This doesn't deal with Clinton's bogus claim about "35 years" of experience, but it does punch some interesting holes in her campaign's ever-present motif. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/u...&ex=1199336400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print Personally, I think her claims about her "experience" are extremely dubious...
Sure, it does. But the relevant question is: How much? Politics has changed a lot since 1999, and I'm not sure reinserting a past president — one who is as problematic and partisan as Bill — really helps the country in any tangible way. A relevant addendum: How proper is it to expect a "First Man," or whatever we will call him, to participate in the political process? His name, after all, isn't on the ballot. And then there's the Clintonistas who surround the royal couple. As I've argued in the past, they definitely aren't what Washington needs right now. The funny thing, Spider, is that you don't seem to care that Hillary's campaign is so rudderless that it now is falling back on what can crudely be called the "two-fer" scenario. I mean, isn't this supposed to be a brilliant woman, more than capable of winning the office herself? Even Maureen Dowd quips: "Running this way, she is essentially asking people to like her if they liked him. Whether she knows it or not, this is a coattails strategy. It's almost as if she's offering herself to Clinton supporters as the solution to the problem of the 22nd Amendment." Hillary is back to zero sum politics again, and we shouldn't be surprised that the prize is more important than the journey at this desperate juncture...
I think that, when this is over, and perhaps it will take until after President Obama/Edwards/Romney/Huckabee finishes his time in the Oval Office, history will look back at this whole venture and recognize that, however we might choose to indict Hillary (and there are many charges to describe her political failure in this campaign), in the end it will still be a question of gender. Whatever it is she does to blow her chances—or perhaps she never stood a chance to begin with—the problem is magnified in our eyes by her womanhood. To consider Counte's point: It would do well to strike the words "a" and "woman" from the above insofar as we don't make the point that Edwards, Obama, Huckabee, or Romney are men. I know. But we're supposed to treat her equally in this. We don't, though, insofar as we frame so much in the context of her womanhood. For instance, here's one: the presidency ages a person harshly. Look at what happened to Bill. Look at what the weeks after 9/11 did to Bush. Even if she's elected, Hillary faces the possibility of a one-term presidency for aesthetic reasons. She will age, just like the rest of them, and the people will be repulsed because she is a woman. It is acceptable for a man to get "ugly", both rhetorically and, as the point has it, physically. Because she is a woman, though, it will count against her all the more.
Oh, boy. Another stereotype from Tiassa. Another label. Isn't it just possible no one likes Hillary because of the crude political machine she represents? That they tire of her ridiculous answers, her obfuscations and her politics of personal destruction? I mean, seriously... Maureen Dowd, who I'd reckon considers herself a feminist (she did write a book questioning the necessity of men and all) is striking out at the recent nature of the Clinton campaign... As for me personally, I have plenty of problems with Hillary without having to resort to latent feelings about her manner of genitalia. The only other relevant point I would make to empty this foolish balloon floated by Tiassa is that pointing out the fact Hillary is where she is ONLY because of who she married is no different in my eyes than saying Bush is where he is only because he won the genetic lottery... They aren't running (even partially) on the achievements of their spouses. They aren't claiming "experience," based on their spouse's years in office. An interesting jumping off point here would be to consider that B-HO took quite a lot of flack when he talked about his understanding of health care being primarily the result of knowledge he gained from watching his wife work at a hospital.
Perspicacity? Whatever you say, Counte. After all, you're the expert, right? I'm not arguing that this isn't possible. I'm not arguing that it is not true. To the other, it would seem that you have a problem with the suggestion that people are allowing her gender to affect their framing of the context in which they view that very point. Perhaps you're not, since you also seem unable to tell the difference. One of the great myths people buy into is perfect neutrality. It's not so much that everyone wants to pretend that they're perfect, but rather that people really don't like to admit to certain prejudices. That such prejudices exist is not an indictment of any individual. That the individual is so sensitive and determined to pretend that such prejudices don't exist, however, says a lot. You get to make that point when it's Laura Bush running for president. She has better and greater proximity to this particular center of power than they do. Romney and Huckabee—especially Huckabee—have the same proximity that Bill Clinton had when he won the job. By comparison, Hillary has better proximity than Bill did. That you are only willing to consider that proximity in terms of whose wife Hillary is only reiterates the sexism. It's a better jumping point than, say, Romney talking about the understanding he gained from watching his father do something that never happened. What, does Mitt get the "fortunate son" vote? As a final note, Counte: Not everything is about you, even when you write the point in question. My prejudices would suggest that you're intelligent enough to understand that, but it's also possible, I confess, that I've overlooked a possibility: Is comprehension one of those things that, like integrity, you set aside when you're not at work?
On your fits of juvenile behavior? Yes, I would say I am something of an expert when it comes to that... I've made no such claims. In fact, I'm willing to admit that there are plenty of misguided souls out there who are hard on Hillary because she lacks the proper appendage. People choose to vote for or against candidates for all manner of stupid and sane reasons. However, my problem with reaching for the gender cloak is that it paints the majority of Americans for fools, something the Media loves to do, being that is so enlightened and all. By this I mean that it is the Media who constantly forces us to consider a candidate's race, gender and religious creed, when in fact, I'd wager that most Americans don't openly care about any of this, largely because the workforce in most places is a fairly diverse place these days, and homogeneous social groups are less prevalent. Nobody really cared that Pelosi was a woman when she took the gavel earlier this year other than Pelosi and the Media (right and left). And anytime a person of color or gender or whatever other label is the fashion of the day slips from grace, the Media and people like yourself always tend to reach for the label as the most obvious reason. I call that victimology, and frankly, I'm sick of it. And what does the opposite say about you? What does it say that you constantly reach for these convenient labels to classify and categorize everything with? Can you not think outside these stale political terms? Must everything be racism, class-ism, etc? Only a fool denies the sort of prejudices you speak of. But I think it's equally foolish to go looking for them all the time... Huh? George Bush is where he is because of his father: Achievement had little or nothing to do with. The same can be said of Al Gore and Ted Kennedy if we're looking across the aisle. Similarly, nobody would know who Hillary Clinton is if she weren't married to someone named Bill. As with the men I mentioned above, it's possible she might have achieved what she has achieved without her familiar connections, but that's just a possibility. It's not the reality we're living in, is it? In reality, she's a Senator only because of Bill and a presidential contender only because of Bill and her Senate seat (the latter of which came about only because of Bill). This seems obvious. So I am a sexist? OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess Maureen Dowd is, too... I don't think you've ever seen me post anything positive about Romney, have you?
I have to disagree here. I consider myself an independant who would never vote for Hillary. For one thing, she isn't a democrat. Obama/Edwards/Kucinich are dems. Hillary is Republican-light. I do not trust her words, her body language.... every word spoken comes across as completely rehursed. There is nothing spontaneous about anything she says. IMO, she's running for the Presidency because of her huge ego. Sure, all politicians have ego's. But she doesn't hide hers well. While I won't resort to voting for Hukabee or any GOP candidate not named Paul, if Hillary somehow wins the Dem nomination. I will likely vote for an independant candidate in this case. I really don't think this scenario will occur though. I don't see Hillary winning the nomination.
(Insert title here) Um ... you are who you are. It's not mine to forgive. And, yes, Maureen Dowd can be guilty of sexism, too. We must get over the novelty of a woman running for president, or a black man running for president, else we will continue to let such superficial things as gender and skin color get in the way of our better judgment. I don't claim that it's easy, but consider VRob's point. • • • I promise you're not the only one who noticed. I agree, but unfortunately even I have had occasions on which I have contrasted those problems against her womanhood. In my case, I'm assigning her a duty based on feminist myths I'm still trying to temper: I expect her to behave better than the men because conducting oneself better than the status quo is part of the core liberal necessity. In this case, I've allowed myself to get tangled up in the messy assertion that feminists, by nature of their criticisms of men, ought to behave better than men. Doubly so for Hillary, unfortunately, since she doesn't have the excuse of being just another human male. I don't think I'll be able to remotely quantify the degree of influence this has over my perception until after this cycle is over. I think she'd do okay, at least, as president. There is a fine line, I suppose, between "political savvy" and a complete lack of principle. Hillary seems to be quite familiar with both territories, and modern politics has made the phrases synonymous. In the end, if she wins the nomination, I might well have the luxury of voting for an independent; I don't expect the GOP to win Washington state. I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 on the same principle. I wasn't needed for Bush to lose the state, so I voted for a third-party candidate (Hagelin). I'm hoping you're right, though, that Hillary won't win the nomination. We're a caucus state this year, and the word from those I know who caucused in 2004 is that it's a hopeless process. I do know a precinct captain for a neighborhood in Seattle, so at least one precinct won't be voting for Hillary. But I can't speak for anywhere else.
No. A vote for Lewinsky would get you his experience. If Bill voted for someone other than Hillary, why shouldn't you?
Sarcasm. Look it up... I said pretty much the same thing in the post of mine you've largely not responded to. However, I'm somewhat curious about how are we to get past such superficialities if every time a woman or a black candidate is questioned (or rejected) by the voters, people like you pop up to wave a finger in the air and chastise everyone as sexists and racists? This seems counterintuitive to what you're advocating. Her party affiliation is unimportant to me. As I have told you in the past, my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she represents almost exactly what I think a politician shouldn't be. So what do you make of Feminists like Dowd who are uncomfortable with Hillary because she has achieved her current status largely by ignoring her husband's obvious misogyny?
1-876-wah-freaking-wah! I really think you should start by paying attention to what I'm saying. You're so goddamned busy pretending to be aggrieved that perhaps you haven't noticed how hypersensitive you're being. For instance, let us review what upsets you so: I think that, when this is over, and perhaps it will take until after President Obama/Edwards/Romney/Huckabee finishes his time in the Oval Office, history will look back at this whole venture and recognize that, however we might choose to indict Hillary (and there are many charges to describe her political failure in this campaign), in the end it will still be a question of gender. Whatever it is she does to blow her chances—or perhaps she never stood a chance to begin with—the problem is magnified in our eyes by her womanhood. And as as long as you're complaining about things largely unanswered, let's consider part of my response to your point that you chose to overlook: I know. But we're supposed to treat her equally in this. Dude, I know. I know we're trying. And yes, that includes you. But we are not perfect, and we are never quite what we think we're being. If you haven't noticed how the things we try so consciously to separate ourselves from continue to plague us, then you're not paying attention. The only reason you're having such a hissy-fit about this is that you're looking for something to complain about, some reason to pretend you've been wronged. And, frankly, it's a stupid routine, Counte. No matter how hard we try, and often because of our efforts, her gender simply will stick out as an affecting factor when we reconsider this cycle from afar. It doesn't speak ill of your individuality, Counte, except that you seem to want it to so you can whine and cry about it. It is part of our culture, and that's the way it goes. And if that's too much for your fragile ego to handle, I don't really give a f@ck. Funny you should mention Dowd: I don't pay a tremendous amount of attention to Maureen Dodd, but since it's so important to you I went out to see what's up. I found the above, which reminds me that I'm not the only one seeing and hearing it. And in the meantime, I just don't see Dowd going off about misogyny so specifically as you suggest. As usual, one of the problems that comes with trying to answer your question is the problematic characterizations it asserts. Narcissism, melodrama, codependent egotism, sure. Even outright stupidity. But misogyny? Try for something better than rubber-glue, Counte.
I'm not aggrieved at all. I'm just tired of every other political discussion with you ending up in the same toilet: That is, you label people or their ideas with one of the obvious isms. And in doing so, you typically are ignoring what a person says, characterizing it in a way that wasn't intended or engaging in some form of amatuerish pyschology concerning people you've never met. No, I simply tire of what I already described above... Dowd has characterized the Clinton campaign as a "coattails" effort. I provided the quote that said this. In the past, during the Clinton years, I can recall her writing numerous columns about Bill's behavior. To put it simply, she's not a big fan — for obvious reasons. But we can leave Dowd out of this if you like. I'm still curious what you make of the observation that Hillary has achieved her current status because of who she married and because she ignored the behavior of who she married. In other news, this is part of what disturbs me about Clinton: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/clintons-dont-a.html
I disagree. I don't really care that Hillary is a menopausal b!tch. I care that she has a dark heart and an evil spirit. That bothers me more than anything else about her. WHAT???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is NOTHING Republican about her. UGH! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And I'm tired of your ignorant excuses for why you're somehow inhumanly removed from cultural and psychological influences. I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty and your stupid pride. I think your hypersensitivity precludes you from having a rational discussion. You're part of the species. You're part of the culture. Get used to it. I think the characterization is specifically repugnant. Again, it's a matter of whether or not we can trust your assessment of the situation, and, frankly, no, we can't. She's smarter than you, dude. Get used to it. • • • Thank you for making my point. Of course, it's not like we couldn't see that one coming.
Well, now the insults are flowing thick and heavy... I never said I was removed from them. I have argued that I simply don't care about them. This happens all the time. People constantly overcome cultural and pyschological influences. If they didn't, societies would be stagnated and no new norms of behaviors would emerge. People would hate gays, beat women and abuse children with regularity — all of which were socially acceptable less than 200 years ago. So no, I don't care Hillary is a woman. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. Heck, I wouldn't care if she was a black woman and her name was Obama, either. I just don't care. I judge the person on their actions and their statements. Why is this so hard to accept? Tiassa, where have I been dishonest in this thread? You might not like or agree with what I write here, but most of what has been written her are my observations and my personal feelings. No lies have been told, no deception has been engaged in, and frankly, you are begining to sound like the proverbial broken record. Everytime somone disagrees with you, they are being dishonest? No, I don't think so. Take your head out of your ass. The air smells different when you aren't a prisoner of your own cavity. And where have I been prideful? Do you mean to suggest that I should just throw up my hands and accept your crude labeling? Sorry, I'm not willing to do that... For somebody who speaks glowingly of rational discussions, your tone (as I perceive it) and your refusal to deal with my assessment are telling. You can't "trust" my assessment, so you won't respond to it? OK. Find another thread to post in then, because I don't think our conversation has much of a future if you're going to continue to ignore questions I ask you out of general curiosity. Is it really so repugnant to suggest that Hillary Clinton was elected Senator because she was First Lady and that she is running for president because she is a Senator? I mean, can you seriously imagine a scenario where this woman moves to NY and wins a senate seat without her name and her connections — a name and connections largely acquired through her husband's political successes. I'm not saying the woman is stupid or bereft of achievements in her own right, but I think it's equally daft to assume her political success has any foundation other than her husband.
Correction. Hillary most certainly IS Republican-light. From the few posts I've read of yours in this forum, there is nothing Republican about you. The current GOP party of today has very little in common with the true platform of the Republican party. They have been hi-jacked by the Neo-cons. Of which I see you are a proud member....... Whether you realize it or not.
