I am in total agreement with you. I'm not a huge fan of Clinton, but the fact that she's a woman automatically wins her my support - because my want for pushing women forward trumps almost anything else. I mean, I still pay attention to her views and what she's doing - I wouldn't vote for her if she was completly evil - but helping women take that next step forward is important enough to me that yes, I think we should all be supporting her by default.

I agree with you. Women should absolutely not side with women "just because." In my opinion being a politician makes you suspect no matter what gender, race, or religion you are. But that's me, I'm an optimist!

Seriously, though, look at Imelda Marcos. The woman had like a million shoes and her people lived in poverty. I would hope thoughtful feminists would know better than to vote for someone like that.

We should vote for whoever is best suited for the job. And if it's Hilary; good for her. If someone else; good for them.

I support Hillary as in "Man, it's awesome that Hillary is running for president", but I don't prefer her over the other candidates, especially not as much as I used to.

I think that women, and feminists especially, should be proud of her accomplishments, but that doesn't mean they have to support her attempt to become president or any of her political endeavors, for that matter.

I remember in the last thread about this, a bunch women decided that they were going to support Obama in the primaries, but that if Hillary won the nomination, we would stand behind her.

I'm a little divided, and I need to do more research on the candidates before I make my choice, but I do support Hillary to some extent partly because she is a woman.

I totally agree with Megan's comment. I am thrilled that a woman is running for president and is actually considered a serious contender (the same goes for Obama and Richardson; it's great to see POC running and people taking it seriously). But when it comes time to cast my ballot, I'm going to go with whoever has the closest views to mine on my important issues, regardless of gender or race.

If Fox News is to be believed *stifled laughter* Hillary's totally got a lock on the chick vote.

...on account of the vagina, presumably. Because everyone knows women don't actually pay attention to issues! They just vote for the guy with the best hair. Duh.

They don't think much of us, do they?

"They just vote for the guy with the best hair. Duh."

We also have a burning desire to know their preference on the "boxers or briefs" front.

I don't think there's anything wrong with supporting Hillary in part because she's a woman... the fact is that her sex in and of itself is relevant in the current political culture. The bottom line is that we NEED to get a woman in the White House at some point, and soon, because the simply fact is that having a female president aids the cause of feminism, period. Having a female president is a step toward equality. We live in a culture in which women make up a teeny tiny percentage of The Powerful, and the symbolism of having a woman as the most powerful person in the country, is meaningful. It is. It says to young girls, "yes, even YOU could be president too" when formerly they might quite plausibly have thought it's just a "man's job." If a woman takes the White House, they may still have toxic people in their life telling them that president is a "man's job" -- but then they will be FORCED to reconcile this with the fact that a woman has been president. This is powerful. This is extremely extremely important. This changes perceptions, and it changes society. The same goes for race -- the fact that Obama is a person of color IS a valid reason to support him.

At the same time, the fact that she is a woman cannot be the ONLY relevant aspect of her candidacy. It has to be weighed against other issues. For instance, she voted for the war. This is highly relevant -- we've wasted billions of dollars that could have been used to improve conditions for the US and for oppressed peoples worldwide (thinking theoretically here -- I'm not so naive to think much of the money would actually be put to good use... but some of it might have). We've wasted thousands of soldiers' lives and destroyed families in Bush's conquest for oil. This is reprehensible, and Hillary should have fought it more strongly.

Further, I have to consider the fact that she's toned down her feminism. I understand the pragmatic point -- she may never have gotten to where she was remaining the strident feminist she was in law school... but I simply have to question where someone's loyalties TRULY lie when they become chameleons at the urging of political expediency. She changed her last name, not because it was her honest personal choice, but for POLITICAL GAIN. She softened her activism, not because she became more thoughtful about it and changed her mind on key points, but for POLITICAL GAIN. There's little I despise more than cynical politicking of this sort. So for me, weighing all of these factors together, I'm forced to conclude that Obama is my candidate.

But, as Mary notes, if Hillary wins the dem nomination, I'll go out the next day and buy a Hillary button.

I must admit that I support Hillary partly because of her gender. It is not an automatic thing, though: her Iraq record remains troublesome at best, and as Law Fairy notes, it is quite conceivable that she'd abandon promoting feminism as a president purely for political expedience.

Still, until we hear more about Obama, Hillary's XX chromosomes are the tiebreaker for me.

Your feminist card has been revoked.

Your feminist card has been revoked.

oops...sorry for the double post!

I agree. If there's anything we learn from these feminist blogs is that women don't always have the best interest of women in mind and they too have agendas to suit their desire for power. While it would be a momentous day to celebrate if Hillary became president it's not something that's going to be detrimental to us if it doesn't happen and we really do need to put our collective foots down about who we support. Congrats to all those women for sticking to their guns.

Basically, I'll support whoever is the most pro-choice candidate. Clinton has a pro-choice voting record, although she supports parental notification and her current website avoids any mention of the subject.

I'm not saying that all women should vote based on my views, though. I personally like Clinton despite her hawkishness because it's hard for me to dislike anyone who's so thoroughly hated and demonized by the right, especially when that hatred clearly stems from discomfort with the fact that a woman might be smart and powerful.

I have to agree with Jen's post and Megan's comment -- it's great that we have the first serious female presidential candidate in history, but the having of a uterus does not automatically qualify a person for my vote (just like the having of a uterus should not automatically qualify one for discrimination, but I digress). Of course, as has been said, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will support her fully.

I'm wondering if anyone else shares my irritation with how women who support Hillary are interacting with her -- for example, on one of her webchats, asking her what her favorite movie is, or at her most recent rally, asking her how she's qualified to deal with all the evil men out there -- it's almost a confirmation of all the negative stereotypes people have about women not being able to understand politics. We get a female candidate, and how do women talk to her? As if they're middle schoolers having a sleepover. With that, however, is the caveat that these incidents are only tiny soundbytes presented on TV (the Daily Show in this case), and obviously a lot of other things have been discussed during her public appearences. It's entirely possible that the media is simply nitpicking this crap (even though all candidates are asked such silly questions at some point) just because she's female. I don't know.

Sorry for being a little OT. I blogged about this earlier today, and I'm still in stream-of-consciousness mode trying to assimilate it.

I don't know, Andrea. I was a little irritated with The Daily Show's coverage in that episode, though as I generally love the show, I figured, what the hell, I can take a joke. Their coverage of Clinton was entirely about making fun of her, while their coverage of Obama was entirely about making fun of right-wing hysteria about him.

That said, it was one episode, and I'm sure that when the right-wing trots out their scary Wicked Witch of the West/dominatrix/frigid ballbuster rhetoric, Stewart & Co. will mock it as well.

I tended to think that the non-intellecutal tone of the clips shown is indicative of the trend toward idiocy in politics in general, though, not anything that's specific to Clinton or her supporters as women. I mean, think of the questions Bush got from his supporters--did they really display a nuanced and mature understanding of politics, or were they more along the lines of "I just wanna know that you're gonna stand tough, Mr. President?" I suspect that the Democrats in general are going to try to counteract the impression given by both Gore and Kerry of subtle, nuanced thinking. That kinda thing puts off the voters.

Remember also the importance to Bill Clinton's campaign of the boxers/briefs MTV interview and the saxophone-playing on Arsenio Hall. Vapid stupidity in presidential campaigns is not limited to women.

EG, it's really comforting to hear that Monday's Daily Show was irritating to you as well.

I see what you're saying about the commentary on general idiocy in politics, though. I'm not sure why -- perhaps because I'm defensive about Hillary's femaleness (thinking, "okay, female candidate... everyone's going to be come a sexist asshole now. great") -- I forget that most other campaigns are plagued by trite attempts to get nice and pals-y with voters.

Thinking about it in a bigger context, it's almost like I'm expecting women to interact with a woman candidate in a way that adheres to a much higher standard of intellectualism than any other candidate would be held to. Which is wrong on my part.

Hillary is not and cannot be the Feminist candidate. She is the UN-feminist. We need women who have done things on their own. Hillary has NEVER done a thing on her own, she has always just rode the coattails of Bill (you remember Bill, the pig womanizer and possibly rapist).

She was denied partnership at the Rose law firm in Little Rock until THE DAY AFTER Bill was elected Attorney General of the state. And then she was made a partner without the usually required financial contribution.
She kept her own name but then suddenly changed it to Clinton after Bill lost his reelection campaign for AG and polls showed that her keeping her own name was disliked by ARK voters.
The only reason she is a Senator is because of the fame she achieved based on what Bill did.
Plus, she is not trustable. Clintons have no strongly held beliefs other than they like to win elections and have power. They adjust their beliefs to whatever they think will win them elections. That is why the formerly VERY liberal Hillary is posing as much more conservative. She cannot be trusted.
Let's put our support behind a real feminist, someone who has actually gotten where she has on her own!

Let's put our support behind a real feminist, someone who has actually gotten where she has on her own!

Who would be... in '08...?

I think Katha Politt sums up why all women should at least consider supporting Clinton:

"Suppressed ethnicities and communities have put up with everything from drunkenness to corruption to outright criminality in their politicians, as long as those politicians delivered--even just a little--back home. Maybe women should forget about being angels and start being more like Italians, Irish or blacks. Let me put it this way: Any candidate who wants me to vote for him instead of her had better have a whole long list of reasons, beginning with what he will do for women that Hillary Clinton wouldn't do."

Katha Pollitt
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/pollitt

I'm with Jen on this one. For me, Hillary's position on Iraq totally trumps her possession of a vagina.

As for women in positions of power in general- if, say, Dawn Eden or Ann Coulter were elected president, it wouldn't be a feminist victory. A sign of the impending apocalypse, yes. But not a feminist victory.

It's so much easier to quote Katha:

"But since anyone with a realistic hope of becoming President will necessarily have made all sorts of unsavory bargains with the status quo, this amounts to saying we'll never have a woman in the White House. We'll continue on as now: "expecting more" of women and tacitly expecting less of men."

"Well, count me out. The contemporary women's movement is almost forty years old, and after all that time exactly one woman has managed to reach the point where she can make a credible run for the White House. And I don't see another one around the corner, do you? But right now, if HRC were a man, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But then, if she were a man, she wouldn't be almost universally perceived as unelectable."

"I'm not saying I'd vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary--although by 2008 I expect she'll have come around on the war. I'd like a lefter candidate. But I want respect for women--and power is what gets you that."

but the fact that she's a woman automatically wins her my support - because my want for pushing women forward trumps almost anything else.

This is a shortsighted view. What if Jean Kirkpatrick were running for President? Please tell me you wouldn't support her, even if she is female.

I thought the whole point of feminism was to look beyond gender. I suppose I need to better understand the movement.

"Well, actually, they might not, if they're like Code Pink, the women's peace group, which "bird-dogs" HRC around the country because of her support for the Iraq War. When I asked Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the group, why they focused on Clinton, she said it was primarily because the senator is "important and influential" but also because of her sex: "You expect more of a woman." Zillah Eisenstein, whose essay "Hillary's War" is posted on Code Pink's listenhillary.org, wrote me in an e-mail, "Yes, it is because she's female.""

Because everyone knows women don't actually pay attention to issues! They just vote for the guy with the best hair. Duh.

Clinton's hair looks really bad. (Hillary) Clinton and Edwards are both people who are capable of turning me gay.

Maybe women should forget about being angels and start being more like Italians, Irish or blacks.

Three cheers for machine politics!

Basically, I'll support whoever is the most pro-choice candidate.

It's kind of a problem in this election, where there are three Democrats and one Republican who are basically indistinguishable on choice. In 2004 there was Howard Dean. This cycle if you're a single issue pro-choice voter you might as well change parties and help Giuliani, who's as nominally pro-choice and as uncommitted to spending any political capital on abortion as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

Except I'm a New Yorker, and as such I've never liked what Giuliani did.

If all candidates are equally pro-choice, I'll start looking at other issues, but I'm really not as convinced of Clinton's about-face as you are.

You know, I'm not that opposed to machine politics, either. It was corrupt and dishonest, certainly--but so is politics today. Then, you'd get x and y benefits (in the days of Tammany Hall, maybe a job and some food), and in return you'd be expected to vote the way they told you. Nowadays, it seems like you don't get any benefits, and you're still supposed to vote for these clowns.

My position on Clinton is simple: I don't think she's the strongest feminist candidate running (I don't know who is, now that Russ Feingold has dropped out, but it isn't her), I don't think she has much of a soul, and I don't think it's a huge step forward for feminism if a woman wins the presidency largely because she's the wife of an ex-president. There's too much of a Lurleen Wallace dynamic involved in her base of support--"We can't give Bill Clinton a third term, so let's elect his wife!"--for me to get really enthusiastic about her as "the first woman president."

But if she wins the nomination, I will back her 100%.

Cheers,

TH

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will back her, but I'd like to see Obama get it. He belongs to the same church I do - and - stay with me - joined voluntarily as an adult - AND (stay w/ me here) the UCC is the first (and so far, only) mainstream church to ENDORSE gay marriage in general synod. As to abortion, the UCC says it sees women as "full people/adults in the eyes of God" capable of making our own decisions, etc. Obama has been very upfront about his membership in the UCC. The UCC has been very up front about it's positions on social issues. I believe that, much like Carter, Obama will feel obligated to do what he believes is right.

Okay, I may be naive as hell. But this is what I hope for.

I think it's important to make the distinction between "If she gets the nomination I'll support her because I want to support the Democratic candidate" and "If she gets the nomination I'll support her because I want to support the female candidate."

I think part of the reason Hillary is virtually unelectable in the minds of so many is that voting for a woman carries so much baggage. You're not just voting for the democratic candidate, you're voting for the female candidate. Whether or not we (particularly we women) vote for someone for feminist reasons, there are those who will always see voting for a female candidate as a feminist action.

And, yknow, feminist is still a dirty word to plenty of folks.

Genitalia is not a deciding factor in a presidential candidate. I'm not that worried about Hillary being the first woman president because Pelosi is going to beat her to it before '08. Hey one can hope right?

Obama seems to be the most capable and closer to my views. The UCC thing doesn't hurt either.

Uhm, are some of you crazy?
Just b/c she's a woman doesn't mean she has our best interests at heart? Would you vote for Phyllis Schlafly? I mean, I'm pretty sure she has a vag too.
1. She voted for an imperialistic war, that is hurting the men & women of Iraq & America.
2. She's BARELY pro-choice, or if she is she's really pandering to the anti-choice element.

"We can't give Bill Clinton a third term, so let's elect his wife!"--for me to get really enthusiastic about her as "the first woman president."

I'm don't think I'm alone in thinking she'd be a better president than Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton always believed Hillary would be a better president than Bill Clinton. I'll also wait and see Obama's policy and political positions.

I think part of the reason Hillary is virtually unelectable in the minds of so many is that voting for a woman carries so much baggage. You're not just voting for the democratic candidate, you're voting for the female candidate. Whether or not we (particularly we women) vote for someone for feminist reasons, there are those who will always see voting for a female candidate as a feminist action.

That's sexist and inappropriate especially for self-identified feminists.

I'm not in love with Hilary Clinton as a presidential candidate. Maybe it's because she didn't divorce her husband, maybe its because she isn't a very good public speaker...maybe its because she doesn't represent feminism to me. But if the choice is between a male candidate and a female candidate (assuming both are liberals) I'll vote for a woman over a man. Maybe thats sexist, to pick someone for their gender and not for their merits, but I believe we just in general need more women in office.

If you gave me two otherwise identical candidates (which is a practical impossibility that I'm willing to entertain for the sake of argument), then I'd certainly pick the woman, too. Over the man of color. Over the man from a nontraditional religious background. Over the gay man, even. I do believe, as a radical feminist, that sexism is the most fundamental form of oppression.

But we're not looking at identical candidates. HRC's platform and ideology are not those of a clearly and decisively feminist candidate, the baggage with/shadow of her husband bothers me, and I don't find her charismatic.

There are women in the Democratic Party that I'd love to see run for office. HRC would not be my first, fifth, or tenth choice.

And I can't help but notice that nobody was having this discussion about whether gender is the most important thing in 2004, when Carol Moseley Braun was running.

Cheers,

TH

donna- After seeing the section you quoted, I probably should've phrased my comment more clearly (new additions in bold):

I think part of the reason Hillary is virtually unelectable in the minds of so many is that, for some (not me), voting for a woman carries so much baggage. To these people, you're not just voting for the democratic candidate, you're voting for the female candidate. Whether or not we (particularly we women) vote for someone for feminist reasons, there are those who will always see voting for a female candidate as a feminist action.

...And, yes, of course this is sexist and inappropriate, but unfortunately this is some of the thinking we're up against.

I dunno, Tom. My mother and I loved Braun. We would've voted for her.

I'm sorry, EG--that came across wrong. I didn't mean "nobody" here; folks here probably did discuss Braun's candidacy in serious terms. I'm just saying I didn't see the national debate that I'm seeing now over whether women are obligated to vote for HRC, which strikes me as a little strange.

It's like the punditocracy is perfectly willing to take a female candidate seriously...if she's a former president or former presidential candidate's wife. I mean, it was Elizabeth Dole and then Hillary Rodham Clinton. Period. No other potential female candidate has ever been taken seriously, with the possible exception of Condoleezza Rice (and that's primarily because of Dick Morris' awful "catfight" book that presented her as an anti-Hillary).

Cheers,

TH

If you gave me two otherwise identical candidates (which is a practical impossibility that I'm willing to entertain for the sake of argument), then I'd certainly pick the woman, too.

Agreed.

Oh, yes, of course you're right. Though I almost think that's more because Braun is black and female than anything else. (Everyone knows that white women can't be expected to owe allegiance to a black woman [to be read in a tone dripping with sarcasm]). That, and she's probably way too far left to be taken seriously in the national arena.

I find myself less and less concerned with how the women in question got to the place where they will be taken seriously nationally, though obviously it exposes serious sexism and a bad double bind that on the one hand, a woman can only achieve national recognition as a political wife, and then when she uses such recognition to her benefit, is castigated for riding on her husband's coattails.

That, and Braun just wasn't a serious candidate. There are a lot of candidates who aren't serious: this cycle, they include Vilsack, Kucinich, Biden, and Richardson. Of those, only Kucinich is a real leftist; the rest are blue dogs.

The reason I think Clinton is pro-choice is that she supported the Alito filibuster. I don't think the filibuster had much of a chance, so she could do this just to gain votes, but that she took a stand on that one issue after flip-flopping on everything else suggests she is pro-choice.

Right now, on a scale of 0 to 10, my rankings of the candidates on choice are,
Clinton 7
Obama, Edwards, Giuliani 6
Romney 4
McCain 3
Brownback 0

Feingold would've been a 9, because he violated his own rule of confirming every judicial nominee and voted against Alito. The most important abortion-related issue in American Presidential politics is judicial nominations, at least as long as the Supreme Court is 5-4 pro-choice and one of the 5 is 86. This is also why Clinton is a 7, since she supports some sideline restrictions like parental notification.

I think you're absolutely right. Its one of those stupid little absurdities where they try to shove every woman in the world in the same little tiny box with the label "female" on it.

Personally, though, I have a soft spot for Senator Clinton. I've had one since I was a kid. Its not an automatic vote in the primaries, but its an inclination to listen with interest and if she gets the nomination she'll have my vote unless the Republicans somehow have an overhaul and put up a Super-Feminist.

In the meantime I'm following the Clinton campaign most closely because I'm watching the media reaction for a blog project.

Personally, I'd rather vote for the president based on their politics than their gender. As much as I would love to see a female president, I like Obama's politics better than her's. I respect her, but politically I favor Obama. In a way, I frown upon voting for a female just because she's female. It seems like a more equal way of considering things would be to choose your candidate based on the person, not the gender / race/ etc. therefore eliminating all aspects of racism/sexism. I guess it's a tricky choice to make, though.

I guess I'm a little surprised that so many here are either unwilling to back HRC or are backing her somewhat grudgingly (if no one better comes along, or only if she gets the nomination without my primary vote, etc.). I personally wouldn't back any ol' woman who was running, just because they were female, but come on, Hillary is no Phyllis Schlafly (thank God). I'm just wondering though -- if we're waiting for the "ideal" feminist presidential candidate to come along, isn't it possible we might end up waiting forever? What other feminist politician is there right now who can potentially appeal to a mass voting audience, most of whom rarely think about feminism at all? HRC might be our generation's moment in history to see a feminist woman in the #1 spot. So why shy away from that big picture, especially since any politician can let us down, including one Barack Obama who has yet to really prove himself or embroil himself in much controversy (inevitable, as I see it). Instead, why not back a woman from the get-go who could potentially make the path to the White House smoother for future generations of women politicians, despite her own controversial ascent?

So, since it seems one of the big issues about HRC is her vote authorizing force in Iraq, I thought I'd post this quote from a piece in the 1/15/07 issue of the New Yorker. The article is "Starting Gate" by Jeffrey Goldberg, and it's a profile of HRC, Obama and Edwards:

"Hillary Clinton's decision to give Bush her approval in 2002 was influenced by her recent White House experience. 'I have respect for Presidential decision-making and I saw what the Republican Congress had done to Bill on a range of issues, denying him the authority to deal with Bosnia and Kosovo and second-guessing him on every imaginable issue,' [HRC] said. 'And I don't think that's good for the country, and I had no problem in giving President Bush the authority to do what he stated he would do and what I was assured privately on many occasions would be done.'

Still, Clinton was never an enthusiastic supporter of the war. In a speech to the Senate before casting her vote to support the resolution, she cautioned Bush, saying, 'If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So, Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.'"

Not defending her, not attacking her, just wondering - what do people think about this? Does this change anything about supporting her candidacy?

A professor made the arguement that if Hillary were elected, that would mean the Executive Branch would be controlled by two families (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton) for the past 20+ years. That much power, limited in so few hands, is a scary thought.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but that idea unsettles me.

As for Hillary... it would be nice to have a female President, but I'll vote for a candidate that represents my interests and views, not my sex. Obama interests me highly, but at this point, I honestly don't know enough to know which one I'm pulling for.

Either way, the Dems most likely have my vote. Guiliani's social positions and the severe damage he did to those in poverty in New York scare the fuck out of me(such as allowing the Fire Dept and Police to answer calls only in places they "felt safe" -- leading to a huge rise in fire deaths in poorer parts of the city). And McCain, well, pro-war scares me just as much.

I want a President who believes in childcare, education and healthcare for all people first... getting out of Iraq second... minority (including GLBT) equality third. I want a President who doesn't use his beliefs to redefine the relgion of the nation, who can properly pronounce words, and who is more interested in policies that work than propaganda. I want a President who will pull us out of this budget deficit, who doesn't believe corporations (and pharmaceuticals and tobacco) run this nation, and who isn't afraid to talk back to the Christian Coalition once in awhile. I want a President who listens and who can (somewhat) unite this country... who gives me (some) faith in the US government's abilities... and who realizes our bureaucracies are slow and ineffective.

I want a lot.

And the disillusioned side screams in my head: It's about power and money, and this is honestly a choice of the lesser of evils.

I am a feminist and I will vote for the candidate who offers the greatest advancement of women. I don't care what gender they are at all.

if Hillary were elected, that would mean the Executive Branch would be controlled by two families for the past 20+ years. That much power, limited in so few hands, is a scary thought.

so you're going to stop after two horrible republicans, one male democrat right before the one who could possibly deliver the world?

I am a feminist and I will vote for the candidate who offers the greatest advancement of women. I don't care what gender they are at all.

that's why i'm bully for her. male presidents have never done much for women. clinton started with the family-medical leave act and vawa and stopped. we need a president who puts women's issues first or second.

I think what's happening, at least among thoughtful feminists, is one hundred percent acceptable. We're acknowledging that the fact that she is a woman is a positive (which I admantly believe it is), but are reticent to say that all of the positives -- including her gender -- outweight all of the negatives, or that her net positive outweighs the net positive of other candidates.

At least, that's how I personally see things. And I'll just reiterate that in my mind Obama's lack of a "track record" really doesn't trouble me. Politicians are by and large corrupt, and the better they can game the system, the corrupt-er they are. I mean, have we EVER gotten a Mr. Smith in the White House? George Washington, MAYBE? I'll take a person who doesn't know the system, who has a conscience, over someone who can game the system but only PRETENDS to believe what I do.*

* I'm not saying necessarily that this is HRC -- I'm just saying this is most politicians generally.

The only world Clinton's willing to deliver is a world of power to herself. The only women whose issues she cares about are former US first ladies whose initials are HRC.

The only world Clinton's willing to deliver is a world of power to herself.

I may be dating myself but for me the First Lady and law student Hillary Clinton eclipses the phony Senator Clinton. A place called Hope and all that.

I think any male President will put women's issues on the back burner. All previous presidents did that, all our current male Congressmen and Senators do that and I don't have much faith this will change. I'm sick of women's and minorities' issues being put on the back burner and there's a possibility Clinton would not do that. I currently don't have faith in the male candidates unless we draft Gore or Dean.

I'd latch onto a draft Feingold movement, but it ain't happening. It's too bad, really. The guy has more experience than the three main candidates put together, and actually cares about not bombing random countries, keeping abortion legal, and respecting civil liberties.

If Obama says something meatier about his intention to bomb Iran, I'm putting that on a petition to Feingold to run and circulating it among any blogger I am distantly related to.

"I want a President who believes in childcare, education and healthcare for all people first... getting out of Iraq second... minority (including GLBT) equality third. I want a President who doesn't use his beliefs to redefine the relgion of the nation, who can properly pronounce words, and who is more interested in policies that work than propaganda. I want a President who will pull us out of this budget deficit, who doesn't believe corporations (and pharmaceuticals and tobacco) run this nation, and who isn't afraid to talk back to the Christian Coalition once in awhile. I want a President who listens and who can (somewhat) unite this country... who gives me (some) faith in the US government's abilities... and who realizes our bureaucracies are slow and ineffective.

I want a lot."

Well, as Rummy said, "You go in with the [candidate] you have, not the [candidate] you want."

Smart man, that Rummy is. *satcasm*

*sarcasm

I actually personally know Senator Clinton and interned for her back during my senior year of college. I can assure you, she not only has a soul, but is a caring person. On top of that, she has the experience and record to prove her success. I like obama, but he absolutely does not have enough experience to run this country. perhaps in a few years, but i think anyone voting for him over clinton is doing the country a serious disservice. The fact is, politicians cannot be 100% feminist in their policies and get anything done in this day and age. hopefully one day, but you MUST work within the system, even if it means tempering your views a bit, if you want to get things that need to get done, done.

donna-dean went on the 700 club not too long ago and told them that the democratic platform was that only a man and a woman should get married. that guy is dead in my book. while i know he doesnt believe that, you dont go on a show catering to wacko christians and say that just to appease them.

as for hillary supporting the war, i wasnt too against it either when we thought that what the white house said was true. please remember the LIED about intelligence, and noone knew until it was too late. almost every single senator voted for the war, and frankly at this point, i dont think we can hold that against anyone. what we can hold against them now is if they STILL support the war and the new surge policy.

futhermore, I find it funny that people are surprised women chatting with the senator generally ask things like whats your favorite movie. Do you guys really think women have the stereotype of not being well versed in politics for no apparent reason? Or being concerned with inane stuff like that? It's because many, if not most women in this country are like that. Now, the reason I am a feminist is because A) I rather surround myself with people like everyone here and B) because i think its important to change things like that. I don't think women are like that bc they are biologically inclined, i think they are that way bc we are socialized like that.

One thing I do like about HRC is that we know she has battle scars. We know she's used to being criticized mercilessly by almost everyone, and we know she's a tough lady who can handle the pressure. Being in the public eye so constantly for so long (even longer than Bill, really) is of course going to bring controversy and some bad publicity, that's really inevitable for any politician. And so far, that IS one thing Obama has going for him -- he hasn't been on the national stage long enough to face really tough scrutiny from anyone. So of course he seems new and fresh and appealing right now -- but I just do not see how the honeymoon period can last much longer with him. While he might be a great president some day, I think he should start by getting some much-needed practice in the public eye as Hillary's vice (ha, no pun intended).

"I'll take a person who doesn't know the system, who has a conscience"

See, TLF, here's where you and I part ways. I don't want some newbie who doesn't know how to work the system. I want an old hand who knows exactly where the bodies are buried. When I go in for surgery, I want someone who's done hundreds of surgeries before. And in a president, I want a politician who's been around long enough to build up juice and knows how to play the game. I don't mind corruption my elected officials; I expect corruption in my elected officials. What I want is for them to be corrupt and on my side.

hahahahaha nice EG. you crack me up

Alon - Obama wants to bomb Iran? DAMMIT. Linkee please?

Katie writes:
dean went on the 700 club not too long ago and told them that the democratic platform was that only a man and a woman should get married. that guy is dead in my book. while i know he doesnt believe that, you dont go on a show catering to wacko christians and say that just to appease them.

Agreed. Howard Dean lost most of my respect when he said that. People who donated money to his campaign in 2004 did so precisely because they thought he wasn't the kind of candidate who would pull that kind of shit.

Re HRC: I want to like her. I really do. Just as she benefits from the reputation of her husband in some ways, it hurts her in others. I tend to think of Bill and Hillary Clinton as if they were a single unit. I don't think Bill was a good human being--though he was, in relative terms, a great president--and so I expect that same hollow moral center of gravity from his wife. But that isn't really fair, is it?

HRC still has time to win me over. I don't like her, but "don't like" is never set in stone for me.

Cheers,

TH

Oh, and I share Alon's Feingold crush. No candidate running is in his league, IMHO, including on feminist issues.

And I have to respectfully disagree with Donna on the notion that a male, by definition, can't lead the pack on women and minorities. Identity is only worth so much. Would anyone really expect Condoleezza Rice to care more about black folks in general, women in general, and black women in particular than somebody like Russ Feingold, even though he's not black and he's not a woman?

If we submit to identity politics, there are right-wingers who will be more than happy to manipulate that. See also Keyes, Alan. See also Schlafly, Phyllis. See also the "ex-gay" movement. If we fall for the logic of tokenism, we will find ourselves electing black white supremacists and female misogynists all over the place.

Cheers,

TH

Yes, you should be supporting Hillary. Hillary's the only candidate - possibly ever - that has third world women, sex trafficking, sex selection, and women's rights as human rights (and vice versa) anywhere on her radar.

And I'll go out on a limb and say perhaps you should even support her just because she's a woman. People keep hemming and hawing over whether she's REALLY the best person for the job, but does anyone honestly believe that Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani are better qualified? If so, why exactly? Is anyone actually studying these guys' voting records and issue stances nearly as closely as they claim to be studying Hillary's? People vote for male Presidents for their "charistma" and their "character" and their "guy I'd like to have a beer with" qualities all the time. But we get a viable woman candidate and we have to do this endless hand-wringing over her qualifications. I'm calling bullshit on that. It's a dodge and another in a long line of bullshit gender-based double standards.

Vote Hillary!

And I have to respectfully disagree with Donna on the notion that a male, by definition, can't lead the pack on women and minorities

It's not that they can't but that they won't. Men have never done much for women and minorities and it's unlikely any would now. I believe Feingold is best on pro-choice issues and would be great for that.

Yes, you should be supporting Hillary. Hillary's the only candidate - possibly ever - that has third world women, sex trafficking, sex selection, and women's rights as human rights (and vice versa) anywhere on her radar.

As happy_bunny said, Hillary Clinton has many womens', girls', minorities', the poor's issues on her radar. She's waffles on abortion which is the most important issue but she has the most issues on her radar for those most in need in the world including the poor.

please remember the LIED about intelligence, and noone knew until it was too late. almost every single senator voted for the war, and frankly at this point, i dont think we can hold that against anyone.

Politicians lie. It's what they do to get ahead. Outside the US, almost everyone realized Bush was full of shit, even in countries whose governments were pro-war, like Britain and Spain. Needless to say, Clinton knew enough about how politics worked to realize that Bush's words weren't to be taken at face value. And still she voted for the war.

Alon - Obama wants to bomb Iran? DAMMIT. Linkee please?

It's old news, it turns out.

Happy Bunny writes:
People vote for male Presidents for their "charistma" and their "character" and their "guy I'd like to have a beer with" qualities all the time. But we get a viable woman candidate and we have to do this endless hand-wringing over her qualifications.

I'm not hand-wringing over her qualifications. I'm hand-wringing over the fact that she's the wife of a former two-term president who was not reliable on feminist issues (and was most certainly no feminist in his private life), and that this has largely defined her public persona. We are not talking about some random person here. We're talking about Hillary Clinton.

I can understand why someone would support her, by the way. What offends me is the "you're a bad feminist if you don't support her because doggonit, she's a woman" logic. That's like saying that you're a racist if you don't support Barack Obama. Can we move past tokenism into real analysis of where candidates stand on various issues?

I have heard two people say so far in this thread that HRC is the only candidate who has given any real attention to feminist international human rights. Citations, please? If that can be substantiated, then that's a serious plus for HRC. Where are the bills she's proposed on these issues that other Democratic senators have refused to co-sponsor? Where is the brave, controversial vote she made in favor of an important women's rights issue despite risking condemnation for being unpopular? Where is the one case where she didn't do the most politically expedient option available to her at the time?

Because that's the Clinton precedent. Her husband ran on a pro-gay platform and gave us all "don't ask, don't tell" and the DOMA.

And maybe it's not fair that she's being tarred with her husband's legacy, but we all know that's why she's a viable national candidate. Goodness knows the media has gone out of its way not to support someone who doesn't have a more famous husband. Again, I didn't see anyone talking about this stuff when Carol Moseley Braun was running.

So let's cut the crap about how anyone who votes for a candidate other than HRC is an antifeminist. I'm not suggesting that anyone vote for Giuliani (who told his wife and kids he was leaving them in a televised press conference, for God's sakes) or any other Republican--I'm suggesting that we look at what people's actual views are rather than checking their gender and calling it good.

Voting for Phyllis Schlafly does not make you a good feminist. Voting for Condoleezza Rice does not make you a good feminist. Voting for Kay Bailey Hutchinson does not make you a good feminist. Voting for a woman who does not have feminist values on her agenda, who will sell out women's rights in a heartbeat if it's the most politically expedient option, is nothing to brag about.

Cheers,

TH

And I am not saying, by the way, that HRC is that kind of candidate. But I am saying that given her husband's record and her own record on issues like the Iraq War, she is going to have to prove that she does have moral convictions that do not happen to line up with whatever the most popular option happens to be.

And what I loved about Russ Feingold was that he so obviously did. LONE vote against the PATRIOT Act, thank you very much. One of the damn few senators to vote against the Iraq War. Broke his own pledge to oppose Alito because of his commitment to choice. And several of y'all are kicking sand in his face just because he's got a penis. Well, I've got one, too. Am I next?

Cheers,

TH

I don't like the tone of those last two posts, and I apologize. To be honest, I'm mad as hell at Bill Clinton for selling out, and I have been for years. Maybe it's not fair to tar HRC with the same brush. But to get my worthless little Mississippi vote, she's going to have to be willing to stand up for something. Her support for parental notification laws does not give me confidence that she will.

Cheers,

TH

She's the wife of a former two-term president who was not reliable on feminist issues (and was most certainly no feminist in his private life)

She was reliable on feminist issues as First Lady. imo forgiveness of his cheating was her own business because it didn't affect anyone but her and her daughter.

I'm mad as hell at Bill Clinton for selling out, and I have been for years. Maybe it's not fair to tar HRC with the same brush.

You make good points for me to ponder. We also have to look at the times. Clinton signed FMLA and VAWA and was on his way to full protection of women's rights when the 1994 Republican revolution happened partly out of Republican fear of women's equal rights. 2008 may be a different environment after the long 2001-2009 nightmare. If Gore had been able to serve his two terms from 2001-2009, the feminist agenda would have been completed in full from 1993-2009. I know HRC is not the most left candidate but I've listened to politicians talk over the years and think she has the best vision for this country, even better than her husband's. People say nothing will get done without working with others so she should be the best candidate. Here are the 12 possible candidates from the furthest left to most centrist. Finally, you can't blame me for not trusting male politicians to prioritize women's and minorities issues since no president ever has before.

Populist-leaning liberals:
Edwards
Clark
Kucinich
Obama
Sharpton

Left liberal:
Dodd

Hard-core populist:
Gore

Moderate-leaning populist:
Clinton
Richardson

Moderate liberal:
Daschle

Centrist:
Vilsack

Again, 2008 is not 1994. I sense a sea change after the 2000-2008 nightmare, a shift in which Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton's vision will finally be complete.

Donna writes:
She was reliable on feminist issues as First Lady. imo forgiveness of his cheating was her own business because it didn't affect anyone but her and her daughter.

Agreed, and to be honest I'm beginning to think I have a lot that I need to ponder myself. I don't really look at HRC and her husband as having two different moral codes or agendas. The two kind of blend together for me.

Clinton signed FMLA and VAWA and was on his way to full protection of women's rights when the 1994 Republican revolution happened partly out of Republican fear of women's equal rights. 2008 may be a different environment after the long 2001-2009 nightmare. If Gore had been able to serve his two terms from 2001-2009, the feminist agenda would have been completed in full from 1993-2009.

With respect, I don't think it would have. I think that there might have been more progress than there was--had Democrats been successful in reclaiming Congress in 2002 under a Gore administration, as they almost certainly would have been assuming 9/11 would have happened regardless of presidency--but the feminist agenda is going to take centuries to complete in full, IMHO.

The FMLA and VAWA were certainly improvements, but look at the titles of the bills: One had to do with "family" medical leave (because the rights of women alone wouldn't be seen as grounds for significant policy changes), and one had to do with violence against women (which appealed to a sense of chivalry). That's helpful, but hardly revolutionary.

Clinton did not get the ERA passed. He did not even attempt to get the ERA passed. And while I recognize that a lot of folks see the ERA as a red herring, I don't think we can even begin to speculate about what it might look like to complete a meaningful feminist policy agenda without it.

Donna writes:
I sense a sea change after the 2000-2008 nightmare, a shift in which Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton's vision will finally be complete.

I would just be happy to know what Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton's agenda is. I'm not even sure they all share the same agenda.

With respect, I have a very hard time seeing Bill Clinton as an honest feminist given the way he manipulated the women in his life to fulfill his sexual needs, with no thought to how any of this might affect them. Clinton strikes me as one of countless male faux-feminists who have a half-assed commitment to the cause and will abandon it as soon as the almighty cock says so. I do not think that his commitment to the feminist agenda is genuine. I was never able to figure out Al Gore; he has a puritanical streak, obviously, and the idea of austerity and belt-tightening plays a role in every area of his policy (from free speech to the environment to the economy), but I was never able to see enough from him as an individual to figure out where he really stood on things.

Hillary Clinton is the only one of the three that I can really accept as an honest feminist, but she is so connected to her slimy husband, in my mind, and so tied in with compromises on things like parental notification, that it will take a lot for me to see her as an improvement over a male candidate who may have an inconvenient set of chromosomes, but who at least isn't married to Bill Clinton.

I think you clearly have a lot of faith in the ability of the DLC Clinton-Gore-Clinton dynasty to really work for the feminist cause, but I have no such faith. I would rather see fresh blood in the White House.

That said, I do hope that if a male candidate wins the nomination, he will at least select a female VP--preferably one who will be able to succeed him in 8 years. Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, in particular, has displayed far more guts vis-a-vis women's rights than HRC could ever dream--vetoing four semi-popular "moderate" abortion bills in a single congressional session. Jennifer Granholm and Jodi Rell also appeal to me as candidates. Frankly, for me the biggest disappointment about HRC is that the only viable female candidate in 2008 is HRC. She should be one of a field of female candidates. Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Cheers,

TH

Actually, Napolitano will make a great running mate against McCain or Giuliani, who are pro-immigration and have a shot at recapturing the Hispanic vote in the Southwest. Richardson would be better for that, but for the fact that a) people don't realize just how experienced he is, and b) he's from New Mexico rather than Arizona.

There are only three real candidates in the Democratic primary - Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. Richardson's chances of winning are faint; those of everyone else are zero.

Clinton may say she prioritizes women's issues, but so far I haven't seen her risk anything for it. She seems to have a mentality in which advancing some good issues is fine, as long as they don't cost any political capital. So yes, she'd sign something like VAWA. So would Bush. MRAs are shut out of the federal government at least as much as feminists.

I'm dating myself again but Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 was a huge victory for women. It was the first piece of legislation Bill Clinton signed into law and it enabled workers to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a new baby or ailing family member without jeopardizing their job. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 was a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States.

Things were crackling along for feminists before the onslaught of Republican Revolution 1994. After that, Clinton was constantly vilified and stymied by Republicans. It was very frustrating because it was Clinton alone against the Republican Congress and there were no blogs or alternative media apparatuses. We all watched him helplessly as he was attacked day after day by the MSM and Republicans. The Clinton-Gore agenda had a definite feminist, minority and environmental agenda. I think thirtysomethings who were in college at the time have a special place in our hearts for the promise of Clinton-Gore. A couple other thirtysomethings on Hillary Clinton:

""Hillary most certainly was a feminist, when the label and identity could be used strategically to her benefit," said Rebecca Walker, author and co-founder of the Third Wave Foundation, an organization of young feminists, via e-mail. But identifying herself as a feminist today "would be divisive and undermining to her cause of representing, or seeming to represent, all Americans." Walker continued that although Clinton "voted for the war and made sympathetic antiabortion statements, my sense is that she stands for a 'feminist' agenda." To Walker, that agenda includes reproductive freedom, pay equity, increased family leave, universal healthcare, environmental preservation and education reform. Walker broke a big-time taboo by coming out and saying one of those things that is impolite to mention. "I have to be totally honest and say that I would vote for Hillary because of her husband," she said. "Real partnership, with its mammoth requirements of negotiating power and taking turns, is the next feminist frontier," and "President Hillary and first gentleman Bill would give the world one hell of a demo."

To others, Clinton is all the feminist they need right now. "I am wild about her as a person, and I am definitely a liberal feminist," said comedian Janeane Garofalo, a host on liberal radio station Air America. "I like her very much for who she is -- when she doesn't pander to right-wing constituencies." As for troubling Clinton stands like the flag-burning conflagration, Garofalo said, "There's no way she could fully believe in that. Having said that, this woman has been so browbeaten, so picked-on, so ridiculously maligned that I don't blame her for having these spurts of post-traumatic stress disorder.""

Alon writes:
Clinton may say she prioritizes women's issues, but so far I haven't seen her risk anything for it.

Bingo. HRC has never risked anything for women's rights. If she had decided to run in Arkansas instead of New York, I'm reasonably confident she would be anti-choice.

Donna writes:
I'm dating myself again but Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 was a huge victory for women.

Yes, but mainly it was a victory for "families."

Think about it a minute: 1993 gave us a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress, and they still wouldn't be caught dead signing legislation unambiguously designed to protect the economic status of women.

The Clinton-Gore agenda had a definite feminist, minority and environmental agenda.

Compared to Bush, yes. Compared to all Republican candidates running in 2008, yes. Compared to most of the Democratic candidates running in 2004, no. Compared to most of the Democratic candidates running in 2008, no. The party moved ahead, but the Clinton-Gore-Clinton agenda is somewhere to the right of the Jimmy Carter agenda, and that was 30 years ago.

Donna writes:
As for troubling Clinton stands like the flag-burning conflagration, Garofalo said, "There's no way she could fully believe in that. Having said that, this woman has been so browbeaten, so picked-on, so ridiculously maligned that I don't blame her for having these spurts of post-traumatic stress disorder.""

I suppose this explains her support for parental notification laws, too. And her support for the war in Iraq.

Bottom line: I do not want a president who will sign anti-choice/anti-woman and other regressive legislation just because she has "post-traumatic stress disorder." I'm sure Bush can be diagnosed with an entire range of mental illnesses to explain his public policy decisions, but that doesn't help us a bit.

Cheers,

TH

And may I add that if we're already explaining HRC's right-wing votes before she has campaigned outside of New York, imagine how much we'll have to apologize and shuffle and say stuff like "port-traumatic stress disorder" after she's won the nomination.

Better to nip this in the bud, unless HRC is willing to show some backbone on these issues.

Cheers,

TH

Here's the thing:

White southern Democrats generally suck. I say this as a Mississippi boy. They have been trained to appeal to rural white social conservatives who are racists but refuse to admit it, and their entire policy agenda is based around ambiguous submission to the status quo.

Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were white Southern Baptist governors who won in socially conservative states, in part, by convincing regressive rural white voters that they were not a threat. They were successful on the national stage, in part, because they were really good at convincing other parts of the country that they weren't a threat, either.

We have never had, in the modern era, our version of Ronald Reagan--in our case a president who is more progressive than average instead of less, and everybody knows it, but people vote for that candidate anyway because the candidate sounds so darned appealing. Candidates like this actually change the culture.

Russ Feingold sounded like he could have been that candidate. Barack Obama, I believe, could be that candidate.

Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a step backwards. John Edwards would be an even bigger step backwards. But Barack Obama just might be able to pull it off.

So could any number of high-profile female Democrats, but none of them are in the running. It's unfortunate that the only viable female candidate in 2008 is a Southern Strategy veteran who panders to the right wing, but that's the truth as I see it, and I see nothing feminist about voting for her.

Cheers,

TH

Think about it a minute: 1993 gave us a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress, and they still wouldn't be caught dead signing legislation unambiguously designed to protect the economic status of women.

We always talk here about how feminist flexible work-family policies are and how central they are to the feminist movement. Who usually takes the time off to care for children, the sick, elderly? Women.

White southern Democrats generally suck. I say this as a Mississippi boy. They have been trained to appeal to rural white social conservatives who are racists but refuse to admit it, and their entire policy agenda is based around ambiguous submission to the status quo.

Bill Clinton was our first "black president". Hillary Clinton would be our first black female president. 60% of blacks currently support Clinton and only 20% support Obama. The Gores are also not racist. I still think Clinton-Gore was the dream team.

Donna writes:
We always talk here about how feminist flexible work-family policies are and how central they are to the feminist movement. Who usually takes the time off to care for children, the sick, elderly? Women.

Of course the FMLA was great for women, and therefore qualifies as progress on the feminist agenda. So was the VAWA. But both represented moderate legislation as part of a moderate agenda, and the feminist agenda will never be achieved by moderation.

Bill Clinton was our first "black president".

No, he was our 42nd "white president." He was, at most, the Eminem of black presidents.

He sure as hell wasn't "black" when he carried white swing voters in rural Arkansas, I'll tell you that.

Hillary Clinton would be our first black female president.

No, she'd be our first white female president.

60% of blacks currently support Clinton and only 20% support Obama.

Obama's name recognition is nowhere near as high, so that's to be expected. In six months, I'm sure it'll be a different story.

The Gores are also not racist.

If you want to get technical about it, the Gores are racist, I'm racist, and every other white person in America is racist, too. That's what institutional racism means.

And Al Gore got elected to the Senate in Tennessee by the same voters who thought "I met Harold at the Playboy Party" was an acceptable campaign advertisement.

I still think Clinton-Gore was the dream team.

I don't think that any ticket made up of two upper-class white male centrist Southern lawyers can be a dream team, I'm sorry. Obama/Napolitano would be a dream team. Even HRC/Obama, relative to what we've had in the past, would be a dream team. But Clinton/Gore? Just Jimmy Carter without the humility. And without Walter Mondale--who, unlike Bill Clinton, did stick his neck out for the feminist agenda in a risky way by selecting Ferraro, which I'm sure cost him votes in the states Clinton and Gore came from.

Cheers,

TH

Donna, let's look at it this way: Assuming John Edwards doesn't get the nomination (and please, God, I hope he doesn't), we're basically fighting over whether the next Democratic Party nominee will be a man of color or a white woman. This has never happened in the history of American politics. Whether 2008 goes exactly like we want or not, maybe we should both be grateful for that much.

Cheers,

TH

As long as we are nominating female VP's, I'd like to get a plug in for Maxine Waters--anti-war, pro-choice, hugely involved in minority issues, not afraid to speak out against US-backed coups in other countries, not afraid to speak out about just about anything really. I think she'd be awesome... I also think the repubs would have a field day trashing her...

And no sand on you and other penis-wielding feminists TH. (Btw, it's really nice to hear from a southern male feminist... things can seem pretty bleak here in FL at times.) I think the discussion you and others have been having here is extremely valid. There are issues that are troubling with supporting any of the candidates. I remember hearing HRC give an inspiring little speech at the '04 March and being all for her back then. But that pandering to religious conservatives she did after the election has had me feeling betrayed.

That said, if I had to choose between her and Obama, it would be a pretty tough choice. I really need to hear him take a point-blank stand on choice (I know, wishful thinking). I've seen some vaguely pro-choice faith-centered rhetoric of his in a Time article, but that's not really enough for me to feel I can trust him not to sell out on the issue down the road. And bombing Iran, well that's just stupid at this point.

choiceonearth, Maxine Waters is exactly the kind of candidate I would like to see running for president right now instead of HRC.

And speaking of strong women of color who would make great presidents, let's not forget Sheila Jackson-Lee, who has an 100% pro-choice voting record. Her district, Texas 18, was the same district represented by Barbara Jordan--and by fictional TV president Matt Santos of The West Wing, which was probably no coincidence!

Jackson-Lee should be on the shortlist of any Democratic presidential contender, IMHO, though I suspect neither Clinton or Obama would select her (because that would mean an all-female or all-black ticket, respectively, and everybody knows you can only have a shared-identity ticket if you're white men). People always talk about bringing in the Southern vote, but they mean white Southerners. White Southern Democrats are not going to tip the election--but Southern black turnout might, and Jackson-Lee represents the community better than anybody else in Congress.

Agreed on Obama and choice. But his voting record on this issue has been perfect so far--100% from NARAL, and one Human Events op-ed claimed that he was to the left of NARAL on some abortion issues--so I see him as miles and miles above HRC in this department, who seems to be trying very hard not to be perceived as too liberal on the issue.

Cheers,

TH

Maxine Waters would be the best choice. Maybe if we bomb Iran people will be so pissed they'll start a Draft Maxine movement. I voted for Kucinich in the Florida primary but he had no chance of winning.

choiceonearth, I forgot to thank you, BTW, for the kind words. :o) It's pretty brutal here in Mississippi sometimes, too--12 anti-choice bills just came out, several are on the agenda, and it's depressing as hell.

But I am learning a lot from reading Molly Ivins, who didn't exactly live in a liberal utopia herself and still had a great time fighting the good fight. If I can do my activism with even half as much spirit, I'll never stop.

Peace,

TH

Hillary Clinton always cracks me up. Maybe it's just me but I cracked up when I saw this video, "Hillary Clinton: I Don't Trust Dick Cheney":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvbUPJ4Uyc4

That's brilliant stuff, Donna--I have to say I caught part of that on CNN the other night and loved it. If she keeps giving interviews like this, she's going to be very hard to beat.

And maybe I do underestimate her. I don't know. Lots of people have abusive spouses, and it does seem kind of unfair to let my assessment of her husband's behavior color the way I see her.

So I don't know. Still an Obamamaniac over here, but I'm not completely shut out on HRC yet.

Cheers,

TH