Hard to say: Has the feminist movement ever agreed on anything?

Posted by heathernijoli at 06/14/2007

I WENT WITH "ARE YOU JOKING?"

Maybe I'm just reverting a bit to male chauvinism, but it seems to me that Hillary's own feminism -- which is, to give her credit, definitely vocal and consistent over the years -- is far more important to other feminists than, say, her waffling on the whole issue of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. (This, BTW, is not a criticism of feminism on my part, just a recognition of what appear to be its priorities. The peace movement, although there, does not seem all that high on the feminist agenda.)

Posted by w_m_bear at 06/14/2007

"She could become the first female leader of the free world."

What is that supposed to mean? There have been and are right now female leaders in real democracies. As an example I can mention president Halonen in Finland, a female with political power. Or is USA the only free democracy?

Posted by aunt tamara at 06/14/2007

http://publish.seattle.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/259871.shtml Last throes of the American Republic [publish.seattle.indymedia.org] Last throes of the American Republic author: Voter Jun 13, 2007 08:35

Because the Democratic Party has overzealous love of Zionist Israel, they are letting the Bush regieme get away with Crimes against Humanity, Treason and allowing them to institute a dictatorship.

A married couple is one in the eyes of God. So she served her two terms already! and can not under this Constitution serve a third.

Disqualifed.

her and her Husband's support for Apartheid isreal is disgusting and leading s to the road to Armagendon...

Stop all aid to Israel and Palestine and see how fast these people settle thier differences!

Posted by Rese at 06/14/2007

Being a woman hardly makes up for threatening to be a terrible general season candidate and even worse president, in the worst-case scenario in which Hillary is the next POTUS.

Posted by Zero at 06/14/2007

Why is it that I feel, as a woman, that I am being played as part of campaign strategy to corner the votes of a target group? There have been many impressive women in politics whose significance transends gender--it was what they stood for and advocated that mattered. The article strains credibility, suggesting that Clinton should be rewarded with the position just to break the barrier. Condoleeza Rice, like Clarence Thomas, does not serve the aspirations of African-Americans or women when she is revealed to be incompetent or subservient. Surely Shirley Chisolm puts that claim to shame.

It undermines the purpose of feminism to focus on token representation at the expense of meaning. Why would women rally around a woman that used her husband to achieve her aims when other women fought to make it on their own merits? What kind of role model stands by her man after such public humiliation and deception--or actively seeks to discount the testimony of abused women to cover up her husband's sexist exploitation? What kind of feminist blurs the line on abortion--a hard won battle and dearly protected right? What kind of message is it that in order for women to achieve they must emulate the worst charecteristics of male arrogance and war-mongering? What kind of shift is represented by a politician willing to sell-out on everything and everyone just to get her foot in the door? What is won?

That does not represent feminism to me. The way I see it is we lose if she wins- and we are not some marginalized radical Left-wing minority as the author attempts to paint us -she should be reminded that the majority of the country opposes this war and the policies of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. The Clintons fifteen minutes are up, they should get their claws off the Democratic party as their own personal vehicle for ego gratification and let it be a relevant force for real progress and positive change again. Clinton represents the slow erosion of the New Deal in the Clinton realignment of the "New Democrat" and I, as a feminist and a citizen, do not support that regardless of all other considerations used to rationalize supporting Clinton simply because she is a woman.

So regardless of the Nation's public statement that they would refuse to back a pro-war Dem, one has to wonder if they are triangulating. Katrina predicted a Hillary presidency and there would be a certain self-satisfaction among the NOW socio-economic class to endorse one of their own.

Posted by kfkf at 06/15/2007

WELL, WHAT DO I KNOW?...

I just read Lakshmi Chaudhry's "What Women See When They See Hillary." My tongue still hurts from me biting it.

Posted by w_m_bear at 06/15/2007

As someone who has used focus groups and polls to prove what I want to prove to many clients, I can assure you that polls are totally meaningless. And always have been. People do not tell the truth when polled, people either by their answers or their lack of answers are always trying to show the pollster they are smarter then they are, never show their prejudices against women or minorities,and offer opinions when they haven't voted in over 30 years.

And even if the person is not trying to mislead the pollster or show how smart they are, their answers are the result of their conscious reaction to questions, rather then the truer subconscious reaction that subsequently directs how they act in the voting booth.

I also feel that political polls conducted a year and a half before an election are of no value whatsoever. The candidates in 2008 could be Thompson and Gore and they aren't even in the race but keep coming up in the polls. It is all political masturbation to sell newspapers and to try and create controversy. And you can put those absurd "debates" in the same category with their "gotcha" questions and 30 second sound bite answers.

Posted by bean22 at 06/17/2007

We must remember that Hillary is the chief policy wonk for the Democratic Leadership Council. If you don't like the DLC types, you have good reasons to not like Hillary Clinton or Harry Rodham.

Posted by GeekFunk at 06/19/2007

Hillary is an average woman, nothing special. It would be much better to have an average woman in power than the cowardly weasels now in the whitehouse, lusting for torture, maiming, imprisoning, looting, rapeing, dominating, and oppressing as many people as possible. Hillary is unremarkable. Unremarkable is far better than being horiffically destructive and incompetent,the dominant traits of the current administration.

Posted by co1469 at 06/19/2007

I am a long-standing Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, and my response to Hillary is purely intuitive - I don't like her.

Posted by Candace Tof at 06/21/2007

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton, hands down, is the most qualified candidate in either party, running for President of this country...and I agree with the article, that if Obama or Guiliani were women, they would not be seen as viable candidates. If Hillary was Harry she would have the nomindation as a landslide...and I believe the Presidency as well. Hopefully, she will be our democratic candidate and on the ballot in 2008. She will have my vote! I have heard her speak in person. She is great...and has demonstrated grace, under pressure... and will be able to get the job done, command international creditablity and respect and change destinies for our grandchildren...they will know what is possible.

Posted by ChristineNH at 07/12/2007