Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati"Why can't a woman be more like a man?" is the question that Professor Henry Higgins famously asks in Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner's "My Fair Lady."
"Why is thinking something women never do?" he sings despairingly. "And why is logic never even tried?/Straightening up their hair is all they ever do/Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?"
You'd think this kind of conventional thinking had gone out of fashion in the days of George Bernard Shaw, or at least in the days of Betty Friedan. But certainly not when Americans are thinking about a woman president.
These are the times that try women's souls. Those of us who were lucky enough to experience the heady days of Seventies feminism are torn between our desire to see a woman lead the country and our utter despair that that woman might be Hillary Clinton.
Back in the day, women were credited with having "nurturing souls" which would make them better leaders. They wouldn't posture over whose weapons were bigger than whose; they wouldn't start wars. Instead, they would fight for social justice. They would reach out a hand to the poor and needy, help educate children to the highest standards, and work to insure that everyone has the medical care they need. In other words, they would act like Democrats.
Now we have a candidate who is a Democrat, and she's acting like the worst Republican on the block.
Of course, the myth of the "nurturing" female leader exploded almost instantly, or doesn't the name Margaret Thatcher mean anything to you? We had the dynasty-building Indira Gandhi in India, the corrupt Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan (and welcome home, Benazir!) and a host of others. We've also had wonderful female leaders, especially in Asia and Africa.
To no one's great surprise, good leadership turned out to be a trait defined by character, not by gender.
The Professor Higgins characters among us, however, are livid over Clinton. As they march lockstep to a richly deserved apoplexy, we hear their cries of "lesbian" echo in the land.
This label has never made sense when it comes to Clinton, who would have been - at the very least - a U.S. Supreme Court justice in her own right. But she ditched her politics (she was a proud Goldwater Girl), her baseball team, her urban identity and her Ivy League career path to follow a very hot young dude named Bill Clinton down to Arkansas. This is not a life choice that a lesbian would normally make.
The cry of "lesbian!" is supposed to make us quake in our beds (those of us who are not lesbians, I suppose), but the right-wingers are going to be disappointed when their scare tactics fail. The image of lesbians has changed. The concept once frightened members of the white male ruling class because lesbians - as well as older women - are not dependent on male approval, and therefore, live outside of men's control.
But it is hard to be afraid of lesbians now when they are corporate power players, fabulously successful entertainers and rock stars as well as nurturing moms. Just as it is hard to be afraid of older women now that the concept of the "cougar," or older-woman-younger-man mating, has been let loose in the land.
When the label of "lesbian" doesn't work, the wingnuts will cry "corruption." This will be hard to do with a straight face, given the current makeup of Congress and the White House. There are so many corrupt and sleazy hypocrites in Washington today that you might well ask, what are a few more?
"Men are so honest, so thoroughly square," sings Professor Higgins, and we all know how that turned out in Iraq. "Eternally noble, historically fair/Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat/Why can't a woman be like that?"
Clinton's past has been thoroughly vetted - there's hardly an inch of her that hasn't been under the microscope. But a few weeks ago the The New York Times, Adam Liptak wrote a piece called, "Attorneys at Politics: Would You Hire One to Represent You?" In it, he told a remarkable story that, I believe, illustrates the dangers of Hillary Clinton more than anything I've ever read.
"The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans," Liptak wrote - and if here you're thinking, "Go get 'em, Hillary! Evil corporations are trying to poison us!" you are sadly misled. She represented the corporation, and "she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. 'Besides,' she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client's position, 'the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.'"
So there's your warm, caring, nurturing female political leader for you. Hungry? Eat a rat!
As the professor sings, "Can't a woman learn to use her head?/ Why do they do everything their mothers do?/Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?"
Sadly, Professor Higgins, it seems that they do.
A collection of Joyce Marcel's columns, "A Thousand Words or Less," is available through joycemarcel.com. And write her at joycemarcel@yahoo.com.
80 Comments so far
Show AllBOO-YAH! Bellcat. I saw Dennis in Concord, NH this weekend, and I can only describe the feeling as true love.
GO DENNIS!
@Drift:
Bravo on your 1:19 a.m. post. I'm ashamed to admit that in the 90's I rather liked Bill Clinton, I saw him at a rally & he was charasmatic--those blue eyes seemed to connect with me alone in that mob of people.
Well live and learn.
Hilary is a disaster. She is a neocon+zionist lover, she takes her marching orders from Tel Aviv and AIPAC, she has nothing to offer US citizens who aren't zillionaires & above.
Besides, I've already had the privilege of voting for a woman candidate, Shirley Chisolm in the 70's, so there isn't even the novelty factor for me here.
My vote will go to Kucinich. I will not be persuaded to vote for the lesser of 2 evils ever again, like I did in '04, '00, and numerous other elections.
I am amazed & aghast that Guiliani, the thug, is even being considered...the entire republican slate is an obscene joke...I could live with Bill Richardson - maybe even John Edwards (he at least seems to be willing to learn & evolve.)but Mrs. Senator Clinton, never, she is wrong on too many vital issues.
I haven't seen anything written about this on Common Dreams, but a law suite was filled in all 50 states over the Diebold voting systems http://w4sp.com/MEETING/press.php
http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/
We all need to ban together as US Citizens rather than as Democrats and Republicans.
I don't look at Hilary as a Democrat. I look at her as another corrupt politician.
Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary
http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/
We need to look at the people who are good people and do everything we can to support them Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
Chris Dodd, and Ron Paul http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en
I like Ron Paul's idea of returning power to the states to give us more control. The idea is when we pay income tax our money goes to Washington and then the lobbyists
lobby to get their hands on our money. It's a lie that Ron Paul will kick people off Social Security. He wants to gut the US foreign empire spending to pay for
SS and then give young people an option to opt out and start their own savings plans. That will make it impossible for the lobbyists to get their hands on the money.
Even Michael Moore is pointing out S-CHIP is a fascist program http://youtube.com/watch?v=eEGn5mYyXmE because it's all about giving money to health insurance companies again.
What I think Michael doesn't understand is you can't win with the Federal Government. They keep coming up with bills to give money to corporations.
firedern ... Talk about a lack of substance ... look to yourself!! lpos ..." I believe in civility ..... and reserve name calling for etc " what a crock!!
You bold face lie by mentioning my name in connection to "name calling" ... I dare you to produce "name calling" in my posts here!!
Hey atheist,
I never said Hillary wasn't eloquent, or couldn't weave subtle, nuanced, and complex speeches in shades of gray. She and Bill are masters at it. They exceed in talking a good game, meanwhile they triangulate themselves silly until they succeed in making most of the Democratic Party look like the wet dream Barry Goldwater had in 1964 when he envisioned where he wanted to take the party of Lincoln.(She worked on that campaign, by the way)
Why do they do this? Because they, above all else, seek power. They are, in fact, quite clearly addicted to it. This is what distinguishes them, and what separates them from those public servants who really ARE in it to serve. They serves themselves most of all.
They acheived what the Republicans were never able to in 60 some odd years of trying: They dismantled the Welfare State of The New Deal that generations of marginalized working class people, minorities, union members, women, children, and the elderly in this country had fought, and even died, to acheive.
The Clinton years ACCELERATED the vast transfer of wealth in this country from Main street to Wall street. The Clinton years saw NO dimunition in the growth of the military industrial complex. The air strikes in the Balkans, in Baghdad, in Somalia, in Sudan. The cruel, barbarous sanctions that killed by slow death of starvation and lack of adequate medicines 1/2 million Iraqi children, only to be declared "worth it" by their Secretary of State, Madam Albright. Then there's the Telecommunications Act of 96, pushed through by the Clintons. Again, dismantling a Roosevelt era system of regulation that had been put in place PRECISELY because we (America) had witnessed how Fascism was allowed to blossom, grow and eventually choke democracy by unitary control of the media throughout Europe in the 30s. And free trade? You're going to try to make the argument that if we only enforced it better it wouldn't still have greased the skids for Corporate America to dump the middle class in this country by seeking cheap labor overseas, where you don't even have to worry about polluting the fuck out the environment or pay even a subsistence wage? Or guarantee that your goddamn Nikes weren't sewn together by an eight year old? Where you can be shot in the head for trying to form a union? Free trade has been an unrequited DISASTER environmentally, morally, and even economically (unless, of course, you're in the happy upper 10% (or less) of the world's population). Are YOU better off than your parent's generation, atheist (assuming your under 50)? Are we?
We need a goddamned 180 degree turn on just about EVERYTHING. We're about to drive the whole fucking apple cart right off the the goddamned cliff, and you HILLARATS want to equivocate with the fucking TRUTH?
You want to change course by a degree, so we'll go over the precipice at a slightly more elegant angle.
You want to go backwards. You want to be bourne, as Fitzgerald would say, ceaselessly into the past.
Most of all, you want us to buy into your little, mean, spiritually bankrupt, fear-based world view that if we don't go backwards with the Clintons, we're doomed to have the Neanderthal Guliani and the neocons for the next 8 years.
I ain't buying what your selling.
NO DEAL
A side note off point. Had Bill O'Reilly on the TV a while ago. Used to be his ilk spoke derisively of "liberals", tonight I notice he has learned a new term for speaking to his audience: "secular progressives".
Wouldn't be a post, I guess, without my favorite:
Please help elect Democrats.
Hillary for presidency, in my opinion! Although I agree with the above comment that Rudy is a warmonger, but I think Hillary will sort the US out once and for good and restore the constitution to its earlier glory!
Daniel David - Electing HRC is not winning. She is fascist just like Rudy, ok not as rabid, but still an evil warmonger and no choice for progressives! If the democratic party can come up with a real choice for me to vote for in the general election then I will consider voting dim, otherwise I'm going third party. I hope the Dims are smart enough to defeat her in the primary. Go read Ted Rall's article on the topic. He is spot on!
Why is it that the Hillary haters never explicitly state exactly what it is that they hate about her ? Even Joyce Marcel is reduced to some rat in a can of pork and beans analogy ... that isn't even her own ! She claims that it "best illustrates the dangers" of Hillary. What a crock ! Common Dreams should be ashamed of printing this blather.
So poster drift, after being pressed, lists his/her complaints, which are strikingly similar to right wingnut talking points in their total absense of "shades of gray", so to speak.
I could address each of drift's inaccurate summaries. I'll just address a couple, with Hillary's own words:
Re voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq: "Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. [...] Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. [...] However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. [...] My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
Re her support of NAFTA: "I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example— [...] I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years."
I could have posted much more. My point here is that her thought processes are complex AS YOU WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD BE and cannot be summarized in one or two words ! You people who hate her have probably never even read or heard her words, you have only heard the mainstream media's sound bites which can never express the true meaning.
startofthesea, thank you for your rational reasonable comments.
Also, everyone here can write to Kucinich and RonPaul and ask for a debate between the two.
I am also tired of people wanting to focus on Character of the candidates. It is important, but not primary.
What about someone who states their ideas, which are on par with your beliefs (if you have any!) and describes how they will accomplish those goals (and their explanation seems credible to you).
The Character debate is used to throw you off substance and debate a popularity contest.
starofthesea and blueticket70,
All Dems in Congress know that the Supreme Court has four fascists, and it will be easy to reject a fifth fascist if that fascist is anti-choice, with a cry of "Roe v. Wade!" Giuliani is the only Republican who could nominate a pro-choice fascist. That is part of the reason he is the most dangerous. The other is that he is likely to start WWIII, especially with advisors like Podhoretz.
And I do not believe the struggle ever ends. It either gets better or worse at each moment, and each of us has to decide at each moment what we think realistically we can do to make it better. Sure, if one looks at a brief period of history, one can make snap judgments, but recorded history goes back many thousands of years, and there have been innumerable twists and turns in a great many countries and places. So reasonable people may differ with regard to their interpretations of it and what it says about what is likely or possible for tomorrow.
Good luck to you.
Of course there is still a bias towards women, so what. Unless you are God I suspect someone holds a bias towards you. And Muslims aren't too happy with God these days.
The only place I've seen Hillary called lesbian or whore is in this article and in the comments here.
I haven't read one single article or seen a website containing these charges.
If we don't tell the truth, don't be surprised if no one believs us.
And to some of you, if you can't be civil and courteous, just shut up. Nobody likes a brat.
Judi - name calling/epithets; you're absolutely right. When one cannot find a respectable way to express their displeasure in a person's actions, they resort to kindergarten language - name calling/epithets.
When a poster lowers themselves to this kind of rhetoric, especially when they don't back it up with substance, like gabi above, I just move on to a non-violent post and consider the source. I'll make note of the poster's name and will usually skip their post.
I believe in civility, even when I'm opposing someone elses views and reserve name calling and epithets for when I stub my toe.
Why do men (neanderthals, neo-con types) refer to Hillary and Cindy as a whore? Hillary may be a lot of things, but never a whore. What name do we have for men that equates with whore? Numbsculls, block-heads, whoreman? And as for whores: they have always been given a bum rap and are just used as a scapegoat, over and over, again.
good afternoon---
and did we all take proper note that rupert murdoch has endorsed hitlery? either way we lose (if voting, as the above post assumes, is the be-all and end-all of political involvement).
Good morning folks. Did we all take proper note that yesterday Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008? The first of the questionable evangelical leaders to do so? Because some of them don't really care about anything but being sure we continue our warring ways? And we, here at CD think Democrats are hypocritical for thinking lesser of two evils, and want to slam Hillary for once defending a corporate client over a rat in a can of beans?
WAKE UP. THE MARCH TO TALK ABOUT FREEDOM WHILE TAKING AWAY YOURS IS UNDERWAY. THERE IS ONE YEAR UNTIL YOU EITHER WIN OR LOSE--BIGTIME.
siouxrose ... you sound as if you believe the notion of praying for peace and the impeachment of gw bush is a new idea .... ??? Millions and millions and millions are praying for peace and the impeachment of gw bush ...the anti-christ..
And I'm sure there are millions of us who are wondering where/why the God/Goddess has been hiding all this time ...
ROCKERBABE: Your argument in favor of Hillary reminds me of a debate I had on CD with some women who were PRO-porn. When people see choice as an individual matter exempt from its impact on others, i.e. the greater good, that's a TV commercial view of "liberation." We all share a singular fabric of destiny (my take on quote by ML King), and as such, my "dream" impacts the state of the world, particularly if I am in a position of power.
As other posters have elaborated, Hillary's positions are in synch with the Republican party line. The woman is a sell-out, and as many have added intelligently to this forum, the democrats have for the most part morphed into enablers to the dangerous, diabolical, deadly and spiritually bereft Bush administration. At this perilous historical juncture to witness NO opposition party arguing for even a semblance of law, justice or decency, America's fate seems doomed.
This is why I (and thank you Star of the Sea and others for your spiritual realizations) ask in earnest for Divine intervention. The human ego (ruled in astrology by Mars, first principle, primitive as not having yet experienced the education provided by the next 11 contexts on the great wheel of time) does not like to admit when it is wrong. It's much like the husband who is obviously lost but continues on, unable to accept directions. Precisely when we toss ego aside, and humbly ASK for help (en masse), it's plausible that those higher agencies that comprise hierarchices of life too intangible for our senses or scientific equipment to codify will indeed respond.
So I will put out the call loud and in bold color: HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We mortals need it! Our vessel has been taken over by sociopathic killers who like Midas may worship gold, but turn everything else into ashes.
I have long had a feeling about Clinton, but I think this report on NPR sums it up.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16099751
I always leave tips in restaurants because I think food service staff in general earn lousy wages for their work. I base this prejudice on my own experience, Ehrenreich's recounted shot at the work, and my own children's expressed experience in having done the same. Clinton and a good part of DNC crowd probably can't even relate to this prejudice. Clinton is also hobbled in matters of credibility by her ostensible willingness to do and say anything to attain her goal. Finally, selfless public service is probably way down on her list of reasons for seeking the presidency.
These all point to an egocentric personality. I would never vote for her.
I hare ya, Lobo G, I said some "some" not "most." I just wanted to let DD know, before I called him a tool, that I DO consider Democrats sometimes, even if I think that the party as a whole is just Repug lite.
If I were a Republican, I'd vote for Hillary.
GOP is going down, this time, and the corporate media has anointed HRC the Dem frontrunner. Of all the Democratic players, she'll rock the boat the least. She's Dianne Feinstein all over again.
drift November 7th, 2007 10:58 pm
"OK, I see it now. I had been wondering where all this invective was coming from directed at Daniel David."
Glad you caught on. My take on it is that DD's first objective is to convince everyone that the lesser of two evils scenario is the best that we can hope for. Then it is but a short step to convince everyone to vote for Hillary which has been his true objective all along.
"Unlike some CD posters, I'll vote for a Dem if I like his positions. Kucinich is an example; Dean might've been one."
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a CD poster, myself included that wouldn't vote for Kucinich and maybe even Dean
Lobo Gris
Gabi,
Let me see if I can get what you're saying, just so we can be clear about things:
"ksjdidfnco....niwijinxsz.....xnisjxxijcisci...xcnsicjiscoocnfh...cnsooocjoacj...cmniscjcjoocosocjc...cmksjcoscoc....cnvhduwiqyqtr....pubs....scuswoxonciosjoso....self-righteous...hnjsocisjoksn....sioaoscsoso...loser...sicisioscocoskc....whatever....sqocisincufudfjdk....get real!!!"
What???
I can't believe all this self righteous sermonizing ... and who do the self righteous want for prez ... Paul or nader ... ha! Talk about corrupt ... obviously you don't care to delve into or talk about their relationships/choices/ history in the political arena ... The ones you feel we should all want to vote for ... There is the loser who wants one last chance at glory, so he blatantly sells himself out to the pubs ... and then the other, a pub who will say anything you progs want him to say ... bash the war ... whatever ... and act oh sooo humble while he says it ... geesh ... get real!!
OK Rockerbabe, as long as your logged on a progressive web site, and not trolling, tell me how you feel about some of these things:
Hillary:
-Voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.
-Voted for the Kyle-Lieberman Bill which has given the Bush Administration latitude to declare elements of the Iranian military terrorist groups that he can then attack with tactical nuclear weapons... and draw us into an even wider conflict.
-Has stated she will NOT redeploy US troops out of Iraq until... wait for it... 2013.
-Unapologetically supports neo-liberal economic policies like NAFTA, and the WTO.
-Has accepted large amounts of money from Rupert "Goebbells" Murdoch.
-Calls her health care plan "universal," when it's just more giveaways to the insurance and pharmacuetical corporations, not surprisingly, also major donors.
I'll let others pick up on this theme, because believe me, there's more.
treeplanter: the possibility of a possible future:
www.unity08.com. Don't know if they'll pull it off but a Rudy/Hillary race could be a powerful catalyst.
Hilary is my girl; unless Al Gore runs. The rest of the field is dominated by boys who aren't fit to shine her shoes. All this "woe is me" is nothing more than wanting the "perfect" person. . .but none of us is perfect. Hiliary is a practical, horse-trading women who represents her constituency well. She is level headed, hard-working, usually trustworthy, fairly honest, verbal, stands her ground and is still, like so many of us, working out her positions on the issues and trying to understand all sides. She is the embodiment of feminism as she is pursuing her dreams. The above nay-sayers need to get a grip; Hiliary is going to give them their money's worth. GO GIRL!
Perhaps in an actual democracy where the voices of the people who vote are heeded, we could quibble endlessly about character and loyalty. But this is America where no one gets into public office without corporate and pac money, and where the masses are only heeded until swearing-in takes place. Is there anyone out there who can really win on honesty, loyalty, and no special interest money? And what is all this crap about the "nurturing" woman? It has always been a myth propogated and tirelessly used by a patriarchy that needs to maintain its power.
First of all, women only THINK they have to behave like men when in a man's world. That's exactly what I thought when I became a firefighter in the early 80's. I thought that if I behaved like the men, they'd like me better. WRONG, they only tolerated me more than they would have. Then, I saw one of the other women in our dept. act like, well, a woman! So I began to do the same thing, and I began to stand up against the sexism. They didn't like that either, but the chief admired my courage to stand up for what I believed in.
I took a lot of heat, even had a death threat by a co-worker once. But, I never compromised on my integrity. I see Hillary compromising on nearly everything, especially when she takes money from AIPAC, weapons contractors, Wall St. barons, telecom, and all the rest. And, don't forget that she's a Bilderberger and Bill's a member of the CFR! Somebody in a post above already mentioned all the times she's supported Bush with the PATRIOT Act, etc.
Yea, while I'd like to elect a woman, Hillary's not the one for me. If Paul doesn't make it to the Repub. ticket, I think I'll vote 3rd party this year. Oh yea, I just remembered, it doesn't matter how we vote, the money changers have already elected Bush's successor and my bet is that it's Hillary. Big Sigh!
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton..never!! never!! never!!!
OK, I see it now. I had been wondering where all this invective was coming from directed at Daniel David. Up until now, I found him to be slightly gullible and a little annoying, but now I understand. His post from 1:49pm made my teeth hurt.
Unlike some CD posters, I'll vote for a Dem if I like his positions. Kucinich is an example; Dean might've been one. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say I'd settle for Richardson if he became the nominee. But if Nader were in the race as a Green instead, that'd also be fine with me. I'd donate, volunteer, and vote with as much enthusiasm. I'm enthusiastic about the progressive movement GROWING in this country, whether within the Dem party, or in a 3rd party, or both.
But Hillary? Enthusiastic about her and all her progressive ideas?? What in the hell's wrong with you, DD? She IS Guliani... in a dress.
Face it, you're a tool.
Carol Gilligan and others are correct that women are, in general, more affiliative and consensus-oriented, while men are more confrontational and dominating. However, women such as Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher are the exceptions because they have climbed up through a male-dominated system and achieved power playing by men's rules. There are, of course, men who have a more stereotypically feminine style (unrelated to sexual orientation), too. If we had more representation of a broader range of women leaders, I have no doubt that we would all benefit--or perhaps all except war profiteers and militarists. But electing neocon hawk women does nothing to better our leadership.
Actually, The go eat a rat part of the story I find kind of endearing.But I do not want a choice between Clinton(Bush Lite) and Giuliani,(Chaney heavy). the election is a year away and I feel its already being decided.
Even if she was naked boobs and vagina would not be the biggest concern I have with Hillary as President.
It is pretty clear that the media and big money are pushing the worst candidate forward in each party. The media must really hate their customers.
HRC's "kinder and gentler" fascism will still be fascism. Make no mistake the two party system is a smoke screen. If any one thinks that HRC will do anything to turn back the power garnered to the executive branch by BushCo they are sadly mistaken. Clinton will never get my vote!
Let them eat RAT, she said. Corporate shill, fascist enabler. Just say no to Hillary!
goeff29
Have tried unsuccessfully to get Daniel to address my contention that the Dems are, at the very least, equally responsible for the fascist slide on the Supreme Court and that there is no reason to believe that if it didn't matter to them when Alito and Roberts faced confirmation, why should any of us believe they will care in the future? And lest we forget, Rethugs have no aversion whatsoever to fillibuster as a means to prevent a Democratic president from appointing "liberal" judges, if he/she is prepared to. Remember the rallying cry? NO more activist judges???? So spare me the scare tactics. I'm not buying it. been there done that, and it just makes me madder than a hatter.
Does Nancy Pelosi often think about being President if Bush and Cheney are impeached? She's next in line.
Who would the Democrats choose between an incumbent President Pelosi and Clinton?
ok,
so Daniel succumbed to temptation on this issue. can't expect too much change from him in 24 hours.
Kivals, you say at 4:20 PM that Giuliani would be the one most likely to get a Democratic Congress to confirm a fascist Supreme court nominee. Do you really think it would be at all difficult for any other possible Republican president?
Politics is ugly. If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, she can expect worse than she's getting now.
In the recent debate, Senator Clinton gave a very disingenuous answer to the question about the Clinton era White House Papers. She tried to be cute and hide behind the red tape at the Archives. That does not work. If she is to have any credibility with the American People, she needs to act fearlessly and forcefully to get those papers in the public record. Then she can say: "See, I have nothing to hide." Otherwisc she is just another obsfucating Washington Politican.
Keith Campbell
Denver
"Meet the new boss... same as the old boss..." except that she's wearing a pearl necklace.
Progressives - vote your principles - fire the new boss with the pearl necklace before she has a chance to move in - vote Kucinich in the primaries, then if he loses the primaries, vote third party progressives in the general elections. Don't forget to do the same for Congress AND local elections.
Sorry Marcel, that arguement doesn't work with me .... any lawyer worth their salt would have given that defense .. sounds like Hillary was doing the job she was hired to do ...
You have a line here ... in your own words
"when the label lesbian doesn't work, the "wingnuts" (your word) will holler "corruption" ... isn't that what you are doing??
vern ... get over it ... you have your OWN personal choice and you know it ... and you always let everyone else know it ... so don't bash others because they have theirs!!
so many constant sexist remarks at a supposed liberal/ progressive site ... you guys are so totally hypocritical!!
Daniel .... hang in!
I think if Hillary is nominated, my vote will be as irrelevant as ever before, because she will lose. It doesn't matter if she loses by 5 points or by 20, she still won't be the first female president. Too many people dislike her, including all republicans, many progressives, and tons of independents. Her 'base' is the portion of the Democratic party that dislikes progressives. The last two times that wing ran for president, it lost.
Still, kivals, that doesn't answer my point about who is just as responsible, or maybe even more responsible for the composition of the Supreme Court. The Dems had a chance to take a stand against the fascist take over of the Supreme Court and what did they do? Nothing. And now I am to believe they've learned their lesson if we just give them one more chance? They could have filibustered Roberts and Alito, just as the remainng Rethugs will fillibustrer any "liberal" appontment. Remember "activist judges?" I have to assume that they knew what I knew following the confirmation hearings about those 2 idealogues. They rolled over. It's all a sham!
They don't give a flying f--k about we the people. Hey! Let's just suppose that they decided to stack the court to exactly the point it is now to keep us unruly (scared) progressives from bolting the party for the very reasons you state? Hey, my hypothesis has no less merit then their gutlessness, or their complicity? Do you actually think the Dems are above using " BE AFRAID...BE VERY AFRAID," any more than Rethugs? Fear works, let's face it. But not with me. Look to yourself for salvation---you'll have much more success than looking to it from the current rigged system. I'll take my chances with working for real change, and yes, I know I know, if the next rigged election hands us the like of Ghouliani, you can blame folks like me, instead of Ralph Nader. But god forbid you consider taking alittle blame yourselves because you are the righteous pragmatists who think you can hold back the slide toward fascist rule with a piece of scotch tape. Good luck with that!
Hillary's far from being a lesbian...in fact, she said during the Human Rights Campaign debate on gay issues, with that big "I can do no wrong I have Wall Street in my pocket" smile on her face, to a panel of gays and lesbians, that she opposed gay marriage for personal reasons that she did not want to discuss. This is just indicative of the fact that many "1970's feminists" are not necessarily the progressive humans on the political scene.
Where is Virginia Woolf when we need her? She said the best minds are bi-sexual, that thinking (contrary to what Lawrence Summers of Harvard seemed to assume) is not a gendered activity. These arguments that jump off from assuming a certain gender will act or think a certain way are hackneyed. Judge candidates on their deeds, not their "essential identities."
Good Lord, you have a whole line of exemplary PM's in Norway to refer to. Why does everyone forget Norway. There women are truly equal as citizens. But even if one like Clinton were running for office in Norway, her equivocation, seeming lack of principal, and ties to the corporations and moneyed elite would probably sink her.
When women finally assume seats of power all over the world, i wonder if they'll redesign nuclear missiles and if so, what shape those ICBM's will take?
starofthesea,
I am afraid that degrees at this point are not meaningless. Is the current USA distinguishable from Nazi Germany? I would have to answer "yes," wouldn't you? There are an infinite number of degrees of evil.
There are currently four fascists on the Supreme Court (Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts) who support the idea of the "unitary executive," which is really a fancy way of saying that a president can declare himself/herself dictator. Then there is one conservative Republican, Kennedy, who will go along with the fascists on the ordinary political issues, but will stop short of throwing the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution in the rubbish.
With one more fascist on the Court, the whole game is over, and the means to organize and grow a third party (the Internet and street protests would be limited, while electronic surveillance and police powers would become unlimited) or even to resist may well be removed, even overnight. Giuliani, being an obvious fascist himself, is the most likely to name a fascist to an opening in the Court, and the most likely to get a Democratic Senate to approve one, as he could easily nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights fascist and the Democrats would cave.
And with Podhoretz as Giuliani's main foreign policy advisor, we know WWIII is a distinct possibility, not to mention the almost certain slaughter of millions of innocents.
I had a horrible feeling about all the damage Bush could inflict, both at the state and national levels, back in 1994 when he was first running for governor (I live in the Austin area), and I have an even worse feeling about Giuliani. I sincerely believe that he would make us all long for the days of dear old Dick and his addled charge.
to starofthesea,
Yes, if it's Hillary against anyone the Republicans manage to nominate, I will support her and hope for others to do likewise. And I base that feeling on the
statements which will be made in the respective party platforms.
I also think she, if nominated, will be attacked so violently that the attack will backfire and the single women of America will vote in record numbers and give her a big boost. Maybe even some of the married church women, too, who don't have to tell their husbands, pastors, bosses, brothers or fathers what they did at the secret ballot box. I don't know if we'll nominate Hillary, but if we do, I'm starting to expect an electoral surprise. As for character, I hear that women who actually meet her in the small group settings tend to like her more than they expected to going in.
So I have a question for you DDavid., If it's Hillary against, say, anyone except Ghouliani ( the current Democratic boogeyman) would you still maintain that we support her in spite of her Rethug ties and enabling?
And I thought I already reminded you that the Supreme Court you currently have, can be blamed equally on the Democrats who rolled over and played dead after both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the senators who knowing that ALito for sure, and even Roberts were not moderate jurists, refused to filibuster? Spare me the final act. The die has already been cast and it was with the eyes-wide-open complicity of Democrats.
Support them all you want, but please don't expect to convince anyone else here with the fear card, "IT COULD BE WORSE." Degrees at this point are rather meaningless.
Why do the Repugs hate her? That's easy. Each political party is made up of frauds and dupes. The Republican frauds don't hate her. They are giving her record amounts of money, seeing her as more useful to the power structure than the buffoons running for the R nomination. The dupes hate her because the frauds have propagandized them into thinking she is the left wing boogey woman.
She is the perfect right wing candidate. If she wins, she will do what they want. If she loses, another right wing nut job gets in and the get what they want.
Perhaps one day -- I sense no day soon -- we may finally put all this comical and tragic, divisive logic behind us. Bottom line, we're all in this together. Forget the gender, the color, the age, etc. Some visionary guy named King expressed a vision in 1963 that human beings should be judged by the content of their character?
Forget Hillary the woman -- the white -- the age -- the democrat. Look at the content of her character. What I see are demonstrated qualities -- or lack thereof -- that truly disappoint and disgust me.
Are you suggesting that we should resign ourselves to our fate enthusiastically? Gees, why did the American revolutionaries bother--they should've just accepted the status quo--after all, the odds were stacked against them too.
And the wise counsel on what to do in the two-party political reality that exists was what?
"Brand loyalty" or partisan allegiance leaves one blind to political realities since the frame of reference is defined by loyalty to team not to issue. Sucker.
If the self-appointed heroes of CD could make defensible arguments in the context of political reality, they wouldn't need to resort to criticism of "brand loyalty" as their main thesis.
tetti_tatti,
Your statement: "The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men" could be interpreted to mean that women, like men, must be utterly corrupt and manipulative to gain power, which you seem to suggest in your second comment is the intended interpetation. However, if that was the intended interpetation, it could have been phrased more clearly (e.g. "like men have had to be", or "women, like men, ..."). As written, the most likely intended meaning appears to be that women must stoop to the base level of horrible evil men if they are ever to gain power. In any case, I am glad to learn that you are not full of hate. Thank goodness for that.
if the enrgizer bunny of political brand loyalty would simply log on and type "ditto my previous post," he could save HIMSELF a lot of keystrokes, and us a lot of scrolling.
"Mrs. Clinton would have been a Supreme Court Justice in her own right"? With her character, she would more likely be copping a plea to insider trading in her own right.
We could all argue that Kucinich is the best Democrat and Ron Paul is the best Republican, so perhaps we could have a 2008 two-party election with them as the national nominees. Well, that might be interesting, but it ain't gonna happen.
In front-runner land (always subject to change), as of now, Mrs. Clinton, mother of Chelsea, a former first-lady with one long marriage to a living ex-president husband (who is popular over much of the world) is running against Mr. Giuliani, a "Chamber of Commerce" type who dumped a second wife in a press conference, now takes lovey-dovey cell phone calls for schtick during speeches from a way-younger third wife, has dubious relationships with his other family members, and promises you more strict constructionist judges.
And this author and posters above are slamming Mrs. Clinton? With references to lesbianism and how she once defended a corporate client about a rat in a can of beans? About how she's somehow too "Republican" when she's running against a REAL REPUBLICAN.
If progressives can't see an advantage in Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Giuliani, they're not progressive at all and do not really give a darn about the real "progress" on any social issue in this country. Fortunately, I think Mrs. Clinton (IF she is nominated, still a significant IF) is going to garner more support from "family issue" voters than anyone is expecting. Lesbian crap, rat crap, and any other crap notwithstanding. In fact, it may turn out that the more crap is thrown at her, the better she'll do against either of the two leading bullies, Giuliani or Thompson.
Maybe we'd like Obama or Edwards better, but if Mrs. Clinton turns out to be the nominee, we'll be nothing but LUCKY to get her in The White House.
ezeflyer---at the risk of oversimplifying, I think because she is what they consider and "uppity woman" There is a great deal of patriarchy in the most extreme of the Republican base. Women are supposed to be subject to their husbands and are supposed to remain barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen. Clearly to them HC is a very prominent face of the feminist movement. It's really all publicly successful women that they hate/fear but she'll do fine for a representative.
Or were you being ironic in your question? If so forgive my belabored explanation.
Hegardless of gender, Hilary has shown herself to be a warmonger which makes her unfit for office, any office, including the one she presently holds. I wonder if she is personally invested financially in the war machine, making her a war profiteer.
Why do Repugs hate her?
kivals your extreme political correctness blinds you. There was nothing sexist about what I wrote, most people who have reached power in history have been corrupt and manipulative, AND they have been men. Women with similar ambitions know they have to act the exact same way, what's exist about that? Get a clue. In fact, I was being very fair. By the way, this is an article about sexism, feminism and powerful women if you haven't noticed.
re oregoncharles 12:06 pm & annabelle 1:08 pm:
the woman hrc replaced as the senatorial nominee from new york, liz holzman, served honorably on the watergate commission. i could have voted for her as the D's candidate for president without holding my nose, but she was swept away under a flood of corporate megabucks in favor of carpetbagger-in-reverse hrc.
it's another argument in favor of getting corporations out of the political process, as if we needed one.
starofthesea,
I am not sold on yin and yang, but I agree wholeheartedly about the need for more cooperation and balance of female and male input. Humanity evolved and survived for hundreds of thousands of years with such a balance of input and such cooperation, and the past few centuries with overbearing male input could in part be blamed for some of the current predicaments we face.
On a related point, I have argued for decades that social progress will come from men behaving more like what is thought of as traditionally feminine, not from women behaving more masculine (which is what I have seen the last few decades).
I would love to see a Madam President in the Whitehouse. But, it is not Hillary that I envision in this dream. It will be someone who is not indebted to the corporations, to the lobbyists, but someone who will be indebted to the folks that vote for her whoever she may be. She will be someone who actually puts the interests of every American above the interests of big money and big corporations. Not Hillary.
kivals, You are right to call folks on engaging in any level of sexism in this discussion, even if the article we are commentimg on, has that for a premise. I am one of those 70's feminists ( a bra burning, consciouness raising, don't shave my armpits/legs kind of woman), and I once believed that the problems of the world could be solved by women being placed in positions of power instead of men. At this juncture ( I am 61), I look for not matriarchy, not patriarchy, but a balance of the two, drawing on human experiecne in all of its complexity. We all have yin and yang energy and our task is to balance and harmonize them in spite of our assigned gender. Unfortunately, many women who engage in the current structures where power resides, are having to figure out how to fit in without becoming overly yang. But becoming what you are trying to change, changes nothing and I fear that women are now seeing that in HC's candidacy. Perhaps we should focus less on despising her for what she has done to get where she is, and feel compassion for what she must have given up as a woman and a human being to get to there. She is not other than us, but mirrors a great lesson for us as well. In many respects we should be grateful. I do not support her because her values, or the ones she has chosen to showcase, do not reflect mine. I bear her no ill will because she let me down as a woman. Dennis Kucinich, in my estimation, simply has a better grasp of that harmony and balance I was referring to.
The difference really is character, not gender. I am a man who will work very hard to put Cindy Sheehan in Congress and just as hard to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
tetti_tatti,
You wrote:
The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are two perfect examples.
Isn't that a bit hateful and sexist? Why can't we agree that the only way for anyone to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative?
Lesbian? I wish!
Hillary is HoJoe Lieberman with (bigger) tits.
Hillary is a professional politician and will do anything to keep her seat. Not unlike a professional wrestler who will use any gimmick to please an audience. But that's the nature of America politics today. There is no place for the compassion and unselfishness that a real woman would bring to the table.
Hoa binh
Hey Folks we are dealing with Washington DC politicians here. Do you think that any survive in that cesspool without getting any on themselves? Some are deeper into it than others but with few exceptions there are none that remain if they want to keep their personal integrity. I do not believe that it is possible today, to do so in Washington DC. The ones that do maintain their principals leave after one or two terms before the sickness over comes them. OR they are ignored by the majority around them because they cannot be trusted to cooperate.
She may be a woman, but mostly she's a whore, who peddles not her body but her soul.
There is a good reason for feminists to oppose Hillary's drive for power: it is little more than a way to put BILL back in the White House. She has been a lackluster Senator; the only reason she is prominent now is her last name - which she changed for his career's sake.
There are women who have earned a try for the White House. Why aren't they leading the pack?
The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are two perfect examples.
Hillary is a Republican at heart, look how she started her career. The fact she switched to the Democratic Party (which historically has been even more corrupt than the GOP) is proof that her intention is to deceive, to use pretty rhetoric while stabbing Americans in the back.
There's a method to right wing madness. They make Hillary a feminist cause, and she's riding that one. It is so ironic that a woman whose career has been "First Lady", playing the Third World path to female power, is seen as such a threat. Or not. They are handing her the credentials she never earned. Now when the media talk about her problem with people who would never vote for her, they don't need to mention the anti war crowd; they can use their right wing hate group. Message: the right wing hates Hillary, so progressives must love her. Not. Not. Not.
All this anti-women crap which still exists cannot hide the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not the best candidate regardless of gender. She has consistently supported Bush on the gutting of civil liberties, the war in Iraq and the next one with Iran and those who want real change will not vote for her.
I'm a feminist since back in the 70s, too, and it infuriates me that NOW, supposed to represent women's best interests, endorsed Hillary Clinton, way back, just because she's a woman.
When everything is peaches, it's okay to push women ahead because they can then take their chances at making it in a slightly more level playing field.
But when there is an urgent Constitutional crisis as there is today, you don't push anybody because of her gender at the expense of the constitutional survival of the US, particularly if the woman has supported an unconstitutional agenda as Hillary has supported Bush's.
As for Hillary's past "lawyering", I'm sure it's no worse than that of many other lawyers who represent those accused of crimes. This is probably the key to why lawyers are universally disliked -- in order to do what they do, most leave any semblance of adherence to doing what's right in the garbage. It just seems to be the nature of the lawyer-beast. I HAVE met and really appreciated some attorneys whose principles are admirable.
But I sure don't base my opinions about Hillary on what she did before she was elected to the Senate. There's plenty in her "service" since then to make a judgment about.
She's simply macho in drag.