I'll add the following:

I won't miss reading through postings here at CD (supposedly a progressive website) and frequently encountering the words "whore" and "bitch" used to describe Clinton.

I hope Obama supporters abandon their idiotic attacks on Hillary Clinton. They have allready alienated too many of her supporters, and guess what? They need her supporters to have any chance in the fall! I'me expecting a McCain presidency (read Glenn Greenwald's "Great American Hypocrites" chapter on McCain for WHY i think he will win). I've been so dispirited by the subliminal hatred towards women that has been spewed towards Hillary. (Katha Pollitt's article about this in "30 Views Of Hillary" is spot on!). I won't miss Randi Rhodes at all!

Wow. I wasn't aware of all the vitriol slung at Sen. Clinton. It is surely disgusting to see in the 21st Century (or any Century). I refuse to say 'Farewell' to such attitudes and actions; I saw "Good Riddance."

That said, the bulk of this disgusting conduct is attributable to some of Sen. Obama's supporters, sleazy online profiteers and sleazier journalists, not to Sen. Obama himself. Contrast that with the racialized and racist tone of Sen. Clinton's campaign and one will see a glaring difference: she participated.

Sorry, no sympathy from me towards Hillary. She's a liar, full of excuses, and just as "inexperienced" as Obama. I think people feel the dishonesty and respond to it with "meh, just another bitch." Sexist, you bet. 100% out of place? Nope.

I won't miss Hillary, who inspired all those lowlife jokes, t-shirts, and effigies. Compare her behavior to ANY of the other candidates for the Democratic nomination. She would haven't been the subject of any scorn if she had conducted herself as any of the other candidates did, as befitted her position as a United States Senator... male or female, as the wife of a beloved past president, and as a highly supported candidate for the presidency. But she didn't comport herself with even half the class of her contemporaries. I don't like the disrespect shown her by these items, but her working class constituents have the right to lover her, OR show their displeasure at her behavior by buying these things.

She isnt gone yet.
In fact if she somehow shuts up and Obama goes through and wins, she will surely be there on inauguration day claiming she actually won.

She is an embarrassment-and she brought much of it on herself. It was her campaign that became insulting.

Look how she wants the Michigan and Florida votes seated(she was against it before she was for it). Dean and the others should have cut her off at the knees earlier. I will bet she wont go out graciously. She will not tell her supporters to vote for Obama.
Bet.

I started out this primary season as a Hillary supporter, but I have been repelled by the way she conducted her campaign. For years I felt she got a raw deal and was mystified by the level of animosity some people felt towards her. Now I'm thinking they saw something in her that I missed.

P.S. that's not to say much of the commentary quoted in the article is not sexist crap. It is.

I won't miss women defending their gender exclusively at the expense of blindness to human decency.
African Americans support Obama because they have a candidate they can be proud of--they might not demonstrate the same enthusiasm for Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas based on race alone. What do women have to feel pride in Hillary Clinton other than her gender and how does it advance women to rally around a woman who has behaved shamefully as a person? Clinton is always the victim for feminists--and always given a pass regarding her own race-baiting, sabre-rattling, willingness to lie and cheat. with great passion, I tell this author, that as a woman, Clinton disgusts me. She should be shamed-- She is a monster and it is not because of her gender--that she exploits to get cover from women like you who don't care whether Clinton is a woman worthy of other women's respect.

It is unfortunate that when people reject Hillary, many of whom have valid reasons for doing so based on her own poor and often-times self-serving decisions, they are labeled sexists. In her case, it is not what is or is not between her legs but rather a perception she created that she doesn't tell the truth (snipers), won't make a hard political decision (Iraq vote), learn from her mistakes (Iran vote), and would rather remain married to a serial liar and philanderer for her political reasons than hold him to account. Take HRCs name and sex out of this for a moment, review the list of actions and decisions made and ask yourself if this is the stuff our president should be made of.

It is the individual, not her sex that is being rejected. By the way I didn't even mention her choice of Mark Penn as campaign strategist or the appalling way she has played the race card.

RichM wrote:

This article is shallow & trivial, taking aim at a much-too-easy target. Sure, it's bad to hurl sex-based hate at Hillary. But that's because there are so many more insightful & accurate ways to despise this loathesome creature. Her gender has nothing to do with it. It's her Bush-like sense of entitlement, her sociopathic narcissism, her utter lack of principles, & her grasping ruthlessness — all characteristics she shares with her sleazebag husband.

While I agree that there are other grounds to object to HRC, I think you underestimate the extent of the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton. Even your own description (HRC has a "Bush-like sense of entitlement," displays "sociopathic narcissism," and "grasping ruthlessness") might be said to contain elements of that sexism.

Why does Bill Clinton seem (by and large) to escape such characterization? Why, for that matter, aren't these familiar descriptions of George W. Bush?

You might say that they are--indeed, you say that these are characteristics she shares with Bill--but can you honestly say they form part of the dominant media narrative of who Bush is, or who Bill Clinton is? I don't hear pundits endlessly talking about Bill the political whore, or George Bush the "sociopathic narcissist." These characterizations seem to have a distinctly gendered component in the national political discourse.

So I think Cocco has a real point here, albeit a rather obvious one. I say that as someone who is not a supporter of HRC and as someone who is glad to see her run for the nomination coming to an end. The problem with HRC is that she embraces larely the same political philosophy as her husband (and I don't simply mean that she uses the same campaign tactics). But as much as dislike and oppose that philosophy, I find it appalling that a considerable amount of the rhetorical framing of opposition to HRC has drawn on the language of sexism and misogyny.

As usual...I'm torn between agreeing and disagreeing with the article. I've seen some of the tv incidents the writer mentions. The tv people likely sell a lot more soap that way than by presenting info on issues. I did see Brzezinski and Scarborough react to Teller's Pontius Pilate imitation with a bit of class.

So, on the one hand, methinks the article is right in the sense that both race and gender were bound to be an undercurrent in a competition between Clinton and Obama. I think that her campaign has been caught out more in this.

On the other hand, this article reads to me sort of like, "Anybody who says Israel is doing bad things to Palestinians is an anti-semite."

Vern,

I don't think you're right that "Clinton is always the victim for feminists–and always given a pass regarding her own race-baiting, sabre-rattling, willingness to lie and cheat."

I don't see all feminists as making endless excuses for Clinton's appalling behavior during the campaign.

Rather, I think the point here is this: Clinton's candidacy has given focus and expression to some deep-seated misogyny in American culture.

The issue isn't opposition to Clinton or criticism of her. Everyone is entitled to oppose Clinton as candidate or to be critical of her, whether it be for her policies, her political philosophy, or her conduct.

The issue is the form the opposition or criticism takes. I think Cocco is being quite accurate when she suggests that a major form that opposition to HRC has taken is in sexism and sometimes outright misogyny.

HRC might be all the things you say she is, but what the misgoynist discourse surrounding her suggests is that she is more than that; she has become a focus for an outpouring of sexism and misogyny that exceeds its opposition to her as an individual.

I find the description of HRC as as 'scolding mother, talking down to her child' to be pretty accurate. You don't have to be a psychic to hear the manipulative, coercive quality of her voice, regardless of what she's saying.

Hillary is down to playing her last card and she's playing it for all it's worth.

The mother guilt-tripping the child card. The 'how can you reject me by not voting for me' card. I have NO respect for women who guilt-trip their kids.

HC is a liar, a murderer and a republican. She needs to join her partner-in-crime Joe LIEberman on the dark side and be done with it.

Please GO!

HRC campaigned and raised millions for other Dems? Actually the opposite is true. While in the White House, the Clintons basically destroyed the ground level Democratic party, ignored the states, ignored the party rank and file, ignored and de-funded the "little people" and surrounded themselves with aristocrats, hangers-on and creepy, self-promoting trash like Dick Morris. They laid mighty low in 04. When HRC clobbered her progressive opponent for her NY Senate seat, she had a war chest in the tens of millions, hardly necessary to beat the unknown Jonathan Tasini. She kept every penny and spent it on her Presidential campaign. Marie Cocco doesn't like Howard Dean's silence on sexist anti-HRC comments? Well maybe he should have said something, but since HRC and her circle have been doing absolutely everything they could to undermine him and his 50-state strategy, it's not that hard to see why he might have been a little too busy with other matters to look up and object.

Good riddance HRC. Now let's get some real feminists, some strong progressive women out there on the campaign trail to give women, progressives, feminists and the ever-increasing non-Clinton wing of the Dem Party someone worth fighting for.

I think, Eric J-D, that if the case were that Clinton was a honorable person, these charges might have some resonance, but as a woman, I am sorry, she disgusts me and doesn't illicit a modicum of sympathy. You can not imagine the breath and the depth of my dislike of Hillary as a person. Maybe you should ask some of the women Ms Clinton's husband used--women who Hillary sought to undermine and ruin--what their thoughts are on the matter of sexism.

The real dark stain on this election is Hillary Clinton herself who came out of the closet as a neocon true believer and someone willing to stoop to anything to win even opening up racial wounds. She was a terrible candidate by any measure.

Valid scientific experiments isolate the phenomena to be studied (e.g. the independent variable) by controlling all other variables, and that way the results can be attributed to the effects of the phenomenon or phenomena under consideration. In the study of Hillary hatred, there are simply too many uncontrolled variables. She is a strong woman, but she is a pathological liar. She is intelligent and capable, but she is a panderer who treats voters like ignorant imbeciles. She is determined and indefatigable, but she changes positions by the day according to polls. She strongly supports women's issues, but she stuck by an adulterous husband apparently for her own political ambitions. She talks like a true progressive, but often votes like a Republican.

So it is difficult to pin down precisely just why so many people despise Hillary, though it may be instructive in the future to see how the next strong woman who runs for president is treated.

I agree that there's a lot of sexism in this country, and that this has been the worst media coverage of any campaign in my memory, but what turned me off to HRC was her record. She claims her years as First Lady as part of her political experience. Well, what exactly did the administration she was part of accomplish? The Defense of Marriage Act, stripping gays and lesbians of equal rights they deserve under our Constitution; Welfare Reform, which is coming back to bite us in the ass as the economy collapses; NAFTA, which undermined the wages of American workers; Most Favored trade status for China, ditto; and backpedaling on a woman's right to choose. Hardly very progressive, if you ask me. Her Senate record isn't much better. Granted, Obama doesn't have as much baggage because he hasn't been around as long, but if Hillary's going to buy the ticket, she's going to have to ride the ride. The Clinton presidency was the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on American progressives, and I for one am not going to get fooled again.

Wait till America starts on BHO, we ain't seen nothin' yet. This is not the 'civilized' country and we are not the 'civilized' people we pretend to be.

I ask myself if the monsters will figure out a way past the Secret Service to execute a hit? They got to Wellstone but he never had SS guards. Better question, why would they? He's tied at the hip to Wall Street contributors, he's going to keep the war going for another 4 years at least which means the arms merchants love him, and he's going to pass all the costs of the richfilth crimes for the last 30 years onto us - as he shifts more of our jobs to slave labor pits around the globe. And the Repugs (because he's a Dim) and Dims (because he's an outsider) will both gang up on him in Office if he lives that long. Sounds like everybody wins, except us.

Pieces of 8.

Men don't hate women - many do, however, resent them because, as the old saying goes:

Men rule the world.
Women rule men.
And he knows it.

kivals wrote:

So it is difficult to pin down precisely just why so many people despise Hillary, though it may be instructive in the future to see how the next strong woman who runs for president is treated

I'm inclined to think that finding some kind of metric that would locate the basis for the hatred of Hillary is a quixotic quest.

Narrative patterns, however, in popular and media discourse about a political candidate can be [NB: "can" not "will"] suggestive. And things like "Hillary nutcrackers" are pretty obviously appealing to a sexist characterization of Hillary as an emasculator. This is an image that shows up with some frequency in opinion pieces for mainstream newspapers like the New York Times. Just have a look at Maureen Dowd's most recent piece on HRC where she write, "So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black?" (emphasis mine)

A bit later she adds: "Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he's unable to do his best. Probably, it's because she's furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him" (emphasis mine).

I think one could produce plenty of other examples of pundits who trot out the specter of Emasculating Hillary and her Vagina Dentata, but you'd find it considerably more difficult to find male equivalents.

Again, it isn't that Hillary ought to be defended, it's the fact that obvious sexism is allowed to pass without comment or outrage.

Hillary's a flawed candidate. I deeply believe that. But if you are at all interested in seeing more women enter political life, you can't be thrilled by the fact that comments like these routinely pass for an analysis of her as a candidate.

Don't worry, there'll be more chances to get your fill of sexist media beyond the primary election.

America doesn't hate women. We just hate Hillary.

I'm an American. I certainly don't hate Hillary. I don't know ANYONE who does. I must live in the real world where we are more accepting of people and diversity.

There are a lot of generalizations on C-D as of late, and it's really become tedious reading these posts at times. I'm grateful for the others and learn a great deal from reading them.

I'm a feminist, 10 years younger than Hillary. I have not been persuaded by the 'orthodox' feminists' case for Hillary.

Obama is not my first choice as Democratic nominee, but he is my favorite now. I've been on the anybody-but-Clinton bandwagon since she announced her candidacy.

Why? Because I want a Democrat to win in November. Hillary has too much baggage, primarily her husband - the IMPEACHED former president! I think that returning the Clinton co-presidency to the White House, violating the spirit of the 22nd amendment by doing so, will be a big issue if she becomes the nominee.

Plus Hillary's own sorry story that she was duped into voting for the Iraq War and her colossal failure in health care, the one big project she led while in the national spotlight. I'm truly amazed that she and her advisers ever seriously thought she could win the general election. I wish that she had chosen not to run.

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 will be president first.

When a woman becomes President, I don't want it to be a woman who has attained power by being the first lady.

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 I want to make it clear, I'm not a Hillary hater and will vote for her if she's the nominee, and I think she should be treated fairly.

In the harsh and brutal world of politics, I think she pretty much has been. People have said lots of harsh things -- politics ain't beanbag. I think she's had a harder time because she's a Clinton than because she's a woman. There have been some really disgusting sexist crap said and sold, but not by the Obama campaign -- rather, by people just trying to make a buck.

Senators Clinton and Obama have about the same experience holding public office -- Clinton's years as a U.S. senator and Obama's years as an Illinois state senator/U.S. senator. Yet Clinton is trying to sell herself as the experienced candidate, based on her years as first lady. I've not bought it, myself.

I recognize she has seen and heard a lot by being in the White House and meeting all the world's leaders. But when it comes to experience holding public office and leading the people of a state or nation, she and Obama are pretty similar.

Obama and Clinton have very similar positions on the issues -- both are too pro-military-spending for me. I'm not expecting miracles from Obama.

I am now very enthused about supporting Obama because he does seem to inspire people to get up and do something -- he has impressive grassroots volunteer support. Which will certainly be a big help in winning the general election. If he can inspire more and more people to become active, he can precipitate a wave of real change in this country. That's the promise I see of an Obama administration.

We will have no nostalgia for those hideous, lying, self- aggrandizing parasites, Ma and Pa Clinton.

If the author hates all this stuff and will not miss it, why does she repeat it? (Some of it I had not heard.)

But, that said, I can't wait to sing, "Ding Dong, the witch is dead."

I appreciate your post Mayari.

You said: "Senators Clinton and Obama have about the same experience holding public office — Clinton's years as a U.S. senator and Obama's years as an Illinois state senator/U.S. senator. Yet Clinton is trying to sell herself as the experienced candidate, based on her years as first lady."

I think that this has been one of the real areas in which the Clinton campaign failed, at least strategically. The "change" narrative--the narrative the Obama campaign produced--quickly became a powerful rhetorical force within the electoral field that translated into a string of victories for Obama.

Clinton (and her campaign staff) failed to fully appreciate the force of this narrative and continued to run on her "experience" platform, not realizing that in a new climate in which the rhetoric of "change" predominated, "experience" was something of a liability (since it positioned her as an insider and as a trusted and familiar brand rather than as a novelty).

I think there's obviously much more to both her failures and Obama's successes than that, but this definitely had a deleterious effect on her campaign.

Obama supporters have missed by point: bashing Clinton is going to hurt YOUR candidate in the fall! If enough of her supporters sit out the election or vote for McCain instead, it will be enough to deny Obama the Presidency. I don't want him (or McCain) to win, for all the reasons I know Obama supporters refuse to look at and be honest about, but it does not make sense to continue to demonize her!

also, STOP calling me racist! I'm voting for a BLACK WOMAN in November (Cynthia McKinney). I get real tired of the old "if you dislike Obama, you must be racist" crap. I studied his books, his speeches, his policy positions, his character - and don't believe he should be President. That is all.

Here's another couple things I won't miss:
Hillary's camp sending out pictures of Obama in "Muslim looking" garb. Hillary jumping on the Rev. Wright smear campaign bandwagon. Hillary reducing Obama's whole life to "a speech in 2004." Hillary lying and moving the goalposts on the Florida and Michigan primaries.

Rich Griffin--stop saying that Obama supporters are alienating Hillary supporters. You've got it wrong. Hillary is alienating Obama supporters and McCain supporters alike.

I'm not down on Hillary because she's a woman!

I'm down on her because she voted for the war and won't admit that was a huge mistake!

I'm down on her because she voted for war on Iran and is in favor of "obliterating" Iran! That's called genocide for those of you keeping score.

I was a big Bill Clinton fan and I have always supported Hillary until this election. Now I see them both as mean-spirited professional politicians who will do anything to win, even if it means lying, cheating, and mud slinging.

Did I mention that she got fooled by George W. Bush into voting for the illegal Iraq war and won't admit that it was a huge mistake?!?

Which is worse, racism or sexism?

Which is better, that the world end in fire, or that it end in ice?

Bill from Saginaw

I won't miss Hillary Clinton.....

What on earth makes anyone think that these vile obscenities will go? They will continue to be slung at Mrs Clinton, of course, as her Democrat haters have proved themselves to be both crude and vicious in their pursuit of their prey. But they have also proved that misogyny is a viable way to undermine women who attempt to fight as equals in political contests. The despicable silence of Democats has damaged the chances of all women to succeed, for all will now be framed in the same language when they dare, if they dare, to put their heads above the parapet. When Obama mania recedes, then Democrats will have to deal with the fundamental damage they have done to the fight for women's rights. And I suspect they will not want to: that the misogyny is engrained and they will slink off, thinking: "Job well done!" and sneering and leering at the "hos" who had the temerity to try to fight for women's rights.

Absolute, utter, nauseating bullshit.

I can think of several female politicians and world leaders who are widely admired, almost idolized. They are seldom ridiculed by any but the most pathetic among us.

Clinton's problems are not due to misogyny on our part, but to her own goddamn actions. She is an amoral, warmongering pig. She is a liar. She is a panderer. Now she is acting as a racist. She has the arrogance of entitlement, the smarmy attitude of superiority that simply begs for comeuppance.

What part of this do you not get, Ms Coco?

"Strategic mistakes" and the "groundswell for 'change'" are not the reasons for attacks on Hillary Clinton. It is her overwhelming lack of character.

opeluboy,

Clinton is a liar, a panderer and someone who has engaged in race-baiting throughout this campaign. I'll grant you all those things.

But the characterization of her as a whore, a witch, a bitch, an emasculator, a shrew, a school-marm, etc. etc. preceded this campaign and will outlast it.

Cocco is drawing attention to the form opposition to Clinton has taken.

Do you see nothing misgynist or sexist about mainstream media pundits engaging in such characterizations? Is calling her a bitch and an emasculator fair game simply because she happens to lack integrity as a candidate?

EricJ-D -- "Even your own description (HRC has a "Bush-like sense of entitlement," displays "sociopathic narcissism," and "grasping ruthlessness") might be said to contain elements of that sexism."

And how might that be ? Ive re-read RichM's statement multiple times and I cant figure out how you can claim there is an element of sexism unless you display similar 'grasping' tendencies as Hillary.

Comparing Hillary to Bush and Cheney is valid as she has on numerous occasions made her positions very clear and they have more in common with the Bush&Dick crowd than the average Democrat.

Hillary is not a feminist by any stretch of imagination. She is a woman and thats that. If you really feel you need to help elect a woman to office then please cast your vote (like i intend to) for Cynthia McKinney who happens to be a woman AND black ... and helluva lot more progressive than Hillary or Obama put together.

I do not condone the sexist tirade against Hillary (mostly by right-wing opportunists) but someone who can blithely obliterate 70 million people in a heartbeat deserves to be shot in the head.

So, a redneck, a black guy and a woman walk into a bar owned by a jew.....oh sorry, wrong website.

I'm continually amazed that many people, especially feminists, see Hillary Clintonn as a positive female role model.

If Hillary had any self-respect as a woman, as a wife and/or as a mother, she would have left her philandering husband 20 years ago.

So why didn't she? Answer: she stayed hitched to the gravy train because Ms. Glick is as power hungry as her husband Sammy.

In short, "what makes Sammy run" is what makes Hillary run -- an addiction to power. A singularly unattractive characteristic in either of the sexes.

Hillary Clinton has been getting a free pass from a great many so-called progressive for years now. I mean, why should it be surprising that a power-driven politician -- now losing at this point -- would start talking about "obliterating" millions of people? Hillary Clinton is no more a feminist, nor does she deserve the support of feminist-progressives than would Eva Peron or Margaret Thatcher or ... Lizzie Borden. Lizzie limited herself to a hatchet, Hillary and her ilk prefer nukes.

Eric J-D,

No, I do not condone the sexist attacks on Clinton. My point was that these attacks are not due (in the most part) to her sex, but her own actions and personality.

Yes, Clinton has been taking this sort of heat for a long time, but I can think of many female politicians who do not receive this sort of treatment.

There is a reason, and it is not gender, even though the insults may embody that sort of feeling.

Ann Coulter draws a lot of hate speech, much of it gender-based. There aren't too many of us who wonder why.

And I have to give the best Clinton insult to Jon Stewart, who seeing a very angry look on Hillary's face, one time opined, "That look is the place hard-ons go to die."

We all know Stewart is a misogynist.

riddimboy,

I never suggested that HRC is a feminist. That would be you projecting. Projection probably also explains your description of HRC as "someone who can blithely obliterate 70 million people in a heartbeat"--a fantasy of your own making I imagine.

And before you respond with, "but she said on Good Morning America that she..." don't bother, we all know. I admit that I place very little stock in such macho posturing even though I deplore the fact that it is done. Questions like these are setups by the MSM to give mainstream candidates an opportunity to do their best Dirty Harry impersonations and little else. That don't give me any real window into whether or not a candidate is actually inclined to use military force or not.

All the mainstream candidates do this because they understand the expectations placed on them.

As for the sexism issue, it lies in the fact that women with political ambitions are more likely to be criticized for their ruthlessness when they engage in tactics that might otherwise seem unobjectionable if practiced by a male candidate.

You can deny this if you like, but here's a question: how regularly have you heard a male politician described as "grasping" and "ruthless"? What's the male equivalent of being a "bitch" or an "emasculator"? How many male politicians do you know who are described by MSM pundits in those terms?

Hillary is a highly problematic candidate, I'll grant you that. And I'm glad that her candidacy is coming to an end (I'm not so sure I'm excited by Obama, but that's because I see him, like HRC, as etremely moderate and my own political views are quite far from what passes even for the "left" in this country).

I won't vote for McKinney because there is no real gain to be had from it. I know the arguments about getting funding for the Green Party for the next election cycle, etc. but the Green Party has its own internal issues that it needs to sort out and until it does that I'm not terribly interested in throwing my vote its way. I also don't see McKinney sticking with the Greens any more than Ralph Nader did.

So while I share your objection to HRC's rightward drift, I don't see it as justifying the truly vile sexism that has been directed against her. Object to her politics and to her campaign behavior (I certainly do), but if you (I mean this generaically, not you "riddimboy") find yourself (as Maureen Dowd seems to do almost weekly) obsessively describing her as Hillary the Emasculator, Hillary the Whore, perhaps a little self-reflection on your sexism is in order.

to wsws.org: yep, possessing a vagina, breasts, uterus, ovaries and the like doesn't make you a feminist. In other news, sun rises in the east.

Here's a question for feminist power brokers and feminisist pundits -- WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE? If NOW, the National Organization for Women, has come out outraged and four-square against Hillary's "obliterate Iran" remark, I haven't heard it.

If Hillary wants to reap the benefits of what it means to run for president *as a woman* than where are the progressive feminist groups standing up for *progressive* values, one of which is not incinerating millions of men, women and children.

Where was Hillary when during her husband's eight years in office hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died as a direct result of US-led economic sanctions? Bill and Hillary Clinton -- and anyone else who supports the American government's foreign policy -- are murderers. Being called names should be the least of their worries. More in order would be an international criminal court of law.

Hillary Clinton is a reactionary and would ruthlessly pursue policies supporting the interest of the militarist and financial elite who have supported her against the interests of tens of millions of working class Americans despite all of her phony populist phrases. Her racism is pure 'Arkansas' despite her more elite roots...when she claimed the loyalty of 'working Americans, I mean hard-working Americans, white Americans'...whose interests, she announced, could not be served by Obama...
Well she may be right about Obama not representing the interests of working people (and not just the white ones she now claims to speak for)...she should know having worked against working people's interests in order to promote the American military empire. Claiming she is a victim of sexism is a canard...what about the thousands of women and girls trafficked through the 'liberated',mafia-run Kosovo Clinton so ardently championed in her role as humanitarian 'Bomb all the bridges in Belgrade' imperialist? Or the widows and orphans her husband's policies in Iraq created? Or the American single mothers thrown off state assistance and into dead-end jobs with no health care for their children - when her husband destroyed the welfare 'safety net'?

johnwyclif May 13th, 2008 1:52 pm
On the other hand, this article reads to me sort of like, "Anybody who says Israel is doing bad things to Palestinians is an anti-semite."

never truer words-lol

"misogynist"- I've always kind of wondered why this word has no counter part for 'a woman who hates all men'. I've known a few.

Hill, like George, deserves whatever she/they get(s). Two peas in a pod. I don't like ANYONE who is a front runner. My choice is currently unemployed and about to lose his home. He might have a clue what it is like to be Uhmericun.
Moore-Alexander '08

"The Clintons surrounded themselves with aristocrats, hangers-on and creepy, self-promoting trash like Dick Morris."

Thank you jareilly for pointing that out. The point at which the cynical Clintons went over the cliff was not 1994 or Monica Lewinsky, but bringing in a political ghoul like Morris, a low cholesterol version of Karl Rove. Before that I thought Clinton was doing what he was doing (moving the Democrats to the right) so if and when the political worm ever turned, there would still be a viable Democratic party. Bringing in Morris, however, demonstrated that Clinton really was, in effect, a Reagan Democrat, a man who fed arsenic laced bread crumbs to the pigeons in the park. HRC lost the nomination because there are just enough registered Democrats who realize you can't create such a thing as a Lite Republican party with less greed, homicide, piracy, ignorance and stupidity, yet still letting you rise from the table feeling refreshed and satisfied. Obama isn't much better but he is not the political Dracula HRC is . . . and always will be.

ericJD your entire argument to support Hillary flounders on creaky, half-baked justifications. You are willing to pull out the 'sexist' stick in a heartbeat but her racism is not an issue with you at all. You can easily justify her aggressive 'warlike' posture as posing for the media even though she willingly, without any debates voted for the Iraq and Afghan wars. You are not willing to support Cynthia because she cant win (so f__k voting your conscience). All these signs are symptomatic of what I call 'Clinton Liberals' - the wishy-washy, apathetic 'Democ-rats' who have managed to destroy the Democratic Party in the last 15 years.

Clang! riddimboy wins the kewpie doll.

We can argue all night, but no matter what we think of her the fact is Hillary is toast after Oregon.

I realize that Obama is not everyone's first choice, but the guy has a brain and he uses it. Maybe if you aren't already supporting him you would consider it?

Let's call it a night. I sincerely wish all you CDer's pleasant dreams.