounding this problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the theatrics of her fledgling campaign are already echoing the content: they are so overscripted and focus-group bland that they underline rather than combat the perennial criticism that she is a cautious triangulator too willing to trim convictions for political gain. Last week she conducted three online Web chats that she billed as opportunities for voters to see her "in an unfiltered way." Surely she was kidding. Everything was filtered, from the phony living-room set to the appearance of a "campaign blogger" who wasn't blogging to the softball questions and canned responses. Even the rare query touching on a nominally controversial topic, gay civil rights, avoided any mention of the word marriage, let alone Bill Clinton's enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.... This, in other words, is a moment of crisis in our history and there will be no do-overs. Should Mrs. Clinton actually seek unfiltered exposure to voters, she will learn that they are anxiously waiting to see just who in Washington is brave enough to act. Hillary Clinton's Mission Unaccomplished By FRANK RICH January 28, 2007
Posted by miat on 2007-05-09 05:00:48
'P.S. The day when women no longer require a man's contribution may be coming sooner than you think.'--luminous beauty to wolf And conversely. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander.) Indeed, it is the male gamete, not the female, that has the full complement of sex chromosomes--(taken one at a time, of course). And I say this as a proud and strong female. But perhaps luminous beauty is envisioning a brave new world sans men, in which case the double-x deficiency is, in fact, a plus.... By the way, why would someone call herself 'luminous beauty' anyway? (Personally, I much prefer the aesthetics of being called that by others....)
Posted by miat on 2007-05-09 03:57:20
"Miat - if a man rapes a woman, should we hold that against the rapist's wife? (Perhaps in the case in point, the wife somehow participated?)"--wolf That's precisely right, wolf. Missus clinton was an accessory after the fact in the rape of Broaddrick, and, in fact, in most, if not all, of the other instances of clinton sexual harassment and predation. You can play the following YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 ) to hear Broaddrick describe hillary clinton's role. Also at deletehillary.com, rape page HILLARY CLINTON THREATENED JUANITA BROADDRICK 2 WEEKS AFTER BILL CLINTON RAPED HER (partial transcript) JUANITA BROADDRICK: They came in, but just before they did, the driver who'd gone to the airport to pick them up came over to me and said that--he was a local pharmacist in this area and I think he's relocated down to Fayetteville--but he told me--he said, "The whole topic of conversation from the airport was you and are you going to be there." He came over to me and said that and I really didn't know what to think about that. The minute they came in the door--I'm standing over in the living room area and I see them come through the kitchen area and I see her going up to someone and they're pointing at me and I see him go the opposite direction. I assumed when they came in if I was still there that he might come up and say something. But she made her way just as quick as she could to me. I almost got nauseous when she came over to me. She came over to me, took ahold of my hand and said, "I've heard so much about you and I've been dying to meet you," or "been wanting to meet you." I can't--I'm just paraphrasing--and she said, "I just want you to know how much that Bill and I appreciate what you do for him." And I said, "Thank you" and started to turn and walk away. This woman, this little, soft-spoken--pardon me for the phrase--dowdy woman that would seem unassertive, took ahold of my hand and squeezed it and said, "Do you understand? Everything that you do." I could have passed out at that moment and I got my hand from hers and I left. She was just holding onto my hand. Because I had started to turn away from her and she held onto my hand and she said, "Do you understand? EVERYTHING that you do," cold chills went up my spine. That's the first time I became afraid of that woman. QUESTION: Do you interpret that to mean that she knew about the incident? JUANITA BROADDRICK: I certainly do. and thank you for keeping quiet.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-08 09:08:02
Well there is always Obama, for those who want a liberal and "something extra". Miat - if a man rapes a woman, should we hold that against the rapist's wife? (Perhaps in the case in point, the wife somehow participated?)
Posted by wolf on 2007-05-08 07:14:40
No Thatcher, indeed, azron2006. Check out her Thatcher getup here: Just how gullible does she think we are?
Posted by miat on 2007-05-08 03:16:02
"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America. For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed. Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too. Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness. Richard Poe The Hillary Conspiracy More at deletehillary.com, rape page
Posted by miat on 2007-05-08 03:04:15
Clinton Administration Veteran: "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life." My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.... there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president. J. Bradford DeLong professor of economics, Berkeley clinton Administration veteran More at deletehillary.com, incompetence page
Posted by miat on 2007-05-08 02:59:02
From Salon.com: Hillary Clinton? Who would even know her name were it not for her attachment to a man? Thank you, Gavin McNett, for your tribute to the incomparable Tammy Wynette. (TAMMY WYNETTE, 1942-1998) Too many pundits, usually leftist and privileged, sneer at country music. To these critics, any music created by poor, Southern whites (at least those poor, Southern whites who didn't attend an Ivy League university) must be held in contempt, along with its correlatives: incest, racism and trailer parks. Hillary Clinton? Who would even know her name were it not for her attachment to a man? Where would she be now if she as a child had to pick cotton from sun up to sun down? Tammy Wynette stands alone, a legend; and she will be admired wherever people appreciate the honesty of the human experience. Human beings are vulnerable. We all should be thankful to any artist courageous enough to bare her soul on the public stage so the rest of us who are listening and know whereof she speaks might benefit. Sean Smith Fresno, Calif. Salon.com More at deletehillary.com, incompetence page
Posted by miat on 2007-05-08 02:56:33
I am impressed by your willingness to take a look at the evidence, Ophelia. Thank you. My arguments do not constitute misogynism. To the contrary. (See my YouTube video, "VOTE SMART: a warning to all women about hillary clinton," which was awarded YouTube monthly honors and was mentioned by the Washington Post, MTV News, and Mort Kondrake.) Moreover, missus clinton is not a victim of misogynism. She is a perpetuator of it. hillary clinton has, along with her husband, routinely, reflexively abused women for 30 years. Now she is cynically targeting women yet again, realizing that she cannot win without them. (Segolene Royal made a similar miscalculation, n'est-ce pas? I suspect American women are at least as astute as their French sisters.) Candice Jackson said it best: "When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband." ("Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine") You seem to be a genuinely caring person, Ophelia, but save your compassion for this country should the clintons manage to dupe enough of the gullible to retake it.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-07 14:32:30
Hillary is no Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher - Classy women with canjoes. I think when Americans think of women in positions like President of US that is what we think and want. Hillary comes across as whiney, petty and full of herself. She doesn't make the grade. We don't hate her - we just wish she didn't think she spoke for those of use who disagree with W.
Posted by azron2006 on 2007-05-07 09:46:30
I have not read the info on Juanita Broaddick and, out of respect for your time, energy and thoughfulness in pointing me to the information I will read it and let you know my thoughts. I do feel sorry for you, and the others, who rail and rant angrily against Senator Clinton. She is, without a doubt, the single best qualified candidate amoung both genders and all the parties. To have to suffer the type of misogynist abuse she receives is expected from men with power positions they are trying to hold. To have women who claim to be feminists and progressives jump on that bandwagon is embarrassing. I doubt you'll be giving her a chance but for others who have not yet bought into your myopic world view, I hope they will stretch themselves and learn the truth about how wonderful Senator Clinton is. warmest regards, Ophelia
Posted by Ophelia on 2007-05-07 09:01:15
Wolfie baby, Please don't think I believe men have zero stake in a woman's pregnancy. A woman has an existential stake in her own body. For a man it is contingent. A man has to earn his stake. Now, the law or society may consign that responsibility upon him, but it is really up to him to step up to the plate. P.S. The day when women no longer require a man's contribution may be coming sooner than you think.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-07 08:42:22
LB opines : "When men start becoming pregnant, then they will have an equal stake in reproductive rights. Until then, I don
Posted by wolf on 2007-05-07 07:52:58
This has nothing to do with Scheuer being in the White House. What is it about this simple fact that is beyond your ken? Scheuer was in the field. He was charged with hunting bin Laden. He received orders from clinton. clinton thwarted his efforts. QED.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 20:48:32
The facts speak for themselves. Bin Laden committed acts of war against American beginning with the WTC bombing under the clintons' watch in 1993 and declared war on America under the clintons' watch beginning in 1995, and the clintons surrendered. The clintons were too clueless to understand--or too self-serving to acknowledge--that when a terrorist declares war on you, and commits acts of war against you, you are perforce at war. You have only 2 options: fight or surrender. The clintons chose 'surrender.' Even worse, the clintons treated the acts of war as crimes and set up the 'Gorelick Wall,' which prevented the CIA and the FBI to share information about the terrorists. (While it is true that the Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, the Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding). The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style. Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.)
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 20:45:12
I repeat, Shauer was not in the White House. He has no direct knowledge of what happened there. It is interesting his unit called itself the 'Manson Family'. Regardless, just because the White House didn't explicitly authorize assassination, Shauers group was under orders to make every possible effort to capture him and kill him if that wasn't possible. I really mean it. It is not an attack on your person. You need psychiatric attention.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-06 20:37:49
What is it you don't understand? Michael Scheuer headed the CIA division charged with hunting down bin Laden. He had bin Laden targeted more than a dozen times. Clinton REFUSED TO PULL THE TRIGGER. Moreover, Scheuer was ordered EXPLICITLY that he had no authorization to kill bin Laden. If you don't believe Scheuer, listen to bill clinton, himself. You are either in denial or in the employ of the clintons. And it is you who is resorting to ad hominem, not to mention reductio ad absurdum. And btw, an ad verecundiam fallacy is the appeal to testimony of an authority OUTSIDE his area of expertise. Nailing bin Laden was PRECISELY Scheuer's area of expertise.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 20:00:36
P.S. Juanita Broaddrick is a primary source, or are you some atavistic fraudulent feminist who dismisses--(or, as in the case of hillary clinton, revictimizes)--the rape victim? You ought to take a look at Susan Estrich's book, 'Real Rape.'
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 19:42:06
Scheuer is a loud-mouth who can't back up his words. He wasn't in the White House so he cannot be considered a primary source as to what went on there and what he surmises is nothing but second-hand scuttlebutt. Regardless of what truth there might be in his assertions about chances to get Osama, they are controversial and unsubstantiated. What can be said is that your assertion that Clinton 'refused to confront terrorism' is patently FALSE. What can also be said with absolute certainty is that you are filled with a visceral, irrational and obsessive hatred for the Clintons that will embrace any rumor, lie, ad hominem, ad verecundiam or ad absurdum fallacy, cherry-picked quote framed in a strawman construction in your mad quest to destroy the objects of your paranoid obsession. You need to seek professional help.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-06 19:25:48
This information is unacceptable to you? What is unacceptable to me is the clintons' rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Rape specialists who interviewed Broaddrick found her extremely credible. NBC execs found her 'too credible' (and thus delayed the airing of the Dateline NBC interview until clinton was safely acquitted by the Senate). Leftist elite women believe her (Salon, 'Mothers who think'). The majority of viewers believe her. Broaddrick had contemporaneous witnesses to her account, her injuries by clinton and her torn clothes. Broaddrick's account of hillary clinton threatening her 2 weeks after the rape is consistent with the testimony of others about this event and about the clintons' methods of intimidation, generally. Conversely, clinton biting Broaddrick's lip as a method of control IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF A SERIAL RAPIST. You can see both interviews at the deletehillary website, rape link. But perhaps most indicting of all is this: The clintons never denied the charges. If you were falsely accused of rape, wouldn't you deny it, and deny it vigorously? The clintons dare not do so because the clintons did it and to deny it would, therefore, de facto vitiate the statute of limitations. You can read what the Wall Street Journal has to say about this. ('Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?' | The Wall Street Journal | October 18, 2000). It is linked and excerpted at deletehillary.com. In my YouTube vid, ' Shays Shocker: clinton raped Broaddrick Twice' Rep Chris Shays of CT discusses the rape evidence that was viewed by Congress during the impeachment of clinton. This very compelling evidence flipped moderates to vote for clinton's impeachment. The evidence was so horrendous, some congressmen even cried. Play my YouTube vid to hear Shays discuss this evidence. Shays reported that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice. Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators. Shays, who is often hailed by The New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 19:25:25
I will also post a link to the audio of a primary source who viewed the rape evidence, aka, 'the Ford Building evidence,' during impeachment.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 13:18:30
Michael Scheuer IS a first-hand source. And no more primary a source than the horse's , i.e., bill clinton's, mouth, itself. You are in denial. Or you are working for the clintons. Speaking of which, I will post a bit later other primary sources who are in fact in the clintons' inner circle.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 13:15:15
miat, Sources? Sounds like second-hand scuttlebutt and unsupported assertion to me. Believing bullshit does not make it smell like roses, dear.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-06 13:07:06
You are setting up a false choice, l.b. Bush isn't on the ticket, and the Left can do far better than the clintons. You are in denial. Do the research. Go to first sources. Listen, for example, to Michael Scheuer, who headed the bin Laden division of the CIA. He says the CIA had bin Laden targeted MORE THAN A DOZEN TIMES and clinton refused to pull the trigger. clinton consistently--repeatedly--refused to capture or kill bin Laden. Indeed, listen to bill clinton, HIMSELF. (Goto YouTube, 'VIRTUAL KILL'. Also goto deletehillary.com. There you will find audio of clinton admitting that he [repeatedly] refused to take bin Laden from Sudan.) Bin Laden repeatedly declared war on America and committed ACTS OF WAR against America during the clinton tenure, starting in 1993, when THE SAME PEOPLE BOMBED THE SAME BUILDING. AND THE CLINTONS DID NOTHING. (Were you aware that clinton never even visited the WTC site after the '93 bombing, although he was minutes away in NJ a few days after the attack? Don't you want to know WHY clinton ignored terrorism for 8 yrs, why he refused repeatedly to capture or kill bin Laden? Play my YouTube vid VIRTUAL KILL. Listen to Richard Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror." The clintons are too clueless to understand--or too self-serving and corrupt to acknowledge--that when terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are perforce at war. (A terrorist war requires only one consenting player.) Either you defend yourself. Or you surrender. The clintons surrendered. The clintons surrendered allowing al Qaeda to grow exponentially. The clintons grew the problem and passed it off to Bush. Why did the clintons refuse to confront terrorism? No less than Madeleine Albright tells us why. She captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war. Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Nobel Peace Prize good-bye. If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 12:25:12
It saddens me, Ophelia, that you are buying into the clintons' PR. Do your homework. Words are cheap. Especially words uttered by the clintons. Missus clinton is not what she seems. She is an abuser of women in her own right, and she is an abuser of power. Did you ever hear of the Barrett report? No? I suggest you do some research. You can start by Googling 'Barrett report Mark Goodman' to read his January 31, 2007 piece, 'The Barrett report.' Learn what a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT AND AVOWED LIBERAL who KNOWS AND WORKED WITH HILLARY CLINTON, has to say about the Barrett report, its redaction and hillary clinton's documented massive abuse of power. Did you know, for example, that hillary clinton routinely sicced the IRS on her critics? And yes, Juanita Broaddrick was audited. As were all of the clintons' other victims of sexual abuse and all of the clintons' critics. This is what they do in police states. This is what Putin does. Is this the kind of government you want for us? Google 'STALINIST RISING? HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER (WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)' As for Goodman's op-ed, pay special attention to his warning in the last paragraph. It is intended for uniformed people like you. He warns: "Now that the senator from New York has announced "I'm in to win," voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages [of the Barrett report] so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch." You spoke with hillary clinton? Well, I spoke with Juanita Broaddrick. Did you view the (hardly right-wing) NBC Dateline interview of Broaddrick? You can watch it at deletehillary.com, rape page. Virtually everyone who saw the interview believed Juanita. To this day, the clintons have not denied doing the rape and revictimization. If you were falsely accused of rape, wouldn't you deny it, and deny it vigorously? The reason the clintons have not done so is because they did it and denying it would de facto vitiate the statute of limitiations. See "Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick," The Wall Street Journal. It is excerpted and linked at deletehillary.com, rape page. To read what leftist elite women think about the interview and the clinton rape of Broaddrick, goto salon.com (hardly a right-wing site) and read, 'Mothers who think.' This is what Lisa Myers (winner last month of her 2nd prestigious Barone award for journalistic excellence), who conducted the interview, told Broaddrick before the airing: "The good news is that you are credible. The bad news is that you are very credible." The upshot of this extreme credibility was NBC producers (part of the clinton agitprop) spiking the interview until clinton was safely acquitted by the Senate. 'When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.' (Candice Jackson-'Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine) And this answer doesn't even begin to address clinton ineptitude and betrayal.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 11:52:12
miat, There is a difference between those who have doubts about Hillary's commitment to progressive humanistic ideals because of her willingness to 'triangulate' a 'third way' through the political dichotomization that plagues the current generation, and those who, such as yourself, have consumed and proceed to (vomituously) dispense the Mellon-Scaife kool-aid of 100% pure fact-free ideological hatred with scurrilously false accusations and cheap innuendo. Compared to the evil mountain of lies, corruption and incompetence built on the bodies of hundreds of thousands of dead that has characterized the Bush Administration and the late unlamented Republican control of Congress, Hill and Bill are virtual saints.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-06 06:26:38
The clintons are not about 'compromise,' and the 'blue dress' was a distraction; not enough of us noticed that it was a symptom of the larger problem. The clintons are about THE CLINTONS. Period. This country cannot survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.) If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that character in a president counts--and counts most. (Note that in the C-SPAN presidential poll, 90 historians and presidential scholars ranked clinton dead last on the 'moral authority' dimension--lower than Nixon.) Missus clinton's 'flip-flop' on the war this week should remind EVERYONE--including DEMOCRATS--why we must not let the clintons retake the White House. Play my two YouTube videos: 'VIRTUAL KILL.' and 'VOTE SMART: a warning to all women about hillary clinton' The clintons surrendered to terrorism for 8 years because they wanted high poll numbers and a Nobel. Missus clinton made it clear this week (to anyone too dense to figure it out for herself) that things would be no different in a--heaven forbid--sequel. By the way, you are absolutely right about the clintons underestimating us. The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Posted by miat on 2007-05-06 03:33:08
Hillary has potential. But I'm also one of those 50-ish femanists that wouldn't vote for her unless their was nothing else (think hot air balloons and McCain). She mirrors my thoughts exactly speaking on a commission. On the campaign trail, she's the opposite. Obviously, the bulk of the country now realize a stained dress wasn't so bad. I still remember headlines commenting on her headband and hairstyle when she tried to conduct panels on universal healthcare. That was equally as infuriating. She's was also the first (and last) that didn't play the role of a whitehouse mouse. Her score is about even. Where Hillary strikes negative is underestimating the public now. I'm not as innocent as I was a more than a decade ago. Then, Republican-light was acceptable because I didn't know any better. But now I do. I'm not happy about Clinton compromises. I'm not proud of our global role. I am not accepting anything but radical change. I could care less about skirt, skin, or anything else. Things must change and I don't think Hillary has figured that out yet.
Posted by aikanae on 2007-05-05 23:38:11
It saddens me to see women buying in to the right wing blather about Hillary - or any Democratic woman who puts herself out there on our behalf. I've had the pleasure of meeting Senator Clinton on several occasions, and being in the room with her when she spoke on several more occasions. (in answer the the unasked "how much did that cost?" the answer is nothing) Senator Clinton is a bright, thoughtful, compassionate woman who works hard for all of us. New Yorkers love her, she was re-elected overwhelmingly. The more than 60,000 people who contributed thus far to her campaign do so by and large with smaller sums - showing the broad base of support among those of us with regular incomes. Each time I saw her she was very warm and friendly, incredibly patient while she was swarmed with people simply wanting to touch her, to shake her hand and thank her for her service. When we, as women, attack each other needlessly we only support the determination of less thoughtful and progressive people trying to ensure the next Repbulican in office. I serve on the board of City Year - a non-profit referred to widely as the Domestic Peace Corps. We went to D.C. for our annual conference in 2003 - Hillary spoke passionately to us about national service. She reached out to every one of the corpsmembers with us at the reception. She waited afteward to allow everyone who wanted a photo to take one with her. I saw her again when we travelled across the country to New York for our conference last year. Her talk had most of us in tears with her passion and eloquence. Most recently I had the pleasure of seeing her at the California state Democratic convention where she had the crowd on their feet. We are blessed to have so many wonderful candidates for President within the Democratic party. We have a real opportunity to elect a woman, a smart, kind, thoughtful, caring woman who has worked extremely hard throughout her career to serve those without a strong voice. This year, this baby boomer hits 50 and I've never been more proud to be a woman unafraid of what 50 means - I'm thrilled to have such an incredible woman ready and willing to stand up to the hateful, mean spirited attacks - ready to lead us to a new world of peace and sustainability. kindest regards, San Jose, CA A Fan of Senator Clinton's since 1993
Posted by Ophelia on 2007-05-04 12:51:18
It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem. (G.K. Chesterton) While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real. Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration." It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief." Mia T, 10.02.05 HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
Posted by miat on 2007-05-03 22:18:41
Wolfgang, When men start becoming pregnant, then they will have an equal stake in reproductive rights. Until then, I don't think so. That blacks vote in preponderant numbers for Democrats may be due to blacks knowing from personal experience that racial discrimination and long standing social inequities, in spite of limited legal and institutional protections, still present a strong cultural bias against their 'enlightened self-interests'. A reality that Republican politicians seem reluctant to consider.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-05-03 15:35:31
While it is true, wolf , that 80% -90% of African American voters supported the Democratic ticket, for purposes of this discussion, I would say that from another perspective, a predominantly cultural perspective,it cannot be assume for them or for any other sub-group that there are shared beliefs that cause unanimity in people's actions and responses. There were, for example, a great many faith-based initiatives undertaken by the extreme, Christian Conservative Right towards Black churches and church goers that deliberately appealed very specifically to homophobia. (the "gay marriage issue.).Homophobia, is not race specific. And, in another , quite different example, I have had the personal experience of having Black pastors of Black churches tell me it was not appropriate for a woman (an African American woman) to run for mayor in my city. They accepted women in legislative, elective office, and supported them in those endeavors, but the Mayor's office was a "man's job." Point is, there is a strong element of conservatism in the African American community that the Bush administration recognized, and began to tap into. This is also true in the Hispanic community as well as other population sub-groups. It's a numbers game. The opposition doesn't need to get it all. They just need to pick off enough to give them their margin for victory. From another perspective, the traditional way of doing things, finding an issue that galvanizes people, that motivates them to come out and vote, can be a double edged sword. It can also isolate and divide. Karl Rove is masterful at going from state to state and finding out just the right local issue that pushes just the right buttons to mobilize his base and create that magic margin of victory. But it isn't rocket science, and more than one can play that game. It's just that as a society, it doesn't get us any further ahead. One step forward, two steps back.
Posted by bobbyanna on 2007-05-03 12:20:22
bobbyanna - nice post. I agree with much of what you said. . . "Even with reproductive rights, not all the stakeholders are women." I would say men and women are equal stakeholders here. "as there really is no monolithic Black vote" Well, there is in fact. 90%+ of blacks vote democratic. Of course, this is probably due to simple ignorance, as opposed to enlightened self interest. "In fact, it can convincingly be argued that within every sub-group, the lines that divide are most often economic" I totally agree. Personally i think all race based or gender based helping programs (think affirmative action) should be replaced with programs based on economic need.
Posted by wolf on 2007-05-03 11:10:59
Stepping back a moment from Hillary, Helen Caldicott had an interesting comment about women in legislative bodies. Caldicott is an anti-nuclear activist from Australia. She said it has been her experience that women acquiesce to men until their numbers reach approximately 30%. At that point they start going their own way. As she puts it: "They start taking away their missiles". There is so much more to do to regain power for the left, than just win elections. If the dems enhance their numbers in the Senate and in the House and win the presidency in a landslide they will have won nothing. They must still fight corporate media, corporate lobbying, Washington think tanks, most of whom cheer on the right. They must take on the religious right's attacks on education. And they must also counter the weight of right-wing court appointments, especially the downright scary supremes. I never will forget that election tampering by the right, not only stole the last two presidential elections, it also gave us the 5-4 supreme court majority. Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on 2007-05-02 11:21:33
Some of the issues that have been historically characterized as women's issues just take us down another blind alley! I did polling and worked on campaigns in another life. Women care about the same things men care about. 90% of the time. And to continually frame most issues as gender specific only marginalizes women further. True. Reproductive rights are of specific and particular concern to women, but the environment, the economy, healthcare, education, etc. are universal issues. Iraq is a universal issue. When it comes to job discrimination, and equal pay for equal work, women have legitimate concerns as do other sub-groups. The key thing to remember is that women aren't an isolated sub-group, and can and do forge alliances on issues, no matter what those issues are.( Even with reproductive rights, not all the stakeholders are women.) As a professional woman who has raised two daughters who are professional women, I have experienced work place discrimination: based on sex, based on race, and most recently, based on age. I want a woman to be president. I am appalled at how self-conscious, patronizing, anxious, and condescending the news media, and the American public in general is about this prospect. It is almost Pavlovian, reflexive at least, the way we act, that as a nation we always feel that in order for one group to succeed we have diminished another. In order to give we must take away. Divide and conquer! The cliche that keeps on working. Our public discourse, our cultural norms, are so much based on divisiveness, we have forgotten how to act collectively for mutual self interest, if we ever knew how. And those divisions bleed into everything we do and how we interact with one another. It crosses race, ethnic and gender lines. It crosses economic lines. And it is even a pronounced characteristic within and among us in our population sub-groups. There is no monolithic Women's vote just as there really is no monolithic Black vote, no ethnic vote, no Hispanic vote. In fact, it can convincingly be argued that within every sub-group, the lines that divide are most often economic, and increasingly, faith-based (which I find very disturbing!). The myth of group think doesn't penetrate too far below the surface and attempts to translate it into collective action, are a fragile, very short term phenomenon at best. If women "hate Hillary" it is because we haven't yet learned to trust her...and that is her fault as much as ours, and our cultural conditioning. And I don't think we actually hate her at all. It's that she hasn't made herself relevant in our lives.
Posted by bobbyanna on 2007-05-02 07:19:03
katiebeth, Thank you for your well-written comments. You put into words the essence that I had been trying to grasp. Your comments also made me think of Hillary Rodham Clinton in comparison to Condoleezza Rice. Rice wears the skirts, has the perfectly-fixed hair, plays the piano and speaks foreign languages like a refined woman trained at boarding schools. (I don't know if she did attend boarding schools.) Ironically, Rice is not married but represents a "better" woman for some people than does Hillary who took the route of wife and mother Plus, even though Rice is in a high-level position, she is expected to be subservient to the decisions of her boss, a man. In comparison, Rodham Clinton as a senator is free to determine her own priorities and to speak her own mind.
Posted by SillyLeftist on 2007-05-02 06:48:50
Since it's May day, I think this link is appropriate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0rfTkmn4g
Posted by johnkick on 2007-05-01 19:39:45
Bumper sticker seen in Santa Cruz Calif. IMPEACHMENT: It's not just for blowjobs anymore. Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on 2007-05-01 19:21:29
I'm a 22 year old woman, and I've grown up viewing Hillary Clinton as a role model. My mother, a baby boomer and a former bra-burner, raised me to believe that women like Hillary were what I should strive to be -- intelligent, confident, strong, opinionated, and unwilling to back down when it comes to things she feels passionately about. As I've gotten older, I have continued to respect Clinton, even when I haven't always agreed with her politics. She deserves respect for what she has accomplished, as far as I'm concerned. In this article, Douglas states that Clinton is betraying what "feminism" began fighting for 40 years ago. She argues that originally one of feminism's major tenets was to create a kinder, gentler world, a world that better reflected the "positive" qualities -- compassionate, maternal, etc. -- that, of course, all women must possess. The funny thing is, I thought feminism was about gaining equality for women on all levels and about tearing down the stereotypes of women which have pigeonholed us for centuries. In this article, Douglas waves her feminist flag, but then turns right around and gets angry with another woman for NOT conforming to female stereotypes. How is that feminism? To me, Douglas and many women like her aren't angry with Clinton for her politics (although I can understand that -- I also take issue with her stance on the war), but rather because she refuses to play the game that other women play. Douglas is upset because Clinton doesn't try to succeed in a man's world while "wearing lipstick, skirts, and a smile." Douglas is angry because Clinton doesn't pander to feminine stereotypes. Clinton does what women CAN do, not what women are SUPPOSED to do. To me, this article expresses anger not at Clinton's politics, but at the fact that she has succeeded in a way that few other women have all because she has continually refused to be constrained by the very stereotypes that feminism originally tried so hard to deconstruct. She expresses her opinions, even if they aren't "appropriate" for ladies, and she does what she thinks is right, even in situations where her actions have been deemed unladylike. This was the brand of feminism my mother taught me. This is the brand of feminism I intend to teach my daughters. It's all fine and good if you don't like Clinton because she isn't wearing lipstick and a smile. But please, don't call it feminism.
Posted by katiebeth on 2007-05-01 18:47:41
First let me say that no matter who the Democratic nominee for President is, I will vote for him or her. I am not currently supporting Hillary. New York may like her. But I cannot see what she's done for the rest of us. The entire premise upon which her candidacy is based seems to be "Vote for me, because I'm Hillary." She isn't likeable. And when you run for president, likeable is important. Americans don't want smart. (Unfortunately, we need smart. But to get it, you'll have to package it with a box of warm cookies! We don't like smart men either. So there's that.) This isn't a high school debate competition. Americans don't want the smartest, best little girl in the whole 10th grade! And that's who Hillary is. She stands before us and seems to say: "Look at me. See how hard I try! How smart I am!" Every "t "is crossed. Every "i " is dotted. We all knew someone like Hillary in High School. She won all the academic games competitions. She came in first every time there was something where brains counted. And a lot of people looked up to her. But no one ever invited her to spend the night. That sounds shallow and unfair, but it is also true. So given the fact that I find her unlikeable, I looked for other reasons to support her. I really wanted to support her. The fact that Hillary has tacked to the Right and that she supported the war is very disturbing to me. The fact that, with all his transgressions she hasn't called Bush/Cheney on any of them, bothers me. Too opportunistic? Yeah. Hillary is Leiberman Lite. And that is why I do not support her. I like Obama and I like Edwards...and I wish Elizabeth were well enough to run for President instead of John.
Posted by bobbyanna on 2007-05-01 06:22:35
Well, well, well, Mr. Rockford. Is this the same monomaniacal blood thirsty troll that that used to make a fool of himself regularly over at Kevin Drum's site? Hey Rock (hopefully not a psuedonym for Rockford) just how stupid do you think the readers of this site are? Aside from the wing-nut trolls like rockford who are obviously foaming at the mouth and the TV and radio nut cases whose idea of winning an argument is to say, "SHUT UP!" until there is a commercial break, there is an endless supply of purple faced screamers posting in blogs like little green footballs. On the other hand, virtually all of the centrist and lefty sites seem to try to compete with former VP Gore for the most plegmatic award. Technical accuracy and recognition of the complexity of the problems facing the US today is a wonderful thing, but if there is any fault with left-wing political argumentation it is a lack of emotionalism. Finally, in reference to your cutsy comment about squeamishness, what does it say for GOP backers that they are not hurling their guts up over: the mocking of a woman on death row pleading for clemancy in front of a reporter, arranging a position for a gay prostitute to ask soft-balled questions in news conferences and spend a lot of 'Free-time' at the White House, making a mocking video about the inability of the US military to find the WMDs that were the justification for going to war, a decade plus of cover ups of homosexual corruption of minors by a GOP congressman, the VP telling a Dem. senator to 'go f*** himself' during a session of congress right on the senate floor, repeatedly cutting pay and benefits and refusing to send sufficient equipment to the military while spending fortunes on high-priced merceneries, and that the self-proclaimed 'man of God' Bush accepts massive support from the cultist who claims to be the second coming of Christ Rev. Moon and his Unification church. Not only was president Clinton's marital indiscression a forgivable one the ONLY people who had a right to an apology (his wife and daughter) chose to forgive him. Frankly, that whole sordid mess was and is no one elses business. In contrast, it's quite evident that the incomplete list of horrors above committed by leaders of the GOP are indeed the whole country's (and in some cases the whole world's) business. Spare us you aires of look-down-your-nose superiority. They don't work coming from one who stands nose deep in slaughterhouse offal. We have all seen that the travesty of justice that was the Whitewater investigation was merely a prelude to the massive corruption being revealed daily in Bush's (or rather Rove's) Departmant of Justice. Far from being squeamish about Sen. Clinton's role in that tragedy, it is a point in her favor that to the end she conducted herself with dignity and compassion.
Posted by Strive to be Dust on 2007-04-30 22:49:06
Disregarding the question of Hillary's politics for the moment, I find the commentary refreshing if only for that it represents the "Silent Majority" of feminists who don't necessarily equivocate "feminist" with "anti-feminine" and "anti-man." Let's face it...if women wanted one of their own that acted more like a man to take on men, then Major League Baseball players and Tour De France competitors wouldn't be the only ones "juicing." Unfortunately it's the opinions and outlooks of those like gsachs that give feminists a bad name and not only polarize them from other liberal voters, but other female voters as well. But then again, there's a problem with silent majorities too... Though I'm fairly conservative/ right in my voting, I can appreciate a well-articulated left view...problem is, too many times, the opinion is infused with ENTIRELY too much passion and emotion...how ironic that y'all tend to blame the right bleeding too much "red" on issues... So, what I'll say here is what I said earlier in another forum...if the Demos are going to have ANY chance at the White House, they need to stop bleeding themselves dry early on. The REAL danger here is that the Hillary camp is going to spend so much time and energy strategizing how they're going to cut Obama to the quick and be the last one standing, that by the time the REAL competition comes down with the Repubs, y'all have written all of their material for them...plus the dirty laundry has all been aired already, all they have to do is dredge it up at the right time. And they are already taking the high ground, because they don't cut themselves apart in the primaries. The Dems need to make a DECISION on who it's going to be...a COMMAND decision (you want to show America you can make a decision? Make a decision on who's running...and tell the other one to step down, for the good of the party and good the nation...period). Then the other former candidates get on the bandwagon and stop undercutting the runner's campaign (another thing y'all are notorious for...being sore losers). The Repubs don't have to do half the work of tearing down you guys down...y'all do it for them. It's also fairly telling when y'all are even squeamish with both Clintons' integrity issues...
Posted by Rock on 2007-04-30 13:43:36
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a product of her era. That meant for her to have power, she had to share it through her husband. (I suspect the same ideology is in play in the history of Michelle Obama.) As the rare woman playing in the upper levels of national politics, Rodham Clinton is being held up as an example of what individuals perceive a woman at that level should be. Very little of the negative issues that I have heard or read about Rodham Clinton have anything to do with her as a politician. Most of the negatives, and too many of the praises, have to do with the fact that she is a woman and all that has meant in the past 60 years. The essay is no different. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Rodham Clinton, this type of commentary makes me extremely nervous since the country voted for George W. Bush not on his policies but on the impression he made of "being one of the guys." I also get nervous when future voters look only at whether a person voted for or against authorization of force in Iraq. There are nuances to the votes and to the apologies, or lack thereof, that will make a big difference in administrations. I also am disturbed at the people who claim hatred of Rodham Clinton, then embrace Barack Obama when he says we need to leave the hate behind and work towards bipartisanship.
Posted by SillyLeftist on 2007-04-30 10:46:30
So this is it, eh? I am a Republican that wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was running unapposed for hometown dog-catcher but for you folks this is a new standard. Hillary has become the successful black man. Now that they're successful, they can no longer have the values of their origin. For the black man it means he's got "white" insides. For Hil I can only assume that means she's a closet "breeder". Can we make this a little more convoluted?
Posted by jeffrey7112 on 2007-04-30 02:07:43
Hey hey Hillary is just like the rest of US liberal hawks, only she is a girl! When I vote, I vote for policies, not 'brands' and her brand reeks of US centrism. In my view the rest of the world should be very afraid if the next US President is a Dem. They will feel obliged to bomb someone just to show they are 'tough' on defending US interests, and in an attempt to 'wedge' the kind of nutters posting here, who have masculinity issues. I can't stand her kind of politics. give me an honest to goodness reactionary Republican any day.
Posted by Jane Doe on 2007-04-30 01:19:17
The Kumbaya Crowd doesn't care about the thousands murdered and starved in Sudan, because they can't blame it on America and especially President Bush. They did not care about the plight of Iraqis under Saddam. If America retreats from Iraq, the power struggles and violence against innocent people will be more like Sudan. Of course, it will be Bush's fault.
Posted by Will on 2007-04-29 17:49:58
gimme some iranian centerfuge love! hillery would allow it..i'll try to keep it off my house!
Posted by rick30346 on 2007-04-29 03:26:57
Neo-con Nazi repiglicans need love, too!
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 03:20:14
I'm a neo-con nazi republican and i can tell you hillary is only tricking the stupid people. She has no plan and the brain power of a fresh cow pie. I would be very concerned if she got into power she would nuke the shit out of everyone.
Posted by rick30346 on 2007-04-29 03:16:45
Thanks patriot, I know I don't feel like man without your approval. I am working on growing a pair and a spine, just for you, you stud.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 03:16:44
johnkick - typical liberal. Questions how anyone w/ dissent "got past the censors" re: rule's posting. Right on rule - very observant for a European to say about American women in general! Also, johnkick has to pooh-pooh away Jim_Rockfords' posting, which is right on the mark, by saying "thanks for playing". If you don't have a pair there johnkick then at least grow a spine...
Posted by Patriot on 2007-04-29 03:07:26
The article misses the entire boat, and thus sadly relfects the problem with 21st Century feminism. The writer states that Hillary is not feminine and espouses that modern feminists are both feminine and feminist. Yet, the truth is those two are mutually exclusive. Being feminine as described by the writer, means to done makeup, lipstick, etc., all tools used for centuries to appear younger and healthier and thus attract a mate. It's evolutionary psychology 101. Attraction is a by definition a passive state. Hillary truthfully and honestly describes the true feminist, eschewing so called tools of feminine attraction for truely modern methods of influence...words and actions.
Posted by gsachs on 2007-04-29 02:32:51
To make the statement "50-something progressive feminists" as a lead in to bashing Hillary because of the way she dresses (not girly enough for you) appears to be foolish thinking. Added to that your, obvious, lack of concern for the safety of the innocent Iraqis. At least those that haven't already perished in this illegal, US attack of their country. Many times in a week I hear mention of American troops and of those that have lost their lives. I rarely hear mention of the thousands of Iraqi lives lost. I can't help but conclude that, at least, some of Hillary's harshest critics are women who are jealous of what she has accomplished both personally and professionally.
Posted by KittysBlue on 2007-04-29 02:20:45
Women have an enormous amount to offer in philosophy, politics and other areas. I am ready for a change. If you want the same old crap, vote Republican. I, however, don't want the same old crap. So, I won't be voting Republican.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 02:14:06
I'm 45. I don't hate Hillary. Can't anyone let a woman succeed in peace? I will vote for her as I already have in the past when she won.
Posted by Bigstuff on 2007-04-29 02:10:48
Thanks, Jim. I don't agree. I think Hillary can handle it. But, thanks for playing.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 01:48:08
"Learn from the bonobos?" Humans are not chimps. Deeply feminized and effeminate cultures get wiped out by aggressive, male-oriented societies. Feminists have no answer for Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the desire for most of the world's Muslims to enforce the universal Caliphate and sharia law. As the head of Hezbollah (#2 killer of Americans) said, "we are not fighting to get anything from you. We are fighting to kill you." Our fragile and free society has been and always will be protected by a mountain of dead, mostly young and white, men. Oceans don't protect us, globalization means cheap stuff from China and a man like Mohammed Atta at the controls of a jet plane aimed at an office filled with ordinary people. And funny that, the people doing the fighting and dying want a leader who won't dream of acting like chimps. Not to mention the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, wives, and children of said men doing the fighting and dying. The feminist "dream" of re-inventing the world to be anything other than nasty, violent, dangerous, and threatening is silly pipe dream of wealthy women who think the world looks and acts like the Upper West Side. When 98% of it looks like Islamabad or Mogadishu. And with cheap jet travel can come here. Hillary alone of the Dem Candidates has an inkling of the danger, the need for defense, toughness, and fortitude against enemies who want to destroy us and will soon have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a heartbeat away from bin Laden's control. Musharaff has survived three assassination attempts and his interior minister was just assassinated by bin Laden's forces yesterday. Neither the capital nor the NWF is under Musharraf's control. Iran is run by a lunatic regime that under it's "moderates" stoned women to death, hung gays, and went the extra mile to kill Americans and Buenos Aires Jews. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, and YEMEN! have all announced nuclear programs (in response to the failure to stop Iran's). Yemen. Where literacy is about 25% IIRC. Ponder YEMEN with nuclear weapons (built mostly by Lil Kim no doubt). We live in a world if anything far more dangerous than "24." Where only toughness and "I'll nuke em if I have to" offers deterrence. When Hillary put her hand up first when asked about the GWOT she showed at least the basic understanding of reality. That said she won't win. Leftists despise her because she shatters their dream of holding hands and singing kumbayah. Meanwhile working class women despise her enabling of Bill's predatory sexual adventures that allowed (with feminist approval) sexual advances by bosses to subordinates. Not to mention an open borders policy that swamps the labor market with cheap labor and thus lower wages, while making ordinary Americans foreigners in their own nation. Obama will likely get the nod, and go down to massive defeat by any competent Republican: Rudy, McCain, Fred, etc. Because the world fundamentally remains a dangerous place and globalization brings conflicts that in the mid 20th Century stayed in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan right into the heart of places like Manhattan, Arlington VA, or even Shanks Field PA. Obama looked like a deer in the headlights when asked about his response to US cities being nuked and knowing who was responsible. Pathetic, truly pathetic. This is a pity because IMHO the public yearns for something different. An old-style FDR-LBJ or even JFK space-program type of mobilization to "solve" the problem of jihadist Islam by massive use of force, and then going home. Coupled with secure borders and sending illegal aliens home. But so much of the party has become a handmaiden to David Geffen or George Soros instead of ordinary people. Bad for the party, bad for America. Well, Laurie David and Sheryl Crow at least have some thoughts on how many squares of toilet tissue ordinary people can use. Good to know.
Posted by Jim_Rockford on 2007-04-29 01:39:16
rule, How did you get past the censors? We love our American women, you silly fool.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 01:30:16
american women are a schizophrenic disaster, I feel sorry for them. Angry, delusional, and confused. Good luck American men
Posted by rule on 2007-04-29 01:26:35
I get that same impression "a female Xer". Boomers seem to be stuck in a rut. And, the generation after them are ready to roll on by.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 01:17:41
Fools. They don't deserve power. My only complaint is that my 7 yr old daughter might not grow up with the image of a female in the highest seat of power in the world seered into her little brain as a normal thing because a bunch of boomer ninnies who don't have the stomach for it are stupidly waiting for perfection and, in what amounts to a display of pique, stamping their feet and willing to hand power to any guy who'll tell them pretty lies. ---a female Xer---
Posted by palejewel71 on 2007-04-29 01:01:43
A republican candidate will win again. You all know that right? Democrats have only whine and no answers. Zero force of will but for knee jerk emotional wishy-washy maybe I won't change my mind today BS. Thoughtful, respectful, patriotic Americans knows this. A republican candidate will win again.
Posted by rick30346 on 2007-04-29 00:52:23
Love her or hate her, Hillary has the best chance of becoming the first female President of the United States. This transition has never happened before and it is way past time that it did. Grumbling about the specifics of her personality and ideals is valid, but let's step back and see the forest among the trees. Politics in America is a very dirty game that allows only the strongest players entrance. Hillary has entrance and I really do believe she has a good chance of winning. This is a watershed moment. If she does win, she has the power of changing American politics forever so that other women, with far less advantage than she enjoys, can enter.
Posted by johnkick on 2007-04-29 00:05:12
As long as the money that feeds the democratic process comes from corporate underwriters, all presidential candidates who rise to prominence will be those with a willingness to kiss corporate ass. As long as the political process is dominated by corporate media and the affective advertising and marketing strategies they employ, elections will be nothing more than beauty pageant/horse race public spectacles where actual policy considerations are drowned in the noise. As long as the general public is distracted by the glamourous illusions of conspicuous consumption and mindless entertainment that fails to challenge their minds and conscience, and as their time becomes increasingly burdened by the struggle for the legal tender and the increasingly complex demands of living in this compartmentalized and alienating society, we will continue to have to suffer this endless parade of foolishness and deceit. It has been this way for a long time and we who are informed and progressive in our politics know and despise it. It is no wonder we feel marginalized and impotent. That is the plan. Hillary is just one in a long line of the lesser of two evils. It sucks, but that is the way it is. The good news is more and more people are awakening from the sluggish opiatic dreams of consumerist utopia as they realize the living nightmare of its consequences. I don't see much hope in the presidential race for the forseeable future, but some small hope in returning a fair degree of balance in the People's House. Nonetheless, I am giving as much support to Dennis Kucinich as I am able, just to ensure that there is one voice of sanity amidst the pandering and posturing herd.
Posted by luminous beauty on 2007-04-27 07:07:39
I've followed the news closely and read up on the background of all of Sen. Clinton's positions, yet I can't seem to find any solid evidence for all of the accusations that are being flung at her. Since when did the GOP slander of the 90's become the conventional wisdom of self-proclaimed Democrats in 2007? And, yes, I do mean slander. Just what is all this crap about Sen. Clinton trying to be a man? What's the evidence for this slime attack? From the very beginning, she has honestly labeled herself as a centrist. Who is the one being misleading in this argument? As for Lieberman, he has always been a hawk to the right of Clinton on foreign affairs. Fine, condemn him for his fool views in that sphere, but don't forget that otherwise he has a very liberal voting record. Finally, in the primary, pursuade with the strength of your positions and the programs you support and vote for your preferred candidate. But, if there is one thing the Democratic party needs to stop doing is using slime attacks on its fellow members. Divide and conquer is a very basic strategy of war and politics --don't play into GOP hands. Remember, United we stand -- Divided we fall it's not just a union slogan. From the viscious tone of the commentary here, it would seem that many of you would prefer to vote for one of those goose-stepping yahoos running on the GOP ticket than cast a vote for Clinton. And that makes me sick at heart for the future of the Democratic party.
Posted by Strive to be Dust on 2007-04-27 02:35:38
Hello Tiger2, "Plumbing" meant anatomy. ;-) I think you're right about Slick Willy, also. (my Brit friends still chuckle about that moniker). Definitely what you'd call a flexible moral compass. Actually I think he's a cad, although in '96 I went ahead and voted to retain him, seemed at the time to be a good choice for the country.
Posted by Kuya on 2007-04-26 21:07:50
Hola Kuya, You are correct. Actually Bill Clinton is flawed in the same way that I think Hillary is flawed. Bill Clinton did some things but the better President is not a man/woman who seeks the Presidency as a lifetime achievement. We need a candidate that strives for the office to correct the misdeeds of whatever officeholder he is replacing. Gawd! Will he who wins have some misdeeds to correct this time around. If Hillary wins, and she 's not my choice, I kind of hope she's Scorpio angry at these terrible Right wingers. Mayhaps some good would come of that. I'm not in a"work together mood." I want bad things, like prison, to happen to Republicans. On a lighter note, Kuya, you say, "...as a function of her pelvic plumbing...". Just how am I to interpret "plumbing?" Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on 2007-04-26 19:54:16
thank you sister, you nailed it. she has rankled me for years and I sort of knew why and your astute analysis just clarifyed it for me Hillary is a fraud and though I have never voted for a republican i would vote for Hagel if he were running against her,'
Posted by Jaimie on 2007-04-26 18:14:42
Hillary is not a feminist, she's a power-player, no different than so many of the men who have entered politics, going back to antiquity. No different than a number of female leaders, e.g. Catherine II of Russia to name only one. Now that access to power is a bit more open to women, it isn't a surprise that a female power-player appears among the front-runners in US politics. Won't be the last time, either. People want to understand her as a function of her pelvic plumbing and the images they have in their mind about "how women are". Check out her determination to take the reins, it's much more informative about who she is. Don't be misled by the fact that she's a girl, it's secondary. Then all you have to do is decide whether her vision for the future is harmonious with yours.
Posted by Kuya on 2007-04-26 18:03:56
Susan's right on: Hillary has been a disappointment. Too conservative, too controversial, too distant... As much as I would like to see a woman president, she is not the one.
Posted by Marschallin on 2007-04-26 15:50:20
I personally don't like the way she came to power. She inherited it from her husband (to be fair, GW inherited it from his father, which also left me cold). Some of this article strikes me a just plain silly, for example: "And millions of us fought (and continue to fight) these battles wearing lipstick, skirts and a smile: the masquerade of femininity we are compelled to don." What you want to go around naked? No problem. . . "After all, baby boomer women couldn
Posted by wolf on 2007-04-26 14:11:25
Hillary Clinton is NOT a progressive and that's why many people on "the left " dislike her. She's a neo-con war hawk and a DLC toady who will run economic policy for the sake of the wealthy and the corporations. With Democrats like her who needs Republicans. That's what I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Why do Republicans HATE her so much when at the end of the day she will side with them, at least on the more important issues.
Posted by lams712 on 2007-04-26 12:59:22
The "Joe Lieberman in drag" comment is the part I can relate to. My problems with Hilary include her husband. Before becoming President Bill Clinton sat down with people like Alan Greenspan and was told in no uncertain terms about the ascendancy of Globalization. This led to untold jobs going overseas with the help of Nafta,(thanks Bill) I also read that he was interviewed, some say inspected, by members of the Bilderberg Society. However much he may deny their influence, he managed to not get national health care even with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. One of his administration recently stated that they either could not "do the politics" or they did not want to "do the politics." I don't care if Hilary is running partly to get back at the Republicans who have attacked and vilified her and her husband since 1991. Hell! Someone should. But I do question her dedication to health care for all and other progressive issues. After all, she came from corporate America before she became a politician or a politician's wife. If I have to pick from a bunch of lacklusters then I pick Edwards. At least health care for him seems to be a priority. I just wish he'd show a little "red-meat" attitude now and then. Tigertiger
Posted by Tigertiger on 2007-04-26 12:34:28