"Excuse me, but rooting for Hillary JUST becuase she is a woman is completely irresponsible. In fact, it's sexist."

Im sorry to have to agree, but i do. Some feminists have got to wake up and shake up the mental cobwebs a bit. Lemme give you an example. In the Montreal public transit system, you can ask the bus driver if its late at night, to stop the bus between stops if youd like to be closer and it would make you feel safer. But theres a catch. You can ask this ONLY if youre a women. At first glance you think well, heres a good initiative to make womens lives better. The problem with this is that it reinforces this machismo notion that males are or should be really stronger than women, dont need to fear anything, etc.

When i first saw this i thought "Yeah but what about gramps who doesnt like it either at night" doesnt he deserve the right to be safer without this women-only rule that seems to me there to make men feel like "faggots" if theyd like to go out closer to home when they take the bus.

Another example is that in the Quebec justice system, women are almost automatically given custody of the children in court, which some men are fighting against. They are attacked by "feminists" for being "backwards" "masculinists". Some of them are masculinists in fact, but it doesnt mean that a father shouldnt have the same weight in the balance when a judge decides who gets to have custody. I dont think judges should be deciding that anyway, but thats another story.

Its post-feminism. Reverse Sexism. Feminists not caring about discriminating against males, that somehow women in power are less prone to have politics that are against women. Its simplistic magic thinking and we need to think harder than that.

Interestigly enough, there are some Orewellianisms here, for those who care to discern. When Ms. Clinton has started her primary bid & has been running all along, it was not about the gender. It is also noteworthy that she did not present any gender specific agenda in various debates. Now when she ends it, it is all about denting chinks in the gender ceiling. Sort of salvaging her prime electoral base. Does she not owe it all those who supported her, besides those purely gender-baised voters?

Want a parallel? "Get rid of Saddam Hussein", "Get rid of nuclear weapons", "Destroy terrorism", "Spread democracy & freedom in the middle east", "Keep our troops safe", ...

Sorry to ruin the festive atmosphere here, but who cares if she's a woman? Madeleine Albright is a woman. Condoleeza Rice is a woman. Dennis Kucinich is a man. Ralph Nader is a man.

I mean, id welcome a woman president but not at the detriment of what her politics are.

>> It wasn't her hair, her shoes, her husband… It was out of a stubborn,
>> long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman
>> president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean
>> human justice

Lara Flanders, please explain what gender justice is in a country where women have practically every right conceivable under the sun & perhaps even more rights than their men. Are not Clinton & her likes taking the women electorate for a ride when they ask you identify with them because they share your gender & not their political power, economic status or wealth? When Clinton signed Nafta, Gatt or imposed WTO on developing nations, did they not screw every man & woman in this country by exporting millions of well paid jobs? Did they not screw everyone alike in Mexico when they allowed american corporations to go and dump excess corn into Mexico. Cliton a gender equalizer ? Go and tell that to the 2 million odd iraqi women, each of whom would have lost at least one near and dear relative - man woman or child to either to the American sanctions or Amrican war visited upon them for no fault of theirs, but with blood dripping from Cliton & her democratic cohorts. Or, go and tell that to the Kosovan war refugees. Or, to the walmart employees. Given that Hillary takes experience credit for her tenune in the White House, should she not take the blame for the job losses caused by WTO & Nafta?

Yes. The boys had it too good for too long. It doesn't get any better than what the Bush & Cheney co are doing it now. I do not think any sensible man would support them because then happen to be men - nor would he have a desire to enjoy through vicarious means the doings of his "gender kind" dominating the world.

Far from it, the economic & social carnage left behind by decades of corporate take over of the american government is too wide and deep. Neither Obama nor Hillary have any answer to it, besides empty media circus aimed at populism & vote garnering. Rising energy costs, unemployment and losing dollar are the results of the carnage left behind by Clintons & Bushes. It will affect every man and woman the same way, perhpas women more than men in financially troubled relationships where women will take the brunt of raising children alone. If your gender-preferred candidate does not have a history our righting these economic wrongs, but only of sliding with the status quo, ...too bad - it only confirms that gender has little to do with a sense of social justice. While electing Bush &c for second term is a serious electoral mistake, showing Hillary the door is one right in the political circus of this country. Given the like resemblance between Hillary & Obama, I do not expect Obama to be the messiah from heaven, nor to be a substitute for Kucinich or Nader. But, he is the best the MSM & Corporte powers could prop up as far a liberal interests are concerned.

atheist

Obama didn't say that Hillary was losing because of her gender -- SHE did. But do you know what she said first? Here it is:

"I don't think they're picking on me because I'm a woman; I think they're picking on me because I'm winning," Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference at the Capitol after filing papers to run in the New Hampshire primary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03campaign.html

She sure changed her tune when she started losing.

Uh, this isn't at all why I'm a Clinton supporter. I didn't expect Clinton to "put gender issues first". I thought she would be the best, most intelligent, and most experienced leader, and I felt that her femininity would bring a level of empathy and human understanding grossly lacking in the prior Presidents.

Hey Future, you seem to be upset that the Clinton supporters hold Obama's fate in their hands. Blame it on Obama and the people who directed his campaign. He turned off half of the Dems !! That's HIS fault, not Clinton's or her supporters'. He now needs to win our votes, and unlike the Obamabots we demand ACTIONS, not just optimistic rhetoric.

Screw who is tall, short, pretty, handsome, rich, poor, man, woman, white, black, Christian, catholic, or any other religion. Screw all the crap they spew to the media.

All that is important is how they vote.

What they vote for is who they are.

And Obama took a lot of No Votes! That is the only reason I am even giving him the sliver of a chance at getting my vote. Ear marks screw up bills so I can see why he might just not vote at all.

When I find out more about his votes I will either vote for him or not vote at all.

You are a damn fool, with no intelligence if you vote against your own interest because HRC didn't win.

Screw who is tall, short, pretty, handsome, rich, poor, man, woman, white, black, Christian, catholic, or any other religion. Screw all the crap they spew to the media.

All that is important is how they vote.

What they vote for is who they are.

And Obama took a lot of No Votes! That is the only reason I am even giving him the sliver of a chance at getting my vote. Ear marks screw up bills so I can see why he might just not vote at all.

When I find out more about his votes I will either vote for him or not vote at all.

You are a damn fool, with no intelligence if you vote against your own interest because HRC didn't win.

Screw who is tall, short, pretty, handsome, rich, poor, man, woman, white, black, Christian, catholic, or any other religion. Screw all the crap they spew to the media.

All that is important is how they vote.

What they vote for is who they are.

And Obama took a lot of No Votes! That is the only reason I am even giving him the sliver of a chance at getting my vote. Ear marks screw up bills so I can see why he might just not vote at all.

When I find out more about his votes I will either vote for him or not vote at all.

You are a damn fool, with no intelligence if you vote against your own interest because HRC didn't win.

I really can't believe you all? Who gives a crap if she is a woman?

She supports NAFTA

She supports the WTO

She supports Wal-Mart and other Big Box Retailers

She supports the War

She supports action against Iran

She wants to force people to pay Healthcare

She supports giant corp.

She supports the Patriot Act

She does not call for impeachment

She does nothing about genocide

She does nothing about the environment

She does nothing about Big Oil

She does nothing about Big Pharma

She says nothing critical about the media

She tried to change the rules just so she could win?

What do you think she would do in the Whitehouse?

And this is a short list of crap; I could go on for days.

And I will do the same about Obama when an article allows it.

The best chance we had was Kucinich. And congress wouldn't have let him get much done anyway.

AlexLawyer

I was going to make a comment about this statement in Laura Flanders' post:

The people I know who rooted for Hillary Clinton did it for a reason. It wasn't her hair, her shoes, her husband… It was out of a stubborn, long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman president might put gender justice first.

But you said it all and brilliantly in your post.

Hillary's warmongering policies and dreams were certainly not addressed during the campaign other than an occasional brush-by when commentators mentioned her vote on the AUMF and maybe the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. I'd bet that a huge percentage of her supporters don't know the extent of her warmongering tendencies, though her statement about obliterating Iran should have given them a clue. I thought that feminists and all good women would leave her in droves because of that stunning statement, but apparently it went right over the heads of her most rabid supporters. I suppose it created cognitive dissonance so was ignored, an inconsequential piece that didn't fit into the picture.

To claim that Hillary Clinton is a symbol for "gender justice", as Ms. Flanders explains, is absurd, unless this "justice" is solely about Hillary's reproductive system with everything else ignored that America admires in our leaders -- integrity, wisdom, honesty, respect. The list is long.

So "gender justice" is only a mask that her supporters placed on Hillary that hid the truth about her.

auspiciousbunny,

learn to use the internet.

Some policy positions you could look at

1) Single Transferable Voting, i.e. a methodology for counting votes that initially allocates the voter's vote to their most preferred candidate, and then, if the required votes to win have not been acquired, reallocates votes for the least favorite candidate to the voter's second choice on their ballot. Whereas under the winner-take-all format we have in this country the more candidates we have, (good for democracy), the fewer number of votes that count towards electing winning candidates, (bad for democracy).

Winner-Take-All methods of counting votes can only guarantee that the winning candidates elected represent a plurality, whereas the Single Transferable Voting method of counting votes guarantees that the winning candidates elected represent proportional pluralities.

Note that Obama introduced resolution SB 1789 in 2002 to introduce single transferable voting in Illinois. http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

Kucinich supports IRV as well.
www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Campaign_Reform_and_IRV.pdf

The Green Party also is also in favor of single transferable voting.

2)Social Security

Obama unlike HRC is for securing the future of one of the principal reforms of the New Deal, i.e. raising the maximum income level taxed from $102,000 to something marginally higher. It's a regressively taxed program so this would be marginally more progressive than promising as HRC has that we could 'grow' our way out of the debt the Bush regime has saddled us with.

"Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

3) Health Care

Affordable healthcare debates are more likely to lead to single-payer healthcare than debates about which health insurance company is better.

And at least Obama has said that he if he was starting from scratch he would favor single-payer.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

The costs of health insurance undermine the efficacy of mandates.

The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

marcy kaptur is the REAL franklin roosevelt democrat.. she is just as strong on fighting corporate greed as nader.. just as strong as dennis K.. and with the added plus of also fighting the other GREED harm.. abortion..

with her on the ticket she will become the most popular person in america.. even more so than obama... she will bring back the yellow dog democrats that left the party because of the GREED of abortion.. she is what sn bob casey of pa's father was... they are exactly the same... she will deliver pa.. ohio.. mich very easily.. BUT she will also bring back the yellow dog democrats and ga.. nc and sc may flip to democrats..

she will become the most popular person in govt and politics... she is BETTER than nader or dennis k since she is totally consistant on going after greed harm....

corporate greed harm of stealing the weaks money is one greed harm.. she is equal to nader and dennis k on this.. BUT she is consistant whereas nader and dennis k is NOT they over look the OTHER greed harm of the innocent and weak abortion makes one wonder if dennis k or nader is really REAL!!!

with marcy kaptor and bob casey of pa.. those 2 are REAL against all GREED harms..

marcy voted no to this greed war for oil for the robber barons and is strongly against the robber barons nafta and gatt greed harm whch lowers americans wages..

marcy kaptur is the REAL DEAL!!!! she is CONSISTANT!!! her judgement has been near perfect more so than anyone other than bob casey sr..

I believe Hillary was defeated for three reasons.

1. She picked Mark Penn to run her campaign. Oops.

2. Dashale developed a great strategy using the caucus states. Appealing to whites early. And Barack Obama is a dream candidate to work with.

3. He won enough of the early states with whites till blacks got on board after Wright to hold on till now. She could never catch up with that initial surge, almost, but not quite.

Its a victory, but not by much I'd say. Anyone see any fault in my reasoning?

I am not very familiar with Marcy Kaptur, but I just went through her website. She seems remarkable. Her Roman Catholic faith might help Obama with that particular crowd, not to mention being from Ohio.

We'll see.

For Sale:
Truckload of top-end pastel pant-suits, heavily stained with ego.
Would suit squat middle-aged lady. Not necessary that she sees herself as a god.

Owner changing to style more suitable to begging forgiveness for bad recent investment from bankers and successful candidates

marcy kaptur.. should be VP.. ohio congresswoman who is even better than dennis K on attacking greed.. she attacks both greeds... the corporate greed as well as the abortion greed.....with he ron the ticket.. the yellow dog democrats will come back and become the franklin d roosevelt democrat party AGAIN...

the more people know marcy kaptur and her record the more people will go for this ticket especially during hard economic times.. she is the BEST!!

she was right on fighting nafta and gatt.. and right on voting no for the robber barons war for oil and greed.... she has fantastic judgement and a solid record...

the rust belt will love her on the ticket and now the south is hurting just like the rust belt cause of nafta and gatt coming from the clintons... states like ga.. sc and nc may flip to go democratic.. with marcy kaptur on the ticket ..

Would Hillary Clinton please leave the stage! This is Obama's moment and you're trying to muscle in, which is your M.O. (Just like your claim to "8 years in the White House".)

While I'm 78 years old and a white woman, all my friends and I are Obama supporters. I have an advanced degree, however, and made a better than average living so I can think and read people's behavior pretty well.

Hillary's judgment is suspect. Think of her vote to go to Iraq or of her recent decision to continue her "run for the White House." Neither stance helps women or children anywhere in the world nor does it make the U.S. safer.

Hillary likes turmoil, but she likes to be the center of attention anywhere, and she'll take it anyway she can which is why I see her as ruthless and not a positive choice for VP.

Siuox..
realize BOTH genders have been programmed, but remember that females have had to adapt to the MALE model.

now then here's the rub of the matter.. the result of this has been a "program" of selective breeding...programed men breeding with programmed women selecting mates on the basis of that conditioning...each generation exagerating the characteristics of the previuos including a propensity towards the conditioned sexual response..

here's a very pragmatic and practical choice...

make better decisions regarding your breeding partners and free your children from the cycle...now then this is an area that women do have some control over (at least in the west)..studys have shown that it takes only three or four generations of selective breeding to turn a wild animal into a domesticated one..(to show it's power in basic terms)

that's it....wether we like it or not we are all active particpants in a program of selective breeding...and selective breeding can utterly transform a species within 100 years....that's the real engine of change that's how we got where we are to-day...wanna go some where different..make different choices

Obama would be smart to pick a nice Jewish girl for VP.

According to the Prophecy

WONDER 678: Excellent point.

CHRIS B: I realize BOTH genders have been programmed, but remember that females have had to adapt to the MALE model. Years ago studies on heart disease were exclusively done on men with the results generalized to (erroneously) fit women. Freud thought women were neurotic because they didn't have a penis. I believe at one point the church argued women did not have souls! And on and on. How about nuns and men deciding the abortion ethic? (That was years ago.)

The way to escape polarity is by returning to the circle. Although some falsely call it "new age" astrology is a means for understanding aspects of a spiritual blueprint upon which this world, and its peoples, were designed. Just as the old dual stereotypes of whore or madonna have coded a great many, there are far more expressions than those related by polarity. The circle, which includes TWELVE basic portals of expression, like snowflakes, each of these has an infinite number of personalized variations, these twelve are simulations of Jesus' numbered disciples and Abraham's tribes.

Jean Shinoda Bolen, ph.D opened my eyes when I read her books, GODS in Everyman, & GODDESSES in Every woman. Although she's a Jungian psychologist, the archtypes she related and the behaviors (easy to identify in the present) these give rise to were easily fitted to the ancient astrological prototypes. I am still editing a book that's been in progress for nearly a decade that integrates these identifying factors. It also explains why women are very changeable in terms of the male perspective, and how this ingenious dance of time lives within us. I feel pretty reverent for the fact that this understanding has come through me... now if I can only make it understandable to lay persons.

Though she married a Southern Democrat (and I've yet to figure out the difference between a Southern Democrate and a Republican) she is a Republican to the core. One reason she got so much support from the Right is that they'd much prefer to go after her in the general election but even if she won it, they'd still have one of their own in the White House - just not the one they went for. She's a Republican in Democrat clothing; always has been.

Gender justice-human justice? ...and you expected this from Hillary?

Pulleeaze!

OldBadgertoo,
Nobody here believes Obama is a magician with a magic wand, but your attitude supposes there are no degrees, no incremental improvements in life or politics.

That's a sweeping concept that takes the millions of lives ruined by George W Bush very lightly.

Obama's manipulated "victory" means that the US is turning its back on the old, the poor, women and choosing charisma and youth. Under this rebranded image, the policies will stay the same: no universal health care, no protection for employees, no justice for Palestine, endless wars and threats of wars, and big takings for the Wall Street elite who bankroll Obama and will make sure they get their money's worth. Only the face has changed. The US will still strut and bellow and claim pre-eminence, with even more of a self righteous swagger now.

Siuox

How women behave is like asking how mice in a maze designed by Pavlov behave. What we take for human nature is the product of centuries of conditioning

i agree entirely...same thing applies to males..every-one is complicit
it's a hell of a thing and no mistake
but simply swopping roles when those roles are very much part of the conditioning isn't going to cut it..the roles we play are the conditioning
a hell of a thing

The thing to remember about baby boomer lawyers is that they learned how to take tests. Not think independently. Sound familiar? I am not a lawyer, I am a baby boomer, 1.1.47. Political strategy is heavily dependent on demographics,which is totally antithetical to independent thought. I do have an advanced degree, I do know that lawyers are research intensive, even when changing careers. But all they ever do is re-phrase what someone else already thought. Why do we elect lawyers? Because we have been led to believe we are a nation of laws?

I'm ignoring politics until voting day, then I'm voting Green.

Laura, I love you, but I think you're off base here. It may take a female president to right the gender inequities, but not this female. She has proven herself that she is willing to put on the same suit of armor as the boys when it comes to leadership. Is this what you really want - a sword-rattling toughie with a vagina? Will that really make a difference? Did Margaret Thatcher improve things for women?

"The problem — it's not about her. And the solution — it's not about him. It's about us."

I couldn't agree more.

obama has NOW a 6 POINT lead over mccain not a 6 months lead.. will go to double digits when he names marcy kaptur as VP

marcy kaptur of ohio will be the VP....

she is not a total phoney on helping the workers as hillary was and is .. and she has the RECORD to back that up..

she will help carry ohio and mich and pa which will seal the election for obama... this is hillarys and bills worst nitemare... marcy kaptur will be the boss woman of the democrat party....

she is a white woman version of john edwards but with alot better and proven record of helping workers and she voted NO against this war for oil for the robber barons... unlike the crook hillary and the phoney edwards...

jimmy carter said it would be a worst mistake of any to select hillary as VP he is so RIGHT.. obama has a 6 month lead on mccain now .. when marcy kaptur is known around the country that will go to double digits.. stupid people who say obama cannot win without hillary... just the opposite... with hillary he could NOT win... all the independents would go for mccain...

let us celebrate hillary clinton's run to almost nomination of her party. hillary ran a brilliant campaign. admittedly, obama ran a better one by the rules, but hillary's marathon was magnificent! let us celebrate her run.

ANDREWS: You have a lovely, pure heart.

ALEX LAWYER: IF I was the jury, you just won your case! Great posting. I'm so glad you add to this forum.

I was sitting next to a conservative in Texas at lunch today, and he told me he'd vote for Obama, but not if Hillary is on the ticket. Hillary has an army of supporters and just as many people on the other side. Obama will have the same. Obama won't be perfect, but the tone that he's set is a step in the right direction.

Although I was shocked and upset when Hillary voted for the war, I want her to find peace and move on where she can give back to the world outside of Washington. I bet Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are both happier using their positions, taking action to help the world outside of the hostile political scene. I don't want to hear a "come back" story for Hillary in US politics, but rather a genuine come back story for Hillary. I didn't vote for Hillary, but I hope to see her more grounded, happy, successful, Arundhati Roy style.

I was in China a couple years ago and gave $10 to a woman with a baby, and a swarm of people appeared asking for money. I saw a very young child working in India recently, and when I asked about child labor laws, a friend told me that child is probably lucky to make money for their family. I was on the south island of New Zealand in 2002, and an old couple told me they were "more shocked that the US public was shocked about 9/11, than what happened on 9/11".

As more and more people live compromised lives in the western world, attached to jobs, life styles, and expectations, maybe we have a perfect storm. Pain, guilt, and shame eating away, due to the exporting of violence and weapons from my country, the country that afforded me opportunities. With the devaluation of the dollar, rising energy prices, and our youth outmatched in India and China by at least 100 to 1, it's time to realize this is our time to help someone else. No politician, priest, minister, guru, or management consultant has the answer for me. However, I do feed off the tone that Obama sets. He might not be perfect, but for me, it's positive energy to fuel
the journey.

Usually agree with Flanders, but this is poor. If anything, it reveals the bankruptcy of the "feminist movement," at least the one lead by the usual media-savvy suspects.

Voting for someone simply due to genitals is disgusting and ignorant. It is as ignorant as refusing to vote for Obama because of his race or his name. But apparently, they are to be excused because they're not a bunch of crackers but instead East Coast liberal elites. And voting for a woman who has helped destroy the lives of women and children in Iraq in truly biblcal proportions should go against everything these so-called feminists stand for.

Or is okay because these are Arabs and Muslims?

Oh, pleeeeeze! Cut the crap, Laura Flanders!

Hillary Clinton is *not* a feminist.

Hillary Clinton is *not* a progressive.

Hillary Clinton is *not* a friend of peace.

Hillary Clinton is *not* an advocate of grassroots power versus corporate power. (In fact, precisely the opposite!)

So don't act as if, male or female, Senator Clinton's nomination would in any way advance progressive causes.

There's nothing "historically significant" about a woman gaining office and then acting just as aggressively, just as militaristically, just as much a "gun for hire," corporate mouthpiece as any garden variety male whore-politician.

Of course you and the other "cruise missile liberals" over at The Nation (John Nichols, Katrina Van Heuvel, Katha Pollitt, et al) as well as your other employer, Air America, have never spoken out against *Democratic* imperialism, have you? (Heaven forfend!) Have never spoken out about the *Democratic* Party's criminal complicity in the Iraqi War.

So who's kidding who?

Go -- go rejoice that THIS Barack Obama and THIS voting record represents what you want in a president -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

I disagree with those who feel that gender trumps all other considerations. Yes, I would very much like to see more women in high office and yes, much of the vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton has been sexist. Unlike the Clintonistas, however, I stubbornly refuse to sacrifice human rights on the altar of political expediency.

The Clintons' intransigent defiance of global consensus on issues such as landmines, cluster bombs, recruitment of minors into the military, execution of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people and the cruel sanctions in Iraq that killed over 500,000 Iraqi children with no discernable effect on Saddam Hussain concern me. Hillary's support for the Iraq war and her parroting of Bush's lies in support of her vote raise serious questions abour her judgment. Her saber rattling and refusal to negotiate with our enemies are unwise and dangerous. The way Bill Clinton held out promises of signing to force crippling concessions on the International Criminal Court Statute, then refused to sign the final, watered down product, was cynical and disgraceful. The way they solicited votes and money from gays, then betrayed them with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act isn't reassuring. Clinton's behind-the-scenes efforts to block a meaningful UN response to the Rwanda genocide, which cost 800,000 lives, doesn't impress me. The callous response to our destruction of al Shifa, the pharmaceutical plant that met most of Sudan's needs prior to the Clinton-ordered Tomahawk missile attack, on the false premise that it was a chemical weapons plant, was disgraceful. We should have stepped in to supply the life-saving drugs of which we had deprived the people there, and doing so would have gone a long way towards improving our image in the Islamic world.

Aside from the Clintons' incessant lying, arrogance, narcissism, greed and hypocrisy, their record on human rights is enough to nauseate any morally decent person and disqualify them from any important post.

I rooted for Hillary because she is what she is: a neo liberal, imperial militarist.
Now I'm a left wing, progressive. (Nader is a moderate in my worldview---also the best candidate!)

But Hillary doesn't pretend to be something she's not. Her political twin, Barack Obama, does pretend to be something he's not: a change agent.

Obama is also a neo liberal, imperial militarist, but he presents himself as this fake change guy.

That's what I object to; that phoniness.

... and strong enough to hold Lieberman by the feet while Obama continues talking.

For VP, we need a pretty Hispanic non-Zionist jewish woman orator, with impeccable credentials who is a constitutional law professor in an Ivy League school and has otherwise lived in seclusion with her husband and young children and only goes out to work and to attend a non-denominational church.

Yea marylou. Martinis all around and a free trip on the house to all and sundry to the Gaza. Bottoms up!

Too bad Obama didn't drag Lieberman by the collar. Somebody needs to.

While Limbaugh and Coulter may complain that McClone is not conservative enough, they will never say that about Lieberman.

Is there any difference between someone who votes for Hillary because she is a woman or votes for Obama because he calls himself an African American and has dark skin, and someone who does not vote for them for these same reasons? No. They are all mindless racists and sexists and most of them are MSM creations serving the elites propaganda agenda to divide and rule.

And then, in response to a fresh Lieberman attack on him and his AIPAC adress:

"During a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances."
(Daily Kos)

...this is getting really good!

Discussing non-quantifiable characteristics only lends credence to the notion that somehow being concerned with "leadership ability" or "charisma" is as worthy a pursuit, and thus as deserving of coverage, as what candidates actually have to say about ISSUES. The characteristic of "elect-ability" seems to get more attention in the media than all the issues put together.

Reread the article by Laura Flanders and notice that she starts off the piece by noting the poor coverage of the issues by the media. So most voters may have latched onto what the media has given them to latch onto, namely these BS ineffable qualities. Flander's above piece is really just a cry to unify democrats behind the idea of calling on Obama to turn the campaign more toward addressing structural problems, i.e. ISSUES. Don't misinterpret what has been said here.

Also, if you were a person set on Hilary being the nominee, why be so down? If you have progressive views, losing Hilary from the mix was nowhere near the blow as losing Dennis or even Edwards. With Dennis we lost single payer and pacifism and with Edwards we lost angry anti-corporate rhetoric. With Hilary we lost...what exactly? Last I checked Nader is still running.

Not quite your traditional "sucking up":

He had the chutzpah to lay this on his AIPAC audience:

"I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security,"

plus said in so many words that military action against Iran was not in "our best interest",

and paid tribute to the many Jewish-American progressives in US history.

Wow, if Clinton supporters think they got screwed, imagine how us Kucinich supporters feel!
BTW, did everyone hear Obama sucking up to Israel today?

NATE W: Polls lie. I am a woman over 45 and Hillary is not my bag, and I've seen others comment on CD in agreement.

MAIRS: Very enlightened post!

CHRIS B: How women behave is like asking how mice in a maze designed by Pavlov behave. What we take for human nature is the product of centuries of conditioning. In Education it's all logic based, and too often a proud summation of wars and so-called victories. In religion, God is seen as the father, a male entity and in the Catholic church the female caste is known as "nuns." The conditioning in most cultures has held an extreme male bias which to me is equivalent ot asking mankind to write with one hand tied behind its back. This extreme left brain, masculine conditioning has caused strong women to identify with THE model. Traits of compassion are seen as "compromising with the enemy," especially in a make-war state like the US today.

DUGONIT--Good points.
APEUROPEAN HISTORY: Excellent points.
AUSPICIOUS BUNNY: At least it's not the same damned dynasty! It's time for a new "product" in this commercialized nation. And as others have noted, Obama gets the juices flowing and could inspire more than that which he himself is capable of manifesting. Indeed, time for a change from the dynastic 2-family rule of the past 20 plus years!

"Hillary was defeated because she was totally self absorbed and appeared morally bankrupt."

Amy Poehler's dead-on Hilary, "Unlike Senator Obama, I have no ethical standards," captures the whole thing.

Obama should agree to offer her a major ambassadorship & then send her to Baghdad.

ah yes Maggie Thatcher...the working class here in the UK will probably never recover from the damage done by her psychotic vision of the future...the rich did ok by her tho as did the economy ..in the end... but any sense of community and socail cohesion was beaten to death like a baby seal with a merciless club

it still creeps me out thinking about it

By Laura's theory, Margaret Thatcher would have been a progressive woman's dream of a wonderful leader. Not!

On the other hand, if all these women really want to vote for a progressive woman who will change the world, they still can. Cynthia McKinney is running for President.

Anytime they try to get you to vote based on superficial values like gender or skin color, you are being conned. Make a candidate promise to you what they will do, vote for the candidate that best suits your values, then do all you can to force them to live up to that promise. And you'll have a better chance of that with a grassroots candidate that gets elected based on your support and work than with a corporate backed candidate that gets elected based on corporate money.

Obama is the fantasy candidate. The only message from Obama is that he is whatever a person fantasizes that a President should be. We hear this constantly when we are told that he has to take all these awful positions just to get the office. We are supposed to believe that he's secretly very different from what he says he is when he takes one awful position after another. And since the candidate won't tell us who he really is (under this theory), the only thing left to believe is for every voter to pretend that Obama is really their secret fantasy about what a President should be.

Over the years I've watch the Democrats get more and more desperate to try to convince voters to support their pro-war, pro-corporate candidates who don't represent or support anything that the Democratic voters want. But this really takes the cake.

KEM PATRICK June 4th, 2008 12:37 pm

"What we sorely need is an honest statesperson who displays a high degree of intelligence, sobriety and common sense and is not owned by big business."

That is the truth. I don't care who they are, but what they are is truly important.

dougnwagner June 4th, 2008 1:07 pm

Terrific post! I hope you are right.

I think its truly time to move on.

With the exception of old dem, the people on this list are deluding themselves into believing whatever it is that suits the decision they made to support Obama. It's wordy, irrational drivel.

It's obvious, painfully so, the CD crowd's fascination with Obama has nothing to do with his positions on any policy whatsoever. Because he has no clear position on policy. except for health insurance, which is the same position exactly as Hillary Clinton. Most of the comments made here are out to lunch, it's the la la of teenagers. even the comments about "feminism" are dimwitted pretensions at self-assertion.

No one here has provided any research or cited anything to support any of these "facts" they supply.

I don't think Obama is any better than Clinton. Sure he is handsome. He is a slick, Ivy-league trained lawyer. If you were head of your class at the country's most presitgious law school,
a) you are extremely ambitious for yourself
and b) you are one hell of a talker who can make a case for anything, even on the basis of nothing.

Which is what Obama is doing, since he has no track record.

I can't wait to vote for neither Clinton, Obama or McCain. These candidates are foisted on us by the establishment media. They should be recognized for what they are-people who will change nothing in Washington.

Gender justice and human justice are fine terms, but what do they have to do with Hillary Clinton? Do Iraqi women have any more gender or human justice because of Clinton's war vote? Do Palestinian women and children have justice due to Clinton's ties with AIPAC? Flanders--get your head out of the feminist propaganda and look at the facts on the ground: human rights is the issue, not gender.

As a long time feminist, I was completely offended by hrc's tactics and behavior. her only firm belief is "be the consummate politician" in other words, believe nothing unless it is politically expedient -- very much like Feinstein and her ilk.

and frankly, i've considered dropping my support of NOW (and other feminist groups) because of their blind obedience to the "a(ny) woman at any cost" belief that seems rampant right now.

i'm hoping that Mr. Obama chooses a woman as VP (other than hrc) but time will tell. My current choices would be Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or John Edwards....

GO OBAMA!
Peace,
CS

Dear Juliann June 4th, 2008 12:27 pm

The bigger problem is that you don't know who Laura Flanders is...

Clinton will buck tradition and put "gender justice", "human justice" first?

What is this writer smoking? Clinton is the ultimate insider who constantly triangulates in order to give her the greatest political advantage.

Or is her vote authorizing war an example of her excellent "human justice"?

Obama's policies are unimpressive, though basically good. Even during his admittedly rousing victory speech last night, he still avoided mentioning single-payer health insurance (he said "lower premiums") and a speedy exit from our imperialist follies in the Middle East. But the reason that Obama scares the shit out of our rulers is his ability to mobilize a spirit of rebellion, to harness the energy of the young, the humane, and the educated among the populace, to bring hope to a despairing nation. Identity politics is a trap that the rulers use to keep us divided. Divided we remain powerless. Hillary keeps us (progressives) divided. Obama is the valiant brakeman on a runaway train. He'll have a lot of careening boxcars to slow down.

The "sex pistols" are coming out against Bill Clinton all ready, so it appears that, should Hillary get the VP spot, we'll get nothing else from the media for the rest of the year except Bill's supposed sexcapades, and should she become the VP, it'll be for another 4 -8 years of the same.

What is being left unsaid is the elephant in the room: the age cleave. Hillary's women supporters are mostly above the age of 45, while their younger compatriots have largely jumped on the Obama bandwagon because he has spoken eloquently to the wants and desires of the post Baby Boom generations irrespective of gender & race. While Hillary represents a redux of the social struggles that has ensnared the USA since the 1960's and which the larger world can ill afford, Obama has managed to personify moving into the future where said tiresome struggles are spoken about in history class.

If you don't want the DLC to play a big part in the next administration, I think that it is only fair to point out that Austan Goolsbee, who until recently was Obama's chief economic advisor, is also the Senior Economist to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Check out Obama's economic advisors, his Senate votes on "free" trade, and his policy proposals (hint: big giveaways to insurance and energy companies (and not for clean energy)). If you think that he will abandon the "corporate-sponsored" wing of the Party, then I think that you will be sadly disappointed.

"woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice"

Really, you mean this particular woman didn't help enable the killing and maiming of women and children and the orphaning of children in Iraq, and the human misery of women and children fleeing the country?

"IT TAKES OUR HILARY TO BOMB A VILLAGE!"

Hikerwoman
New York

Hillary based her campaign on the Karl Rove model. She would base a vice-presidency on the Dick Cheney model. Say NO!

Laura --

SMARTER WOMEN . . . understood HRC's attachments to the DLC -- the corporate-sponsored wing of the party which
exists to move the party to the RIGHT.

HRC is part of DLC Leadership --- !!!!

Now, why would you want that, Laura????

Meanwhile, let's also keep DLC members out of the VP office --- !!!

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

NO HRC/DLC in the VP spot --

No DLC members in the VP spot ---

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

APEuroHistorian's post says it all in one paragraph !!!

If you were to make a table that listed all of the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential contenders vertically and all of the "womens" issues horizontally, and rated the candidates on their track records concerning those issues, Dennis Kucinich is way ahead of Hillary and several of the other white male contenders would have been neck and neck or slightly ahead of her.

There are many female elected officials who have a good track record supporting womens issues, unfortunately Hillary is not among them.

I cannot vote for a warmonger, and Hillary Clinton surely has been that in her years in the Senate. Woman or not, she's the wrong person, and her presence on the ticket would be a deal breaker for me. I'm all in favor of a woman for president, but not her. Not a warmonger who has been willing to support mass slaughter to advance her career. No way.

JRuebl says: "Thanks democrats, for nominating a guy with a name that rhymes with Osama."

Republicans nominated a guy with a name that rhymes with Cain, pain, insane, inane, same, shame.

Oh puhleeeeze, sour grapes is all I can say. I have a question, what of the women who didn't support Clinton? I didn't and I am very happy she did not win. I can imagine the post mortem the campaign staff will have to endure as the Clintons rail at them for the lost bid for the presidency. After all, the Clintons NEVER own their failure allowing young staffers to fall on their swords instead.

to lordanthony who says "Obama overcame a far bigger hurdle by being black than HRC did by being as woman."

Oh enough crap, already, k? If there is ANY lesson to take from the primaries, and if there are any smart progressives and Dems out there, it is this: do not fall for the victim competition between being female in America and being an African American of either sex in America. No less than Shirley Chisholm said that more hurdles were put in her way because of her sex than her race. I expect that there are African American women out there who would both agree and disagree. It is not for me or anyone else to invalidate any African American or woman of any race or to judge or gainsay or disagree. The FACTS are these: up until now, no one without a white penis, especially of the Anglo-American kind, need apply. Nor will being a woman or African American cure anything - see Clarence Thomas (I'd like to be there to hear what Justice Thurgood Marshall says to Clarence) and see also the likes of Phyllis Schlafley, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc. Being of a particular skin color or sex means nothing more than its own fact. It guarantees nothing. What counts is what's in your head, your heart, your soul - and what you intend to do with all the accumulated experience your head, heart and soul has undergone in this world.

I always thought that Obama used the feminine in himself, that anima in every man, better than Hillary uses her own feminine side which she seems to want to quash into nonexistence. He appears to me to be more at peace with the different aspects of himself as a human being, whereas Hillary is at war with her softer side and with everyone who opposes her.

If you look at Obama as a symbol of male power, you are missing his actual strengths as one who bridges over to the strengths of the female, as a negotiator and a uniter. If Hillary hadn't been in the race I think those who support her now would have flocked to Obama as the bridge that would connect those on opposite sides of the gender wars. He is the antithesis of the caricatured war male McCain who doesn't know himself and will not negotiate, who is so oblivious that he constantly contradicts himself, lost behind his fake mask of male power.

Any woman who thinks that the woman who cast a yea vote for the criminal war in Iraq and who serves on the union busting board of directors of Walmart is going to make it a better world for women simply because she IS a woman is not looking at hard fact. Get out from behind the skirts, quit cutting off your noses to spite your faces, and get behind the candidate who will give this nation the new direction it sorely needs. Any woman who yearns for the empowerment of women and is now considering switching her vote to McCain is the sorest--and blindest--of losers. And with a President McCain, everyone regardless of gender will LOSE.

Remember, Cynthia McKinney is still in the race. The Progressive black female candidate who terrifies corporate America. Get behind her campaign!!

I think a qualified woman president would be great. The thing is that H.R.C. is a female with penis envy. Trying to "keep up with the boys" is NOT a woman in the W.H. but a "Poser" in drag.

By the way, Laura, Dennis Kucinich would have been the answer to your dreams. Where the F&*#% were you when he needed you?

Obama is going to get burned in a wicker man by McCain. We are about to see the most vicious presidential fight in U.S. history.

Thanks democrats, for nominating a guy with a name that rhymes with Osama.

Yes, its going to get that far below the belt.

McCain will be our next president.

Why do we have to have a President?

feminists need to be cautious with the claim that a female leader would automaticaly cater for greater socail justice...as the lady says

you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society

the masculine and feminine concepts do not exist in seperate universes and are not seperate species...they exist as two sides of the SAME coin...to expect a female leader to pull a socail justice wand out of her backside and be more caring than a male leader by default is utter madness

once in power it doesn't take a genius to work out that it all gets a lot more compicated than that..

here in the UK we have dozens of female MP's heads of departments etc etc..
and they all without exception come out with the same old garbage that the men came out with..if anything it is even more unsettling when coming from a woman than a man...as most men will be a poltician first and a man second whilst i don't feel that the majority of women can comfortably seperate their work from their "gender"

tho it can be claimed that this is in it self the result of sexism within the workplace..but that can be and is a circular argument

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

The gender cult of Hillary Clinton is a reactionary force ready to accept anything she says or does. She uses religious smears that's okay. She uses race baiting that's okay. She talks like a neocon true believer and wants to obliterate Iran and that's okay. Is there anything she says or does that is not okay? I am for Obama but I certainly do not agree with everything he says or will do but the Clinton cult will accept anything.

Excuse me, but rooting for Hillary JUST becuase she is a woman is completely irresponsible. In fact, it's sexist. If you think she's best for the job, fine. But it amazes me the number of Americans who can't look past gender and race to support the person they think best suited to lead the country.

Neither of the Dem potential nominees are white males, so does that mean I should ignore them both?

Grow some brains.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vo...

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

House Vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Flander's notes the following:

"It's a convenient way to take systems of wealth and power and privilege out of the picture and a happy-for-some way to eradicate history. We've privatized prisons and health-care and education and war and we do the same to our politics and our politicians. It's all about them."

Right! It has always been about THEM! So why is this empty pantsuit going to vote for Obama? Obama, Clinton, and McCain are married to the status quo, they are married to corporations and corporate investments. (Note a recent article on CD documenting the corporations that poured millions into the Bush campaign, now pouring millions into the Obama campaign.)

Obama is rattling his sword about Iran on another CD article and is on record as asserting he would bomb Pakistan. Obama takes refuge in his oppossition to the Iraq war while at the same time funding it for 7 years. Obama's environmental plan is married to the Nuclear lobby and the Bio fuel Lobby. Both are inimical to our Earth Mother.

Flander's like her good buddy Hartmann (and others of their misguided ilk) talk out of both sides of their mouth. My native friends call this speaking with a forked tounge.

Follow this dim wits advice if you want more of the same.

Youre wasting youre breath Laura, they don't get it - it must be a genetic lack. But keep putting it out there. Thanks.

Hillary was defeated because she was totally self absorbed and appeared morally bankrupt. Her actions in this campaign were seen by many as disgraceful. Washington appears to have corrupted her completely. She behaved badly and continues to behave badly. She lacked grace in failing to concede last night. She "had" to tarnish the evening for Obama. She is at war with men. Obama will appear weak to men if he places her on the ticket. Nor should he pay her significant campaign debt in the many millions. She borrowed millions and attempted to derail Obama with specters of racism, gender, and assassination. She deserves the hell she has made for herself.

No matter what gender. No matter what. The Dem nominee, like the Republican nominee, is .... more of the same, i.e., the corporate candidate that has made it through the corporate and media filters, one that, in the end, is expected to and will do their bidding.

Where to start...

Flanders bemoans that it is all become too personal and then actually is brazen enough to state that feminists supported clinton based on the fact that she was a women. Can't get more personal than that--and the stated case that:

"a woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice. As Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women explained on GRITtv Tuesday night, you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society — the female part — that you treat the worst without consequences for the planet."

When Clinton sought to prove her worthiness as Commander-in chief with tough sounding militaristic blunder and maschismo as a the criteria of necessary strenth even after the complete Bush blundering with this sabre-rattling approach.

This argument is lame at best and dishonest at its core.
As a woman, I have found that som of the male politicians, including Obama with his compassionate patience for Clinton, have better demonstrated the qualities of human justice while Clinton made a mockery of herself and shames all women with her lack of integrity and gross selfish delusion.

While I couldn't agree more whole heartedly that men have abused whole populations with their barbaric conflict resolution method -of war - for eons too long. . . and I am eager to see a woman change that. Hilary is a wolf in she's clothing. Hilary is a good ole boy. The old guard, the politition's politition. She has man- ipulated her gender to gain the support of women,while engaging in fear mongering and dirty tricks with the worst of the good ole boys! It's too bad that the first shot at the prize had to be a man in woman's clothing. . .but women need to look for a kinder person not JUST A FEMALE.
Hilary is the old guard. As a woman and a mother and as a gentler spirit - opposed to the barbaric act of war, which terorizes and tortures local populations I honor and respect the man who ran a principled campaign and not the alleged woman who voted for war.

Personally, it makes no difference to me if we have a female, or a black, or a black female, a white male or female, an American Indian, a Latino, or an Asian female with a Latino surname for our president.

What we sorely need is an honest statesperson who displays a high degree of intelligence, sobriety and common sense and is not owned by big business.

What rubbish.

Obama overcame a far bigger hurdle by being black than HRC did by being as woman.
Insulting to women too, nothwithstanding the feminist bigots planning to vote McSame if Obama is the Dem. nominee.

The women I know are a LOT smarter than that.

And naive! HRC and the Clintonista are remorseless in their ambition.
She'd nurture us in a.... kinder gentler USA, you think?

(oops, that line came from Daddy Bush but it's a good fit for your runner-up..)