I agree with the two posters who provide a rational support for Hilary. It is scary to see the mud slinging towards Hilary that prevents a rational discussion. I am personally supportive of both Hilary and Barack, mostly because I find their proposed policies to be so similar. I lean more towards Hillary because I support her Health Care and Global Warming plans, and because I empathize with her successes and challenges in becoming a powerful woman in her own right in addition to supporting her husband's political life. As we all know, it also comes down to who moves us. There are certainly double standards played up in both Hillary and Barack's campaigns - by the media and by the campaigns and their supporters themselves. This race is unprecedented. I love to see the dialogue and genuine interest taking place across the nation. I am 26 years old, and this is the first candidate and presidential campaign and Democrat(s) I have been excited about. Unlike what the author states in this article, I think that Hilary is finally out of the shadow of her husband and is actually representing her more progressive viewpoints. Barack in many ways has galvanized her to be more of herself.

And P.S. I was not a fan of Hillary's at first because she was part of the democratic machine that sat on its hands for 7 years. I am really an Edwards fan. I heard Hilary talk at a debate about Global Warming and appreciated her policy-based rhetoric ("I plan to do x,y,& z") over all of the other candidates' issue-based rhetoric ("We need change").

P.P.S. I don't want to see the super delegates decide this election. Barack has the clear lead in popular votes, and I hope that he and Hilary can come together on a P/VP ticket.

Wow dmia, are you afraid of Republicans or what?

Fascism: (according to Webster)Any authoritarian system of government characterized by state economic control, militaristic nationalism, propaganda and the crushing of opposition.

Republican/Republicanism: n. an advocate of a republican form of government...Republic: A state in which the sovereignty resides in the people entitled to vote for officers who represent them in governing.

Um, sorry bud, but I fail to see your point.

If my login could be longer it could also read feminist/peaces-studies student at a Buddhist university/carpenter/Daughter of the American Revolution/and on and on. I became a Republican this year to vote for Ron Paul-about as far from fascism as you can get within our two party system.

Nothing more fascist than intolerance.

Now, you give me the definition of Progressive.

badavis: thank you for your comments on running for the Presidency and Senator Clinton in particular. She isn't perfect, but outside of JC, who is? She has done well for herself, the women of this country and the process as a whole. I hope she wins the nomination; the change would be tremendous!

Wow! Hillary sure brings it out in some folks.

I have concluded that I am a genuine disenfranchised voter. When I listen to both Obama and Clinton, what they say is not usually horrible or offputting to me. It is what they do not say.

The money is SO BIG in this obscenely long campaign that souls have been sold and re-sold, and not to the interests of the American people.

I guess this big old war is in the interests of big money, the military industrial complex. And they own a good chunk of each of these candidates and many of the people in congress.

So there is little talk about balancing a budget, making sure that the treasury of the United States is spent for the good of average Americans, reinstating the great chunks of the Constitution that have been eroded by BUsh polciies, answering the concerns of average americans which is going to include health care, food, decent jobs.

The people were the losers in this race when it started almsot two years in advance of the election. Rich folks with deep pockets won it.

John McCain scares me out right because he obviously wants to go to war for some obscure honor reason and will--for another reason entirely--feed into the desires of the military industrial complex but I cannot see any of these candidates turning America's attention aware from imperial adventuring and toward the needs of Americans.

I will grudgingly admit that Obama seems to genuinely desire to re-direct the discussion away from all of this petty bickering. And Hillary seems to think that the presidency is some sort of birth right and that running was only a formality.

But with all the money interests at stake how can there be any real genuine difference in the outcomes?

so did most of you enjoy that primal hate? i prefer to direct my hatred toward people who deserve it, like bush, cheney and mccain.

you may find this hard to believe, but there are idiots loudly repeating barack obama's middle name and drawing conclusions (erroneous ones) from it.

I have watched Hillary for years and have noted that never has she come up with viable solutions to anything, to never have come up with anything original. What is also lacking in the press is her association with a religious group called The Family". This religious cult that believes in the elitist rule should be investigated including her role and lead in it. Hillary is also trying to claim winnings in Florida where she was the only candidate. She's a sleeze just like her husband and surely we can do better. However, for a real honest to goodness feminist and peaceful leader, first we will have to cull the tight majority of right-wing Republicans that have taken hold of our government.

For those who say Hillary is a racist, I never thought that she is a racist, but she has no problem with "playing the race card" if it would help destroy Obama's campaign. What I see is if she can't run on her own credentials, she has to try to destroy the competition. So why on Earth should we settle for that? I won't.

anne faith and Kristina, I agree, great posts from Little Brother and dmia. Especially dmia's post of 4/24 @ 7:05pm.

I would love to see the campaigns running against McCain instead of each other and let the voters decide who is better at it.

kathyodat

Hey Rockerbabe! It's DeKalb County :)

Hey "undercoverRepublican" - what are you doing at CD anyway? Isn't there some fascist website you could post on? I'm sure there you wouldn't have to put up with the foul language you encounter here. As Bill Clinton would say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

There will be a woman president. She may even be Hillary, but I hope not. We can do better. A woman of integrity will step forward. She'll use "we" instead of "I" when she thinks about the country and when she addresses voters. She won't be married to an ex-president or carry the burdens or reap the political rewards of his reign. She'll be more thoughtful, more truthful and more comfortable in her own skin. She won't lean on or spout the old male-driven military solutions to the country's problems. She'll have a political vision, an inspirational, redemptive, feminine vision of peace and social justice that will tap so deeply into our national pulse that we'll sweep her into office and we'll all go to work again reinventing our democracy.

In my lifetime I have not seen a president that comes near what you describe as this vision of a future woman president. It is unfortunate that we resort to such biased BS. Let us get real as well as compassionate.

On another note, it is and was well known among White House insiders (who have expressed this on national tv.) that Hillary was never in favor of NAFTA. She did not speak out because of her husbands job as president...a courtesy to him.

Hillary's campaign has sadly always been based on the assertion that she is a woman and that as such in some magical way because she is a woman she is more able to lead this country. Had she run on the fact that she is bright, knowledgeable and will do things differently in Washington, and had left Bill at home where he belongs making cookies or whatever- she would be the nominee today.

But she didn't do this because as the article notes, she is really not her own person. And in her own eyes, it is impossible for her to see herself in an other light because in fact she gained her position as a Senator due to the fact that she was the spouse who helped put her husband in the White House.

While she clearly is to admired for her success, the first woman President is going to have to be someone who does not come to the battle through her association with her husband's political successes. She will have to be someone strong enough to tell her husband to stay at home or whatever and let her do her job. Hillary clearly doesn't have the capacity to take this simple step.

There are plenty of such woman out there today who will rise to National prominence in the future- but right now Hillary is in reality a sign of the past where woman could only define themselves through their husbands lifes and careers. These are not 21st values or perspectives and is at the core of Hillary's flawed candidacy.

It's all about the frying pan, and nothing about the fire. Jump people, jump! Jump into the fire!

Y o u _ k n o w _ i t P O E T

Mairs wrote, "Hillary was fired for unethical behavior when she worked on Watergate". What was she doing there Mairs? Wasn't Watergate long before Bill was even the Governor of Arkansas? Someone else wrote she never passed the Bar exams, is that a fact? Where do these stories about candidates originate? Are they always factual?

It happens to all of them. I've read comments on this site that McCain started a fire on an aircraft carrier and killed 180 U.S. sailors and pilots and Obama was associated with the Weathermen. I'd say bullshit, but don't want to offend any with foul language, in case this site's literature is taught in pre-schools.

Rich Griffin: Cynthia McKinney is the former house representative from my home in Dekalb Co. Georgia. She was unelected to the position because of her behavior, comments and general inattentiveness to the needs of the citizens of her district. I voted for her originally because she seemed to be a voice for reason and saneness; that all but disappeared about 10 years into her term of office. Dekalb Co. is a very diverse county in which to live; large percentage of people with some Africian descent, so I doubt race was a big issue despite all the comments to the contrary. She lost her position to another black women and then to a black gentleman. While I admire her for her service; I think change was a very good thing in this case.

There is a strong feminist woman with real progressive views & policies!! Cynthia McKinney! Why haven't we had substantive articles on here about her? Why do people prefer to bash Hillary Clinton rather than to get serious about turning things around? Yes, it's slow hard work, so what? Yes, she's not "viable", but so what? Look at what viability has gotten for us over all these years! I have been so disturbed by the idiotic demonizing posts towards Hillary Clinton. Find fault with her policies, fine; but the anger is counter-productive - it's time to get ourselves DOING rather than talking blather!

Laura, I eagerly await the Presidency of the Woman of integrity that you describe. As for Hillary, no thanks.

sansf sez:

I would love to see a woman president. I would hate to see Hilary president. Ironic that, however imperfect, Obama seems the better woman.

*******************

There is wisdom in your remark above beyond the comprehension of many on this forum--thanks for sharing it anyway.

My am 59, white, daughter of a passive, submissive mother. College was my salvation in Joanne, my roommate, from whom I learned to value intellect and solitude and self-acceptance. At 33 I married a man who would not stay with a woman who is not his equal.

I hate the label 'feminism', but Hilary has demeaned herself, and the best part of feminism a la a Mark Penn campaign. She and Bill, this last month, are tactics only. Obliterate now comes out of her mouth so easily.

I would love to see a woman president. I would hate to see Hilary president. Ironic that, however imperfect, Obama seems the better woman.

Kivals, this deserves to be repeated:

"To Hilliary supporters, Hilliary is a feminist woman first, who just happens to be a mendacious cynical opportunist. To everyone else, Hilliary is a mendacious cynical opportunist first, who just happens to be a feminist woman."

Women don't need to "see the light". They simply need to vote for the best candidate. Hillaryism is not a female cult leader. She is merely a candidate for president.

As a woman my goal and dream is not to have a woman president, it is to have a good one.

Hillary knows who she is and so do most of us. Anyone who says such dribble after 16 years of seeing her in action, must have been asleep at the wheel. ALL the candidates are as the writer puts it "a liquid gas poised to morph into anybody or anything it takes to win". The object is to win, especially with so many voters having only a vague notion of politics and absolutely no understanding of how to do it.

Madeline Albright was a great SOS, especially when compared to the incomperable Condi Rice. She is also a pragmatic realist. So Hillary supported the Iraq war at first, we all make mistakes - I'm sure the writer has made her share of them; people who don't make mistakes probably haven't done anything worth doing. Given the mood of the country and the fact that Senator Clinton is the Jr Senator from NY; it would very well have been folly for her to oppose the war, given what she knew and was lead to believe.

"Absurdly added her years as First Lady to her political resume"; the First Lady's job is very much a political position; ask any of the women who have served in that capacity as well as any of the state first ladies. It has always been a bedrock principle of the feminist movement to honor and respect the unpaid work of spouses, as they gain experience and wisdom doing what others are unable or unwilling to do for the sake of the family unit - now the writer wants to change? HYPOCRITE! Hillary's PAID experience started with her position as a U.S. Senator. The writer sounds a lot like a lot of men who, when they want a divorce, denigrate the stay-at-home spouses' contribution to the marriage and family unit. Shame on you.

The writer mentions NAFTA, etc. - stop castigating Hillary because Bill had the audicity to do what he thought was a good piece of legislation at the time - he was supported by lots of other people from all walks of life. Hillary's comments or lack thereof during Bill's presidency was kept under wraps due to the harsh criticism she (as well as other First Ladies) endured when they too spoke out in opposition. After at least 10 years of experience with the treaty, it can now be judged on its own merits; both good and bad.

Hillary's closest advisor will be Bill Clinton. I have no problem with this; for the most part President Clinton was a good President. We had 8 years of peace and prosperity. Welfare Reform, tax reform, balanced budgets w/surplus, Family Leave Act, respect for reproductive rights, etc. I will take the 1990's anyday. I did well and so did the nation as a whole. We were healthier, happier and most employed with a bright future.

"We can do better." She will be. . . ALL THINGS TO EVERY BODY, ALL THE TIME AND PERFECT? Dream on. The writer lives in utopia; no such animal, male or female exist. She obviously has not a clue about politics, the real world and what it takes to mount, run and win an election. "In the meantime, we have a highly promising young male alternative." The writer talks, but a member of the Boy's Club is still prefered over a woman of more years experience; sounds like business as usual.

The write of this dribble appears to have no team sports experience. To play team sports (and politics is a team sport), one must put aside differences and compromise in order to accomplish a goal - the goal of an election is to WIN! Politics is all about compromise; the old win win attitude. Women who refuse to support Hillary have a right to do so, but this dribble about her intergrity, choices, etc is just dribble. Senator Obama has a lot of baggage; the writer seems to think his baggage is more acceptable. Since the writer, like lots of other women, refuses to see light and get on board, it may be years before another great women candidate comes along and I can guarantee, she will not be perfect and she will have lots of baggage, make lots of mistakes and may even have a husband that is also not perfect. The writer will then find every excuse to not support that person also. "A woman President" is a goal and a dream - one most American women will not experience because too many voters, male and female talk the talk, but cannot, will not and refuse to walk the walk. I think the writer prefers dreams to reality. Maybe that is why we are in so much trouble here at home and abroad.

I'm a Canadian, so I can't vote, but I've watched the US election with great interest and, from a feminist point of view. I don't care whether Hillary wins or Obama, as long as one of them does. I truly don't see much to choose between them in terms of knowing who they are. I accept the arguments you've made about Hillary, but then I think of her work with children, her valiant attempts to pass health care legislation, her work in Ireland and the peace process (and nobody tell me she didn't do anything without reading Noala O'Faolin's article at The Women's Media Center) and her speech in Beijing on "Women's Rights are Human Rights". I don't see why it is childish of her to say, "I'm ready to lead". I can't IMAGINE why you think that's childish. But, you're right, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary. And it's not good enough, in my view, to vote for her because she's a woman, not for that reason only. And it's not good enough to vote for her because a highly misogynist campaign has been led against her. But it is a matter of great interest that such a campaign has been waged. And I am personally insulted by it. Do you know that we can buy the steel lined thighs of a Hillary Clinton nutcracker in my country? It's been painful but illuminating to see her be ripped apart because she's a woman. No wonder it's been a long time since any woman has tried. The political process has a tendency to eat its progeny, but it eats women faster and in a much more ugly way. Yes, there has been racism apparent with respect to Obama. But I don't see any nutcrackers for sale. In my view, from a policy perspective, there really isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton and that is the real tragedy. It would be great if Americans could get themselves behind a TRULY progressive, anti-war, pro-feminist candidate who might REALLY accomplish something about US militarism, your problems with health care, foreign policy, which the world watches with such sadness and bewilderment, and so on and so on. GAH, I am so frustrated when I read about Iraq and Guantanamo and threats toward Iran and torture approved from the top down ... Here's betting that NEITHER Obama or Clinton, whoever wins, will get you out of Iraq. I can see the signs - oh yeah, they say "combat troops" will get out - that will be a handy excuse when we read about the permanent military bases and the gigantic, Vatican City-sized embassy being built, when you're still there decades from now ...

Little Brother,

You seem to have hit a nerve, or some nerves.

With regards to profanity, which is a subjective view of language and images, I have to agree. Sometimes there is just no other adjective that expresses the intensity one feels/intends, as does the word "fucking".

And, I am one also; even though I am 60 and my "Big Brother" was killed in a motorcycle crash last year.

canuckchuck -- Could you please "embellish" some of his negative aspects ?

"I find the level of misogyny aimed at Clinton, even by women who should know better, to be appalling..."

Amen to that. It is disgusting. I don't support her because I don't believe in family dynasties in politics. But the pure hatred espoused towards her on this site (and others as well) is border-line DEMENTED, and so I have to reconsider my position as I will not allow biased hatred to influence my vote.

Obama and Hillary will both lead you to the promised land of the Luciferian elite who control them. It will be a land where women will be sex toys, baby factories and servants of men, and where all men will be slaves of the elite, no matter your color.

The only bridge Hillary will build is the one that leads the sheeple off the cliff.

Feminism was a movement Rockefeller created to divide and rule, break up families and get women into the workplace to suppress wages for both men and women.

Regarding Hillary as a feminist...do real feminists support their spouses in their sexual harasment of employees?

It has been proven that Hillary was actually in the White House each time that Bill abused is relationship with Lewinski...I bet she was in the Oval Office holding back Monica's hair...

"Ronald Reagan embellished the truth constantly, but that was regarded as cute by the media and much of the public"

Which Regan "embellishment" did you find the cutest?

The one where he convinced the Iranians to keep the US Embassy Staff as hostages for an extra 6 months so he could use it against Carter?..Or the one where he sent illegal arms to Salvadorean terrorists to murder catholic nuns with?

Regan was as cute as runny ass cancer.

I'm an old white feminist woman who is voting for Barak Obama. It is time to give a younger generation a turn at cleaning up the mess that our generation made for them. I hope they win and lock up the lot of us sniveling complainer do nothings in nursing homes. i hope they lock up the sniveling neocns in Gitmo with Ralph Nade as their warden!

Ditto here, great posts Little Brother and dmia

Little Brother and dmia, LOVE your posts! Thanks for a good belly aching laugh.

I've done my own analysis of the PA primary and have arrived at the following conclusions.

The PA primary took place shortly after a debate rigged by the Clintons courtesy of ABC. The timing was no mistake. Even though this deceptive charade was very obvious, not everyone could see that, including (unfortunately) a number of Pennsylvanians. The truth is that the Clintons are just as slimy as your average Republican when it comes to campaigning, and you've got to give them credit for staging a good show. But it was just a show – very little meaningful dialogue was triggered.

Then there was Hillary visiting PA bars and bowling alleys using her acting skills to try to convince people she's a regular Joe. The only thing she didn't do to try to fit in with the crowd was to belch the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and light her own farts. I heard she actually got a skull and crossbones tattoo for the occasion and initially planned to wear a halter top and hot pants, but Bill disapproved. The whole thing was a pretty obvious deception, but not everyone could see that.

I have been to Pennsylvania a few times in my life and the people there struck me as folks of average intelligence. But I must have missed the kinds of places in Pennsylvania out of which comes the gun slingin', beer drinkin', wife beatin', minority hatin' lower class white crowd ("white Trash") that Hillary tends to draw. Apparently there are a number of these folks in the Keystone State.

Bottom line, Hillary would do or say anything if it would get her an extra vote, whereas Obama is consistently Obama and there are just things he won't do . I believe that's called "integrity", a term which the Clinton clan does not comprehend.

Her statement about Iran shows that Hillary
R. Clinton is every much as loose a cannon
as George W. Bush. And being a loose cannon has nothing to do with gender. Can this country bear another loose cannon as
president? I think not.

I didn't read all of 40+ comments to the article, so I might
be repeating something.
The only thing remotly feminine about Hi-liar-y is that she
happens to have boobs instead of balls. (not sure about the
balls)
When Barack gets the nomination, he would do well to pick a
woman as a running mate. Barack will be the nominee unless
he has the same fate as JFK, MLK, RFK and Paul Wellstone.

A feminist should vote for a feminist. There are no feminists in this race. I have heard nothing from any candidate in the running about the plight of women. A true feminist would be very angry about what has been done to Iraqi women. I am a feminist. I initially supported the invasion of Afghanistan EXCLUSIVELY because of the good I thought it could do for women there. I was wrong. Women are no better off. Iraq was the best example of an arab country where women were achieving liberation. It is now no longer so. Iraqi women have been set back deecades. Has any candidate said this and given it the importance is greatly deserves? I would like to know.

Little Brother___ I realize you are one of the most intelligent people to post here, but do you not know that there are many very vulgar, racist, put downs that could be used in describing Obama? Strangely, the posters that have some reservations about his ability to do all that he is promising for fixing the country and uniting everyone do not seem to have to resort to bad language to make their point. What would be the reaction from you Obama supporters if that were the case? I am sure you would all think it entirely appropriate and a big help to the discussion.

She's an AIPAC whore and no I will not apologize for stating the obvious. McCain is also.

I am a feminist and I am voting for Cynthia McKinney.

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, at a banquet of his fellow editors

And so it goes. There is nothing new about this sort of characterization. Vote for the least sold-out candidate.

I learned something new today. So it is despicable to play up to the American voter? Wow.

Americans have always, as long as I remember, preferred to vote for political "whores", although I hasten to add that I find prostitution an honest profession compared to the deals many women actually choose to make (and I am a woman, thank you very much) in daily life without labelling it as such, just to lay their hands on someone's money. So I dislike the use of that word in this connection.

Hillary Clinton is only doing what they all have been doing for decades: Change their stories according to the polls.

Because if they don't, they won't win. Americans want to hear Disney-like fairy tales (remember Reagan's campaign, anyone??), they want to be sugar-coated, they want to be cradled and cooed, they don't want to engage in a serious discussion about what's really going on in this world.

Only a tiny minority is inclined to accept truths, alas.

Obama has lately said a few very true sentences, I found. Only lately, IMO, though (no, the "yes we can" is just another chapter of the habitual sugar-coating) did he find words which surprised me. But that was exactly the moment when he was losing support, see??

So don't chide Hillary for playing the game Americans have been shown to want. Fairy tales. Disneyland. America the Beautiful. The eternal good guys. Every 4 years another beautiful fairy tale.

And Americans and their politicians will live happily forever after in blissful ignorance until finally one ugly day the stock market or the world economy does you part...

To whomever in this website who objects to Bill and Hillary being characterized as "politcal whores" ...

I think it's terrible, simply TERRIBLE to write such things about Bill and Hillary -- calling them whores. How outrageous! It gives hard-working whores the world over a bad name.

Most whores work because they need the dough. What's Bill and Hillary's excuse???

I hate to be a pedant, but let's look the denotations and connotations of whore/prostitute to clarify why some might object to the choice of words.

The dictionary: one who sells his (sic) abilities or name to an unworthy cause.
Well, superficially, that seems to fit, but the social reality is more complex

Connotations: prostitutes, sex workers, are often/usually forced to make this decision as victims of abusive men, or hunger, or desperation (for example, drug dependency).
This doesn't fit the Clintons.
One imagines that the sexual prostitute despises and is revolted by his/her clients.
This doesn't fit the Clinton's either.

I can't help but hear in the cry "whore" a shallow, prudish morality: Prostitutes bad; Clintons bad. What actually makes being a whore bad? Don't tell me that the Clintons are worse, whores who have a choice – it is that lack of choice that makes prostitution objectionable.

What's wrong with the Clintons isn't that they are "whores," but rather that they have sold out; they have joined the club; they have betrayed their progressive/feminist supporters in the search for power. There seems ample evidence that they have done good things, especially before coming to power, but also evidence that now they are really only concerned with power.

I leave it to others to argue that selling out is actually "compromising" to accomplish what is possible.

We all know very well who Hillary is now - she is the one who can talk glibly about obliterating entire countries.

This is not a person we want with a finger on the red button.

From the following article, "Hillary Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran," by Joe Kay --

"Clinton's comments (about obliterating Iran) are revealing not only in what they say about her own campaign, but what they say about the Democratic Party as a whole, including Obama. No one in the Democratic Party establishment challenges the basic premise underlying the threats by Clinton against Iran: that US policy in the Middle East is aimed at countering Iranian aggression. Neither of the candidates will point out that the policy of unprovoked aggression has been practiced not by Iran, but by the United States, which has killed over 1 million Iraqis, and turned 4 million into refugees, in its determination to gain control of the country and the region.

"The danger of war against Iran—or against China, Russia, or some other country—does not come just from the Republican Party. While the Democrats seek to posture as critics of the Iraq war, they are just as committed as the Republicans to the aims the war was meant to secure, and they will just as surely use military force in the future to achieve these aims."

Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/iran-a24.shtml

"Since when was calling a politician a "whore" abusive? I thought it was just descriptive."

Good one, JBPM! You got it right. The whore description does fit most (although not all) politicians, no matter whether you are a female or male politician.

Hillary is no friend to women - unless that woman is herself. I am a feminist AND a humanist and I say she is unqualified to lead this country. Hillary supporters who call people who disagree with them "immature" (or worse)need to grow up themselves. Look at the political history (okay, HERstory) of each candidate. Listen to what they have to say. Then if you can honestly say that your favorite candidate represents feminist - or even humanist - values, then by all means vote for her or him.

I've already done my investigation and soul-searching. Which is why I am voting for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. She is a woman, by the way.

This woman is a prime candidate for indictment as a war criminal.

Remember Nuremberg?

Hillary spends too much time peering into a mirror of what she considers her achievements instead of focusing on the myriad grave issues facing the country. Women succeed on their merits and we don't "deserve" to break any glass ceilings. A lot of us have, on our merits and with lots of hard work.

And that's why I really get angry with women voters fascinated by the elementary notion that the opposite in the White House is enough reason to vote for Clinton. Of course, it's a lot easier choosing that way than trying to stay informed from multiple sources, and thinking things through.

I'm also fed up with Hillary telling us everything that's wrong with Obama as if she not only has some entitlement to the White House but also is so much wiser than millions of Obama voters.

Folks, feminism is not about replacing a body that has a penis with a body that has a vagina. It's about a society that privileges (white) male bodies only because they're male. Just look at who the leaders are . . . politics, business. It's a society where women are raped at work (Blackwater in Iraq) and prevented from receiving care or due course. It's a society where a woman can be secretly underpaid for her entire career and see the case thrown out of court because she didn't uncover the secret within the required 180 days. It's a society where women can be prevented from getting prescriptions filled or medical care on the whim of the pharmacist or healthcare provider. The U.S.A. couldn't even ratify the Equal Rights Amendment! The MSM has done an excellent job of turning feminism into the new F word. Hegemony works and don't say Gramsci didn't warn you. (I will take Equal Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms anyday -- thank you Pierre Elliot Trudeau!)

I would like to draw attention to Hillary's use of the term "elitist" as a code word for racist. Her implication is that a black man cannot possibly be---and does not deserve to be---president of the Harvard Law Review and express such thoughtful, considered and wise policy positions. He does not fit the stereotype and therefore has to be put down, by whatever derogatory sneers possible. "Elitist" is particularly effective, but is well understood for what she wants to convey to her supporters.

I'm a feminist, 10 years younger than Hillary.

I've never seen Hillary's run for President as a feminist triumph. If she should win, what would that say to America's little girls? You can grow up to be president, just find and marry a man who can be president first.

Hillary's own experience, as a senator from New York, is not appreciably more than Obama's experience as an Illinois state senator plus U.S. senator. As a feminist, I'm not inclined to consider Bill's work and achievements as belonging to Hillary. I've been turned off by Hillary's talk of "35 years of experience" - when most of that experience is being first lady of Arkansas and the U.S.

The one project she led as first lady, universal health care, was an enormous and damaging failure. Her "plan" was not even brought up for a vote in the Democratic Congress! But it did end any serious discussion of universal health care for the rest of the Clinton presidency.

In the early days of women winning public office, the first female senator or governor was sometimes referred to as 'the first to win in her own right'. Other women had held the position, when appointed to it after the death of their husbands while in office.

If Senator Barbara Mikulski were running and a serious contender, she would be running (and winning!) 100% 'in her own right'. I would indeed see her run as a feminist milestone. Not so much when it comes to Hillary.

Though, if Hillary is the nominee, I will most certainly vote for her in November.

Arise 257 said, "What man is going to proudly stand up and say "I'm a feminist", even if they agree with some aspects of it?"

Well, at least one. I have proudly considered myself a feminist all of my adult life. I'm in my fifties. While I disagree with some strains of radical and middle class feminism - I consider myself a socialist feminist - I disagree with your characterization of feminism. You should read some theory before jumping on an ill-informed semantics-based band wagon. Just because you don't like the term feminism, does not mean that it is the opposite of some imaginary "masculinism."

Eric J-D

I appreciate your response.

Coyotita--I couldn't agree more--the line that "with all her flaws Hillary would *have to do*" was incredibly galling.
I'm not opposed to Hillary because of her lines about Bosnia, after all; I am not holding her to some double standard; I agree with Obama that those are distractions regardless of who the target is; though Hillary's jumping on board to increase the use of distractions is quite noteworthy. No, I am opposed to Hillary because she wants to bomb the middle east, because she supported NAFTA and now tries to claim otherwise, and because she has run a racist campaign. John McCain is a warmonger; and I will never vote for a warmonger. Hillary Clinton is a racist warmonger.

For the many responders who complain about language: I'm inclined to say f*** off, but I'll leave just the smidgen of deniability. People vent. People are angry. Some people are even bitter. So be it.

"I am a liberal, and this is a liberal nation."

I probably paraphrased that a bit; but that is the gist of statements made by............................Will Rogers.

"Ronald Reagan embellished the truth constantly, but that was regarded as cute by the media and much of the public. Hillary embellishes the tale of her trip to Bosnia and she's Satan."

Sorry, I never thought Reagan's "embellishment" of the truth was "cute".

It isn't embellishment of the truth, it's LYING!

Why is it you and others who support Hillary cannot see this?

Bill did it under oath, that was what got him into trouble, not his sexual escapades.

If our candidates for President cannot be honest as candidates, what makes us think they will be honest once they become President?

As I said in another forum, I am one year Hillary's junior and I will NOT vote for her.
I won't vote for McCain either. He also has a problem with truth and seems lost when it comes to policy issues etc. He is not the war hero he is portrayed to be, and even if he were, that does not mean he has the intelligence to be President.

Hillary has made her bed, now she must lie in it and cease her sniveling about being mistreated.

Hillary on the Supreme Court? When she was fired for unethical behavior when she worked on Watergate? When she lies as easily as drawing breath? Don't think so.

A woman as president? We can find a better woman for the job, sometime in the future. Yes we can.

--"Hillary, with all of her flaws, will have to do."--

This is the sort of non thinking that scares me. All I can say is that anyone who supports this kind of argument cares nothing about our country and nothing about the future of our children. It is usually a woman who might say this and she cares about her status and possibly that of her girl children, but nothing more and no one else. This is the kind of greed for power and status and selfishness that must end with this administration. THAT is why so many of us are willing to sacrifice time and dollars to support a candidate that will bring us that change and that is OBAMA! My children, both the males and females will be empowered, not because of their gender, but because we the people have taken control of our country once again!

I am not a woman; however, if I were, I would still refer to myself as a humanist rather than a feminist. Maybe not in the "de facto", but in reality all peoples are equal, have the same rights and responsibilities. I believe that we should be working to make that the "de facto reality".

I have no problem with people calling themselves feminists; however, if I were a woman, I would consider "liberation" to mean that I could freely cast my vote for whomever I believed to be the best candidate, regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, ethnicity, body-type, etc.

You people using rotten, filthy language, mostly about Hillary Clinton, are not making her look bad, you are making yourselves look stupid and immature and does not help CD image.

Better listen to Thomas More, he was right on target.

This particular young male is as enigmatic as Hillary and no alternative. But how can America provide alternatives when merely being liberal gets one termed "far out", "weird", "crazy", while being a real leftist gets one death threats.

As for caring about the use of language - everyone in their right mind should do exactly that. Corrupt and degrade the language with which we trade ideas and we corrupt and degrade those ideas. Shame on anyone who says otherwise.

Badavis says Hillary is setting a precedent but actually she isn't setting any new precedents. She is behaving just alike all the other political whores in D.C.
A true role model for women to follow would be Cynthia McKinney. Following her will get us to a better place instead of the same old stuff Hillary will bring us.
Hoa binh

longingforsanity:

I apologize for criticizing you in my post, but your initial post didn't make it sufficiently clear that what you were critiquing was a particular part of the feminist movement (i.e. mainstream feminists like Steinem who have come out in support of Hillary).

I can imagine your frustration with the marginalization of other feminist voices by certain powerful mainstream feminist organizations. That's one of the reasons it is nice to see a piece like Santina's gaining wider circulation her at CD. Whether it will serve as an effective counter to voices like Steinem's or Robin Morgan's I don't know.

I can understand (on some level) why folks like Steinem and Morgan think women (and men too) ought to vote for Clinton. Clearly she represents a certain kind of success of the early feminist movement and embodies some of its principles.

But in many ways HRC is so much a tangle of contradictions that she puts mainstream feminists like Steinem and Morgan in the awkward position of having to pick and choose from among them in order to make their case that she deserves feminists' support.

Her recent comments about Iran (i.e. that should Iran develop nuclear weapons and attack Israel we would be able to obliterate them) are a perfect case in point. You can parse her statement any way you like---she said "would be able to" not "we would," say some of her supporters---but on any level it has to rank as a fairly profound betrayal of even mainstream feminist values.

There's a way in which HRC must make a number of mainstream feminists into only selective and fitful supporters. How can you fully embrace a candidate who voted for dropping bombs on a country knowing that they would kill thousands and thousands of civilians?. What do you say when she starts sounding like any other hawk on how to deal with Iran?

Sure they can try to dismiss this as mere rhetoric ("she needs to say those kind of things to get elected"), but what psychic-line to Clinton's cortex do mainstream feminists have that reassure them she's merely being rhetorical but that someone like McCain is not? There's a glaring problem with this approach that Steinem and Morgan must be aware of, and yet you scarcely hear a word of it when they write about Clinton.

So I appreciate your frustration and hope you'll forgive my suggestion that were too round in your criticism of feminism. If the focus is on certain vocal parts of the mainstream feminist movement (Steinem and Morgan, etc.), then I agree that it has been disheartening to see the rush to embrace HRC as the "feminist" candidate of choice.

Since when was calling a politician a "whore" abusive? I thought it was just descriptive.

And after decades of stinking corpses piling up because of the actions and inactions of our "representatives," who in their right mind cares about abusive language in this context anyway?

Hillary is not the perfect feminist candidate, but she is the first woman to win a primary in a presidential contest and we have seen just how tough it has been for her. She did serve on the Walmart Board for a brief period when Sam Walton ran the company. It was a different company under his leadership. Walmart was a major employer in Arkansas so I find nothing odd about her serving on its board for a brief period when her husband was the governor and she was employed by a law firm in that state. I would have a problem if she was on the board under the current regime.

I find the level of misogyny aimed at Clinton, even by women who should know better, to be appalling. The ignorance of younger feminists about the struggle to get to this less than perfect point is extremely destructive. There is no model for a woman candidate...Hillary is setting a precedent which those who may choose to follow in her footsteps can improve upon. Nonetherless, I don't see a lot of volunteers out there now or in the near future. A candidate must raise obscene amounts of money to run for office in this country. Revolting insults, intolerable invasions of the personal privacy of the candidates and the requirement for herculean physical stamina necessary to run a national campaign limits the potential pool of volunteers willing to put themselves on the line. I simply do not see another female politician who has the network necessary to run for the presidency. At the very least Hillary deserves credit for trying. You don't have to support her candidacy, but at least acknowledge her contribution to bringing down yet another barrier to full equality for women of whatever race. I wish we had the perfect candidate but we don't so for now Hillary, with all of her flaws, will have to do. Ronald Reagan embellished the truth constantly, but that was regarded as cute by the media and much of the public. Hillary embellishes the tale of her trip to Bosnia and she's Satan. Why isn't Obama's tall tale about how the Kennedy's were instrumental in bringing his father to the US also a big deal? Yet another double standard.

When I think about Hillary representing the embodyment of the 19th ammendment, and her recent actions in the race for the Dem nomination.... I always think of those recently enfranchised ladies in the southern states, happliy laying out the picnic lunches at the "nigger BBQs" AKA lynchings....cheerfully mixing up the chicken salad to the sound of the black mens screams as they were being publically castrated, set on fire, and hanged.

To Hilliary supporters, Hilliary is a feminist woman first, who just happens to be a mendacious cynical opportunist. To everyone else, Hilliary is a mendacious cynical opportunist first, who just happens to be a feminist woman.

"...Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers...."

I'd say that's perfect way to describe Lady Macbeth and her "foot in the mouth" offsider..

"Political Whores" is the perfect phrase to describe, Bill, Hillary and the majority of our leaders. Distasteful, yes - inappropriate, no.

Also - a bone to pick with feminism.

If it's about EQUALING the playing field, then feminism is not the solution. Feminism by definition is the polar opposite of "masculinism" (I know it's not a word, but you get my drift). If masculinism is our current state of affairs, and things are tilted towards men, doesn't that conversely mean that "feminism" is tilting things towards women?

We don't need a feminist movement, we need an equality movement. Feminists are disservicing themselves and their movement by effectively distancing male involvement. What man is going to proudly stand up and say "I'm a feminist", even if they agree with some aspects of it? If women want to make serious strides for the advancement of their gender, then don't call it "feminism". It puts people off and it doesn't actually mean equality.

The civil rights movement wasn't called "blackism" or "negroism" or "I'm-not-white-ism", and its success was in its ability to bring in people from all sorts of classes and races to force equality in our society. Shouldn't feminists be interested in emulating that successful example?

The Clintons are self righteous, self serving, conniving politicians lacking ethics or veracity, using their public position for private gain to the tune of $100 million and counting. Is that better, Thomas More?

kathyodat

We can make a long list of female elected officials at all levels whose voting record favors women's issues. Clinton is not on that list.

With each speech Clinton makes it appears she put more testosterone in her coffee than the day before.

Among the causes Hillary has tainted through her long ugly campaign is feminism. Feminism has always had to fight off a caricature of being run by p.c. entitled rich women; and this campaign has provided all the evidence anyone needs to reinforce that image. And then some; not just affluent women, but white women who never cared about minority women until diversity became p.c. and cool; but who ditched diversity in a heartbeat (Ferraro?) when their real interests showed up. It's their "turn"; the black guy should have "waited". This group isn't even subtle. The author if this article is another kind of feminist, but feminism itself lies discredited by its association with racist privilege. Thanks, Hillary.

I had a dream last night.
President Obama appointed Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Supreme Court. Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Cynthia McKinney and Deepak Chopra held cabinet positions.
And all of the unlawful detainees in Guantanamo Bay were replaced with GW Bush and Dick Cheney pending trial for war crimes.

Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso was not the first woman governor, but she was the first woman governor who didn't succeed her husband, and historians refer to her this way. Hillary Clinton could become the first woman president, but somebody else will be the first woman president who will not have succeeded her husband. Clinton's name would have an asterisk next to it.

Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers.

Can you not make a comment without abusive language?

Please try.

Bill and Hillary are both professional political people who sell their bodies to other people and who know and use all the tricks to make people want to buy them.
How's that Thomas More?
Hoa binh

Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers.
Cynthia McKinney, on the other hand, is a Stateswoman who would serve our country well.
Hoa binh

Joyce Marcel and now Laura Santina--thank you liberated and assertive feminist women for seperating Hillary from assertive feminism. There really are some things that only another woman can do best and this is one of them.

"There will be a woman president. She may even be Hillary, but I hope not. We can do better. A woman of integrity will step forward. She'll use "we" instead of "I" when she thinks about the country and when she addresses voters. She won't be married to an ex-president or carry the burdens or reap the political rewards of his reign. She'll be more thoughtful, more truthful and more comfortable in her own skin."

Hillary is more to be pitied than despised. Thanks again Laura for an excellent analysis.

Okay, I'm a 55 year old white woman who has called myself a feminist; I am more than well enough aware of the various academic debates among the varying kinds of "feminism"; for those who don't know all the terms (essentialism etc.), I am what would be called a "differences feminist". I also know from a life of experience that nonconforming feminists are routinely excoriated by the mainstream feminists, much the way Jews who don't support every action of the Israeli government are labelled self loathing Jews. I have tolerated this kind of academic infighting my whole life; I know feminism is "diverse." I also know one group is running the show; that group put out their candidate; and that group has sickened me for life.

Predictably, this article has brought out the feminist backlash in the form of arguments that "feminism itself lies discredited by its association with racist privilege" on the one had and that "Feminists are disservicing themselves and their movement by effectively distancing male involvement" on the other.

These are tired arguments that feminists have engaged for a very long time now. On the one hand feminism is so diverse that to treat it in monolithic terms and claim that it is tainted with racist privilege simply reveals a lack of awareness of this diversity. Many white feminists have long been aware of the way the early feminist movement was built on a rather essentialized notion of women and that this notion derived from a largely white, middle-class set of experiences. This critique has been around for a long time now and was the distinctive contribution of many women of color.

Does that mean that white U.S. feminists have completely "gotten it" (i.e. the race issue)? By no means! But let's not simply trot out Geraldine Ferraro as though she can be made to stand for all white feminists or for something monolitihic like "feminism". To do that is just to traffic in caricatures.

Nor does the argument that feminism needs to label itself something else hold much weight either. I can't possibly rehearse here the long arguments for why feminism (a movement for equality) is not simply a reverse form of sexism (masculinism). If you really want to engage that issue you can do some research on your own. Once again, diverse numbers of feminists have engaged this issue. But it is a mark of the absurdity of these claims that the author of them says that no man would proudly stand up and call himself a feminist. That's just not true. I've seen plenty of men do this in public contexts and have done it myself.

For me the real issue is that given the diversity of feminism the label feminist doesn't automatically convey a lot of useful information (other than informing me that women and gender are an issue of concern for the speaker or writer). Laura Santina and Gloria Steinem are both feminists, but their analysis and evaluation of Senator Clinton from something called a feminist standpoint couldn't be more different.

WISE WORDS: NELLE MASON & LITTLE BROTHER