Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditUPDATED--Her husband is a former governor and president who presided over an economic boom. She is a popular center-left senator--a tough, disciplined and savvy politician who has led voters to think that they will be getting two leaders for the price of one. No, not Hillary Clinton. She is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina.
Kirchner cruised to victory Sunday, becoming the Western Hemisphere's second female president voted into office in the last two years, following Michelle Bachelet of Chile.
To critics who say Kirchner is simply riding the coattails of her husband, "she likes to point out that she has been a senator since 1995 and so was a national political figure when her husband was a mere provincial governor.
Senator Clinton, of course, is also confronted with the same charge -- one that unfairly makes short shrift of her own achievements and talent. But while her campaign is focused on her being "the most experienced and qualified" candidate for the job, while also providing the opportunity to "make history" with her election, it might be more accurate to say that -- in the context of world history -- Hillary's more of a transitional figure than a groundbreaking one. As historian Linda Colley recently wrote in the London Review of Books , "… If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes president of the United States in 2008, this will – in terms of women's place in American politics – be a significant political milestone. In global terms, and in historical terms, however, her elevation would be less innovatory. Of the women who have been elected heads of state since the Second World War, a substantial proportion have been closely related to men who have themselves previously held high political office…. Looked at in this comparative context, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an expression of old-style dynastic politics, and its persistence in the US, not simply a victory for postwar female liberation. If Hillary wins in 2008, and is granted a second term, people whose surname is Bush or Clinton will have presided over the Oval Office for 28 consecutive years."
In fact, Colley points out that from a global perspective, the state of affairs for women in politics in the United States is in some ways lagging. Only 16 percent of our members of Congress are women, compared to 45 percent in Sweden and 49 percent in Rwanda. 58 women have served as an elected prime minister or president, with only one coming from the Northern Hemisphere (Kim Campbell, prime minister of Canada for less than six months.)
So a win for Hillary in the US – like a win for Cristina in machismo Argentina – would represent a leap forward for women in both countries. But for the world as a whole it is a more measured achievement – no matter what Hillary's campaign would have you believe.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
God, some of you women love to eat your own!
It seems that you can take the girl out of high school, but you can't take the high school out of the girl.
Posted by JoeCHI at 10/28/2007 @ 09:33am
Interesting info which dulls some of the faux feminist patina from Hillary's present pastiche, Katrina. Thank you.
Posted by lewwelge at 10/28/2007 @ 10:12am
So...what are Hillarys acomplishments, again?,...and why is she quaslified to run the WH..based on her experience as ..what? I am afraid just beinbg a Senator, in the US anyway, doesn't seem to cut it, based on our history...
Or is it just because she is a woman and "the people"(who ever the people are) feel the time is right for a woman?...seems like a weak excuse to put another Clinton in charge of anything.
The article it self points out the Senate job and the fact both were married (Clinton sorta) to presidents...and not a peep about their experience at running anything...ah, but we "need" it now....
Sounds identical to the "we need govt health care now" arguement, while unable to find a model of govt run or controled program that would mirror a successfull example to use to support a govt run health care system...we still seem to be headed in that direction anyway because we "need it now"...
Ditto on a Hillary presidency...and also nothing here on the lovely lady in Argentina.. She is a hotty down there and we have...well, HRC...yikes.
Posted by JoMa at 10/28/2007 @ 10:42am
Posted by JOECHI 10/28/2007 @ 09:33am |
kudos to kvh for not jumping on the 50 foot queenie bandwagon. framing her problems with hrc as feminine catfighting is insulting to kvh and misguided.
but it was kinda funny...if wrongheaded.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2007 @ 11:17am
Given the cover article on "Hillary's Hedge Funds," and its sobering, perhaps even scathing, look at the so-called Clinton money machine, I'm surprised at KVH's framing of "the Mrs." Clinton ("...one that unfairly makes short shrift of her own achievements and talent. But while her campaign is focused on her being "the most experienced and qualified" candidate for the job...")
Those of us who have long ago wiped the "Gee Whiz!" from our eyes see the former First Lady in a much different -- and not so flattering -- light. We don't see her time spent in the White House as superior qualification to run the country. Okay, she may know where the Oval Office is in the building, but I think that qualifies her more as "tour guide" and less as "Commander-in-Chief."
And in the scope of American politics, it will not be Hillary with her hands on the wheel, but Bill's. So the Clintons have found the loophole which would allow him to enjoy another term as President without the necessity of amending the amendment to the constitution. About as groundbreaking as Eva Peron.
Posted by jade7243 at 10/28/2007 @ 11:53am
So does Clinton now represent the great compromise? And at what cost--our willful ignorance for a perpetual war in trade of a hope that our deteriorating middle class economic condition will reverse?
I see that as a fleeting insecure and unsubstantial error in judgment. Hillary is counting on our lower of instincts to prevail a bit too long. At some point we move on to higher priorities and consciousness. And then again I may be just optimistic.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2007 @ 12:30pm
In fact, Colley points out that from a global perspective, the state of affairs for women in politics in the United States is in some ways lagging. Only 16 percent of our members of Congress are women, compared to 45 percent in Sweden and 49 percent in Rwanda.
Ok but she could have used a better example than Rwanda which is a third world country that was recently engulfed in civil war. The United States is one of the most influential countries on the planet.
Otherwise though I really have no problem with HRC. Obama's cool to but whatever. I don't think it matters too much. If it had to be a Republican maybe I could see Mitt Romney but I don't know too much about him.
I don't see Hillary doing any major damage.. unlike Bush and what he's done.
Posted by Waltz at 10/28/2007 @ 12:41pm
I do hope she would do something different with Iraq. Get the international community involved there.
Posted by Waltz at 10/28/2007 @ 12:42pm
Salaam, shalom, and the Christian sabath's warranted and even excess greetings be unto you all Nation bloggers.
Posted by lewwelge at 10/28/2007 @ 1:07pm
Cristina Kirchner will actually become the SECOND female Argentine president if elected. Isabel Peron (not to be confused with Evita Peron who was vice-president) was the first Argentine female president. She presided from June 1974 to March 1976.
Posted by docfreder at 10/28/2007 @ 1:59pm
Katrina's comments circle around how significant would the election of HRC be in terms of gender equality and rights in the US vs the merits of the female candidate as having a prior male president backup as opposed to a woman "making it by herself."
I think the arguments in both sides are strong. I will put it this way, if we see it in gender terms I don't think that women have had such high opportunity to have a president of their gender. To be honest, I don't think they will have such high opportunity in the near, maybe middle term (say perhaps next two elections). On the other side, yes it is true that Bill tarnishes a little bit this possible success of H because he has invested in it so much of his own political capital, so it will seem as if the possible triumph is "half plus one" his own. Putting it in another way, if she was just a New York senator, not spouse to BC, honestly I don't think she would ever even attempted the quest.
I still think thar HRC's possible triumph would be women's triumph and that will be a step ahead, but still I believe that many women -as well as men- will still think that this was a triumph not strictly based on the candidate's merits but on the leverage provided by Bill.
I will support HRC against any Rep., but she is not by any means my favorite in the Dem camp. The decision has nothing to do with gender but with her being just so tied to the establishment and to the political center that tries to satisfy both sides of the aisle but finally accomplishes nothing of the true changes needed in this society. And rhe changes needed are a freer, just and more egalitarian society where individuals may have plenty opportunities to realize their full potential.
Posted by Frank42 at 10/28/2007 @ 2:02pm
Great, let's have a female president - as long as it isn't Hillary. How about one of the many female politicians who actually have some principles, like Barbara Boxer or Maxine Waters, instead of 'Bush Lite'.
Posted by samcrossett at 10/28/2007 @ 2:09pm
I can see the dilemma for feminists and Ms vanden Heuvel...
on the one hand a female US President is a major boon to "the Movement"...
on the other, it's Her Nibs, who the Left doesn't trust, the Right doesn't trust, and who may plot the Centrist course of Her Husband to assure a 2nd term and that might involve not pushing "universal day care" or even fudging on things like Plan B funding, to "triangulate".
It's a poser, alright. Support her and get linked to her likely centrist policies....oppose her and crush the first real shot at a female in the Oval Office....split the diff, and dull the "win" and "significance".
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2007 @ 4:17pm
Not sure why the standard should be differfent for HRC than it was for John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Franklin Roosevelt, GHW Bush and Dubya, not to mention all of those who had other highly placed political relatives. (Chaffees? Dodds?) "If Charles Robb were REALLY a democratic success, he could have been elected without being LBJ's son-in-law." Not too different from what this article says about HRC. If repeating the world "dynasty" thousands of times would keep Jeb Bush and his progeny out of the nation's political life, great. But last I heard Poppy was on TV still pushing Jebbie's claim to his White House birthright. I guess the "dynasty" meme only applies to self-made fatherless Arkansans, not rich Easterners named Prescott and Herbert Walker.
Posted by RLawrence at 10/28/2007 @ 6:28pm
Powerful arguments and well stated, Zero. Vote Kucinich!!
Posted by lewwelge at 10/28/2007 @ 7:14pm
Posted by ZERO 10/28/2007 @ 1:52pm
Further hints that ZERO is probably a LaRoucher. Again, they are vehement anti-feminists, and every time a feminist issue of any kind comes up...he's got something negative to say about them.
Smells like Lyndon spirit!
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2007 @ 8:18pm
She was a corporate lawyer or a lawyer at least. Exactly. So how can people claim she has no credentials? Also I have noticed a lot of sexist comments from people denouncing her. Leave her womanhood and your sexist remarks out of this then if you are claiming she is incompetent based on the quality of her character. As for voting for intervention in Iraq, you got her on that one. I would like to see Kucinich's credentials apart from the fact that he is about as likely to win as Nader. Plus his wife looks way too young for him.
Posted by Waltz at 10/28/2007 @ 8:29pm
I'm worried about HRC's judgement. I don't think it's been proven to be very sound. She makes a lot of mistakes and appears impressionable. Kyle-Lieberman and 'mission accomplished' to name two of them.
I hope we elect a smart woman in the future. Now is not the time to elect someone like Hillary.
Posted by nameme at 10/28/2007 @ 11:06pm
Posted by ZERO 10/28/2007 @ 10:16pm
que tengas buen viaje.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2007 @ 11:46pm
Apologies, only slightly off topic:
IPSOS POLL: If Gore Runs, 44% Of Dems Would Vote for Him.
"If Al Gore announced his candidacy for President today, how much would this impact your decision?"
---DEMOCRATS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 44%
(In a primary with 4-top tier candidates, Gore would win if he captured 44%)
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 54%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 3%
---INDEPENDENTS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 33%
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 29%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 38%
---REPUBLICANS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 5%
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 4%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 91%
http://tinyurl.com/2wkl7n
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 12:34am
I just don't know what to say about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Maybe I'm just afraid of my own desire... to have a wild and passionate 'transitional' relationship with a mature and successful worldly woman... a power broker... a real mover and shaker...
So, do I just want to get back at Bill for besmirching the Office of the Presidency, by showering his long suffering and faithful wife with abject power and a dominatrix potential that is 'WAY' off the charts?
I gotta tell ya... I'm a huffin and a puffin just thinking about it...;^)
However...
The next morning, there mght be a few regrets... and after carefully sliding my arm out from under her imperiously sleeping smile and her studded leather bandery at the crack of dawn... I can sense even now my brooding walk amoungst the morning mist of a raging post coital depression... through a not quite thriving metropolis at the crack of dawn...
Quietly sipping a hot black americano (some kind of Freudian reference to Obama, I'm quite sure...) from the window seat of a barely open Starbucks I could find myself wondering (as if by some force... some essence much stronger than my self)... I wonder what Bill is doing right now?
But soon after this 'revelation' might have more or less taken it's course in my guilt colored introspections... Ohhhh! Wait a minute here... I get it!
We just want to feel human again. Nevermind the perfect fantasy soul-mate permanence of electing the "anti-Bush"... savagely and suddenly turning back all the policies of the 'W' era... and scaring the 'status quo' half out of their 'Big Daddy Warbucks' wits... Nah... why bother with all that when we can just calmly... sweetly... and Oh!.. SO!... Forcefully... Learn to feel human again. After that, everything will slowly... inevitably... just fall back into place, right?
And so, let our 'fling' be a healing kind of thing...
Hmmmm... Why am I thinking about Bill again?
Maybe this isn't such a good Idea after all...;^)
ttr
Posted by ttr at 10/29/2007 @ 12:54am
I'm gonna read ttr's post in a second... I would vote for Al Gore. He should have won the first time. And thousands of lives and millions of dollars would have been spared. And the nut in the White House would never have been cracked!
Posted by Waltz at 10/29/2007 @ 02:10am
Posted by TTR 10/29/2007 @ 12:54am
Republicans are the ones in denial about their sensual feelings, not us.
Posted by Waltz at 10/29/2007 @ 02:16am
I don't want to conserve! I want to waste energy promoting renewable sources.. of.. energy!
Posted by Waltz at 10/29/2007 @ 02:28am
I don't want to conserve! I want to waste energy promoting renewable sources of energy!
Posted by Waltz at 10/29/2007 @ 02:29am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 12:34am
HSUB math?....good for Gore
Normal math?...no so much.
Total %tiles: Dems/Indies/Repubs for Gore: 82
Total %tiles: Dems/Indies/Repubs for another Democrat: 87
And of course in addition to addition, TIME isn't on his side. He's predicted TOMORROW as the day Gore will announce. John Nichols here at "The Nation" has pointed out that Friday (Nov 2nd) is the last day to register for the New Hampshire primary.
But, no matter, for the next WEEK, HSUB will be pointing out all his "evidence"...and then week after, he begins to start talking about Gore's "secret write-in campaign".
He's losing it.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 09:06am
Total %tiles: Dems/Indies/Repubs for Gore: 82
Total %tiles: Dems/Indies/Repubs for another Democrat: 87
(That's a combined 'all' other dem candidates in a primary. One does not vote for all other candidates one only votes for one other candidate)
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 09:06am
'Frita math' is just totally wrong/illogical ala according to 'Frita math', if Clinton doesn't beat all other dems in a primary by at least 51% --- 'ALL' THE OTHER DEMS WIN!?!?!? OR IF NONE OF THE DEMS CANDIDATES GET 51%-- THEY ALL WIN!!!!
Frita can't add, is really that dumd or she doesn't debate honestly-- she disengenuously baits.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 09:27am
er, dumb
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 09:28am
He's losing it.
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 09:06am
If I'm losing it, there's still hope.
Frita lost it a long while back.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 09:31am
I continue to be amazed at the many ways that "feminists" like Heuvel will find to tear down other women. Perhaps one day, Heuvel will articulate a blueprint for perfect governance (or feminism). Or maybe, she will just drown in her own bile before.
Posted by pldayle at 10/29/2007 @ 10:04am
...he begins to start talking about Gore's "secret write-in campaign".
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 09:06am
It's not 'Gore's secret campaign' and neither is it a 'secret'-- it's what DFA is promoting to do with their poll.
Perhaps Frita really is that dumb? Naw, just a disengenuous baiter that needs to be exposed continuously.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 10:07am
HSUB....what time TOMORROW is Gore's announcment speech?
and where?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 11:07am
BTW...for the education of others-
THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
"If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong."-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 11:10am
there is no principle that mrs. clinton won't sacrifice to get elected, including the kyle-lieberman amendment. she also pounced all over obama for wanting to talk to iran, and then months later, suggested the same thing herself. she is a hypocrite; she is dangerous.
like andrew sullivan said the other night: "she's cheney in a pant suit"
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:32pm
and, finally, for KVH and other idiot "feminists" of her generation
i would kindly ask zero not to insult the editor of the nation, and other hard-working women who selflessly and tirelessly made life better for all women over the last 200 years.
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:33pm
why are american "feminists" of KVH's generation so idiotic
does this statement imply that all feminists of our generation are on the same ideological page?
why are all american "masculinists" of zero's generation so puerile?
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:34pm
my wife, an argentine, is in a good mood tonight - my inlaws voted for kirschner, and it looks good to go -
i applaud kirschner, but can zero identify the main pillars of the kirschner-ite platform? does he have any idea what he's talking about? or, is it because his "wife" supports her, and that she's a "woman," and "feminist"?
just what sort of principles does the new head of the argentinian state hold? and how long will said principles last, before she is corrupted like the best of them?
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/29/2007 @ 12:34pm
DARLA, it's like I said, ZERO is likely a Lyndon LaRouche follower....they take an askanced view of both global warming AND feminism.
When those topics come up, ZERO (if he comments) posts something negative or off-topic...which seems to be a matter of not exposing his LaRouchian ideas and keeping his "pure progressive" bona fides on other threads.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 12:37pm
and i don't really see ms. van den heuvel making a direct endorsement of clinton, just pointing out the facts of a clinton presidency in the larger context of women leaders worldwide.
btw mask, true true on zero. he is fanatically off point here, i don't even think he read the article.
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:45pm
besides, comparing clinton to kirschner is just hysterically idiotic. argentina has reviled the united states for decades, and will likely vote candidates who take a tough stand on american imperialism forever. but in this country, taking a tough stand against our own imperialism is not likely to gain enough votes to win (see kucinich).....
obama is straddling clinton and kucinich.
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:47pm
while i don't want clinton to take the presidency, if it comes down to romney or clinton, i'll definitely take clinton.
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 12:48pm
HSUB....what time TOMORROW is Gore's announcment speech?
and where?
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 11:07am | ignore this person
BTW...for the education of others-
THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
"If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong."-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 11:10am
Er Frita, since your brain is as fried as your baited questions, if I give you the hour, minute, second-- would I be looked down upon for messing with an insane person or is it already understood you're slightly off the sanity meter per even posing the question... and then answering it yourself....
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 12:55pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 12:55pm
Hmmm...let's see, asked two simple questions based on what YOU said...
and you call them "baited"?!?!??
How so, HSUB?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 1:24pm
Looks like KVH has realized that "the fix is in": HRC is going to be the next Democratic nominee, and thus the next president, and the Nation has to start getting the rank-and-filers to fall into line. As if coronating another Clinton--a name synonymous with opportunism, cynicism, and right-wing politics--constitutes any kind of progress. Such is liberalism: the "art" of the inevitable.
Posted by rvs-convener at 10/29/2007 @ 1:27pm
Yep. Not only did she get the ride on Bill's coat-tails, she adopts the formula that in order to win she must adopt the most offensive macho swagger. All Clinton does is reinforce the good old boy modus operandi, and there are many men, for that matter that present more supportive role for women's achivement than H Clinton that was willing to smear other women to protect her sleazy husband.
Posted by Lil at 10/29/2007 @ 1:36pm
While the road to popularity is similar, between the two female senators, the Argentinian lady is also against the IMF and acutely conscious of the recent history of military dictatorship there.
If I were in Argentina, I would vote for the candidate of my conscience, knowing that the election was already resolved in advance. Here in America, after voting Green-Nader in 2000, I am well aware that my vote was tragic.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 1:55pm
Looks like KVH has realized that "the fix is in": HRC is going to be the next Democratic nominee, and thus the next president, and the Nation has to start getting the rank-and-filers to fall into line
there's simply NO endorsement in this article! are you people even literate?
Posted by darladoon at 10/29/2007 @ 2:15pm
"...after voting Green-Nader in 2000, I am well aware that my vote was tragic."---Posted by JIM WILLINGHAM 10/29/2007 @ 1:55pm
Ooops, JIM. Big mistake. The "true Blue" Naderites don't cotton to anybody claiming that their beloved Ralph (or themselves) were one of the causes of Gore's defeat!
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 2:18pm
HSUB....what time TOMORROW is Gore's announcment speech?
and where?
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 11:07am | ignore this person
BTW...for the education of others-
THE UNDER-RATED BILL RICHARDSON...Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
"If Al doesn't announce by the 30th of this month then I'm wrong."-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/22/2007 @ 12:53am
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 11:10am
Er Frita, since your brain is as fried as your baited questions, if I give you the hour, minute, second-- would I be looked down upon for messing with an insane person or is it already understood you're slightly off the sanity meter per even posing the question... and then answering it yourself....
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 12:55pm
Hmmm...let's see, asked two simple questions based on what YOU said...
and you call them "baited"?!?!??
How so, HSUB?
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 1:24pm
Then you're claiming not to bait, but rather that you are simply innocently too dumb to recognize your two simple questions are nonsense. Or perhaps you're not admitting to not be baiting, but rather that you're too stupid to recognize your own ability; ergo claiming to be an idiot savant.
Which is it Frita?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 2:34pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 2:34pm
No, just curious as to YOUR definition of "baited question", which involves taking what YOU SAY, and asking the logical questions based on the fact that the event you predicted would occur in the next 33 hours (giving you until Midnight tomorrow for Gore's announcment...see, I'm trying to be generous!)?
Or maybe another logical question would be, since...
"Party Game"---Posted by Laura Flanders at 10/09/2007 @ 4:48pm
So if I'm wrong, no problem, I'll say so.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2007 @ 02:27am
WHEN (if Gore does NOT announce tomorrow) can we expect your post admitting error? 12:01am 10/31/07???
ever?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 3:01pm
Mask, I contend that my vote for Nader was tragic. I am well aware that the "true-blue" Greens deny that the Democratic to Green crossover votes were signigicant. And as fart a s "don't cotton" goes, I heard that years before from my grandfather, who told me that if I didn't "cotton" to their ways, I was not welcome there. I am an antiwar veteran. Florida lost the nation to Bush Jr by about 1000 votes. The actual debate about the effect of crossover Dems to Nader must include that narrow margin, plus an estimate of the numbers of Democratic votes wasted by "hanging chads" and others who were effectively blocked from casting votes, like poor blacks in northers Florida. The "true-blue" Greens will always contend that the majority of votes cast for Nader were new voters who would have not voted for any Democratic candidate. I am well aware of the totality of the arguments. Nevertheless, you accuuse me of making a "big mistake" in my assessment. We had 25,000 votes in Tampa Bay alone that went for nader, and 75,000 votes statewide in Florida. Hard for me to swallow the facile arguments of "true-blue" Greens that we crossover voters handed the election to the moron-in cheif. It's absurd. But thanks fer yer feedback, matey.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 3:13pm
oopis I got to proofread my notes, all farts aside. no pun intended.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by JIM WILLINGHAM 10/29/2007 @ 3:13pm
Quibble, but the figure I have is 93,000 Florida votes for Nader in 2000. And Gore losing by it by 550. (yes, yes, it was rigged, Naderites and others, if you want...not the point)
That means that if ONLY ONE PERCENT of the Naderites in FL had decided it "wasn't worth the risk" or more contemporarily "that Bush and Gore were NOT 'just the same'"....Gore would have won it by over 300 votes.
But...you trying telling that to the die-hard Ralphies and they'll tear you a new one with "Gore lost it, not Ralph" and "He should have moved closer to Nader, not force Nader to get out"....all of which ignore the fact that every vote Gore would have picked up on a move to the Left, he would have lost among conservative Democrats.
Mostly, few are willing to accept the idea that THEY (and Nader) are responsible for ATLEAST the ease with which Bush was "selected".
Glad to see you are, but you're a rareity.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 3:32pm
i like latin america...but politically emulating it? *sigh*
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/29/2007 @ 4:16pm
I've stated before, and will again, that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, that will mark a crisis point for me in this election campaign. Whatever occurs after that, it will certainly not be an instantaneous award of my vote to the redoubtable Mrs. Clinton. What, then? Nader? Oh my!
I'm not sure how many like me there will be. We'll be the completely disillusioned ones, unable and unwilling to play any more. I think there will be enough like me to be noticed. I'm not sure if our point will be worth making, or not making.
Hillary would have to make me trust her. Good luck with that!
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/29/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 10/29/2007 @ 4:28pm
DON, just the political reality and a question--
If Hillary loses to Giuliani,Romney,whatever, in what would seem to be the easiest ride to the White House the Dems have ever seen after a disasterous Bush Presidency and the GOP promising "more of the same" (apparently not even TRYING to break with Bush)...
what will the "conventional wisdom" be? First of course "A woman can't win"...then "Even SHE was too far to the Left, we need to move even MORE to the Right in the Democratic Party".
Now...what if she wins? Isn't it more likely that if "threatened by her Left", Hillary goes more "progressive" than if Giuliani is President and threatened...not by Democrats...but by the Religious Right, that he goes more to the Right?
So, what's the better scenario? "President Hillary" getting pressured by the Left, and trying to placate them? Or "President Mitt" getting pressured by the Right (and easily ignoring a divided Democratic opposition), and trying to placate them?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 4:35pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 2:34pm
No, just curious as to YOUR definition of "baited question",
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 3:01pm
Frita since you're acknowledging ignorance of the standard definition as it's the same:
"On the Internet, baiting is similar to trolling, in that baiters, like trolls, try to elicit a response from other users. The difference is that the response is supposed to be embarrassing to the user in question, and humorous to others. Baiters frequently concentrate on groups they do not like, such as pedophiles, fraudsters (often 419 fraudsters), religious fundamentalists, or homosexuals. What the baiter says does not need to make sense, it is often simply written to baffle the bait, and to produce an interesting result. In that respect, baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate.
....
On Internet forums, baiting is sometimes used in attempts to empty forums or reduce a forum's usage. This type of baiting is usually done to make the atmosphere of a forum appear unpleasant or to make forum owners, moderators and long-time users look foolish. A person using this kind of baiting may post comments to elicit rude responses from prominent members of a forum, thus making the responding member or members appear as trolls or flamers to bystanders. As a result, forum users in general may become disgusted and leave the forum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiting_%28Internet%29
Ok, that being the standard meaning of 'baiting' by which I also understand it to be and that I stated you were doing, one might ask:
So how do your two simple questions become nonsense and meet the definition of baiting, Frita?
Easily, for example, when betting on a horse to win a race-- it becomes nonsense to then ask the better what the exact time of day or the position of the sun will be when the horse crosses the finnish line or in what exact part of the track or position of the horses legs they will be in, left or right forward, when crossing the finnish line. When all understand that it's enough that the bet is whether horse either wins the race or doesn't. Thus your two simple questions are nonsense to baffle and elicit either embarrassment or a negative response. Baiting.
And since you live here on the blog practically 24/7, the only question then is, are you being pay enough and by who?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 4:47pm
er, paid
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 4:49pm
The overall premise of this post is useful and interesting. As long as mainstream American feminists remain blind to their mediocre status on the global stage, we'll be stuck celebrating the dubious victories of alpha-capitalist females like Hillary.
Unfortunately, the use of the term "machismo" at the end of the post is stilted and incorrect. If the writer means to define Argentina as a country rife with heavy-handed sexism, call it "macho" Argentina. "Machismo" means sexism that favors males (i.e. machos), making your last sentence read: "So a win for Hillary in the US – like a win for Cristina in SEXISM Argentina – would represent a leap forward for women in both countries."
Please, for the sake of all lefty Latinos and sympathisers, get this one right. The use of terms like "machismo" as code for insight into the Latin American condition and psyche only worksif you get the words right.
Posted by mgerace at 10/29/2007 @ 5:12pm
The overall premise of this post is useful and interesting. As long as mainstream American feminists remain blind to their mediocre status on the global stage, we'll be stuck celebrating the dubious victories of alpha-capitalist females like Hillary.
Unfortunately, the use of the term "machismo" at the end of the post is stilted and incorrect. If the writer means to define Argentina as a country rife with heavy-handed sexism, call it "macho" Argentina. "Machismo" means sexism that favors males (i.e., "machos"), making your last sentence read: "So a win for Hillary in the US – like a win for Cristina in SEXISM Argentina – would represent a leap forward for women in both countries."
Please, for the sake of all lefty Latinos and sympathisers, correct this. The use of terms like "machismo" as code for insight into the Latin American condition and psyche only works if you get the words right.
Posted by mgerace at 10/29/2007 @ 5:34pm
>with only one coming from the Northern Hemisphere (Kim Campbell, prime minister of Canada for less than six months.)
Kim Campbell was never elected. She was picked by the party, similar to Golda Meir
Posted by rweiss2 at 10/29/2007 @ 5:57pm
Again I affirm that my vote for Nader was tragic, not because of Ralph and Winona LaDuke, but because of George Bush and the Neo-cons. Gore had Leiberman on his ticket and I was bored with Mr. Clinton, but was, unfortunately uneducated about the team of buddies that were poised to confirm their agenda with Dubya.
In Argentina, they do not have the same set of choices, so it is easier to confirm one's conscience by a national vote. Here, in the land of the free and the brave, we are confronted with the unfortunate choice of militarist church-goers, or moderate church-goers who will listen to productive complaints and offer the hope of a creative rebound.
We are better educated now. For all the identification that I have with Green Party values, I can not allow myself to submit to another pied piping fantasy.
I have no local representation in congress or the senate. But I was forced to vote for Democrat Bill Nelson against Kathryn Harris, much to my distaste. He is a bunker-busting military-industrial con-man, but the Democrats need a majority to control the proceedings. Someday a better candidate will come along, but heavens, what if we had a Green party candidate for the senate, and as a result, Kathryn Harris had gotten elected?
I am not offended by Argentine machismo as a term. Argentine sexism is not as poetic or lyrical.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 6:19pm
The author of this article inaccurately states that the Argentine president is just the second female president of the Western Hemisphere when in fact she happens to be the fourth.
The first female head of state in the Western Hemisphere happens to be Violeta Chamorro who was elected President of Nicaragua a whopping 17 years ago.
Posted by Punisher69 at 10/29/2007 @ 6:33pm
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 4:35pm
The political realities reveal deep, systemic flaws. Patience is often a virtue, but each of us brings a perspective unique to our personal experience. If I'm serious about my personal "nuclear option", it may be irrelevant to anyone else. But, as an exercise, what if this is your last election? How would that affect your views regarding this quadrennial gala?
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/29/2007 @ 8:27pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 4:47pm
Ohhhh...no, I wasn't "baiting" you, HSUB.
I was making fun of you!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 9:06pm
But, as an exercise, what if this is your last election? How would that affect your views regarding this quadrennial gala?----Posted by DONALD WEED 10/29/2007 @ 8:27pm
Depends, DON. You mean terminal illness...leaving the country...or just "giving up"? If the first, probably take the time. If leaving the country, obviously would find the time....unless it was BOTH leaving the country AND giving up on it to "move to France/Canada/whatever as Alec Baldwin always threatens".
Point is...you vote 3rd party, when you'd normally vote "left"...it opens up a vote for the Repubs. En masse, it gives them the White House and AS WE SAW WITH 2000, the "lesser of two evils" (Gore) would be a HELLUVA lot better than the "greater" one....right?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 9:10pm
If the option is #1 (terminal illness), then the mind, as they say, is focused, and all options are more likely to be on the table. Now, I'm just fine (as far as any of you know :)), but what incentive would I have voting for Hillary if I'm not? Is it simply perverse to avoid the choice that merely slows the downward spiral?
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/29/2007 @ 9:37pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 10/29/2007 @ 9:37pm
Again, DON...doesn't this all sound a BIT familiar to you? (If you're over 25 years old and were paying attention).
Don't you remember Nader telling how there was "little difference" between Gore and Bush. How if you elected either one, things wouldn't be so great and would probably get a lot worse? "Lesser of two evils is still evil", etc.?
Simple question...how many of those Naderites THEN, if they could go back in time to 2000...would vote for Ralph and say "There won't be any difference if it's Gore or Bush...I'm sticking to my principles!"?
If the number is more than 0, then that number is the number INSANELY egotists out there in the "pure progressives".
And if one of them looks you in the eye and tells you "Yep, even with Gore...we'd get a USA Patriot Act, warrentless wiretaps, no habeus corpus, torture, and an invasion/occupation of Iraq that has wasted 3800+ American lives, untold Iraqi lives, and HALF A TRILLION dollars"...
then get a strait-jacket and a good dose of Thorazine for them.
Now, do you REALLY want to risk that again...with Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 9:43pm
First to Mgerface, I am a "machissmo" male nurse, certainly anti-sexist, very supportive to and compatable with the women I work with.(?) I was referring to the use of the word only and not the spirit of dominant machissmo. But I appreciate your point. I simply think that the word was used to flow more easily, and that the presence of a femine authority runs counter to Argentine machissmo.
Regarding the discussion of third party candidates, I have a cyber-friend who lives in Rosario, Argentina. She voted for Fernando Pino Solanas [pinosolanas.com] (Partido Socialista Auténtico): 1,60% (292.321votes). He is a visionary and certainly an authentic voice for those who feel an apathy toward Argentinian politics.
She told me that "He was one of the most clear voices I remember agaist Menem´s policies. I liked very much some of his documentary films, his fiction-films more or less... K´s couple weren´t a clear voice in Menem times... extreme loyalty to whatever is one of the big problems of peronism and also their ticket to won. Nevertheless I agree with the revisionist effort of K´s government in relation with the last dictadura, human rights (in theory...), international politics (somehow...). I prefer K´s version of peronismo to others already known and suffered already (cfr old Juan Perón, López Rega, Isabel, Menem, Duhalde, Sáa, etc...only to name big fishes with national relevance...). "
also agreed that "If I were you, I think I would vote the democrats also. But with not big hopes and being alert."
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 9:44pm
ps mask in spanish the word is "mascara" just thought ya might wanna know.
i am a number of one, and i know another one, plus have voiced my opinion about my vote for nader in 2000 over the radio local community show, man, how many young folks have died because bush took us into Iraq. Like I said, am an anti-war Vietnam vet, I choose my battles, would prefer an expanded ability to use diplomacy. I wrote to the mother of an ex-Marine who committed suicide, tragic, he was trying to study zen, sufferred too much. War sucks, especially for the civilians. Incomparable sufferring and grief pervade the Middle-east, anguish, grief, despair, seething anger.
I can not believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. I do believe that he would have forged ahead with a true international coalition and pursued the Taliban and Al-Qaida, but even better, would have entreatied to discover what angered the Islamist militants. Trouble is, he was not an effective campaigner.
Hillary is a half-step in a forward direction. She is a high-speed dive recovery. The primaries are an opportunity to express yourself, but tragic leadership is lurking in the wings, reactionary voices waiting to be annointed with incomparable power.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/29/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 9:43pm
I'm 60, as of Oct. 18th. I was around. There were differences between Gore and Bush, but at that time, they were both Establishment candidates. Hillary is a seriously Establishment candidate in many ways, and in my opinion she would continue to support initiatives that have negative consequences for the world, albeit with a somewhat more cosmetically appealing face. If Rudy or Mitt were actually to become President in 2008, following straight on the heels of the Bush Era, that would be a fascinating instance of Be Careful What You Wish For, America. I wonder how great a favor we'd really be doing for ourselves with Hillary, all things considered.
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-- Robert Frost
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/29/2007 @ 10:38pm
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 9:43pm
For those of you who isn't getting what Mask is saying, let me spell it out for you: P-R-A-G-M-A-T-I-S-M.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be flip, but the state we find ourselves in today Naderites, doesn't allow us to hold fast to our 'principles' just for their sake. Yeah, Hillary isn't FDR in a pantsuit, but she isn't one of those human nightmares the repukes are threatening us with either.
Damn, I wish it was the '90s again...
Posted by lefthookjab at 10/30/2007 @ 12:07am
Oops, that should've read, "who aren't getting what Mask is saying", :^O
Me an' english is bestus friends...really!
Posted by lefthookjab at 10/30/2007 @ 12:16am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/29/2007 @ 4:47pm
Ohhhh...no, I wasn't "baiting" you, HSUB.
I was making fun of you!
heheh
Posted by MASK 10/29/2007 @ 9:06pm
Wrong. Baiting. You're also a liar.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/30/2007 @ 02:23am
"Imagine a president who leads the world in the battle of ideas, who knew from the start that we are a nation of idealism and hope, not a nation of torture memos and spying on each other in secret.
Imagine a president who was wise enough to know from the start that an unwise war was wrong, and who spoke with clarity and conviction when it mattered the most, and when others fell short.
Imagine a president who has believed from childhood that our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights comprise the sacred trust of the world's greatest nation, and has stood for this truth in good times and bad, in hard times and moments of triumph, from the House of Representatives, from the Senate, and from the vice presidency of the United States.
Imagine an America that is once again seen throughout the world as a beacon of hope and light, as an inspiration for human rights and freedom, and as a liberator of the world from poisoned energy that imprisons men and women everywhere, and ultimately endangers the very existence of the world itself.
Imagine an American democracy that is greater than an exercise in poll-taking, fundraising and the character assassination of fellow Americans and becomes again a democracy in which politics is viewed as a noble profession and Americanism is viewed as a call to share both the sacrifice and the triumph, and young people are inspired to reach for the stars in every endeavor in their personal and civic lives.
Imagine an America without the scandals of wounded troops and the mistreatment of disabled veterans and rising numbers of homeless heroes because our president will avoid war when we can, win war when we must, and fight for our troops and our veterans every hour, every day, in war and peace, in deed as well as word, no matter how hard it may be, because in our country it is right, and in our country, right makes might.
I know it is fanciful, unrealistic and probably naive to believe in the greatest aspiration that America should choose its best possible president. But America has always had the Frank Capra quality of daring to dream, of looking at the stars and viewing the better angels of our nation.
Our nation began with the impossible dream of a world ruled by kings, that could be forever transformed by a brave and generous people who put their hearts, their souls, their spirit, their lives, behind what they called their sacred honor and believed was their sacred trust.
Many tears have fallen, much blood has been shed, many dreams have been crushed on the road from there to here, but for every Valley Forge there has been a Yorktown, for every Gettysburg there has been an Appomattox, for every Pearl Harbor there has been that moment in Times Square where the sailor kissed the lady, and the lady in that harbor lifted that torch higher than ever before.
Personally I will support any of the Democrats over any of the Republicans, but does anybody believe that the campaign of 2008 has given any hint of a renewal of American greatness?
In my view, never before in memory have the man, the moment and the magic come together as they come together for Al Gore in 2008."
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/10/11/al-gore-for-president/
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/30/2007 @ 02:27am
Well I am really Jimboloco on my regular blog but here I believe that the stakes are driving deeper into the dirt! I will grab my ass when the b-2 bombers fly over to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and get ready to bomb Iran; I will say a silent prayer for my Air Farce pilot training roommate, an Iranian Air Farce cadet, Musseholi din Mohhamedi(class of 70-08, Randolph AFB). I pray that the women of the world will tell us all that we are , like, cut off, until we get our manly shit together. Musseholi is not my enemy and neither is Iran. We need to stop the neo-cons, who have a compulsion to use their weaponry, without a clue about the impact. If they bomb Iran, we need o make sure that the Executive branch gets taken away from them. They are whacked, bushwhacked.
Posted by Jim Willingham at 10/30/2007 @ 7:07pm