Feminists for Hilary, or not?

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
arborman
Feminists for Hilary, or not?

 

arborman

[url=http://www.alternet.org/stories/43180/]This article[/url] talks about the tension between supporting Hilary to get a woman into the White House, and her actual policies and actions.

quote:

I am nagged by the feeling that this makes me a bad feminist. After all, a woman president, any woman president, is a victory for womankind, right? Ovaries for the Oval Office!

Not really.

I don't think it's the height of feminism to have a woman president. I think it's the height of feminism to be able to look at presidential candidates as people who will or will not meet our needs and serve our interests. Regardless of whether those candidates are men or women, black or white, Hispanic or Asian.


Thoughts?

Scout

I'd still say she's the lesser evil over the current President. And sadly that's enough that if I was American I'd support her and use her being a woman to draw votes to get the Republicons outta office.

Sans Tache

Hillary would be a great president. She is considered to be one of the top 100 USA legal minds. All she has to do is stay away from scandal. However, predicting her win at this time is like predicting the weather on Tuesday November 4, 2008.

[img]http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/05/25/clinton-inside.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm] Article & Poll[/url]

quote:

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

•A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
•Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.
•Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.
•And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.


Hmmm... I wonder which Republican she would run against... Maybe Colin Powell??? or is he too upset with Bush and would he be Clinton's running mate??? Now, that would be an interesting team...

[img]http://www.achievement.org/achievers/pow0/photos/pow0-019a.gif[/img]

quote:

In 1994, Powell joined former President Carter and Senator Sam Nunn on a last-minute peace-making expedition to Haiti, which resulted in the end of military rule and the peaceful return to power of the elected government of that country.

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Sans Tache ]

morningstar

Hillary has a large network of feminist friends and workmates that would likely get called to Washington to begin some real change in the federal gov't.

I very much suspect that given the humanist nature of her interests and work since university, that the best of Hillary is being carefully concealed right now, and rightly so.

She is up against the ultimate old boys network.

She is much brighter and much more interested in social justice issues than what they've got now and when she can throw off the 'good little patriotic senator' act, we will possibly see one of the most enlightened presidents ever---and a woman!
And lets not forget her mate; he's getting too old to be whipping out his little buddy at inopportune times and other than that wee flaw he is quite the helpmeet.
They are a powerful and I think, enlightened pair.
Americans would be fortunate to have them at the Whitehouse again.
We have several american friends who are very liberal, who would rejoice to have them back.

she can back out of all this war stuff with fiscal excuses, it won't be difficult for her to sell.

Ken Burch

quote:


Originally posted by morningstar:
[b]
And lets not forget her mate; he's getting too old to be whipping out his little buddy at inopportune times[/b]

morningstar, I DID NOT NEED THAT IMAGE IN MY MIND, thank you very much... (staggers off to vomit in the corner...)

To me, the Nineties proved what Hillary would be like as president. I can't see her being even a millimeter to the left of Bill, and if she's not, it can't be worth electing her.

Also(and this goes for both feminists and progressives in general)the problem with supporting Hillary is that she both gets slammed as an ultraleftist and gets the left slammed for supporting her(btw I've never seen her take a genuinely liberal, let alone radical, position on anything)and then leaves liberals and the left out in the cold.

I mean, this is the woman who didn't say A WORD to defend impoverished single mothers when Bill signed Rush Limbaugh's wet dream of a welfare bill. She sold women out on that and on everything else.

She'll be exactly like Bill if she runs, only she can't be charismatic, so she won't even have the compensatory benefit of electability.

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Michelle

I'm so torn on Hillary. I know I shouldn't be. Her politics are abhorrent. But, you know, all electable Democrats' politics are abhorrent. And yet, even though I hated John Kerry, and the only thing I liked about John Edwards was his looks (and no, unlike some, I don't vote for anyone based on their looks!), I still wanted them to win against Bush.

The only way the glass ceiling gets broken is by women or minorities who support the status quo in most ways. You break into the old boys' network by being one of the old boys. Then, as people see that, no the sky didn't fall because a woman got elected to something, each successor can be a little less staid and a little more radical.

I don't see any electable Democrat (that is, anyone that the establishment will allow to run) being any better than Hillary. I certainly don't see any better Republicans than Hillary. So, while I hate her politics and will probably curse her every step of the way whenever she supports some dumbass right-wing thing that pisses me off when any other Democrat does it - I sort of wouldn't mind if she became the first female president.

I mean, someone has to do it, and it ain't gonna be bell hooks, much as I'd love it if it could be.

kegbot

Or probably Dennis Kucinich (my choice) or Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, etc.

But a vote for Hilary to me is like voting for Margaret Thatcher.

If the Dems nominate her, I stop voting in the two party system, perhaps for good. TINA - there is no alternative (borrowed that from Maggie).

Barack Obama (he who would bomb Iran) waits in the wings later. Don't you love how "acceptable" candidates get vetted in America? First question: will you support the corporate status quo? 2: Will you fight resource and profit wars around the world? and 3: Will you keep our secrets?

Clinton and Obama: yup, yup and yup.

They're angry down here, you betcha. But they're not going to demand any better. They vote and hope - like suckers in Vegas standing at the roulette table. Maybe if I just switch colours - maybe if I go with my lucky numbers. Hey, I'm still playing the game, right?

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Amйricain Йgalitaire:
[b]Or probably Dennis Kucinich (my choice) or Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, etc. [/b]

Well, but I did say "electable", right? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Geneva

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b] The only way the glass ceiling gets broken is by women or minorities who support the status quo in most ways. ... Then, as people see that, no, the sky didn't fall because a woman got elected to something, each successor can be a little less staid and a little more radical.[/b]

Example?

The idea that women/ minorities would be more liberal/ radical in power is really not supported by concrete experience. In the last 30 years the members of the above groups who have come closest to the absolute centres of power -- Margaret Thatcher, Colin Powell, Hillary, Condoleezza, now Angela Merkel -- have been on balance right of centre.

The current Most Powerful Women in the world, Merkel, would move sharply to the right if her coalition did not stop her.

Thesis: the political distribution of elected women over time will reflect voters at large. Hence, loads of female Tories and Liberals, and here in Canada the usual 17 percent in the NDP.

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

kegbot

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]

Well, but I did say "electable", right? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


That's a funny word, electable. I often wonder if we let one of the big NY ad agencies loose with unlimited funds to remake any one of those people I mentioned. What would it take in the age of video/audio soundbite to make any of these people presidential timber?

The problem is, I think Kucinich would hate platform shoes.

Gotta be tall, have a simple Murkan last name, look good in a suit, speak soothing nostrums, etc. No wonder Americans elected Harding.

If it weren't for the depression and a press corps willing to hide his disability, FDR probably would have never been president. I'd hate to think that we need to get hit on the snout before electing the person and not the persona.

The thing is, mainstream Dems are a pretty colourless bunch. And because of that HRC stands out from the pack.

Geneva

Hillary battles a relative unknown for Senate:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/yk2k4h]http://tinyurl.com/yk2k4h[/url]

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Ken Burch

quote:


[b]Gotta be tall, have a simple Murkan last name, look good in a suit, speak soothing nostrums, etc. No wonder Americans elected Harding.[/b]

"It was the bootleg gin, I tell you...that's the last time I vote drunk...Please stop doing the Charleston..."

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Brian White

I only saw Hillary give a speach once and I was very surprised to see someone every bit as good as a speaker as her husband. (He is concidered one of the best ever political speakers).
They still seem to be married and to still be supporting the same ideals.
So, for sure women should vote for her.
She will be the closest thing to Gore running for power so, you gotta hope she wins.

Michelle

Don't get me wrong, AE, I think Kucinich and other lefty Democrats are electable on their own merits. I was just talking about the Democratic establishment who wouldn't know "progressive" if it kicked them in the balls. (And yes, I use a male metaphor deliberately in this case.) You're not electable if you can't get the big boys in the party to support you.

Brian White

I think femanists should vote for Hilary because she is a woman. Nobody knows anybodys hidden agenda in american politics.
And weighing up hilary or a guy, I am guessing that her being a woman thrumps anything they say.
I cannot help noting that supposedly progressive usa has never had a woman chief yet a whole bunch of muslim countrys have had. How can that be?
Just voting her in to the job breaks down a whole bunch of preceptions and barriers in society.

Stargazer

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, woman or not. I don't like her policies. I don't like how she caters too much to both sides. I don't like how she completely avoided the anti-war march. I don't like how she courts the Christian Right and I don't trust her. She is not a lefty in any sense of the word.

I don't see any good Democratic candidates as yet, unless Kucinich has decided to run, or Al Gore decides to take another chance. I think Al Gore could win.

Palamedes

I was hoping that Feingold would run, he has a lot of courage, and seems to take fairly principled stands regardless of the political ramifications.

When you actually take away the foreign policy aspect, Hillary is not so bad. I think that she will help poor Americans substantially.

Sadly, like every US president in the last half-century, she seems intent on exploiting and bullying other nations for the best interest of Americans.

But it is true, that every female candidate seems to have a need to show that she isn't squeamish by being as pro-war as possible within the contexts of the party.

Then again, all the mainstream Dems are pro-war.

Feingold has never run for the nomination, and Kucinich got about 2% of the vote last time.

josh

quote:


Fully a year before she died, columnist and arch Bush critic Molly Ivins wrote: "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. ... Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her."

And then there's Ralph Nader. He admits that there are good anti-war candidates, but that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, he would be more likely to run.

Sen. Clinton has drawn the line in the sand over Iraq. She will not admit that her vote to authorize Bush to use military force in a unilateral, unprovoked war based on lies was a mistake. She is open to a military strike on Iran. Her latest message to voters: "There are others to choose from." Anti-war voters already know that, and are lining up behind candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and, perhaps before long, Ralph Nader.


[url=http://www.theunion.com/article/20070221/OPINION/102210206]http://www.th...

josh

quote:


And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.

So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do—or, not do—when she served on the board of Wal-Mart? Maybe, if her memory was refreshed, she could tell us how she protested the company’s relentless union-busting, expressed feminist outrage at the widespread discrimination against women and was horrified that the mushrooming wealth of the Wal-Mart family was made possible on the backs of slave labor around the world.


[url=http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm]http://www.commondreams....

Michelle

Geez. I didn't know any of that.

It's amazing what you can do and still call yourself a "Democrat," huh?

Palamedes

I didn't know that Molly Ivins died.

That's very sad to hear. I had a great deal of respect for her.

Michelle

Anyone following the little dustup with Obama and Clinton re: David Geffen's remarks about the Clintons at a fundraiser he held for Obama?

Clinton is saying Obama should give the money back. Obama is saying the Clintons had no problem with Geffen when he was raising THEM money and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom at their invitation. Ha!

Southlander

Maybe if we get her in, it will open the way for others it wouldn't be possible to get in otherwise?

miles

quote:


Originally posted by Southlander:
[b]Maybe if we get her in, it will open the way for others it wouldn't be possible to get in otherwise?[/b]

That is similar to a strategy that the PC's used in 1993 when they elected Kim Campbell as leader of the party and PM

I will quote Mrs Miles here when I write that, "Hilary is many things but she is not a feminist, nor is she a role model for women."

A political role model is Rebecca Latimer Felton the first female US Senator or Jeannette Rankin first female member of House of Reps.

Or former Rep Pat Schroeder, Georgia Neese Gray first US Treasurer, Sally Ride, Kathleen kennedy Townsand, Geraldine Ferraro, Dianne Feinstein etc

but Hilary is not someone who will move mountains. She will only alienate

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: miles ]

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

quote:


[b]Originally posted by Michelle:[/b]
Anyone following the little dustup with Obama and Clinton re: David Geffen's remarks about the Clintons at a fundraiser he held for Obama?

Clinton is saying Obama should give the money back. Obama is saying the Clintons had no problem with Geffen when he was raising THEM money and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom at their invitation. Ha!


Obviously, I don't think Obama should give the money back, but aren't Geffen's comments emblematic of the general public's (American and Canadian) view of women in politics? Geffen asks "And God Knows--is there anyone more ambitious than Hilary Clinton?" What? Because she's running for president? And Obama's doing it for our own good? Was Bill not ambitious?

quote:

The initial comments by Mr Geffen were first reported in the New York Times.

He said: "I don't think that another incredibly polarising figure, no matter how smart she is, and no matter how ambitious she is - and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? - can bring the country together."


[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384821.stm]BBC Article[/url]

The real criminal thing about the comment is its insidiousness. He just kind of slips in the "ambitious" comment in an otherwise true comment. But why does he thing she's "polarizing"? Because Republicans hate women more than they hate blacks?

Michelle

I agree, Catchfire. His comments in that regard pissed me off too. Heaven forbid a woman should be ambitious.

I suppose that being a record company mogul isn't "ambitious" either, right?

He's a dickwad. But Obama shouldn't give the money back. It's not his fault that Geffen is a dickwad, and certainly all the people who gave the money aren't responsible for what Geffen said.

deadduck

I support the candidates who benefit women, not who necessarily happen to be women (though of course, being an example for women as a woman certainly counts a certain amount towards benefiting women).

I don't want more women CEOs, I want less CEOs. The women (and men for that matter) Hilary speaks for -- the anti-worker, pro-war, etc. sort are not the people who deserve my solidarity. We should be promoting all the wonderful, positive female role models that do exist on the left (it's not like they're lacking) instead of trying to find one in this war monger. The fight is to make the progressive women the "electable" women, and not trying to pretend the "electable" women are progressive.

pencil-skirt

quote:


Originally posted by Geneva:
[b]
Thesis: the political distribution of elected women over time will reflect voters at large. Hence, loads of female Tories and Liberals, and here in Canada the usual 17 percent in the NDP.

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ][/b]


I disagree. There are proportionately more women in office in the NDP than in either of the other parties. The federal NDP caucus has 41% women. This means that the NDP is running strong women candidates in electable ridings, unlike the liberals who will probably fill their 33% female quota in unelectable ridings in Alberta and Quebec.

On Hillary, well the whole American political system makes me uncomfortable and I don't know if I could ever vote democrat. However, it saddens me to see a woman get so close to the presidency only to be shunted aside by another marginalized group. It makes me sad for the future of women in America and blacks in America. I am excited by Barak Obama though; he seems more progressive than Hillary. Still, the words that morningstar wrote earlier are interesting, and maybe Hillary would do good things for women that she's not advertising now once she got in. She did conservatize herself to get this far. Maybe she would let loose if she was president?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Joshua Frank wrote:

Perhaps the worst of the Democrats still embracing the illegal war is Senator Hillary Clinton. And despite her unwillingness to engage the antiwar community, she still receives substantial support from those who say they don't support the occupation.

On June 3 Clinton won the coveted ballot line of the Working Families Party in New York, even though the WFP was one of the first to oppose the war on Iraq four years ago. It was a sign of what's to come as Hillary sets herself up for a presidential run down the road, where alleged antiwar groups like MoveOn.org will likely rush to defend Hillary against a Republican challenger, despite her deadly foreign policy positions. But let's hope Hillary never makes it that far.

Capitulation, like the WFP's last week, only serves to make Hillary worse than she already is. Not that the Democrats will ever come out in opposition to the Iraq war, but they surely aren't going to do so as long as the antiwar movement supports them simply because they aren't Republicans. And the WFP even had a legitimate alternative in Jonathan Tasini, Clinton's antiwar primary challenger.

[url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10390]Source[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:

In her six years as senator she has done nothing but attempt to position herself for the presidency, done nothing but avoid acting out of principle and justice, done everything to offend no one. We respect our opponents in much greater measure than we respect Senator Clinton, for with our opponents at least the fight is joined; at least they have the courage of their convictions, at least they place their bets in public. But Senator Clinton, by trying to be something to everyone ends up being nothing to anyone. Where she cannot act safely, she does not act. The current times call for politicians to act with conviction and intelligence, not with cynical, calculated action in response to what opinion polls indicate.

If Senator Clinton cannot even come to the aid of constituent veterans being killed through grotesquely immoral and illegal medical experimentation, if she cannot commit herself to call for investigations of national security vulnerabilities that risk national catastrophe, if she cannot offer even moral support to those who disclose outrageous government incompetence and impropriety, is there anything that would prompt her to take a stance out of conviction? Such a person has no business representing the people of this country. Nothing stirs her soul except for her own selfish ambitions; ambitions that she places in front of the nation's welfare.

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/edmonds08282006.html]Source[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

So says New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who appears to be campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination on the theme that she would rather be wrong than president.
....

At the very least, Clinton's steadfast refusal to admit that she was wrong to vote to give George W. Bush the power to launch a preemptive war against Iraq sets a new standard for stubbornness.

[url=http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0220-27.htm]Read the whole columnm[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:

Seventy-four percent of Democrats say the Iraq War will be a factor in their 2008 vote according to a February Gallup Poll and one out of two say it will be a major factor.

Wherever [Clinton] goes the Iraq War follows her. She is starting to have public confrontations with voters about the war. At a widely reported town meeting in New Hampshire New Hampshire resident Roger Tilton urged her to apologize for her vote in favor of the use of force resolution and told her that voters can't hear all the good things is saying until she deals with the war. Anti-war voters, who are becoming an organized force, are letting her know - if you're wrong on Iraq you are wrong for America.

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese02242007.html]source[/url]