A nice, factual, logical and unbiased? post eriposte. I agree with virtually everything you said and I can confidently say, while I am not a woman, her gender has absolutely nothing to do with my unease about a Hillary candidacy. My concern is the same I have for Rahm Emmanuel and a whole host of other Democrats on Capitol Hill. It can be contained within the acronym, DLC.
I admired Bill Clinton's presidency and certainly viewed his political skills with awe, but he made some, to my liberal eyes, unnecessary and extremely ill advised compromises in the name of "Centrism" which completely misjudged the depravity of those forces arrayed against him. I still have to wonder if Hillary is that much more perceptive than he.
If she gets the nod, I will have no hesitation supporting her. One Hillary is worth a village of Republican idiots. She remains, for me however, not the best choice for these troubled times.
Many, if not most of us here in the liberal blogosphere ALREADY do what we can to deny and disinter right wing attacks on any progressive in the news. Hopefully, we can all judge candidates on their records, not their "category".
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 17, 2007 07:42 AMThank you! The hatchet job done on Hillary Clinton by the Republicans and the press for the last ten years would have broken a lesser person. Not only is she the smartest candidate out there, she's got to be the strongest. It's amazing to me that media pumps up a rich moron who only cares about other rich morons, enabling him to "win" the presidency twice -- and never misses a chance to smear a woman who genuinely wants to make this country a better place. Why is it that "ambition" is a negative only when it comes to Hillary Clinton?
Posted by dalloway at September 17, 2007 07:49 AMDeminNJ - I trust you when you say your differences with Hillary relate to her policy positions. Those are legitimate differences which need to be aired and discussed. I've made it pretty clear in the post that people should support whom they want and whom they trust and I am not asking anyone to support Hillary in this post. I just want to make sure that people watch out for the spin buried in traditional/conservative media reports about Hillary.
Posted by eriposte at September 17, 2007 07:57 AMWhat a bunch of paleo-feminist garbage, eriposte.
It's Hillary's policy positions that make people cringe:
1. voted FOR the Iraq war
2. voted FOR the USA Patriot Act
3. voted FOR reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act
4. is opposed to ending DOMA (only article #3)
5. voted AGAINST the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting US exports of cluster bombs
6. is a critic of the International Court of Justice ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations
7. supports building a fence between US and Mexico
8. supports the US's use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries
9. supported Israel’s massive military assault on Lebanon which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians (half of whom were children)
10. is driven by ideological propaganda more than independent, scholarly research
What a bunch of paleo-feminist garbage, eriposte.
Thank you for demonstrating precisely the point eriposte makes.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 17, 2007 08:18 AMGreat essay eriposte.
Contains a lot of insight into HRC's politics I think.
Glad to read it.
Posted by snark at September 17, 2007 08:25 AMThe only time I really think about Hillary being female is when she's standing next to Bill. She's so little. I guess Dennis Kucinich has the same problem standing next to his spouse. I don't know who I'll support, but I do think Sen. Clinton is incredibly smart. I want someone incredibly smart in the White House. Also, I'm more centrist than most people here probably, so that appeals to me somewhat.
Posted by CG at September 17, 2007 08:49 AM08:18 AM 08:25 AM
Princess Doppleganger is starting early today. *wink*
Posted by Christopher at September 17, 2007 08:52 AMThis really needed to be said, eriposte.
Senator Clinton's "coldness" is as much a myth as the myth that our media is liberal.
I see a few macho men among the Democratic presidential candidates; particularly, the younger candidates.
Not much is made of the fact that when Senator Clinton left law school, she began working in the public policy sphere; whereas, John Edwards waited until he made his fortune.
Men and women afraid of a female president may favor voting for another man similar to what we have now. That'll show ambitious women and keep them in their place.
Posted by Sally at September 17, 2007 09:31 AMHillary Clinton is just another corporate and AIPAC toadie that has shown no desire or compunction to stop the evisceration of the US Constitution.
Personally, I could never vote for her.
Posted by brisa at September 17, 2007 11:11 AMThere is good food for thought in what eriposte writes but I must question the repeated use of the adjective strong. Would you use it with a male candidate? Say it with me: "Senator Dodd is a strong man."
The idea that we somehow need to make explicit that Senator Clinton is a strong woman buys into the patriarchal frame that men are the strong ones and women are the weak ones.
As a woman in a male-dominated profession, I find this kind of framing offensive and counter-productive. It perpetuates the idea that the women who have been succesful are somehow exceptional while relieving the existing structure of any responsibility for the state of affairs. I'm not saying that this is your intent, eriposte, but in the spirt of your post, it seems worth stating.
Posted by Christina at September 17, 2007 12:45 PM...but I must question the repeated use of the adjective strong. Would you use it with a male candidate? Say it with me: "Senator Dodd is a strong man."
Not by name, but he did.
...she is a very accomplished, intelligent, strong and capable woman who has long been in the midst of strong, aggressive, sometimes chauvinistic men in Congress...
I understand your complaint and certainly don't seek to speak for eriposte but the entire post was about biases and stereotypes. Hard to avoid using the 'strong' word when you're talking about how it's a plus for a man and a negative, perceptually, for a woman. A negative which the posts' author takes issue with.
Just my...male...take.
Posted by snark at September 17, 2007 01:04 PMThanks, eriposte. I feel the progressive blogosphere has exhibited a lot of knee-jerk negativism toward Hillary Clinton. I appreciated that you said this with such detail.
I think Hillary Clinton is one of the most courageous politicians in the U.S. today, and her willingness to battle the stereotypes and the vicious attacks is a testament to her strength of character.
Is her health plan the best of the candidates? To my mind, it's the best that can actually get passed.
Is she ambitious? Probably. So has every human being who has ever risen to high office.
I think she has the potential to be another FDR.
I look forward to her presidency. If she gets the nomination, I'll work like crazy to put her in office.
If not, I'll support energetically the Democratic nominee.
Posted by coral at September 17, 2007 01:11 PMTo my mind, it's the best that can actually get passed.
And that, folks, in a nutshell is the entire problem. The fact that we don't fight for the right thing to do and "settle" for what can get passed is BS. Forget what can get passed, do what needs to be done and keep pushing it until it does get passed even if that means taking 4 or 5 years to do it.
This is another reason why I don't like Hillary. Too much the pragmatic politician. Pragmatics get us filled with crappy-ass, band-aid, "what can get passed" laws that do only about 40% of what needs to be done. I want someone to stand up, get pissed and keep selling it.
We've compromised ourselves into such a corner that nothing really gets accomplished except for making money for corporations. I'm not advocating for someone that is uncompromising (we've seen what that does) but someone that is not going to compromise their values away in order to "get something passed"
I want a true statesman not a politician in office. Hillary is a fantastic politician, but far from a statesman.
Go back and look at her speech supporting the AUMF. It made me angry then and it makes me angrier now.
But then again, what do I know.... I'm just a populist tired of watching the show.
Posted by Simp at September 17, 2007 03:46 PMcoral: "I think she has the potential to be another FDR."
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa, jebus, I can understand being gung-ho for your candidate but that is simply too much
However, considering how the economy is going down the toilet under Dear Leader, the next president may indeed get a chance to be another FDR
Posted by gay veteran at September 17, 2007 06:16 PMI think she has the potential to be another FDR.
May I second that, gay veteran?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Methinks coral's hangin' out with Hillary's Harpies too much. It's as lethal as the GOP's koolaid.
Posted by Christopher at September 17, 2007 07:46 PMChristina,
Thanks for your feedback. If I did offend inadvertently, I do apologize. It never struck me even for a second that strong might be interpreted in that way. I routinely use the word strong to describe both men and women (and I've used strong to also describe men in the post) and to specially emphasize positive characteristics that are uncommon.
I call Sen. Clinton strong because of her accomplishments and how she has managed to keep her life and family intact and successful despite the immense personal, political and media challenges she has faced in the last 15 years. I certainly stand by my personal opinion that she is a strong woman and not every woman in Congress is a Hillary Clinton.
That said, I will think about this some more. I would hate to lose the ability to use the adjective strong - because of the possibility that it might be inferred as having a pejorative connotation - because I use it to describe people who I believe are unusual in their capabilities.
Posted by eriposte at September 17, 2007 10:31 PM