Why I Am Voting For Hillary

So I was going to make this long, dramatic post all about why I'm voting for Hillary, but I have changed my mind because it's really pretty simple:

I did not believe I would ever get to vote for a woman for President in my lifetime. I do not know that I will ever get the chance again.

Mr. Obama may very well win Super Tuesday (I do believe he will, frankly) and it will be utterly fantastic to see a black man as the President of the United States.

But I cannot believe that Hillary is still standing. Still running, still going strong, even with the heaps of hatred, misogyny, and vilification she's had to endure. There are a lot of things you might not like about her, but what I can't get over is how much of the "not liking" has to do solely with the fact that she's a woman.

She has taken a LOT of crap to get where she is. She is strong, she is wickedly smart, and she has proven that she can get things done. Having the Clintons in the White House again would make me happy, as I believe that they (yes, "they") have the ability to stop the Bush machine and turn it around.

Then, once we're on an improved course, we can turn to the younger and less experienced folks and let them run with it.

* * *

Updated 1:23 p.m. PST.

This essay republished by Raving Loon is worth the read. Again, you may disagree with much of this and may not be voting by gender, but it DOES matter that she's a woman.

(Although truth be told, I love the nutcracker.)


  1. People have asked me why I am voting for Hilary and didn't really know how to put into words, thank you for doing it for me.

  2. I could not agree more! Well done! Go Hilary!!

  3. That is exactly why I'm voting for Hilary. My mother is excited to see a woman be president, she never thought she'd ever see it.

  4. I totally agree with y'all! The media has made barely veiled comments that she's a cold, overly ambitious, bitch on the one hand, but hiding behind Bill when he attacks Obama because she wants to appear "nice." Then they want to equate a little quiver in her voice to an emotional breakdown.

    She's one of the few women that would be able to outlast this sort of crap and I think her tenacity and dignified manner will win the respect of most of her detractors eventually.

  5. it's really refreshing to have TWO good candidates to choose from for a change.

    i can't remember the last time i felt satisfied with even one choice, much less both!

  6. As an outsider I'm glad that your country is just going to get rid of Bush.

    Personally I prefer Obama, but than again, I'm not American and don't know all there is to know.


  7. "Having the Clintons in the White House again would make me happy, as I believe that they (yes, "they") have the ability to stop the Bush machine and turn it around."

    This is exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary, though I would very much love to see a woman in the White House, and think it is long overdue. However, Bill's already had his turn, and while it was lovely, I do not want the first woman president's legacy to always be followed up with some comment about her husband. And with the Clintons, it will never be just about Hillary, no matter how smart or savvy she is, it will ALWAYS be about Hillaryandbill. Tainted.

  8. Mavis - I agree with what you're saying 100%. Also, I this this election has turned too much into an "I don't care who wins as long as Bush is out" election.

    No doubt Hillary is experiences, intelligent and ready to kick ass and take names. She is capable and strong. However, to base your vote purely on the fact that she is a Clinton and woman "will i ever have this chance again?!" is the opposite of progressive. if we continue this sort of thinking we will revert to something worse.

    Now I'm not saying I *won't* vote for Hillary, I actually haven't completely made up my mind. It's a touch choice. i'm not saying it's not. All I'm saying is pick the right candidate and not simply just because she has a vagina.

  9. thanks for all the comments already - i realize this is kind of a hot button and i really do find it exciting that we have anything to talk about this election cycle...

    mavis - i hear you and respect that point of view. for me, i see it as a plus. simply no one is more experienced than she is. no one running for president has as much an idea of what it's like to be in that role already. (and i'm one of those people who think that her connection to bill doesn't equate "tainted.") but i get it.

    there she goes again - i agree to an extent. i would not vote for hillary if she were one iota more conservative. personally i am incredibly left leaning and hold very progressive views; i am also pragmatic and cynical. i don't think that someone coming into the white house with radical views will be able to get much done -- our system is simply not set up that way. i honestly believe that someone more moderate is needed first (to clean up the Bush Admin's mess), clearing the decks for someone more progressive to come in and be successful.

    I also do not believe Obama is any more progressive than Hillary.

    My point is that I believe she is the best person for the job. The fact that she is a woman makes her THAT much more compelling a candidate.

    I read yesterday someone saying this: if the choices were a white man with Hillary's experience and a woman with Obama's experience, the man would be the clear front-runner and the woman would be laughed off the stage. (I think this is a little harsh, but it resonated with me.)

  10. i came here from your twitter request, glad to find you.

    while i agree about hillary and i was really torn about who to vote for, in the end i went for obama - i feel so inspired by him and while hillary is so smart and would be good, there's something that rings insincere for me.

    honestly,imo, whichever candidate actually wins the nomination, it's still better than what we have now.

  11. If Hilary doesn't make it, I will support Obama. He isn't bad, just inexperienced. He also has a gigantic head that makes me laugh every time I see him. Laughing is good for the soul. However, Hilary has my full support right now. She is experienced, smart, strong and passionate about the things I am passionate about. What more could I ask for in a candidate. The fact that people want to tear her apart for traits that are praised in male candidates makes me want to go steal ballots and vote for her a million times over. Sexist Pigs!

  12. hey kristy,

    thanks for posting this. i relate to everything you wrote. (have you read robin morgan's piece? powerful.)

    i voted for hillary for lots and lots of reasons, and amazingly (to me), her gender was last on the list. given how i felt about her when the campaign began, i am amazed at how much her policy positions, skills, and talents won me over. so gender gets to be last on my list because there are so many other great things, too.

    (for the record, i find her vote on iraq indefensible, but i am willing to get over it.)

    i am also amazed, given how i felt about obama when the campaign began, how negative i feel toward him now. i am tired of looking for evidence to back up his claims, only to find alarming counter-evidence that he and his supporters happily dismiss. frankly, at this point, that he is a democrat and 50% black are the only things i will really feel good about if he wins. (but if he does not win, i will very much look forward to seeing what he does before his next run for president.)

    i hope hillary wins for so many reasons (though, like you, i am not optimistic).

    i cannot imagine being as strong as she is. i cannot imagine not only standing up to all of the vitriol that has been coming her way for the past 15 years, but managing to continue striving and improving in spite of it. she is not perfect and she should not have to be perfect. but she is pretty damn impressive.

    (on another note, i somehow got out of the habit of coming to your block a year ago or so... then today i happened to see the bookmark. it was a good day for that to happen! i hope you are well! ...i guess i can read back to find out if you are!)

  13. I must say I'm not voting for Hillary and it's nothing to do with the fact she's a woman.
    It the claim she's had 35 years of experience. Her pre-senate experience as a lawyer& policy advocate isn't really much more substantial than Obama's. She's had 7 as a senator and I'll even throw in 8 years as the first lady.He's had 9 years serving as a state & U.S. senator, he was also a community organizer who also taught constitutional law.
    In fact, when it comes to experience getting things done in government, working for positive change, Obama runs rings around Clinton. His ability to craft and pass legislation -- getting groups initially vehemently opposed to a measure to sign on -- is legendary in Illinois: skills that will come directly in handy as President.
    Hillary had a hand in crafting a piece of legislation before joining the Senate -- in fact, it's the one bit of her tenure as First Lady that actually DOES qualify as real "experience". Does anyone remember whether that effort (which began with wide public support) was a resounding success or not?

  14. Kristy,
    Like you, I don't know what it is, but when I was 10 years old, I remember being in the school library (why in the library I don't know) wondering if there would EVER be a female president. Because I'm registered "Decline To State" - I have no choice except to vote the Democratic Ticket - and solely based on this memory, I have to vote for Hilary. I just think its COOL.

    I love thinking about the fact that she is potentially the little girl who said "I want to be the first woman president", and ACTUALLY did it.

    How many of us said that? And if it actually happens, it will be an end of that era. Incredible.

    <3, one of your more "conservative" readers...


  15. I appreciate everything that has been said here.

    And can we get a "fuck yeah!" that for once in our lifetime, we have a choice of 2 good political candidates? I would be happy to see either of them in office.

    That right there is history, IMHO - regardless of the issues of race and gender.

    That said, I voted for Hillary. It was never a question for me. She, Obama, and Edwards all speak to me for different reasons - but the reasons I like Hillary speak to me more.

    I don't necessarily agree that Obama has today in the bag. I have been much less vocal about my support of Hillary than many of the people I know who are voting for Obama - in part, because every time I try to explain why I like her, I have to listen to 15 minute rants about why they like Obama *more* and why my choice is wrong.

    I think I am probably not alone.

    So Obama has a bunch of kids on the streets with signs supporting him, and his supporters are vocal and visible.

    I think there are a lot of people out there like me, who prefer Hillary, but are tired of having to defend why. Just as she must be tired from having to defend herself against all of the vitriol that has been coming her because she is a "ball-busting woman" and therefore "polarizing" for the last 40 years.

  16. Serre - thanks for your comment. I feel the same way; that I'm in the (vocal) minority. It seems that there is a whole lot of noise being made both by Hillary Haters and Obama lovers.

    sweetone - HI! hope you're well!

    kim - your comment made me cry. i keep doing that! i had NO IDEA i cared so much about the woman issue but that's it exactly.

    mrslilypond - i guess i just don't see it that way. :)

  17. Hi Kristy,

    I'm wearing my "I Voted" sticker right now and I'm proud to say that I voted for Hilary!

    I posted the Robin Morgan piece that another person mentioned on my blog: http://ravingloon.blogspot.com/. I thought it was so powerful and right on.

  18. I'm from Illinois, and I am not impresses with Obama. Never have been.

    Go Hilary!

  19. President McCain. Can't wait.

  20. Word!
    I posted my "why I am voting for Hillary" blog yesterday and when I wandered over here I thought I'd clicked my own bookmark for a second (only I ended up not titling it that, but almost). I took more words to say it but the sentiment is the same. I need to see a woman in the White House in my lifetime. But it's not like I'd vote for just any woman. I've always looked up to Hillary, from day one. She's a strong, successful, worthy role model for all women. She takes a lot of bashing but keeps on going. You have to admire that.

  21. I'm not going to vote for someone just because they are a certain gender or race to make a "statement". I like Hillary. She's smart and tough. I work in DC in politics and she has got a great reputation of being a great senator with a fantastic staff that gets things done. While I wouldn't be too upset if she won the nomination, and I would fully support her if she does, I'm voting for Barack. Not just because he's black, but because the man is inspiring. He's fresh and new. As much as I love Bubba and the job he did, we need a fresh change. Clinton fatigue is setting in with me. Plus, she is so polarizing it would make it a tough race especially against McCain. And god help us if we don't win this time, this country is already hanging on by a thread.

  22. There is a monument in the Capitol Rotunda of the 3 leading Suffragette women. In the back there is a huge chunk of unsculpted marble. Rumor has it that it a spot reserved for the first woman president.


  23. ed,
    The one question I have is what does Barack inspire you and others to do? (I mean aside from simply voting for him.) It is one thing to feel elevated from what a politician says, but another thing to be inspired to act in a significant way.

    He calls his campaign a movement, but it seems to be nothing more than a movement to elect him. After that, it is all about what he will do, not what those who voted for him will do.

    I understand people wanting change -- who doesn't? But real social change, systemic change, cannot happen by the President alone. The social change of the 1950s and 1960s resulted from real movements -- formal and informal organizations full of individuals taking action, along with the right political conditions. (And JFK did not create nor inspire these movements.)

    I would love to feel more positive about Obama's candidacy, especially as he has such a strong shot at the nomination, but it just seems to be a facade -- something that seems beautiful when you look at it head-on, but not so much when you look behind it.

    I want something more than a President who makes people feel good -- we had that in Reagan... people loved him all the while he was wreaking havoc on the economy and killing people all over the world through his social and military policies. I am not saying that Obama would do such hideous things, but I don't think the positive feeling one gets from a candidate necessarily reflects the reality of what that candidate offers.

    You sound like an intelligent, informed, and reasonable person. I am not trying to bash you or your candidate. The questions and concerns I raise here are sincere.

    (p.s. Thanks for posting that about the sculpture. I didn't know about that rumor. Even the thought of it being true, and the possibility of actually seeing that sculpture completed is incredibly moving to me.)

  24. It's not "just" inspiration, its positions on policy coupled with that.

    Let's put it this way. Hilary and Barack agree on virtually every issue. If anything Hilary is a little more conservative then he is, but essentially they are identical. If it's about voting for the person that best reflects my views, it's a wash. They both do. Will they both make capable Presidents? Of course. So I am left in the actually quite wonderful position of choosing based on these intangibles. Does this person inspire me? Does he represent a new era in American politics? Does he give me hope? You may dismiss these things as sophistry, but they matter. They matter to millions of Americans who when they see Bush on TV turn their heads in disgust.

    So the question is, what more does Hillary offer? I would fully support her if she was the nominee and am just as thrilled at the prospect of a woman president as the next progressive democrat, but I am realistic. She is deeply polarizing. The right wing absolutely hate her. We will get 4 years of bruising partisan battles. I am sick of that. Not that we would get four years of puppies and kittens with Obama, but it would be radically different.

    You say real social change cannot happen by the President alone. Look at Reagan. like it or not he spearheaded the conservative ascendancy of the last 20 years. Obama said it himself (and Hilary ridiculously attacked him for it). He was an agent of change in America. Change for the worse, but change.

    Barack is not an empty facade. That's Romney's job. He may not have as much experience, but he's been in the trenches as a community activist, sate senator, senator, for over 20 years.

  25. Hi Ed,

    Thanks for engaging! I really appreciate your perspective and points.

    Where I disagree with you is around the "deeply polarizing" thing. I believe that more people outright hate her than outright hate Obama (based on respective amounts of noise made, not fact by any means). However:
    1. She has actually managed to work and Get Shit Done under these circumstances for years, and that's without the popular vote of the entire country behind her.
    2. I believe that the fact that she is more experienced with Washington politics is a good thing. Do we need fresh blood? Yes. Do we need some radical shifts in how things work? Absolutely. But I do not think someone who makes people feel united results in change. At least, not yet.

    The Bush's Admin. is leaving in its wake a big and powerful machine, even without W at the helm. I am convinced that someone who has direct experience working with that machine will be able to change it better than someone who doesn't.

    I totally get wanting someone who is more of an outsider to come in and shake things up -- but the Republican Front is strong, expansive, and will still have the ability to quash anyone who isn't a proven, brilliant strategist.

    And THEN you have the woman issue. People do hate her, people do find her polarizing, but I will reiterate that I have an impossibly hard time figuring out why...the arguments almost always stem from or directly relate to her being a woman. Why is this okay? There are millions of people out there who DON'T hate her, who DO believe she is the right person for the job, who WILL vote for her.

    This is over-simplifying, but I feel that saying "I can't vote for her because people find her polarizing" is tantamount to saying, "I can't vote for her because people don't like her because she is a woman," is tantamount to saying, "I can't vote for a woman."

  26. First, I have to mimic all the comments that say "fuck yeah" to having two good choices.

    And I entirely agree that Hillary is the victim of the most shameful misogynist hatred I've ever seen. And I played rugby for years and was in a fraternity in college - so I've seen my share of horrifying misogyny.

    But I voted for, and continue to root for, Obama. And the primary reason is that I don't want the Clintons back in the White House. I strongly believe they are bitterly partisan power brokers who will move us further down the path toward national disunity and internal strife.

    I appreciate Hillary, and will wholeheartedly support her if she is nominated, but I don't think she'll do much to fix the nation. I think she'll make some policy changes that will help. I think she'll increase funding for schools, expand social welfare programs and extend healthcare coverage. And I think she'll continue to drive a deeply partisan wedge between people of this country. And that's a shame, because I'm ready for some inspiring unity, and I'm ready to not hate each other because we might believe different things.

    So I'll readily admit my vote for Obama may be idealistic naivete. But I'm still on board his train, hoping the the "movement" does indeed have some transformational force behind it.

  27. I'm not going to get into an argument about saying X is tantamount to W which really means Y. That logic jsut doesnt fly. Hilary Clinton has an astonishingly high negative rating. Fair or not, over 45 percent of Americans have a negative view of her. Do all of these people not like her because she is a woman? I don't think it's that simple. People simply have Clinton fatigue. And a lot of people just don't want to look back and see Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for the last 24 years.

    And the Republican Front is not strong. They are about to nominate a pro-immigration, anti tax cutting, pro-campaign finance reform 73 year old man. Christ, Ann Coulter has said she will support Hillary if he gets the nomination.

    The whole Experience thing is just overrated. Do you honestly think if Obama is elected he'll somehow not know what to do because he hasn't been in Washington for 20 years? I like Hillary, but she is just the old Clinton party machine. The same people, the same way of doing things. The same. I want something else. We need to turn the page, to borrow a phrase.

  28. ApparentWomanHater12:17 PM, February 06, 2008

    Wow! I've read the blog for a long time and I'm frankly shocked that you accuse someone of misogyny because he wants a Democrat to win the White House?

    Would you vote for Condoleeza Rice if she was running instead of McCain? Would you vote for her instead of Barack Obama? Your arguments say you would. Voting for the wife of an ex-president is no more of an advance of feminism than it was when Argentina just elected Cristina Fernandez de Kirschner.

    As to why she is so polarizing, about half the country found this book to be extremely patronizing. Her unelected role in the White House caused some of the same groans that surrounding JFK's nomination of his brother for Attorney General. And her relationship with Bill during the 2000 campaign and during Lewinsky. Many left-wing voters will never forgive her for signing the authorization of force in Iraq. The injection of scorched earth tactic, like the Jesse Jackson comments are below the belt. And she just agreed to debate on Fox News!

    I voted for Obama not because electing a bi-racial community activist that was schooled in a madrassa would make a statement. I voted for Obama because where his policies differ from Hillary's, his are better. I voted because he is a better speaker, he has a better grassroots organization, better fundraising, and has shown more integrity in campaigning.

    It's a double standard that she has been treated so harshly, especially for the marital bits, but saying that acknowledging that fact makes you a woman hater is below the belt.

  29. ed,

    let me separate my issues, then.

    1. Regardless of voting, primaries, electability, I feel compelled to point out that the "negative view" of Hillary is based much of the time on people's issues with her being a woman, directly or indirectly. I think this sucks, and I think this is worth discussing.

    2. Lots of people have OTHER issues with Hillary, like my cousin Nate above. They are good points, and I understand them. (I have a different philosophy than he does, though.)

    3. I HOPE the Repub Front is not strong, and I would love to see a backlash like none we've ever seen before. Perhaps these last 8 years have just left me far too jaded to believe that.

    4. Yes, the same people, the same way of doing things. I would LIKE something different, I just don't think I believe that "different" will be "effective." I would love to be wrong about this.

    Finally, I am curious where you are getting the "over 45% of Americans have a negative view of her" from. I have seen a whole lot of variation in these numbers in the last couple months. And as the pollsters continue to be like, "wha??" I'm not going to put THAT much stock in that rating.

  30. "apparentwomanhater" -

    couple things, please.

    - please do not take my statement to ed out of context. it was a wild thing to say, but it was in relation to his argument, not all arguments that have ever been made in history about women politicians.

    - i like Obama.

    - i stated above that "I believe she is the best person for the job. The fact that she is a woman makes her THAT much more compelling a candidate."

    - not voting for her because "she is polarizing" is my beef with ed (even if it's is a legit argument). *specifically* because i believe that the reason she is *most* polarizing is because she's a woman. she is, for example, waaaaaaaaaaay more moderate than John Edwards. but few considered him "divisive." her politics aren't that far from moderate republicans' (in fact, they've often been the same) and yet she's "polarizing."

    i just happen to believe the "polarizing" argument needs to be dissected at every turn, so we can distinguish the actual meaty arguments (such as the points you made) from the "how can she be a good foreign leader if she cries" bullshit.

  31. it really doesn't matter whether it's obama or hillary, our next president is john mccain. i say this mostly because he's the only one, let me repeat the only one, who got it right on iraq. and he's a decent man - unlike slimeballs hillary and george bush. obama has absolutely NO meat on his bones and no gravitas. i don't care what sex or race they all are, mccain is the right person for the job. and i thank you for your time.

  32. I hope you are voting for her for more than the fact she is a woman. A strong woman? How about weak for letting her husband get away with the affair and hang on his coattails to get to where she is? She is not strong, the very opposite. I am a businesswoman and would never vote for her, ever regardless of her maybe being the first and only woman to be in the running. Ridiculous.

  33. anon 12:47 - i disagree that our next president will be john mccain. but i guess that's obvious.

    anon 4:06 - i see it entirely differently than you do. erm, but i guess that's obvious, too. i do feel compelled to point out that i don't have any idea what your being a businesswoman has to do with your argument. i think you mean to imply that because you are a "businesswoman" you are also "_____", except i don't know what that blank is.

    for the record (and crocs notwithstanding), i am also a businesswoman. so um, right.

  34. There is a reason why women have never been in the white house other than as a wife-they don't have the mental and emotional capabilities to handle tough situations like me. Being a woman, voting for her simply based on the fact she is a woman is one mistake everyone will have to live with if she becomes president.

  35. ed,
    Some responses, in no particular order:

    -- The "Reagan Revolution," along with everything the conservatives have achieved since then, was supported by a vast movement made up of formal and informal organizations. Check out the book "Mobilizing Resentment" by Jean Hardisty.

    -- I disagree that Hillary is more conservative than Obama. (For example, her health care and economic policies are more progressive than his -- at least according to my definition of progressive.)

    -- I simply do not prioritize the feel-good effects of Obama's campaign in the way that his supporters do. Hillary's campaign makes me feel hopeful; it makes others feel despairing. That's just the way it goes. Bill Clinton disgusted me (for reasons not limited to his hideous judgment re his sex life), but lots of people were extremely hopeful throughout his presidency. I think the strong economy had a lot to do with that... And Americans felt good about being an American while Reagan was President, though I think they were living in a fantasy world. So I cannot place a lot of value on which candidate makes which people feel hopeful or "inspired." (still not sure what they are inspired to do.) I get it that those feelings motivate people to vote, so that's great, but I think it's a shame for that to be a high priority.

    -- Re: partisanship. The missing fact here is that the Republicans (in Congress) vote as a block. So it is not up to the Democrats to decide to stop being partisan. As long as the Republicans vote as a block, the Democrats will have to engage them on a partisan level. I am very wary of Obama's calls for bipartisanship without explaining what *exactly* he means by that. His record in the Senate worries me on that front. I don't think bipartisanship should mean Democrats adopt the Republican priorities or simply try to soften some of the Republican legislation. I do not see ANY evidence that Obama is capable of doing what he says he can; in contrast, I think Hillary has shown she is.

    Right-wingers may find her polarizing (i.e. powerful and threatening), but mollifying right-wingers is not on my agenda. They have been catered to for decades now, they have set the agenda and the parameters. I want a President who takes their insidiousness seriously.

    Democrats did not become partisan because they just happened to be in the mood for a fight; they became partisan because if they didn't, all of the things progressives care about would have been decimated.

    -- You say that things would be different with Obama, but you do not specify what would be different and how you know that. He says that a lot, but where are the specifics? What exactly will he do differently and what evidence does he have that he is capable of that and that it can be effective?

    -- I disagree that he has shown more integrity in campaigning.

    -- As for what Hillary has to offer: her depth of knowledge and passion about issues that matter to me; her awareness of all sides of issues and the people who advocate on those sides; her pragmatic approach that allows her focus on how to get things done; her understanding (born of experience) of what "getting things done" entails; her ability to frame issues in ways that unite rather than divide, and help people focus on the real issue at hand. These are just off the top of my head.

    -- I don't care about Bill. I get it that people are sick of him and of the idea of Clintons being in the White House again. I actually felt exactly the same way when the campaign began. I was totally opposed to Hillary even running. But all of her assets won me over and now those matter to me more than anything. I just ignore Bill.

    -- I am not blind to her faults; I do not support everything she has done or will do. But I believe she is most qualified to do (and capable of doing) the things that need to be done.

    -- I agree with Kristy that the "polarization" issue needs to be looked at with a very skeptical eye. And if Hillary is polarizing primarily because she is a woman who does not do and say the things women are "supposed" to, then all the more reason to elect her. People who find her polarizing for those reasons should not be accommodated, just as people who would not vote for Obama because he is half black should not be accommodated.

    As I think I said before, I wish I felt better about Obama's candidacy. Lots of people I love and respect voted for him. I have been searching for reasons to feel better about him, but none of what I hear resonates with me. So I guess my priorities when evaluating candidates are just very different.

  36. apparentwomanhater10:38 PM, February 06, 2008


    You really should reexamine why you believe Hillary has more relevant experience than Barack. Except for the age difference, when it comes to public life, they have pretty much the same level of inexperience. Neither has pushed any major legislation (none bipartisan at all). Both have been through one relatively easy senatorial election. Neither has been through any "experience" that Americans care about as far as "presidential" is concerned. That is being an incumbent, a military man, a governor, or a vice president. Americans have almost never elected a siting legislator, and between Hillary and Barack, neither have any experience in any real "job." Being a lawyer is a tad worse than a constitutional law lecturer, but experience wise, not that much. And being married to a sitting president should not be considered "experience" unless you fall into the Peronista faction, as I said before.

    Both Hillary and John McCain were accused of being "Carpetbaggers" during their first campaigns for the Senate. Compare Hillary's first reply (google it) to John McCain's attack which has been called "the most devastating response to a ... political issue I've ever heard."

    "Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the first district of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi"

    In the general election, having a "right wing conspiracy" is a little less impressive than having the Republican establishment use blatant racism against you; let alone 6 years of torture. In the same way that John Kerry had little chance against a crippled, whimpering George Bush idiot due to his overwhelming baggage (and horrible campaigning style); many believe Hillary Clinton has little chance against a strong, "maverick" McCain in a national election. This belief is well founded.

    As much as you (and other commentors) think her apparent negatives have to do with misogyny, they have to do with the belief that she, along with her husband, will do whatever it takes to win. The epithet of Clintonian doesn't just apply to the definition of is, it applies to the "ends justifies the means" attitude that caused Senator Clinton to offer to debate on FOX NEWS on Monday.

    And for all the other commentors that haven't seen that Barack has shown more "integrity:" you haven't been looking. Two words: Fox News. As an example of your bias, look at why you refer to Hillary by her first name, and Barack by his last.


  37. And for all the other commentors that haven't seen that Barack has shown more "integrity:" you haven't been looking. Two words: Fox News. As an example of your bias, look at why you refer to Hillary by her first name, and Barack by his last.

    This will probably have to be my last comment for another long while (I've been reminded of why I got out of the habit of visiting friends' blogs in the first place...life is just too busy). I just want to let you, apparentwomanhater, know that your assumptions are incorrect: I have spent too much time looking for Obama's "integrity" and I started questioning whether and when to refer to Hillary by her first name beginning at least a year ago. My reasons for using her first name here and in some other contexts are...well, not something I have the energy to get into at the moment, but you can rest assured they are conscious reasons.

    And also for the record, one problem I have with Obama is that he proclaims his truth-telling and transparency all the while misleading, distorting, and evading. His campaign reminds me a lot of a typical Republican campaign -- say one thing, do the opposite, and enjoy the rapturous support of voters regardless. I find it reassuring that Hillary does not claim to be above politics as usual -- at least she's not pretending to be something she fundamentally is not. Obama is not above conventional politics and all the lying and self-aggrandizement that goes along with it; if only he would stop claiming otherwise, I could catch a glimpse of that integrity.

    You may not like my conclusions or my choice of proper nouns, but they are based on much investigation and consideration. Whether you accept that fact or not is up to you, but it is still a fact!

    Kristy -- take care of yourself and good luck with your upcoming move!

  38. apparentwomanhater - thank you for reading this blog; thank you for commenting on this blog.

    as someone who otherwise seems to like what i write, i just have to ask you to give me a little more credit. by telling me to "reexamine" x and "look at why" i do y, you are assuming i haven't. which is totally unfair (and condescending!). just because i have come to entirely different conclusions from yours doesn't mean i haven't given significant time, effort, and weight to forming my opinions.

    now, i have NOT done a very thorough job of expressing ALL of the reasons why i think what i do, because i did not intend to write a manifesto. i simply wanted to put it out there. and so there are certainly holes in my post, and holes in my comments.

    i expected people to disagree with me, for sure, but i had hoped it would be respectful disagreement.

  39. 2 things:

    It's unfair to equate dislike for hillary with sexism. Wildy wrong.

    also, I would like to second the YAY BOOBS comment.

  40. Ed-

    I was not equating dislike of Hillary with sexism. I was trying very hard to say that the "I don't like her/she is 'polarizing'" is a very vague sentiment. (YOU are not vague, the expression is.)

    I have not done a good job of expressing myself, but my point was that the "She Is Polarizing" argument has, in my opinion, become a catch-all. Polarizing WHY? always needs to be asked.

    I don't like when "polarizing" is used as an argument in and of itself.

  41. Anti-Bushism at it's best. Everyone conveniently forgets that she was a raving liberal she-devil 12 years ago, who stays with a disgraced philanderer to keep his surname for political clout. Suddenly, she's family, God, and middle-of-the-road milquetoast moderate. Well, for those of us old enough to remember, you're not seeing what you're getting. I can understand the "anybody but Bush" mentality, but I'm "anybody (women included) except Hilary."

  42. Anti-Bushism? How is a discussion about Hillary Clinton an example of anti-bushism?

    Just because you think she was a "raving liberal she-devil" 12 years ago doesn't make it true. And just because you think she stayed with her husband to keep his surname for "political clout" doesn't make it true.

    Was she ever anti-family? Anti -god? This is all news to me.

  43. all i know is that john mccain will be our next president. hillary is 100% disingenous and obama has 0% gravitas. i don't care what color or sex everybody is. the fact that everyone is making an issue out of skin color and race is pathetic.

  44. This is probably one of the finest blogs I've read in a long time. I'm a Hillary supporter and have been for quite some time. I find it curious that people think that her rationale for staying with Bill was for her own political future! Huh?! I think when you cut so close to the bone as Bill did then, your marriage is a make or break proposition. She somehow managed to rise above it in the same way wives of husbands with serious addictions sometimes manage to rise above their situations. The respect many women have for her rose proportionately. There is a very slick Republican machine out there to tar and feather anyone who has the momentum and base to run a strong campaign. No whining and whimpering, it's a fact of life and American politics. Republicans do worry about Clintonites, because they know they will have another 8 years to submit to a populist president as compared to their annointed stitched-together 'talking head' and mega-corporate guard dog.

    Thank you K for your thoughtful pro-Hillary comments you have helped me to define what I was reacting to on a visceral level...can't help it! Proud to be a woman, and proud to have a sixth sense about what's right and what's not so right!!

    Keep on truckin' sista.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts