Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

There's Something About Hillary

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted May 22, 2008.


What is it about Hillary that has Americans in such a tizzy?
Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- A woman? Yes. But not that woman. It is the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately -- and so far unsuccessfully -- to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female.

It isn't the woman part, the rationale goes. It's the Clinton part: That "polarizing" persona and "unlikable" demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President "Billary." The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country's first black president.

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who? The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

"Maybe a generation from now," says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "My feeling is, I don't see who's coming after Clinton and I don't feel like it's going to be easy for whoever comes next."

The United States already lags miserably behind the rest of the world in electing a woman as head of state. To look around the globe is to see a stark truth: Americans seem peculiarly averse to female leadership. Women have had some success in gaining legislative office. Yet only eight women currently serve as governors, the springboard to the White House for four of the last five presidents.

So which woman, exactly, would be acceptable?

Readers -- that inexact approximation of vox populi -- typically answer: Someone like Margaret Thatcher or Elizabeth Dole or Condoleezza Rice or Christine Todd Whitman or maybe Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas. The roll call itself illuminates the barriers.

Thatcher, for instance, never ran for executive office on her own. She became the first (and only) female prime minister of Britain by reaching the leadership of the Conservative Party. That is how many women heads of state have risen -- through parliamentary systems that often use quotas to guarantee women legislative seats. Americans don't like quotas much.

And we don't like political wives who strike out on their own. Yet around the world, presidential spouses, widows and daughters are elected with stunning regularity. Indira Gandhi of India, Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Cristina Fernandez, the current Argentine president -- who succeeded her husband -- all rose to power through family connections.

Here, though, revulsion often is expressed at the prospect of the Bushes and Clintons trading the White House among one another. But the "dynasty" argument didn't impede other American political families: not the Adamses, nor the Roosevelts nor the Kennedys. It sure didn't keep George W. Bush from becoming president.

Though it never sparked the rancor attached to Clinton's White House drive, Dole's brief presidential bid in 2000 was a preview. Dole, now a Republican senator from North Carolina, served as a Cabinet secretary in two administrations and headed the American Red Cross. Yet a review of media coverage by Rutgers political scientists showed that when Dole received in-depth coverage, nearly two-thirds of the stories mentioned her marriage to Bob Dole, the former Senate Republican leader and presidential candidate. Elizabeth Dole's marriage to a powerful politician often drowned out discussion of her own record.

No woman on the political horizon possesses the portfolio that Clinton brought to this campaign: national name recognition. A record as a prodigious fundraiser -- for herself and scores of other Democrats. Winner of two Senate races in New York, a rough-and-tumble state with a trove of 31 Electoral College votes and Democratic donors with deep pockets. And a huge, loyal base of support within her party.

Who can compare? Not Secretary of State Rice. She's never run for elective office, and it's tough to run for president with no experience in those muddy trenches. Not Whitman. The former New Jersey governor has openly broken with conservatives who dominate the Republican Party. Not Sebelius. She heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.

Clinton cleared the hurdles often cited as holding American women back, yet she is unlikely to surmount the final barrier. So you have to wonder.

Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, media, sexism, hillary clinton, hillary, gender

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hillary Would Be Bad for Women in Politics
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 22, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author thinks that gender trumps all other variables. Hillary Clinton's career in elected office is actually much shorter than Obama's, or any of the now-eliminated candidates. Most of her supporters admit she has unfairly attacked Obama. She carries a lot of baggage, including six years helping Wal-Mart bust unions, screw workers and crush competitors, selling pardons through her brother, and supporting some pretty sleazy things during her husband's tenure and then lying about it. She meets every single diagnostic criterion for narcissistic personality disorder, a very serious affliction. She's a hawk who voted for the Iraq war and now threatens Iran. I wonder how the author thinks four or more years of a woman president marked by ethical lapses, partisan bickering, triangulation, pathological lying and other Clintonesque behavior will advance the feminist cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately character counts
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on May 22, 2008 1:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I myself have said this before about Hillary and for me it comes down to her character. You can't say, I offer you a female candidate, now you have to accept her even if you wouldn't vote for her if she was a man. When I ask myself if it is because she is female, I compare her to Kathleen Sebelius and immediately remember why I am not voting for her. At first, I just liked Barack because he was pushing for the post-partisan idea and cutting through the politics crap but I had no animosity towards Hillary. But after getting to see who she is, I can actually say I can't stand her political style. Case in point is the gas tax holiday. She sits down in this one interview and basically says that what failed us the last 7 years are "elitist" (her words) economists. That pissed me off incredibly. What failed us the last 7 years is the exact opposite, a president who chose cowboy politics vs. the opinions of everyone else around him. If she is going to bring that into the white house then I don't care who she is, she is not getting my vote. How exactly a candidate with a wealth of over 100 million dollars can call anyone elitist is beyond me. She outright lied about Bosnia and she voted for this war.

The argument of accepting what she is doing politically as acceptable because it would be acceptable if a man did it has one problem. The argument is so general that it discounts all the people who wouldn't accept this crap from a man. I will agree that there are some people who are holding her to a different standard. But that isn't most Obama supporters. We chose him because of his character and his lack of playing the games. Hillary Clinton is the most deep in these games of all the democratic candidates. She hid that at the beginning but as the weeks have gone forward it is becoming clearer and clearer.

P.S. As a Hopeful idealist, I have no doubt that many more women will come and much sooner than the author fears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unfortunately character counts Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com
Clinton has done nothing but campaign for Repubs since 2/5
Posted by: eridani on May 22, 2008 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time she opens her mouth, the frame is always "Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong.

She has explicitly endorsed McCain over Obama, and more than that the "fear" frame and the "elitist" frame are straight out of the Republican playbook. The "hardworking people, white people" comment really tore it.

How can someone who agrees with McCain defeat him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's because H. Clinton is Republican-lite Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» Okay, I concede...maybe you're right Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Okay, I concede...maybe you're right Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Okay, I concede...maybe you're right Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» Shapeshifters Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Shapeshifters Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Shapeshifters Posted by: Prairie Waif
» Republicans tried to warn you Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Holding a gun to my head?
Posted by: Christie on May 22, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation.” This statement falls into the category (for this 70 year old woman anyway) as the equivalent of “and I will shoot your little doggie, too)."The record" constitutes only one flawed candidate, Geraldine Ferarra, who was plucked out of relative political obscurity to shore up a faltering presidential candidate by appealing to women by having a female VP on the ticket. To back up my claim of “flawed”, I point to Geraldine's comment that Obama is lucky that he is Black as it gives him an advantage. Comments already posted reveal Hillary as another flawed candidate: vote on Iraq and reference to obliterating Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's a WOMAN?
Posted by: Chevaliere on May 22, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I don't think so... she may be a member of the female sex, but that's no woman - that's a crocodile in disguise. Hillary showed us what's she's made of when she did not immediately walk out the door when Slick Willie got caught with his damp cigar smoking. If she had any conscience, any concern for other women, she would have set an example and made mincemeat of the guy. Who would have needed an impeachment hearing if he had his just desserts from the person who ought to have delivered them?

Nope, sorry, no Hillary now or ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That She Didn't Freak Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: That She Didn't Freak Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Trivial Posted by: westomoon
» RE: That She Didn't Freak Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Hillary's a WOMAN? Posted by: Tombo
I vote for Leadership.
Posted by: mnascimento on May 22, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama began his campaign by trying to distance himself from being identified as a Black candidate. "We are one nation, one people." He emphasized the common difficulties, and suggested that we could, in common, benefit if we come together. I believe that.
Hillary Clinton has exploited racial, gender, and regional identity to gain advantage. Polarization, seems her natural style. It doesn't matter that she's a woman.
Observing this campaign, and remembering the nineties, makes it impossible for me to believe she is capable of uniting people around common causes, and leading this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on May 22, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hateful responses to your article (and you seem to be the only left columnist with this pov that the media is covering) is your answer. The mainstream and left media are now being forcd to mention misogany after a group of women PAID FOR a full page ad in The Times expressing dissatisfaction with the way women, 51% of the population, have been treated politically over decades and decades. Hillary Clinton had a real chance, but a woman is not wanted unless she is a perfect woman. And there are no perfect women. Being an excellent democratic two term Senator with the other qualifications you mentioned is not enough, as long as there is a way to keep a woman off the ticket. And the Democratic party has found a way-a love affair with a charismatic male Democrat who has far less experience than Senator Clinton but who possesses the sex organs this country feels a leader cannot be without. He now appears to be the winner. Women are expected to roll over, consider the good of the country, and step to the side once again. The Democrats continue to pursue this entrenched and unjust sexist policy at their peril. Thank you for your article. It is a breath of fresh air after the potificating calls on the left, right, and center for Hillary Clinton to put herself on the back burner so a man can remain in charge. We didn't finish what we started in the 1970's. Most men still do not "get it". Their lack of understanding crosses all political lines. Their cruel remarks about Hillary Clinton are not reflective of her but of their prejudice that is an integral part of this sexist society. After this election, it is time for another wave of feminism and this wave will eventually succeed. "Failure is impossible."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gemajabe Posted by: Moira61
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: MBFLA
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: hodge
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: Prairie Waif
» OUCH! Posted by: giles
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: Cityzen Jane
So how does a woman get within striking distance of the top . . .
Posted by: hagwind on May 22, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
without proving her loyalty to (overwhelmingly non-feminist) men over and over again?

Where is the independent feminist, or at least feminist-friendly, movement or coalition or community that can support such women when (as will almost certainly happen) they start angering or scaring the men in power?

It's worth pondering the reasons why in 2008 a black man is edging out a white woman as Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency. Plenty of the reasons have to do with personalities and personal and political histories, but some of the reasons are structural. No man of color could have gotten to where Barack Obama is without major support from powerful white men, but Obama has something else behind him: the community of people of color and others whose interests are at odds with those of the powerful white guys.

True, this "community" is diverse, amorphous, and not tightly organized, but it has been able to come across with votes and campaign contributions and other forms of grass-roots support for the Obama campaign. And it offers, at least in potential, a place for Obama to stand when he contradicts the powerful white guys.

Does Hillary Clinton have anything comparable? No, she doesn't. How likely is it that any woman who gets within striking distance of the top will have anything comparable? Not very. This white feminist counts herself in the Obama camp these days. Before that, I was for John Edwards. Supporting Clinton was never a serious option. It's not that I wouldn't love to see a woman president in my lifetime -- but I can't get enthusiastic about a woman whose loyalty is to the white male power structure, and with good reason: that's where her base is. There's good reason for that, too: there's no "women's community" comparable to the "black community" that can guard her back when she goes up against the big guys.

The fact that "women's community" is a euphemism for "lesbian community" provides an important clue. Women as a class are fragmented. Our primary loyalties are often to men, on the political as well as the personal level. Any woman whose primary loyalty is to other women is going to get called a lesbian. Count on it. How likely is it that any woman who is, or might be, or was ever accused of being, a lesbian is going to get within striking distance of the top? Not very.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What a load of c**p! Posted by: djnoll
» RE: What a load of c**p! Posted by: westomoon
hillary plays both sides against the middle
Posted by: cherwell on May 22, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
senator clinton is lamenting that her campaign has been the victim of media bias due to her gender.

does it occur to the bagger of carpets from the land of york, that to many people including me, an elitist liberal with elitist meaning striving to be the best, her campaign tactics have been less than palatable?

while i do not like to have any strong, passionate, opinionated woman referred to by using the "b" word, senator clinton has utilized every stereotypical ploy to remind people why they sometime disdain women.

she would be well advised to pull on her big girl pants, dust herself off, take a hard look in the mirror, and reflect while keeping in mind that she is the captain of her own destiny. if her campaign has faltered, the blame can only be placed at her feet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...over 400 paid bloggers? Posted by: Cooltruth
Have you ever been stuck in line behind a 3 year old throwing a tantrum...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on May 22, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...That's what is it about Hillary that has America in a tizzy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yeah, there's something about her alright...
Posted by: Moira61 on May 22, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I can't stand her. I never use to understand why people hated her so, now I get it. I've gone from not having an opinion about her to scrambling for the mute button whenever she comes on the tube - same thing I do when Dubya's chimp-like mug come on. She's run a sloppy, dirty, anything goes campaign - she's the epitome of the slick politician. She's a blatant liar, she's a corporate shill, she's arrogant as hell - I could go on and on. Thank God she's not the nominee. Now if she would just go away...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Something like that. Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Something like that. Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» Enough to hate? Posted by: giles
You got it right
Posted by: jegnj on May 22, 2008 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is sexism pure and simple. It is okay to trash her as too sentimental, too bitchy, too inexperienced, etc.
Nobama can't lose, no matter that he thinks there are 57 states in this county and demeans common people. He is black so you can never trash him.
Racism is politcally unacceptable, sexism unfortunately live on.
No we can't change.
Her supporters will probably just not vote in Nov. I have nobody I want to see in office when they force her out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You got it right Posted by: hodge
» RE: You got it right Posted by: Dr.JohnnySkeptic
» RE: You got it right Posted by: rnagisetty
» RE: You got it right Posted by: desidid
A generation to wait?
Posted by: Miki on May 22, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe it when I hear, as this article suggests, that if Hillary doesn't succeed, then it will be a generation until someone else will come along. The faulty line of reasoning is that the no one can come up with reasonable names for the short list.

The article missed the point by citing Hillary's camp's own hype as the yardstick...name recognition, electoral votes, and fund raising potential.

Most of America had never heard of the Senator from Illinois before his run, just as most of America had never heard the name Clinton (Bill, that is) before his run. Just because we don't know how, or have all the answers at the moment, doesn't mean that it won't happen again in my lifetime. It's defeatist and also tends to reinforce in a subtle way the failures of feminism to date.

Can't be Selebius because she's from a state with only 6 electoral votes...um, that didn't stop the former Governor of Arkansas (also 6 electoral votes), did it?

Obama has taken fund raising to new heights in this digital age, and set the bar very high. I am not buying into Hillary's abilities to do so, when she's funding her political death throes with her own checkbook.

I had great respect for Hillary when the campaign started although I was more interested in Kucinich and Gravel. H Clinton over the past year has eroded all of that by showing me that she lacks values...which is how I feel about most politicians in this day and age in America.

Does any of that mean that a woman never will attain the highest office in America in my lifetime? No, it doesn't. And just because we can't see it in the immediate future (4 years) doesn't mean it can't happen, it simply means that we don't know what will happen. D Walsh is quoted as saying that it isn't going to be easy. Well, I'd like to point out that running for president isn't likely easy for anyone...a woman will get misogyny, a person of color will get racism, a Catholic or Mormon will get crucified, the list of irrelevant labels (or attributes) and attacks on any of those are almost endless...it is currently the nature of the beast in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here is a thought... Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Maxine Waters! Posted by: westomoon
It's Hillary--not Us
Posted by: navy-vet on May 22, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm descended from a pioneer woman who, according to my dad's family history, treed and shot bears outside their log cabin. On my mom's side, I'm the niece of a suffragist who chained herself to the high school fence in 1908 until they gave in and let her take Wood Shop. Both were proud stories in my family. Like many women in the military, I joined the Navy in the 1950s with a feminist agenda, and I've been an ACTIVE feminist ever since. I can be aggressive enough to have chased off (and in two cases bashed) four sets of muggers. Don't question my credentials, Cocco!

I'm outraged by your short-sighted article.

First, on Hillary Clinton: I respected her at first but haven't trusted her since the mid-90s, after she proved herself completely incompetent (there's also a hint of collusion with Big Pharma) as manager and administrator of a very mild health care "reform." I felt then, and still feel, that the chance for health reform flubbed because of her poor judgment and management.

Now, running for the highest office in the land, she has been telling lies and showing other shabby qualities that are unbearable in a national leader. I was a Kucinich supporter and would still prefer him to either Clinton or Obama, but I gladly voted for Barack Obama in good conscience in my state primary. He has been showing far more honor and restraint than Clinton, and a welcome sense of humor--and he has the experience we need, not just as legislator and social advocate, but all those years of living in other countries.

Primarily I prefer him because I DO NOT WANT yet another incompetent president, male or female.

Then there's Cocco's implication that no other women are qualified to be president! That's ridiculous. How about Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters--plus all those women governors, including Kathleen Sebelius? If Shirley Golub upsets Nancy (the Wimp) Pelosi, as I hope she will, she will skyrocket to the top.

Come off it. There's a lot more than mere gonads to being a strong, competent woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, what a splendid post! Posted by: westomoon
» RE: It's Hillary--not Us Posted by: desidid
» Thank you - sanity is so refreshing! Posted by: Cityzen Jane
But...she's a... WOMAN!!!
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 22, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too many on the left are wrapped up in gender politics gone wild. Just 'cause Billary is female and running for pres doesn't make her the best person for the job.

I have actually had a conversation with a young Hillary supporter. I told her about all of Billary's corporate ties. This person finally ended the argument but using the words I have titled this post with.

Billary is a corporate shill who supports the Walmart business model and NAFTA and the Iraq war. Fully in the employ of the corporations that are the real power in America.

Remember that Thatcher was a woman also, and look what she did for Britain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Margaret Thatcher Posted by: Prairie Waif
S'more cheese with that whine, Ms Cocco?
Posted by: sausage on May 22, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, geeze, tarbrush me as a misogynist if you must, but here comes Marie Cocco with another whiney(and believe me whiners in 21st century America come in every gender,) "if not Hillary now, when will America elect a woman president?" screen.

I voted for Roxanne Conlin for Iowa governor in 1982. She might have won too if the "liberal" media hadn't focused on the fact that her real estate broker husband and she took full advantage of income tax loopholes she was campaigning against! The Republicans picked up on that gaff, began calling her "Taxanne" and the gentle Iowa farmers elected Reaganite Terry Branstad.

In '94 centerist Democrat Bonnie Campbell lost to the popular (outside of Des Moines and Polk County at least)incumbent Branstad. Again I voted for the Democrat.

So now comes Hillary Clinton. The word b*tch comes easily to mind. But, then again, it's vestigial remnant of gender-identity in my personal idiolect. I tend to call males who exhibit personality taits similar to Ms. Clinton's--condescension, political pandering, playing to the lowest common denominator and hypocracy--*ssholes or *ricks. For example in private speech Bush is always "that f*ckin' *sshole" or "that f*ckin' *rick" as is Dick Cheney and the late Ronald Reagan.

When Iowans trekked across frozen ground to church basements and schools to dance the Caucus dance, during that brief glimmer of Clintonian inevitability I said, "If she gets the nomination, I'm voting Nader. I might even quite the Democratic Party!"

Why? Because I hate woman?

No, because, just like her husband, Hillary Clinton will merely cover the naked iron fist of Republican/corporationist fascism with the velvet glove of Democratic/corporationism; the rule of the corportocray continues unabated--more deregulation, more privatization, more war--with a few crumbs thrown the way of the unwashed just to keep'em happy.

Oh, and I don't look for Ms Clinton to really do anything to help an Obama ticket. Look at the proforma support she gave anti-Iraq War Democrat Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut U.S. Senatorial against incumbent Zell Lieberman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cannot agree with this article more
Posted by: Q30 on May 22, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most sexist men, I've trained my monomaniacal patriarchal focus to fall upon on Hillary's vagina rather than such irrelevancies as her lying, her vote for invading Iraq, her coterie of pro-Establishment advisors, her dirty campaign, her corporate sponsors and many other similar objectionable things.

Pffft. Can we please cease with this whole "Hillary didn't win because of Teh Sexism" trope? Most women are too intelligent to fall for that line of emotionally-manipulative BS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something About Us!
Posted by: Gravitas on May 22, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please let me state first that I am not a Hillary fan. I did not vote for her because of the many things I disagreed with in her political history.

BUT, I also agree with the author that her personality and gender roles intersect in a way that makes her unpopular with many. Women are supposed to be pleasers and she is not! Unconsciously, that turns people off. I know that I am a fat, middle aged woman who has fallen from the middle class. Yet, deep down, I have never felt inferior to anyone in my entire life. That bugs the hell out of folks. People are put off by me because I give off no subtle cues I am willing to do a song and dance to make them like me. Take it or leave it. I think Hillary projects the same thing underneath all the political pandering!!! Yet, as a college instructor most of my students like me. Why? Because I step into a professional role at work where I am all about service. I please, I accommodate, I go above and beyond to bend over backwards. Everything we expect from a woman still!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: You're thinking too much Posted by: Dr.JohnnySkeptic
» Bang! Posted by: giles
I
Posted by: ilene on May 22, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see--is it us or is it Hillary?

She's a snake, she lies, she's a hawk and wants to bomb Iran. She couldn't come up with any kind of health care proposal when her husband was in office. She did all his dirty work. Regardless of the historical moment for the female gender, do I want her for president? HELL NO!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Employs Racism and Sexism To Win
Posted by: aamer923 on May 22, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not supporting Hillary. Not because she is a woman, but because she employs racism and sexism to win.
She encourages her racist supporters.
She brings out the tears when it is to her advantage.
Moreover, she claims that she fights for women, which is false. she fights to attain power, no matter how she gets it.
Enough people fall for that nonsense. Poor, uneducated, not very smart people. That is the bulk of her support.
Most of her recent talk is targeting these groups. she gives them what they want to hear.
Is she a victim of sexism? yes. But she also accepted the victimization to get ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why can't she just let this go?
Posted by: Dr.JohnnySkeptic on May 22, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why this has gone on this long. Hillary is a sore loser and doesn't deserve any special treatment, especially since she's the one who broke the rules that she had agreed to. She's tried to manipulate voters, delegates, and superdelegates throughout this whole process. Obama just needs 61 more delegates; Hillary needs 246. In real math (not in Hillary math), that means that Hillary has no chance to save herself. Obama is the better candidate. Period.

Hillary has shown what a undeniable liar she has been throughout this whole campaign. She's not well liked and that is indicative by her unpopularity. She's got a lot of nerve to think that, with 246 delegates needed, she can win. She represents her lies as truths and her following sheep are buying it because they are unwilling to see the truth... except for the ones who defect over to Obama's team. She's so pathetic, it's sad.

I am so sick of all this. I hope that the DNC doesn't count Michigan or Florida, so we can end this fiasco.

I read an article that was filled with irony. It was about how elderly Jews in Florida weren't feeling comfortable with voting for Obama because of claims that he is Muslim (which he's not) and because of his middle name (Hussein). It made me think of what the Jews went through during the Holocaust. They were tortured, maimed, and killed just because they were Jewish. (African Americans had been enslaved for a large span of time and have had to fight for their civil rights in the 1950s. Today, they still have to deal with racism and bigotry) For the Jews of Florida (or from anywhere else) to say such things when they had endured such suffering (as African Americans have) is absolutely appalling to me. I guess that their memories have faded from their minds.

Another pot calling the kettle black.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, Indeed There IS "Something About Hillary!"
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 22, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blind greed and misplaced ambition. The truth - truth being trumpeted to the high heavens - is that Hillary has no idea what to do about any of the nation's problems. Handed one nitwit nostrum after another by aides and those from whom she and they steal ideas, she recites like a psychotic parrot (maybe she banged her head while dodging imagined sniper fire in Kosovo?). Hillary has one redeeming quality: she reminds me of Shakespeare - A woman "that loves to hear herself talk, and will speak more in a minute than she will stand to in a month." Wait a minute - there may be another: her candidacy demonstrates perhaps better than anything else the deplorable state to which our politics have sunk. DAMN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, or Amy Goodman would get my vote
Posted by: Tombo on May 22, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry can't think of any female politicians that I respect off the top of my head so early in the morning. That said I think it's ludicrous the notion that we won't have another woman running for a generation. Any reasonable person understand s this has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Hillary's personality and her politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

T in Texas
Posted by: marie.vorrath on May 22, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I honestly don't know where all these hate posts are coming from. I'm a 70 year old woman too, but that is not why I am voting for Hillary.
Most of these post come straight out of the OLD republican book. They represent the right wing conspiracy that I saw in the 90's almost word for word.
Most of it is fiction that keeps being passed on and on and people swallow it and think its real.
I'm not voting for Hillary because I don't want Obama altho that certainly is true, she is our best and only bet to get us thru this horrible situation we are in because of people who thought George W Bush was the savior. LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT!!!!
I saw these kind of posts about Kerry and Gore because people were blinded by GWB and Rove.
People are now being blinded by Obama and WILL NOT look at the real OBAMA.
I admit he has a great gang of people behind him, Axelrod, who is pulling just as many stunts as Rove did.
We are in trouble again and for some reason people will not look for the truth. As in the GWB campaigns there are a huge number of parrots flying around repeating the same ole nonsense. This country will pay for it as we have with the Bush Administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» With all due respect... Posted by: djnoll
» I'm 72, older than you Posted by: navy-vet
let's pull up our socks and take a deep breath...
[