Why Women Hate Hillary

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

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.

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’t be “as good” as men in school or the workplace; we had to be better, to prove that women deserved equal opportunities.”

Yeah, right.

We should learn from the Bonobos. The females know exactly how to keep the males in line - and happy to boot!

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.

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.

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,’

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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---

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.

american women are a schizophrenic disaster, I feel sorry for them. Angry, delusional, and confused. Good luck American men…….

xer - why do you want to seer something into your daughters brain? I thought that only men are violent.

rule, How did you get past the censors?
We love our American women, you silly fool.

“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.

Thanks, Jim.
I don’t agree.
I think Hillary can handle it.
But, thanks for playing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

Neo-con Nazi repiglicans need love, too!

gimme some iranian centerfuge love! hillery would allow it..i’ll try to keep it off my house!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

Bumper sticker seen in Santa Cruz Calif.

IMPEACHMENT: It’s not just for blowjobs anymore.

Tigertiger

Since it’s May day, I think this link is appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0rfTkmn4g

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

miat,

Sources?  Sounds like second-hand scuttlebutt and unsupported assertion to me.  Believing bullshit does not make it smell like roses, dear.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.)

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.

LB opines : “When men start becoming pregnant, then they will have an equal stake in reproductive rights.  Until then, I don’t think so. “

When women can get pregnant without mens contribution, then they can have the *exclusive* lock on human reproduction. Till then, we - men and women - are in it together. And each parent should have a say about both the pregnancy and, if carried to birth, the raising of the child.

This is, of course, just my opinion. Obviously there are others out there, many held very fiercely. (Though no matter how strongly felt, it is just an opinion, with no “right’ or “wrong”. Which is why it is such a difficult issue for some of us.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

“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

No Thatcher, indeed, azron2006.

Check out her Thatcher getup here: <http://www.deletehillary.com/images/hillarydoesthatcherS.jpg>

Just how gullible does she think we are?

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?)

“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.

‘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....)

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

“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

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.

“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.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. Hillary faced enormous challenges with the universal healthcare panels. Republicans controlled congress and the press was compliant as usual.

That was the same congress that acted like spoiled brats and shut the government down to “get their way”. They would not compromise, work out a half-way point, make a deal and eventually, rewrote the rules until we have lawlessness and corruption on a level that’s unprecedented.

I learned that Hillary was more than qualified in her own right to conduct those panels, education and experience, and I do find her inspirational - overall. She was Bill’s ‘Rove’ (less criminal) which probably does qualify her for the whitehouse like it would a vice president. She was not a ‘typical first lady’. I give her bonus points for that.

Women are competitive with other women and that is a destructive trait that even held us back from getting a constitutional admendment. I really hope the younger generation can do better on that score.

Smear campaigns will only end when people stop believing in them.

Swift boat vets, McCain’s ‘black baby’ scandal, charges against Clintons were smears. Bill wasn’t convicted of what he was oringally charged with - it was a fishing hunt. Can you imagine standing before a judge for a traffic ticket and that gives them access to every detail in your life?

I can tell you right now there is ten times more dirt in the Bush & Cheney background with original open source documents using just the National Security Archives. That includes original signatures pardoning half his administration from previous criminal charges (look up Iran-Contra affair).

Hillary is not getting my vote because of politics. Pure and simple. I do not want universal healthcare supplied by private insurers. I want single payer healthcare - like Canada (which recieved a glowing report today - but probably won’t be printed in U.S. press. Have to look it up in foreign press, but the methodology is excellent confirming it).

What I can’t fault Clintons on was terrorism. They took far more pre-emptive steps that paid off in just one year - Y2K - than this administration has done in 6 years. It was smarter and less show. Bush is all showmanship and no substance.

Israeli’s, Italians, Spain, France, U.K. have all faced far greater threats than the U.S. has, yet they still have open borders, civil rights, privacy protections and rule of law - Clinton caught bombers traveling across the Canadian border, at the L.A. airport and in Atlanta. He disrupted many others. None of it was show or headlines.

He even had enough evidence to convict them, legally. And they even had lawyers with access to charges.

Bush is crap on terrorism. Bin Lauden is a diabetic getting regular dialysis in modern hospitals. Oh yea, they are also good family friends. It took congress 2 years before Saudi’s were even looked at in the U.S., but citizens? The data minning begun immediatley.

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

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.

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’)

‘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.

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

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.

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 prog