This morning Hillary Clinton declared her intention to run for President. While she's entitled of course, I think this was a very bad decision and might possibly be the only Democratic decision that could cost the party the White House in 2008.
It's not that I think Hillary is a bad candidate or that she would be a bad President. I don't. It's not that she's female. I am female and feel it is long overdue that we have a female President to break the deathgrip men have traditionally had on the office. The reason I wish she had not made this decision is that through no fault of her own, she's a major devisive figure and will long remain so.
The baseless virulent hatred the far right has for this woman is truly amazing. I have a friend whose brother is an ordained minister, a man of peace and a man of god (supposedly) yet he has clearly stated that were he ever in her presence he would physically attack her and beat her up. This sort of blind hatred is dangerous because in the hands of unstable people it leads to assassination attempts.
The second reason I'm sorry she chose to do this is that, should she win, nothing much will get accomplished in the country as the rabid right brings one false charge after another against her. Nothing she does will be too trivial. If she farts in a school they will attempt to have her impeached for attempting to gas small children. Four or even eight years of frothing, slavering hatred ala the Bill Clinton era will further divide and polarize this country.
Hillary declared for President today. I really wish she had not.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 33
While you raise some valid points, I must respectfully disagree. I think Hillary is probably the best and most experienced Dem candidate thusfar. I think Obama is way too inexperienced, and Edwards may have a chance, but for some reason he strikes me as "plastic" . Frankly, I wish Gore would run again, but that is not going to happen.
I actually welcome Hillary into the race. The right will focus their energy on her, which will allow for a more left-leaning platform in 2008.
My observations were not based on her qualifications but rather whether she would ever be allowed to do the job should she win. The extreme far right (not your average conservatives, but the nutjobs) believe in shooting first and asking questions later. The witch hunts and trumped up charges will begin in the next few days and won't abate until the last of the election results are in. If she wins, they will only intensify.
Mrs. Clinton, as President, would be a virtual prisoner in the White House because of the rabid and irrational hate so many carry for her. They can't cite a reason other than perhaps firing some people in the travel office or misplacing some old work records when they moved, but they'll never stop. *sigh* I guess I hate the idea of seeing another 4-8 years of utter divisiveness.
Wouldn't it be loverly if the republicans just rolled over and played nice now the dems hold a slim majority? Bush is hobbled and will face endless criticism and attacks till the end of his term. From the looks of things, he deserves it and I, for one, will be glad to see him gone. But you posit this contention, partisan bickering, and gotcha politics will cease with the dawning of a new democratic majority. By doing so, you place yourself in the same deluded position of those who thought the republicans were the be all to end all.
Your article, while railing against the status quo, actually contributes to the devisiveness that has become modern politics.
I am not happy with the deep divisiveness that started with Nixon and has been gotcha on both sides ever since. My actual contention here is that given the right wing tendency or at least advocation toward violence (not your average Republicans, I am talking about the nutjobs) that nominating and/or electing Mrs. Clinton would result in repeated assassination attempts and something resembling the political witch hunt that went on during Mr. Clinton's administration.
The Republicans don't have to "roll over and play nice" now that they are in the minority. They never worried about bipartisanship when they were in the majority and it would be out of character for them to do it now.
However, that being said, you might take a look at the 100 hour legislation that has passed. There is a real note of hope there and a glimmering of light that seems to indicate that many Republicans are as sick of this bickering and nastiness as are the Democrats. Notice that the votes on these bills in the House were not along strict party lines as you might have expected. Many Republicans cross over and voted with Democrats. I'm very encouraged by this. The closest to a party line vote that happened was over stem cell research, and that is to be expected since honest deep disagreement exists there.
I'm sorry you misread what I wrote because what you read is not what I intended. Republicans can choose to work with Democrats on those bills and issues where bipartisanship is not an obstacle, and oppose them where they think they are wrong. That's the way it's supposed to work. It remains to be seen if Democrats will actually reverse the policy of the past six years and allow Republicans to introduce bills, and be part of policy making decisions. It would be smart if they do. but unfortunately smart is not what a lot of politicians are.
She did not shoot off her mouth endlessly about the mistakes of Iraq ... which I think is a very smart and good thing.
I thought she got a little snide in her opening gambit, and if she cannot handle it, it will show fast and she will be history. I will be listening interestedly to what she has to say, and her dialog with Americans. I just wonder anymore if there is anything intelligent Americans have to say on either side
It is amazing to me the hate she does get..I believe she definitely is a smart woman and deserves respect...
it amazes me more how we the voters are so seperated and angry with one another...we are really all screwed up by parties...these men, our politicians keep us fighting each other when we really should be fighting them...because at the end of the day they all only have a short list of our interest and concerns...we have to stand together to make them all walk straight...it will be a very interesting two years...Good luck to her.
I would not mind seeing her in office. I think internationally it will do us some good. Right now America is so disrespected and hated whereas we were hated but at least garnished respect...we've lost even that and I'm never one to point at one thing or person but honestly I really do feel that the republicans in office have made our country weak in their quest to make us invincible. Another topic sorry :)
I am now very worried about the respect we have ... I think that is a non-issue. Most of what gets said is BS, bought and paid for by someone with an axe to grind. When we finally stood up after the world having taken decades of radical Islamic terrorism - it is bound to throw lots of people.
We are not weak ... the only thing that makes us weak is out inability to work talk together and work together ... that is it to me. I no longer engage in or put up with these endless lib v. con bitch-fests and I lose respect for people who participate in them ... Americans have to grow up and rise above petty differences. It is the wackos on both sides that have taken over - I don't know how, but we need to stop it - we the people. If the people do not care, there is no hope anyway.
We need to demand a hard working press, and we need to demand a transparent government that we can understand and participate in. I'd like to see Hillary's idea work ... let's get some communcation back going on.
Even on this board, after thinking about it last night, I've decided to do my part and simply not respond to anyone who cannot discuss an issue civilly. I don't mean they have to agree with me, but if they are calling names, playing cute, or just being rude and nasty, I'll ignore their post. I think if we all did this it would cut down a lot on the really nasty posters' effectiveness.
I do not dislike Hillary, to get back on topic. I think she's a strong woman. I honestly wonder how much of this nastiness is simply because she's a woman and there are a lot of people out there who firmly believe that no woman is ever going to be good enough to sit in the Oval Office. Wait and see after the first one is elected. You'll hear all sorts of "that time of the month" jokes and comments about her being bitchy where a man would be called strong and decisive should he take the same stance.
I think you are on to something with Hillary. But I do not know enough about her to really decide. What I have heard is slightly less shrill and sensible than some of the other Democrats ... and I liked her kick-off message. There is no telling how this is going to play out, but she has some real unknowns in terms of haters and those who like her just because she reminds them of Bill. I'll give her an open mind.
As far as that time of the month ... I think it is always that time of the month with Bush and Cheney, they're always bitchy. ;-)
The nation is too important to vote for someone simply because "its a womans turn". Funny I never hear hoo rahs for America's first Black Secretary of State. I guess only Democratic white women need apply--sisterhood has its limits.
He was a less than average student his whole life ... let into most of the schools as a the son of a rich politician. His military service was hidden ... he was AWOL apparently and had a drug problem. He went into business with oil interests ... coincidentally related to Kuwait and the bin Ladens ... and he was obstensibly guilty of insider trading but the SEC refused the indict a sitting president's son at the time. As politically appointed CEO or two companies, his management ran both into the ground. Why do you suppose that George Bush had more experience or better character then than Hillary Clinton does now I wonder??????
I would vote for her over Hillary in a second if she ran and she said the right things.
I can't believe I have to do this yet again to for the benifit of someone who seems to know how to spell but not how to read or understand the English language. I never said nor indicated the media was leftist or for that matter rightist. Further what American voters will do is the issue. My opinion be it ever so humble is that Hilary is unelectable for the base reason I put forth and she should step aside so the Democratic Party can put forth a canidate that is electable so the voters can have a real option in the next Presidential election.
As a side note.. condeming the messenger for spelling because you don't like the message doesn't detract from the message it just illuminatess an inability on your part to counter with a valid argument why American voters would have no reservation of having WJC back in the white house. In main stream middle America where I travel both sides of the isle have had thier fill of the Clintons...... feel free to correct my spelling again if that is you lot in life.
Yeah. Damn feminists to hell. Imagine those uppity women actually thinking they are as smart, as ambitious, as talented, and as innovative as men. And how in hell can a woman think she should be paid for the same amount as a man doing the same job? That's as revolutionary as the idea that those hormone crazed, power hungry, vindictive bitches should actually be able to vote, decide who they marry, and own property, not to mention run major corporations.
I'm really not sure how anyone who has watched how badly Mr. Bush has screwed up and not be able to imagine that out there somewhere is a woman who could undoubtedly have done it better.
That's the root of the problem right there. When we someday have a female president, every single error in judgment or failure she has will be attributed not to poor judgment, lack of facts, or a nasty or inadequate personality.....it will, virtually 100% of the time be attributed to her being female and will be used to disqualify every other woman for years. It frankly amazes me how deep and wide this prejudice and distaste for women runs in this so-called enlightened country.
Are there women who are manipulative bitches? You bet; just as there are men who are unmitigated bastards. But that doesn't come from their gender but rather from their personalities, upbringing, and a raft of other things. However, all women are tarred with the broad brush as a result of some women's failings, while men are still viewed individually and in much kinder and more favorable terms. How many times in your life have you heard a man, who had a bad work experience with a male boss, make the statement "I will never work for another man as long as I live?"
This is a prime example of where the feminist movement goes too far. I feel that womens rights as equal to men are just and fair. I feel that women should hold all of the same rights as men. In my own house, my wife and I work together as a team to do dishes, cleaning, budgeting, homework, etc... What I encounter from a lot of "feminists" is the idea that women are better than men. I am glad to see men and women held as equals in pretty much everything, but for some reason I think the recently given rights have spurred an excess of power hunger among women concerning their place in society. No longer are some of them satisfied with being equal, but they wish to prove that they are the better of the two genders. I may have just met a lot of these types, giving me a bad taste for "feminists".
In truth we're no better or worse than men. We're different. That doesn't mean we're less, but that we approach things from a different perspective. It also doesn't mean we're superior either. Yes, some feminists take it over the top, just as do some politicians, some businessmen, etc. The fact that some men rob 7-11 stores doesn't mean all men are robbers any more than the fact that some women thinking their superior means that all women or even all feminists think that way.
I tried burning my bra back in the 60s. It was a big flop.
On some level I realize this is a natural progression of events and that somewhere along the line, though probably not in my lifetime, the needle will swing more toward equilibrium rather than at the extremes. It's still discouraging to realize how many men out there are still so insecure that they need to feel superior to women to feel like men. And I freely admit women haven't helped in this. Men need to feel needed, and a lot of women don't realize that.