Comments on: Seriously, Why Not Hillary?

by: twowheelfish

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:47:17 +0000

I am at work on another rainy, snowy saturday: good thing I got a run in earlier.
*
In looking over the NY Times I read over the controversy about the senate vote going along with the administration’s request that the Senate declare the Iran National guard a terrorist organization. Hillary voted for the bill which has gotten her a lot of flak especially from the more liberal wing: but the claim is that she is positioning herself for the main election against Rudy, not worrying about the other demo rivals. The wisdom of that approach is open to question but,
*
and THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF THIS POST,
*
is that Obama did not bother to vote. Biden did and voted against, Chris Dodd also voted against it, but Obama did not bother to vote. Why not? Not worth the hassle to fly back for seemingly such an important vote? Or did he not want to be on record with a specific vote. It is easy to say “I would have voted against it” and then recant such a statement, but you can’t claim a re-do on a cast vote.
*
Just another example, to me, of why Obama is NOT ready for prime time.
*
Now it is time to head out in the snow to Kings English and buy some Doris Lessing.

by: debi

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:20:13 +0000

I don’t have any problems with Hillary taking lobby money since I’m a member of a teacher’s union. Lobbying is the way my voice is heard, although I would applaud Reform.

My dislike for Hillary has to do with 1) Iraq and 2) her backing off on universal health care.

I was impressed with Obama until he, too, started showing his politician’s colors, changing like leaves in autumn.

I’m still saving my $$$ for Gore but I agree that it’s now probably too late so will vote for Dennis Kucinich in our primary. Then, assuming Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her (but not send her any $$$).

by: That One Guy

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:56:57 +0000

Holly… perhaps a better sentence from me: IT SHOULDN’T MATTER…

But certainly, many make it matter. I wonder if they do that out of a sense of searching for SOMETHING easy to toss the poop at.

Unfortunate that it happens, and I know Jenny ran a good race. What Rocky did was deplorable. Interesting, not many years ago, I was a great fan of his. He just kept giving us all nails, then the hammer to be used in locking him in his own tiny, chauvinistic room, didn’t he?

And some blind members of the general public bought it.

It SHOULDN’T matter. But alas, in the end apparently and in some circles, it does indeed.

Love this blog, Holly. Really.

by: mountainman

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:12:37 +0000

Fact is Hillary is continually diminished as Letterman rails on her laugh and columnists comment on her clothes and hair. She is small, blonde, and agressive and therefore portrayed in a kind-of-Deedee Corradini way: “wishes she were a man so she acts like one.” It is sexism at its basic and scurolous worst and I will vote for her hell or high water because if the Repubs are out in force to scuttle her it will reveal the kind of ugliness that starts revolutions and hell, when it comes to women in public life, we need it. In the words of our Ner-do-well, “Bring it on.”

by: Holly

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:01:59 +0000

Folks, I could make this go on forever if I keep responding, but man, it’s fun to have this conversation!

To ThatOneGuy: I understand that all us want gender NOT to matter. And notice, Hillary C. rarely raises the matter unless she’s attacked on that basis (I think she and Bill have both learned through hard experience that when attacked with distortions or straight-out lies, you fight back — hard)or unless someone asks her about her gender specifically.

The truth is, though, it does matter and we’re still very polarized about gender and politics. I’m not kidding when I wrote in the initial blog about the sexist bull—t my stepdaughter Jenny Wilson had to put up with in the primary race for Salt Lake mayor. Her age and looks (especially her petite stature) and gender and parental status came up in numerous stories in the mainstream press — even in headlines. And gender was often the subtext at debates with the male candidates, too.Everyone was cordial and tactful, but her gender was often the elephant in the room, as far as I could tell. Typically, the issue came up framed as her “lack of experience.” Which no one ever asked of Jon Huntsman Jr. or Jim Matheson or any number of men who ran for even much “bigger positions” who didn’t have even an inkling of Jenny’s political, management and policy experience.

That said…

I’ve never suggested that a woman simply be elected because of her gender. But again, just getting more women and minorities in office, hammering away at it continually, will go a long way in changing the landscape of politics and who holds power in this country.

by: That One Guy

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:20:49 +0000

Notice I didn’t mention anything about gender, etc. Because it DOESN’T MATTER.

by: That One Guy

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:19:43 +0000

TwoWheel - tell us what you REALLY think though… :)

frankly, I think Hillary’s sheen has worn thin, as has been stated here eloquently. While she can dish it out with the big boys, there’s a cost to acquiring that skill, and it is a certain amount of time spent with dirty hands, or the appearance thereof.

While she’s aggressive, she’s not going to CHANGE anything. She’s a vote for a certain amount of status quo. In my opinion.

by: twowheelfish

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:17:38 +0000

I think many of you are missing the salient points.
*
First,people, including republicans, do not go out to vote against someone, they go to vote FOR someone. The two likely repub winners, Rudy and Mitt, will NOT galvanize the Clinton haters to vote for them. Instead the evangelical crowd (and others) will stay at home and sit on their hands (unless manna from heaven brings up a religious right kook third party candidate which further siphons on repub support: remember the elder Bush would had two terms if not for that fire plug from Texas muddying the waters).
*
Second, Hillary has the most experience of what the office requires than any of the others. I LOVE Obama but it ain’t prime time for him yet. He needs to season in the Senate, cast some hard votes that will come back and haunt him like Hillary’s have done, and figure out what works and what doesn’t. Hillary knows that in spades.
*
Third, this is a great opportunity for us to break the sex barrier and let a woman take the reins. Anybody who says that they would vote for a woman (any woman) but NOT Hillary is sexist, plain and simple. What other woman who is a viable candidate would they vote for? Ask them that and no names come to mind, do they? Sexist.
*
Finally, “liberals” who claim they would vote for anybody BUT Hillary are not “liberals’ or democrats: they are belly button watchers, gazing into their own looking for lint and body lice. None of these politicians are perfect (what the hell was that flag burning crap about anyway?)(and your husband, Holly, excepted, of course), none of them are even close. They have ego’s as big a blimp, they kneel to the gods of money and vice, and the men certainly like a bit of fine new flesh on their arm to escort around (except Larry Craig who likes his new flesh in the dark). We can look for blemishes on all of them, and frankly, the ones who have done the most have the most blemishes, hence Obama’s appeal. So it is time for us to frigging grow up, support a person who legitimately wears a dress and maybe we can chat with Bill on the side of the stage about how 15,000 people die of AIDS in Africa every day.

by: gary

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:14:53 +0000

Hillary definitely has her good points, but I don’t think she’s the best candidate in the Democratic race.

One of your points in her favor is experience. I’ll grant you she’s got more of that than, say, Sen. Obama, but there’s nobody in the race from either party that has as much as Bill Richardson. Richardson’s foreign policy experience and his background as a negotiator is particularly valuable, given the foreign policy debacle we’re in right now. Then there’s his energy and environmental record, a strong track record as governor, and a long laundry list of other qualifications.

My single biggest concern with Hillary as a candidate is that she’s a very polarizing figure. While she’ll definitely have the support of the left side of the Democratic party, there’s probably not one single thing that either party could do that would boost the Republican get-out-the-vote effort more than for the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Viewed in contrast with the consensus-building skills of a Barack Obama or a Bill Richardson, Hillary has a definite disadvantage as a candidate.

I can’t really buy the idea of supporting Hillary because of her gender, either, if only because that begs the question: why not support Obama as the first black president, or Richardson as the first Hispanic? Come to that, if we’re looking for firsts, what about Romney as the first Mormon president? There will be people who support all of those candidates for those reasons, but they really don’t seem like very good reasons, and even less so when there are four different ones that are mutually exclusive.

by: Nic

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:49:03 +0000

Well Baldyjoe, this is what I found to be true during my service years and having served under female officers…they were FAIR. Their evaluations were clear and concise. So, if Hillary can give us that, she can have my vote.