I'm a bit shocked, frankly. No stinkin' way in hell I'm voting for her unless, by some slim chance in hell she wins the primary. She's let me down consistently over the past 5+ years. I have very little faith that, as president, she'd do very much to give women equal footing with national or foreign policy.

Gandy said:

"I am proud, on behalf of over 500,000 contributing members of the National Organization for Women, to announce the NOW PAC's enthusiastic endorsement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president of the United States."

Did she ask those 500,000 members what they thought? I don't think so. Talk about empowering people.

I don't know how I feel about Hilary. I'm pretty surprised at the endorsement, frankly. I don't think she's the best candidate, no, and I think it's too bad. I won't vote for her in the primary just because she's a woman. I just think it says something really sad about our political system that it's taken this long to have a viable female candidate, and that we only have one to choose from (apparently).

Ditto and more.

I might not even vote for her if she wins the nomination! I might to third-party. THAT'S how "system" I think she is. I really think the world wouldn't be much of a different place after 4-8 years of her than it would after 4-8 years of a Republican president.

*sigh*

I really hope she doesn't win the nomination.

Oops. "Ditto and more" is in response to the first commenter, BabyPop.

At this point, I believe any of the candidates we have been presented with can win on the Democratic ticket come 2008, but the question is who could make a difference, and who could make a long-term difference that would result in their re-election. After all, having someone to turn things around is no good if the right finds themselves back in office in 2012.

So, can Hillary Clinton keep two terms and make real difference in the world? No. This was a bad move on the part of NOW. I think they would have been better off endorsing Edwards at this point.

I'm not sure they had much of a choice. She's the first woman to be even a potential Presidential candidate. If they back another (male) candidate, even if he has a better record on women's issues, they'll be called hypocrites for favoring a man over Hillary, and people would say, "Even NOW doesn't really think a woman should be President!" or some such garbage. If they opted not to back ANY candidate, same problem--"Hillary's a woman, but NOW STILL won't back her."

Rock and a hard place, really. At least if Hillary got elected, there'd be a precedent set, and next time the fact that the candidate was a woman wouldn't be such a big deal, and thus we could once more focus on a candidate's qualifications instead of their genitals.

it's great and all, but I'm voting for Barack Obama!!!!

I just think Hillary is too "part of the problem" to be a part of the solution. Sure, we get a milestone, but in exchange we have to give up a lot of Progressive ideas and take a lot of sketchy politics.

I can't see that NOW had any choice. It would have been politically impossible to endorse somebody else or endorse nobody at all. As for the 500,000 members, organizations don't work like that. I'm sure they can vote with their feet and torn-up membership cards.

That said, I have no idea what they mean by leadership on any substantive issue during her Senate tenure. They might have cited an example or a quote from her in the press release if such a thing existed.

My problem with Hillary is that she has kowtowed to the right entirely too much. Oh? Against the Iraq War now? How convenient. It's like she lost so much of spine and spunk I admired in her as soon as she stepped foot into the Senate.

The sad thing is, conservatives always have and always will hate her. And I think centrists and leftists who, years ago, may have supported her, realize what a phony she is.

I posted a link to this article in the comment field under the recent post about southern feminists. I think it definitely applies here. Hillary, if you want to win, stand for something. And don't insult anyone's intelligence (southern, northern, eastern, western, liberal, conservative, or otherwise) with your watered down populism like your husband did.

Finally, don't think I'm Hillary bashing. For so long, I *wanted* her to be successful if/when she ever ran for president. I very rarely discuss politics with my family, but always took up for her when they'd send along their little emails demonizing her. And while I'd still do that, it is very very unlikely that I could, with good conscience, vote for her as president.

Right now, I'm leaning towards Edwards (who I voted for in '04 primaries if I can remember correctly), but crossing my fingers that Gore will give it a try, or, even better, Clark.

Babypop,

I think it should be mentioned that just about everyone voted for the Iraq war based on the fact that most believed the president when he talked about WMD's. Edwards did as well. I personally am sick of hearing people use that as an excuse for Hillary kowtowing to the right, bc its simply untrue.

I think people are also making a mistake saying shes less progressive then obama, bc i would say thats also untrue.

Katie, I know Senator Clinton, and I can tell you the world would be 100% different if she won, and saying it wouldnt be is a little ignorant. I do wish she would stand firm on things, but i believe the reason she cant is because of our two party system. the fact of the matter is, you will NOT win if you are too progressive. it's just not going to happen with the amount of conservatives we have in this country. I am not sure why people here dont realize that. You are very much acting as though we live in this dream world where a democrat can win with ultra progressive views. Sure that would be great, but its not the case. We really need to change the whole system to look like europes, but until then, you have to work with what we have.

Senator Clinton, like a lot of other people in Congress and in the country, was misled about the Iraq War. I am not going to hold this against her, and if she gets the nomination, I am going to support her.

Edwards was the strongest supporter of the Iraq War among the top three contenders.

I have been disappointed with Clinton as a senator, but I'm not sure whether that's because my expectations were so high to begin with, or because I thought she was more progressinve than she really is. I don't think she's a bad choice, and given NOW's broad membership (including come women much less liberal and progressive than many commenters here or any radfem, I think) I don't know that they could have endorsed anyone else.

I'm a member of NOW. I don't know if I'll vote for Hillary, but I think they did the right thing endorsing her.

Honestly, I'm not going to vote for ANYBODY without knowing how they stand on the issues, regardless of gender. If I don't agree, I'll vote for someone else. Which is rather likely, as I'm Green party anyway.

Katie and Mary B -

I am aware of this, and it's understandable that nearly all congresspeople did initially support the war in Iraq. Our nation had very recently been attacked, and tensions from that were (and remain) high. On top of that was the notion of WMDs in Iraq, making the situation even more tense.

However, after nearly 3 years of presence in Iraq and information coming to light that we were taken there under false pretenses, Clinton still supported the decision, much longer after she probably should have, in my opinion.

My criticism of Hillary Clinton's political position runs far and wide - Iraq was just the easiest for me to grab without much though.

I think Hillary Clinton as president looks great on paper. In actuality: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I can't say I'm surprised that NOW endorsed her. She's pretty much their prime demographic. And if she does win then NOW can claim to have had a hand in it.

I might not even vote for her if she wins the nomination! I might to third-party. THAT'S how "system" I think she is. I really think the world wouldn't be much of a different place after 4-8 years of her than it would after 4-8 years of a Republican president.

I really do not understand this perspective. Do you truly believe that if we had had Hillary Clinton in office for the past 6 years instead of Bush, things would be exactly the same as they are now? I haven't looked much into Hillary's politics but I have no doubt that she would be much better than just about any Republican. If a person is willing to align themselves with the Republican party, then they are willing to say that they "officially" stand for things that I do not agree with. And they are going to be influenced in office by their party.

In my opinion, given that we have a two-party system and a third-party candidate is not going to win the presidency, voting third-party is essentially the same as not voting at all. You are letting all the other voters decide for you.

Now I see why there are all the double posts! For everyone who posts after this, if you get an internal server error, apparently your post still goes through.

I'm with Katie. People are far too harsh on Hillary, and I've always suspected that her gender is the primary reason they get away with it. I've seen her speak on several occassions, and I can attest that she is neither phony nor seemingly spineless. To the contrary, my experience is that she is firm, knowledgeable, and passionate...and generally on the right side of the argument. No one, man or woman, becomes as mainstream as she is without having to make a few compromises. (That's called politics.) Certainly, it's not ideal. But there's no reason that she should be held to a higher standard. Give a sister a break. I mean, it's not like NOW endorsed Condi for president.

I went back to her website to see how she officially states her position on women's issues - she doesn't have a statement on reproductive rights. But she did stand firm on the EC issue when it came down to it.

Sorry!

Her stand on Iraq has been appalling but a month or so ago a progressive blog explained why she stand with the President on issues around Iraq. Halfway through the Clinton administration, she stopped calling him "my husband" or "Bill" and started calling him "The President", as in, "You'll have to ask the President yourself." The blog said she lets Bush do what he wants to do because she accords any President the permission to do what he or she thinks is right. This is just me but I think it's a "respect your dad" Midwest mentality. And if she is President she will expect others to respect her enough to let her do what she thinks is right.

Yes, I agree with cowgrrrl. I'm really not sure why all the disappointment and anger about how sleazy most politicians are gets focused on Hillary Clinton so often. I don't see much to indicate that she's any slimier or any less reliable than any other serious politician is. Right, she supported the war, and she did so longer than many other Democrats did, but she's not alone in that. Nor have I ever been quite sure what the adoration of Barack Obama is about--I think the only reason he seems so much less sleazy in comparison is that he hasn't been in national politics long enough.

She seems like a perfectly typical politician to me. I might vote for her in the primary; I might not. I'd definitely vote for her in the election.

I mean, of course she's double-dealing and all that. She's a politican. But she's not indebted to any Christian fundamentalists, which makes her significantly better than the Republican party in my book.

I am not sure that I believe that Hillary Clinton is what is best for women in this country right now. I am not sure I can trust her at this moment in time. I would LOVE to have a female president, but I refuse to vote for someone just because of his or her gender. I'm sticking with Edwards for the time being, but if Hill gets the party nod through the primaries, I'll probably vote for her when it's time for the election. As little faith as I have in her, I have volumes in faith in her compared to what I have in any of the Republican candidates presently in the running.

Al Gore! I'd like to vote for Al Gore.

And when Bill Clinton was President, she accorded him the same respect and let him do what he thought was right. "You'll have to talk to the President."

And all three candidates are crazy about invading Iran. Groan. Which will happen next week according to Air America Radio. The end is nigh folks. Tell the corporate media to talk about it.

I wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman, I just think she will best best for women's issues and everyone else's issues overall.

Cowgrrl - I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've seen her speak, and I come to a full different conclusion than you do.

I admire Obama's ability to get people excited about change, but that doesn't guarantee my vote any more than Senator Clinton's being a woman gets it.

I understand that compromises must be made in order to get anything accomplished in politics, but when is enough enough?

Faced with the three leading Democratic candidates, I'm not jazzed about any of them. I doubt Clark will run, but he'll get my vote if he does. Same goes for Gore, though he seems to be more likely to run than Clark.

NOW didn't *have to* endorse anyone yet... I'd just like to point that out.

I think NOW needs to work a little harder to find out what its members really want and believe. But come on everyone- Hillary is not that bad. It's not like they're endorsing Gingrich.

The problem with Hillary and women/feminism shoudl not be linked to her personality...and goes beyond her stance on the war. She is becoming increasingly more moderate (even CONSERVATIVE) on abortion...she is NOT an advocate for choice. That's what bothers me about this NOW endorsement.

I have been a member of NOW for many years. They did "poll" the membership. I recommended that NOW not endorse anyone in the primaries but the reality is that the PAC, which is also elected, wanted to make this endorsement regardless of the membership's wishes. It was the photo-op of the campaign.
I will vote for the democrat who wins the primary. My first choice will be who I voted for last time - Mr. Gore.
My brand of feminism doesn't chose candidates or friends based on their biological gender but how they feel about the global advancement of humanity.
It would have been nice if Senator Clinton had been a sponsor YESTERDAY of the ERA, as it was introduced to the 110 Congress. Guess she was busy.

It should be an interesting time in Detroit for the annual conference.

FWIW - I was hoping for all the candidates to show up at the conference so they can sell us on them. I'm ok with NOW endorsing Hillary, but this was a tad early for me.

I agree completely Kristen!

It would have been nice if Senator Clinton had been a sponsor YESTERDAY of the ERA, as it was introduced to the 110 Congress. Guess she was busy.

Only 2 senators and 6 representatives sponsored it. In other words, Edwards and Obama did not sponsor it.

She is the least progressive of the three but as a woman presidential candidate that is unfortunately what she has to be to have a chance.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-CA)
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Okay two Democratic senators and four representatives. Clinton, Obama or Edwards were not sponsors.

Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue to check your sexism.

Frankly, I think it's a little silly to endorse ANYone this early.

Well then, Cowgrrrl, I guess that if you're 100% correct about what it takes to become "mainstream," I'll never want a "mainstream" president in office.

However, I'm going to keep working to influence the mainstream and make it accepting of a progressive (even if lower-case-katie doesn't think what I'm for could ever happen).

Perhaps Mr. Edwards didn't sponsor the bill because he isn't in Congress? Think, people.

(For an illustration of that mainstream I'm working for--I'm working for a populace that will let Sen. Russ Feingold, just as he is, become mainstream!)

I went back to her website to see how she officially states her position on women's issues - she doesn't have a statement on reproductive rights. But she did stand firm on the EC issue when it came down to it.

Well, per Donna's wise suggestion ("Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue"), I looked at Obama's and Edwards' websites. What do you know, neither of them have a statement on reproductive rights either. In fact, Clinton got the closest of the three with her section on Women, which included a statement about reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.

Whenever you criticize Clinton for something make sure you see if Obama or Edwards are worse or better on the same issue to check your sexism.

What is that supposed to mean? That it's sexist to expect a female presidential candidate who has been recently endorsed by a large feminist organization, should sponsor legislation demanding equal rights for women? I don't think that's sexist at all. (I may be reading your comment wrong and apologize in advance if I'm misinterpreting it.) Had NOW endorsed either of the other leading male candidates, I would expect the same.

FWIW, if I'm reading the congressional record correctly, Clinton did cosponser the legislation yesterday.

Hillary isn't perfect but she is definitely better than the evangelical John "god told me to oppose gay marriage" Edwards.

Hillary got a 100% pro-choice score from NARAL (like Edwards). She's repeatedly advocated for universal access to reproductive services. What's the problem with her?

Big K Katie...I support more radical politics (as per my lifestyle and career choices), but I think that ignoring the reality of politics as they exist now is not productive. All my activism on a day to day basis will not change the fact that eventually I will need to choose a mainstream presidential candidate on election day. I'd prefer that that choice include someone like Hillary as opposed to another Bush/Gore vote.

Nor have I ever been quite sure what the adoration of Barack Obama is about--I think the only reason he seems so much less sleazy in comparison is that he hasn't been in national politics long enough.

I don't know if I'd go that far in describing Sen. Obama (Feingold's had a lot more time to keep being progressive against the odds and really prove that he means it forever) but, hey, if the computer generated that, it must say something about my hunch that he's one of the most progressive candidates we've got for the democratic ticket.

Hillary isn't perfect but she is definitely better than the evangelical John "god told me to oppose gay marriage" Edwards.

Edwards may be against gay marriage on a personal level, but he'd never try to legislate anything on the issue. Also, Edwards wants to expand hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Not that any of that should matter though. The next election should come down to one issue: Iraq. That's where Hillary will lose.

miss green, i agree that folks will only care about the war. that aside, forgiving someone's homophobia because they merely oppose gay marriage "on a personal level" is unacceptable. if a presidential contender said that they only opposed de-segregation of schools "on a personal" level but wouldn't legislate on the issue, would that be acceptable? no.

It would be my personal thought that John Edwards did not co-sponsor the ERA this go-round because he isn't currently in office... I'm not sure that ex-senators can sponsor bills... right?

I've heard John Edwards speak here in South Carolina about his pro-choice stance and his belief that the government should not have a role in abortion as it's between a woman and her doctor not a woman and her elected officials.

I am genuinely perplexed by this endorsement. She certainly isn't the best candidate FOR women, part of the organization's title. And there was no reason to support anybody at this point. I don't get it. I do know it will affect my check-writing though, and not in a way NOW hopes.

I am genuinely perplexed by this endorsement. She certainly isn't the best candidate FOR women, part of the organization's title. And there was no reason to support anybody at this point. I don't get it. I do know it will affect my check-writing though, and not in a way NOW hopes.

I am genuinely perplexed by this endorsement. She certainly isn't the best candidate FOR women, part of the organization's title. And there was no reason to support anybody at this point. I don't get it. I do know it will affect my check-writing though, and not in a way NOW hopes.

That it's sexist to expect a female presidential candidate who has been recently endorsed by a large feminist organization, should sponsor legislation demanding equal rights for women? I don't think that's sexist at all.

NOW endorsed her. She accepted. Would any of them have turned it down? Only two Senators sponsored the ERA. Why wasn't Obama one of them? It's sexist to apply different standards to Clinton on the same issues and also not take into account the fact that moderateness helps the first serious female Presidential candidate.

I just wish we didn't have Senators as the front runners for the Democratic party nomination. The last time someone went from the Senate directly to the Presidency was John F. Kennedy, and he, along with the career Senator Lyndon Johnson, got us into the proverbial Land War In Asia. Senators have a poor track record at both being President and at winning Presidential elections. I'd much rather have a state Governor running for President, like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both were.

Got that, people? NO SENATORS!

I think it's a huge mistake for any organization to endorse someone so soon. Personally, Hillary is not my favorite candidate (not as good as Obama, better than Edwards), but I understand that there was no easy decision for NOW on this one. I'm not a member, but I would love to hear NOW's reasoning. The only thing I could think of is that they hope the endorsement will help boost Clinton's campaign fund. Unfortunately, I think it might just end up hurting NOW's financial and political weight.

It's sexist to apply different standards to Clinton on the same issues and also not take into account the fact that moderateness helps the first serious female Presidential candidate.

DonnaDarko, I am still not understanding your reasoning.

As I take it, the initial criticism by Z.A.N. was that a candidate endorsed by a feminist organization was not on-board at a major legislative event for women's rights.

The criticism, as I understand it, was in that; NOT necessarily in being a female candidate and not being on-board.

Do you not think the same (general) criticism may apply to a candidate of color being endorsed by, say, the NAACP, having not sponsored a piece of legislation aimed at ensuring civil rights for people, regardless of race?

Really, this is moot, she was a co-sponsor, but I do think that it would be a valid criticism to make if she weren't. I'm not articulating myself very well, but I hope you can understand what I mean.

That it's sexist to expect a female presidential candidate who has been recently endorsed by a large feminist organization, should sponsor legislation demanding equal rights for women? I don't think that's sexist at all.

BP, she was endorsed by NOW today. If Edwards or Obama were endorsed by NOW today and weren't perfect on women's issues, would it make them any less feminist and worthy of our support? Whoever is running for President should be judged on where they stand on issues not their gender, race, class, etc. Like I said earlier, Edwards was a stronger supporter of the Iraq War and people criticize Hillary for that and not Edwards.

As feminists, we also have to take into account that women are judged differently than men, something we discuss on a daily basis in detail here. A woman who has the first serious chance at the Presidency has to be moderate even conservative to get the nomination. Many women don't support her because they don't want her to mess up as the first female President but I see that as a sexist bias.

this makes me like NOW better than i did in the past. though all the democrats running are great, hillary's the smartest person in the race. after so many years of dumbya, i just can't wait.

although I don't think Hillary's perfect, i think having her as a Prez could be a great wake up call to our country. i think she would do an impressive job. she's not the best candidate for first female president, but we have to start the change somewhere.
regarding her unverified stance on reproductive rights - i intern at a Planned Parenthood, and actually met Hillary when she spoke at one of our events. though her speech was not as staunchly pro-choice as we would have liked, i definetly got the sense that she would protect our rights to maintain control over our bodies. i hate that she did not oppose the war, and that she's on like the board of Walmart..but god, she sure is better than Bush. oh yeah, fyi - she's much shorter than i thought, only like 5' 4", perhaps, she wears very cakey makeup, and her hands are rather warm.

although I don't think Hillary's perfect, i think having her as a Prez could be a great wake up call to our country. i think she would do an impressive job. she's not the best candidate for first female president, but we have to start the change somewhere.
regarding her unverified stance on reproductive rights - i intern at a Planned Parenthood, and actually met Hillary when she spoke at one of our events. though her speech was not as staunchly pro-choice as we would have liked, i definetly got the sense that she would protect our rights to maintain control over our bodies. i hate that she did not oppose the war, and that she's on like the board of Walmart..but god, she sure is better than Bush. oh yeah, fyi - she's much shorter than i thought, only like 5' 4", perhaps, she wears very cakey makeup, and her hands are rather warm.

Will Hillary win the presidency? I don't know.. I have my doubts.

If she wins the primaries I will definantly be voting for her, rooting for her, and plastering bumper stickers all over my property, however.

The reason I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries is that I'm not sure she has enough support to win overall but if shes the candidate then all power to Hil!

The reason I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries is that I'm not sure she has enough support to win overall

I have no idea yet who I'm going to vote for in the primaries, but this is exactly how I think about primaries in general. I feel very strongly that we cannot deny political reality, and if we want to ensure we have a Democrat in the white house next time around the best thing to do is to vote in the primaries for the person who will have the best chance of winning the final election over the Republicans candidate. Even if you think another Democratic nominee is better on certain issues, if they are not going to be as strong of a candidate over all, then there is no point in voting for them in the primaries. Remember, to win the presidential election the candidate needs approximately slightly more than half of the voters in this country to vote for you (it doesn't have to be quite half, but if it's not close, they won't win), so they darn well better be a bit moderate.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a tendency in this thread to refer to Hilliary Clinton as "Hillary" but Barack Obama and John Edwards are almost always referred to as "Obama" and "Edwards"? I'd like to think it's just because there was already a Clinton in the white house, but we've had two people named Bush and they are both referred to as Bush. I'm not trying to point at a finger at anyone but I thought it was an interesting trend and I wonder if the cause could be partly some deep-rooted, unconcious sexism.

sbsanon, it's because Hillary's campaign is marketing her as "Hillary." I read an article about it somewhere, perhaps DailyKos.

Check her out an OnTheIssues.org. I think she's the strongest candidate on women's issues.

Hillary Clinton on Abortion

* Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Civil Rights
* Human rights are women’s rights. (Jan 2000)
* Women’s rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)
* Sex selection, prostitution & war rape: human rights issues. (Sep 1995)

Hillary Clinton on Families & Children
* Help “sandwiched� parents care for elderly plus kids. (Jan 1999)
* Expand Family and Medical Leave Act. (Aug 1998)
* Men should be full participants in child-raising. (May 1994)

Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy
* Supports micro-loans to third-world women. (Sep 1995)
* China: criticized authoritarianism with women & children. (Dec 1999)
* Human rights are central to our objectives abroad. (Oct 2000)

I don't think I've ever seen a candidate say a damn thing about third world women and girls until Hillary.

Posted by: Kate

The reason I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries is that I'm not sure she has enough support to win overall ...

Sounds like the same self-fulfilling prophesing that lost the Dems the last 2 elections - or made them close enough to be stealable anyway.

I refer to her as both. I refer to the current president in more than one way as well.

So the central message is: vote for who will win, not who you really want to vote for. No thanks. Blame me for Bush's reign of terror, Act I if you like, but I'm not buying it. I'm pretty doggone hardheaded, I may have to go out and vote 3rd party just to be contrary, if they give me someone I like.

So the central message is: vote for who will win, not who you really want to vote for.

I like to think of it as "vote against who you really DON'T want to win." When it comes down to who will be running our country for the next 4-8 years, I think having another Republican in there would just be really terrible. So I'm going to vote whatever way I think will make that least likely to happen, even if it means voting for a pretty moderate Democrat.

I apologize if I am repeating myself from a previous comment. I guess I just feel strongly about this :)

sunflwrmoonbeam, thanks for the clarification. I still find it interesting. Perhaps it is meant to distinguish her from her husband.

I went apeshit the last time this subject came up, but I've calmed down.

Personally, I endorsed Barack Obama a long time ago, but I understand NOW-PAC's decision. I wrote a little bit about it here.

Speaking from experience as a NOW officer, I am absolutely certain that NOW-PAC used democratic processes to determine who it was going to endorse. That's one of the reasons why I respect this decision--and I'm sure it wasn't an easy one, but they were right to make the decision now, while it's still early enough to affect fundraising.

If Barack Obama wins the nomination, I hope he selects a woman (maybe Janet Napolitano) as his running mate. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I hope she selects Barack Obama as her running mate. If John Edwards wins the nomination, I'll scream.

Cheers,

TH

I have never understood Hillarymania. The far right hating someone does not a feminist make. She gave up what from all accounts was a great deal of promise and instead rode the coattails of her husband to Washington DC.

What other qualification she had for higher office eludes me.

That's not exactly a feminist image in my book.

Tom: Janet Napolitano? The leader singer from Concrete Blonde? (just kidding)

Tom: Janet Napolitano? The leader singer from Concrete Blonde? (just kidding)

She gave up what from all accounts was a great deal of promise and instead rode the coattails of her husband to Washington DC.

What that tells me is that she's ambitious and realistic, and accepted the fact that if she wanted to reach the pinnacle of government, attaching herself to a charismatic man would get her farther than her own abilities would. That sucks, but it's also the truth. The fact is that she's the first woman this century to have any kind of shot of making a run at the White House. If she hadn't done just that, she wouldn't be in this position to begin with. I've always thought of the Clintons as a power couple, and I doubt that without her "promise," i.e. her skill and intellect, that Bill Clinton would have gotten as far as he did.

But we don't have a Parliamentary system, and for a woman to be able to situate herself with the kind of clout to even run, I've yet to see any evidence that she could have done it without attaching herself to a man.

Kathygnome -

Though I don't intend to vote for Hillary, I would be pressed to say she's a coattail rider. Yes, I'm sure her husband's fame and favor among voters once he left office probably helped in some way, but she strikes me as an intelligent and driven woman. As for qualification, again, I don't intend to vote for her, but that is not one of the reasons why. I don't really know what qualifies any jackass to run for any office, other than the desire to do so, the desire to serve their community, and, in some unfortunate cases, the desire to serve their own self-interests and feed their need for power.

I have many criticisms about Hillary and the other Dem. candidates, but questioning their motivation and qualification doesn't factor in for me.

And, hey, Tom Head's back! Yay!

I would like to point out Katie, that I NEVER said I dont think it's possible. I believe i said "until it happens". Please read before making comments that are just untrue . Like cowgirl, I believe that ignoring reality when it comes to politics is naive. Naive in a very dangerous way (Nader basically was part of the reason Bush won in 2000). Clearly, I would love to see our system change, but I will work with it and not blindly against it until it does.

As for Hillary supporting a womans choice, I hope you are aware that she was at the March for Women's lives in 2004 Kristin. Apparently you are not aware of that fact. I also hope you realize that she would defend a womans right to choose until her death, her official position is to decrease the number of abortions. And by decrease, I dont mean thru abstinence only education, but by preventing pregnancies in the first place. Who doesnt think thats a good idea? Is she a proponent of late term abortion (unless the mothers life is at stake)? I dont believe so, but then again, neither am I or many other feminists I know.

Kathy, what qualification has any president had? She is a senator, thats generally who runs for president. As for people thinking Barack is some breathe of fresh air (And i do like him alot dont get me wrong) but the only reason people think that is because hes new and kind of a super star. I personally faiil to see where his policies are all that much different then any other democratic contender.

as for being against the war, I believe Clinton took less then three years to decry it and again we have to realize what a tenuous issue it is. If she wants to appeal to the heartland (cause once again, it is politics people) then she has to make it 100% clear that she supports the troops. Because as we all know the republican't have made many people believe that if you are against the war, you are perfectly ok with troops dying out there.

as for riding coattails and questioning her qualifications, I would ask you this. would you be asking the same thing if it was a man? Personally, I really dont think many people would be. I think they would be able to separate a man from his relationshipsand his spouse much more easily then they can with a woman.

Naive in a very dangerous way (Nader basically was part of the reason Bush won in 2000).

This kind of bullshit makes my head spin. BULL.SHIT.

Thank you, happy bunny! I was going crazy reading some of these comments about how HC isn't feminist enough. This is a woman who essentially spent her husband's entire presidency travelling throughout the world to work on women's rights. Her position is that women's rights (and children's rights) are entirely equivalent to human rights, and that human rights and human issues are the most important thing a person can fight for. This is one of the reasons the right wingers hated her so much -- she actively fought to change the system. Nobody has any beef with Laura Bush because she doesn't do anything to shake the boat. I'm a little baffled at all the awesome boat-shakers on this site who don't see her as a feminist figure.

As for her centrist leanings, I do also want to point out that since Bill and Hillary were the first couple of Arkansas, their MO has been to go for the low-hanging fruit first, especially when opposition was strong. If you can't get one huge universal health care bill passed because of the opposition, pass many small health bills that chip away at the problem and make incremental but significant improvements. This way of handling things make her seem less radically progressive, but highly effective in making strides toward progress when a giant leap of progress may be impossible.

I think Hillary is pretty awesome. I really like Obama too, and I haven't decided who'll get my vote yet, but I just don't understand a lot of the anti-Hillary sentiments above.

Thank you, happy bunny! I was going crazy reading some of these comments about how HC isn't feminist enough. This is a woman who essentially spent her husband's entire presidency travelling throughout the world to work on women's rights. Her position is that women's rights (and children's rights) are entirely equivalent to human rights, and that human rights and human issues are the most important thing a person can fight for. This is one of the reasons the right wingers hated her so much -- she actively fought to change the system. Nobody has any beef with Laura Bush because she doesn't do anything to shake the boat. I'm a little baffled at all the awesome boat-shakers on this site who don't see her as a feminist figure.

As for her centrist leanings, I do also want to point out that since Bill and Hillary were the first couple of Arkansas, their MO has been to go for the low-hanging fruit first, especially when opposition was strong. If you can't get one huge universal health care bill passed because of the opposition, pass many small health bills that chip away at the problem and make incremental but significant improvements. This way of handling things make her seem less radically progressive, but highly effective in making strides toward progress when a giant leap of progress may be impossible.

I think Hillary is pretty awesome. I really like Obama too, and I haven't decided who'll get my vote yet, but I just don't understand a lot of the anti-Hillary sentiments above.

Oh boo...sorry for the multiple posts, ladies...

makes your head spin because it's true? I hate the fact that it's true, but there is NO disputing the fact that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in this politiical system. it is sad but true.

BabyPop -- I'm curious as to if your comment about the Nader "bullshit" has to do with whether you think people should be able to vote for whomever they think would make the best president, or specifically because you think Nader would make a good president? If it's the latter, what about him do you like?

Makes my head spin b/c it is so fucking not true. Do some reading up on it and look at the statistical data. I guess there are still comentators that will swear up and down that it was Nader's fault that GW was elected, but I don't buy that shit one bit.

And beyond that, makes my head spin b/c even if it were true, DEMOCRATS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MY FUCKING VOTE! They are not entitled to the Southern vote (which they've seen for the last 10 years), they are not entitled to the racial minority vote (which they are scared to death of losing), they are not entitled to women's votes, and finally, they are not entitled to the "progressive" vote if they don't represent themselves that way.

It is astonishing to me that anyone on here would act like they do as an inevitibility, and the defeatism saddens me.

In 2004, many of my "progressive" friends (ones that are much much more liberal and politically knowledgable than me) were begging me to vote for Kerry. I maintained that I wouldn't (and I almost didn't) until the very last minute, because I figured there were no 3rd Party Candidates I really wanted to get behind. If there were, I would've voted for one of them, rather than have an empty vote.

I understand that a lot of people want to blame Nader and Nader-voters for the last 8 years, but I think the lost election has more to do with a shitty Democratic candidate (which I'm sorry, but Gore stood for NOTHING at that time), voter disenfranchisement, and questionable voting practices in two states, not the 2 million people who voted for Nader.

(Nader basically was part of the reason Bush won in 2000).

You're probably right, but another part of the reason Bush won in 2000 was the [at the time] way-too-safe-and-not-progressive-enough candidate the democrats put up.

If the democrats had put up a more progressive candidate, Nader wouldn't have gotten the votes he did.

I want the Democrats to learn that lesson, among others. If they ignore the reasons why their base voters keep voting for spoiler third-party candidates instead of Democratic candidates, they're stupid.

Only I have faith that they're not stupid forever. Were they smart enough to learn from 2000? I hope so. But if not, I plan to send them the exact same message about what centrists candidates do to their vote tallies in 2008 and hope they figure it out by the next time around.

I personally faiil to see where his policies are all that much different then any other democratic contender.

I gotta agree with BabyPop, here. First of all, the impact of voting for Nader completely depended on where you were living. I was voting in New York, which always reliably goes Democratic, and I voted for Nader, because there was a big push that year to see if we could get the Green Party on the national ballot regularly, which means that they have to get something like 5% of the vote. I didn't have to worry about NY's electoral votes; they were going to Gore no matter what I did, so why not register my existence as a voter to the left, the far left, of the Democratic party, and try to help crack the two-party monopoly while I was at it?

Secondly, dude, Gore lost Gore the election. The fact was that the election was superclose in the first place, which is why Nader's paltry votes in Florida might have mattered.

Finally, and to my mind most importantly, let's not forget the hanging chad and butterfly ballot issues. These are the votes of people who actually tried to vote for Gore, and were prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court stopped the recount, not Nader. Isn't the wisdom that if the recount had gone on, and the disputed ballots were accurately counted, that Gore would have won? That's not Nader's fault, and it's not the fault of the people who voted for him either, no matter where they live.

I agree on all points Katie with a big K. I would be very interested to see that on your blog as well.

Also I want to make it clear that I never said it was ALL Nader's fault, just he contributed a bit. And it's not defeatism, its realism. many of us who post on this board are doing things to help change the system in one way or another, but that doesnt mean that in the mean time, we dont work with what we have.

A lot of things that I've read said that a scant half of Nader's votes would've gone to Gore, about 1/3 would've gone to Bush (how that is even possible I don't know, but that's what I've read), and the rest wouldn't have voted at all.

I think that I am a lot more politically moderate than most of my peers, and I voted for Nader. My Dad, who is very conservative and by all accounts the type of person that has given the south to the Republicans, voted for him. So lets not delude ourselves into thinking that all of us Nader voters would've voted for Gore in 00.

Speaking of stolen elections and whatnot, did any of you have a chance to read this?

Oh, link no workie. I suck.
Sorry, my HTML is seriously rusty. It's a link to the Rolling Stone article about the 2004 election being stolen. If this doesn't work, you can Google it: http://tinyurl.com/ogrhq

I've gone and lost all my cool points now. Poop.

many of us who post on this board are doing things to help change the system in one way or another, but that doesnt mean that in the mean time, we dont work with what we have.

*shrug!*

Clinton voted for the war & refuses to apologize for it. Refuses to admit it was a mistake. That's ALL ANYone needs to know. Period.

And could we PLEASE knock all the self-pitying Bull re: Nader costing Gore the election? Bush stole it w/ dirty tricks & Gore blew it by not fighting back. If we'd seen the same Gore on the campagin trial that we've seen in "An Inconvient Truth", hell, if we saw the same Gore that we saw in that SNL opening skit, Nader's campagin wouldn't have been necessary & Bush would've had nothing to do but piss off back to Texas & build more Sports Stadiums at Taxpayer expense.

The DLC is there to make sure that the Dems always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To make sure that they lose. And remain Losers. Forever. Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool DLC android. If progressives are interested in actually winning real, SUBSTANTIVE victories insted of hollow, nominal ones then they need to wrap a ball & chain around the neck of the DLC & throw it overboard.

To Repeat: Clinton voted for the war & refuses to apologize for it. Refuses to admit it was a mistake. That's ALL ANYone needs to know. Period.

Thanks a bunch, NOW. Once again I'm feeling the deep & sublime frustration generated by the stupid decisions of smart organizations & people.

SHIT.

Smart Patrol

You are dead wrong

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml

Unfortunately it's people like you who make people think progressives are slightly unhinged. I mean, I am just as angry as the next person (maybe unhinged too and i hide it well:)), but spewing information that is just not true isnt right either.

Katie with a K

touche!!!! :)

Clinton voted for the war & refuses to apologize for it. Refuses to admit it was a mistake. That's ALL ANYone needs to know. Period.

And could we PLEASE knock all the self-pitying Bull re: Nader costing Gore the election? Bush stole it w/ dirty tricks & Gore blew it by not fighting back. If we'd seen the same Gore on the campagin trial that we've seen in "An Inconvient Truth", hell, if we saw the same Gore that we saw in that SNL opening skit, Nader's campagin wouldn't have been necessary & Bush would've had nothing to do but piss off back to Texas & build more Sports Stadiums at Taxpayer expense.

The DLC is there to make sure that the Dems always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To make sure that they lose. And remain Losers. Forever. Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool DLC android. If progressives are interested in actually winning real, SUBSTANTIVE victories insted of hollow, nominal ones then they need to wrap a ball & chain around the neck of the DLC & throw it overboard.

To Repeat: Clinton voted for the war & refuses to apologize for it. Refuses to admit it was a mistake. That's ALL ANYone needs to know. Period.

Thanks a bunch, NOW. Once again I'm feeling the deep & sublime frustration generated by the stupid decisions of smart organizations & people.

SHIT.

The rest of the world knew that war was unjustified in Iraq. It was our senate’s job to find out the truth, to DEMAND the truth. If our senators are so easily mislead then they are incompetent. Every senator who supported the war on Iraq failed in their duty to the American people. They should all be resigning, not running for president.

Attn: Katie w/ a K.

1stly, It's not "Smart Patrol" it's "Smartpatrol", just like it's "Katie" not "Catie".

2ndly: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154256

3rdly: I deeply resent being catcalled/baited by being called "unhinged". Ann Coulter calling Edwards a "faggot" at the CPAC conference is "unhinged". The pigs in the CPAC audience finding her pig-headed remarks just oh-so-funny is "unhinged". Ann Althouse's meltdown over Garance Franke-Ruta's mentioning the pefectly obvious is "unhinged". Michael "Savage" Weiner, Cold Fury, FreeRepublic.com, "Flaffel" Bill, Hannity,etc., are all "unhinged". Thanks in advance for refraining from lumping me in any more"unhinged" company in the future.

smartpatrol, i kno not who you are, but i sooo wanna have yr babies for that last comment.

as to the rest of this brouhaha, i don't like hillary as a candidate. i do not trust her, or the DLC. i liked obama at first but hes cowtowing it to the middle too and leaving me cold (wtf is up with his b.s about "clean coal"???), john edwards frightens me instinctivly. i didnt vote for gore in 2000 (nader, thanks) but i might vote for him now, hes got some sass and passion and good ideas. for what its worth i didnt vote for kerry in 04, but had teresa heinz kerry been running she would have had my vote in a nanosecond, she's one gutsy dame. i voted green that year too (david cobb and patricia la march)as write in candidates. if howard dean had gotten the 2004 nomination i would have quit my job to work for his campaign. id love to see the dems run someone worthwhile, but until then im voting for someone i believe in, like im supposed to. voting for "the lesser of two evils" just makes you seem like you lack conviction too.

this is really long, but i guess my final point is- hillary speaks to HRC making a big deal about being an ally to the gay/les/bi/trans community, a few days later ann coulter calls john edwards a faggot and not a peep from hillary in protest until she sees where everyone else stands. she lacks backbone and honesty.

jessi, do you know why dean isn't in the running? does anyone know why he isn't a candidate?

teresa heinz kerry, elizabeth edwards, hillary clinton were said to be the real candidate or president. i'm sick of women having to hide behind men to have power. it's time for a woman president. how about nancy pelosi aside from clinton?

I believe that Dean isn't in it because that was part of his spiel when he got the chairmanship of the DNC--no running in 2008. Too bad. I was a hardcore Deaniac in 2004, and I wish there was a candidate I could be that enthusiastic about this race. I'm watching and waiting for the time being, though I'll ultimately be voting for whomever the Democrats put up.

Dean went on the 700 club and said that gay marriage was not on the democratic platform and that it was btw a man and a woman. i wish people would realize that and just drop dean like a bad habit.

Yes--that's when I lost my Dean-love. It's one thing to make political concessions. It's another to do so on the 700 club. That just makes my skin crawl.