Re: Democrats Abroad! Join up!

#5
bjrutledge, here here! Just wondering how anyone can dislike a person so intensely. Hillary I am sure can defend herself on the attacks that she gets - politically but personally - no one can really fault this woman. She is a very good mother. How can you hate that? She has a political dream - yes - why not - she is well educated, a participating legal advise to the impeachment of Tricky Dicky. The woman comes with a well qualified 3lbs grey matter.
Her husband on the other matter, with all the freakin' things he has done - she stood by her man - she needs a First Gentleman after all when she becomes Madam President. A woman needs to accessorize after all.
Democrat or Republican - Hillary is a woman - and can the USA do worst than the president that it has right now? I always remember that when things need to get done around our house - usually I see a woman behind it ( this is a personal perspective).
She runs or she does not run - a woman president is in the works.
 
#7
"bjrutledge" said:
As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton has been a pretty good senator. I think the intense dislike of her masks sexism, conscious or not. Women are simply judged by different standards, and the idea of a female president makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

I am curious if any of the vehement Hillary-haters could suggest ANY female candidate that they would be willing to support.
Sexism may play a part, but it's not -- IMHO -- the major factor. Like Liebermann, it's difficult to distinguish her policies -- where she has any -- from the Republicans. For example, on Iraq, I've heard no pronouncements. As far as I know, her policy is to keep troops there. The problem is with the Democrats as a whole. As Nader said a few years ago, the Democratic Pary is gutless, spineless, and clueless. This applies with particular force to Kerry, Liebermann, and Clinton. If Liebermann were to change allegiance and join the Republicans, not only would no-one blink, no-one would even notice. The tacit message of the Democrats is, "Vote for us: we're ever the slightly lesser evil."
 
#8
"bjrutledge" said:
It's like the response to Jane Fonda. Why is she so passionately HATED for her political views? It is not because she stepped outside her defined role as a former/current actress (after all, a male actor even got to be President!). No male inspires the same vehemence from detractors as she does (not even Sean Penn after his trips abroad.
I agree with the tenor of the rest of your post, so I've snipped it out. With regard to "Hanoi Jane," it's a different kettle of fish: she did a bunch of silly things in Viet Nam, and called US soldiers "war criminals" and "liars" (when they claimed to have been tortured). She's the classic example of a "limousine liberal" (or "champagne socialist," as we say on the other side of the Atlantic). Sexism is there, of course, but these other complicating factors muddy the waters a bit.
With regard to Rice: I can't believe the Republicans will commit electoral suicide in that manner. A black is not going to get voted for by many of the Republican faithful, particularly in states like Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and so on. I'm not saying these people will vote Democrat: they just won't bother voting, or will vote for some third-party candidate (say someone like Pat Buchanan). The same argument for being a woman. On top of that, she has nothing to her credit: she's an errand girl, pure and simple.
Getting back to politics -- rather than gender -- I don't see anyone in either party who gets one's adrenaline going. Just party hacks. As Nader has said more than once, they're dialling for the same dollars. Both parties represent corporate America with equal fealty. Neither is willing to sort out the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Very few things separate them -- and they're mostly cosmetic.
A Democrat like Howard Dean got thwarted by the AFL-CIO, the Clinton network, and the mass media -- not that he was that radical anyway -- which serves to illustrate the powerful pressure to adhere to a very conventional line. This is merely symptomatic of a more prfound problem in the US: the absence of a genuine left-wing ideology to challenge the neoliberal orthodoxy that has held sway for the last thirty years (beginning with Carter).
 
#9
Since when has intellect been a necessary attribute of an American presidential candidate of the last 20 years? How does the attitude "stand by your man" relate to the business of running the country? Is having experienced motherhood a prerequisite of a female presidential candidate? And if yes, would you consider the "mothering" of a husband of equal value?
In the case of Hillary, I don't think gender-related issues are at the center of the controvercy. I think she lacks charisma and comes across as somewhat disingenuous and/or aloof. I have heard comments from San Franciscans such as...NY can re-elect her but ....president...I don't think so.
Shades of Cristina Fernandez de Kirshner?
 
#10
The mere mention of positive qualities, like motherhood, I was not ready for vermin laced responses. Obviously there is nothing admirable about motherhood in any context. Intelligence in its purist form can be positive and beneficial I am sure, mother or not. And remember not all REPUBLICANs are bad - Abraham Lincoln was a one. They just do not make republicans like they used to, is what I am saying.
What Hillary does in her own time in her own space with her man - can you say commitment - reflects on how focused she is in what she wants. Presently she was reelected in NY State. This tells a lot about her constituents knowledge of what she wants for that state. Reelect her they did!! And for now, that will suffice. Running for an elected position is different than winning it. Al Gore can attest to that - for sure.
GWB lacks charisma, he is aloof and all that - he is on his 2nd term. Tells you the qualifications that allows one to be president. So there is no saying really.
To Stand By One's Man - in her case, is a testament to what she will do to make HER dream come true. Do I need to spell it out, I am sure we all read both their tell sort of all books.
Condi as President - give me a break will you, she was a token Secretary of State. The most sound decision ever made by this Admin.; after that it was down hill from there. The woman's got brains yes, but what so far has she has shown for it? Not obviously the first SoS but the first African American - was anyone in their right senses object to that? Course not. Token, I tell you, token.