Some key issues that haven't been discussed:

1) The military occupation of Iraq - the permanent military bases and the still-ongoing plan for U.S. control over Iraqi oil production - as well as the failure to even address the Iraqi refugee crisis, which is getting to be as bad as anything in Sudan.

2) The corruption and failure of regulatory agencies in the U.S. financial system, of which the subprime crisis is just one example. Obviously, the regulators appointed by Bush and Cheney are very responsible - but the press and the candidates are avoiding that like the plague.

3) The corporate trade deals - such as NAFTA, CAFTA, MEFTA - and their devastating effects on U.S. labor and the global environment. That also has a lot to do with Iraq - the hydrocarbon law is a classic example of this. The U.S. is still trying to use the odious debt run up under Saddam to force the Iraqis to give up their oil to Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP.

4) Corruption in government contracting - the biggest issue to many people. Rotten contracting procedures, billions in missing taxpayer funds, sweetheart deals between Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR and the Pentagon, dirty relationships with foreign powers like Israel and Saudi Arabia - not on the table. The best argument for impeaching the President and Vice President is their flagrant corruption, closely followed by illegal domestic spying.

5) And, yes, the illegal domestic spying and the immunity from prosecution deals for the major telecoms who assisted - AT&T and Verizon, for example.

6) How about the corporate consolidation of the media? There's another topic a lot of U.S. citizens are very concerned about - with good reason. Edwards promised to use anti-trust law to break up the media conglomerates - not that that's getting any coverage.

7) Given the number of fraudulent nation elections in the past few years, it's very surprising that the issue of rigged elections and Republican-owned voting machine companies hasn't come up. Fraud in the primaries should be a serious concern - but is going undiscussed. Why is that?

It's true that the candidates have raised some of these issues, but not in much detail. They are trying to focus on "domestic issues" - for example, the fairly non-specific debate over health care - but the media is trying to switch the focus to "Clinton's emotional state" - instead of discussing, say, Clinton's history as a WalMart Board Member.

This election should be about the issues, not about what the candidates are wearing. It's already shaping up as some kind of ridiculous corporate-media managed fashion show. Not too surprising, but it really is very very pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

......then we're all in big trouble. Hillary represents the continuation of the Bush dynasty, the MIC and everything that is evil in US politics.

I couldn't give a fig whether she is male or female.

Oh, and "gender" is a term used to describe grammar. The correct term is "sex".

Oink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary getting off the script and showing she has some honest convictions has got me thinking I wrote her off too soon. She did not cry, she became a human. I think the medias malignment of this incident will backlash and gain her support, especially among people with an iota of compassion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's really disappointing if those crocodile tears she conjured up swayed voters to support her. Knowing the Clinton camp, it's very likely she did a focus group study to find out the effects of showing some "emotion".

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that Gloria Steinem is supposed to be a pacifist, which makes her endorsement quite odd, since Clinton is the most aggressive hawk among the Democratic candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Senator Clinton's gender is not an issue.

Senator Clinton's feminist orientation is.

This country needs her Presidency in order to explicitly renounce the second class status of women in politics and government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think I'll cry if she gets nominated. And by the time she loses to Giuliani or Huckabee, I'll be all cried out.

Sometimes I wonder if the media's treatment of Hillary is worse not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary. She comes across as an uptight person who seems obsessed with winning more than anything else, and seems so eager to please the Right with her "centrist" positions--even though the Right hates her no matter what--while throwing one or two bones about being an agent of change to the Left. It all screams insecurity.

Whether she intends it or not, this Moment comes across like her goofy laugh: a ploy to appear more human and less cold and calculating or something.

Perhaps a woman with more personality, strength of character, charisma, or substance might have a better time. Maybe we should dig up Eleanor Roosevelt, Mae West, or Dorothy Day, have her run in Hillary's place, and see what happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go to Youtube or Google videos "American Union"

After watching a couple postings, I found my priorities changed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the issues, the commentaries and responses on AlterNet in the past few days that have created discussion on the top two Democratic candidates that goes beyond sound bites have made me remember what I like about Hillary Clinton. Yes, she has very strong negatives but she also has very strong positives. Thank you, everyone, for your memories and for your insightful opinions.

On the matter of gender, as AlterNet readers discussed race, I started to think of how it is easier for African-American men to break out of their stereotypes compared to women. What is the stereotype of Blacks? Thieves (poverty), ghetto talk (uneducated), violent (lack of options). What is the stereotype of women? Prostitutes, maids, and caretakers (all related to biological differences and to a lesser extent control of money). While I hear many African-American women say they have experienced far more discrimination based on skin color than on gender, it is much easier to correct the conditions of racial discrimination. All too-often, gender discrimination masks economic bias and, in turn, is hidden by claims of racial discrimination. I recently read a retrospective on the women’s movement in the 1970s that claimed African-American women were neglected because the movement was run by upper-class White women. Yet, the examples given to support the argument were all about money/education and the different types of choices that exist for those who have it and those who don’t.

New Hampshire has had a woman elected governor and in 2006 sent a woman to the U.S. Congress. Iowa has done neither.

Women-owned businesses in New Hampshire over a ten-year period was only one of two states that saw an increase in the number of women-owned businesses, the average sales revenue earned by those businesses, and an increase in employment at those firms. Massachusetts was the other state, by less than a 1% increase. Iowa saw its average sales revenue drop by over 46%; only two southern states were worse.

There are more examples I could provide. Yes, gender does play a role.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am disappointed in Gloria Steinem. But, whatever. The reason so many women came out for Hilary is because she sent out mailings and made robocalls saying that Obama would over-turn Roe v. Wade, lying about his record on pro-choice. He is completely pro-choice; he has a 100% positive rating from Planned Parenthood. Women who did not know the truth, obviously turned out,and voted for her. I would have too, if I didn't know his record. Hilary is not running as a woman candidate; she is running as part of a co-presidency that includes her "husband",. ex-two term president Bill Clinton. Everybody knows that. If other candidates call her on her stand on the issues, she says the guys are ganging up on her, if she is losing, she cries to gain sympathy, if the candidates try to stay away from criticism, she throws the s..t and, unfortunately, some of it sticks. She represents the worst stereotypes of women, right down to kissing Chris Matthews and saying all the men are obsessed with her. She never did anything on her own, but only on Bill's coattails. Anyway, her "win" was quite slim, and Obama actually got more delegates out of the NH primary. I would like her to tell us what she actually accomplished for women, besides throwing them and their children off welfare. Obama at least got daycare for the mothers in his district after the clintons shredded the safety net for poor women and children. So, Gloria, what has she done for women?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And great hair wins a lot of elections. As does money. These qualities as a candidate make Clinton shoe-in as a chief among warriors for the status quo.

Sincerely and regrets,
History

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course issues are important.

But do not underestimate the change in American consciousness if and when we elect our first female president.Also the consciousness of the world in their perception of the US will change.

While biology is certaintly not destiny it does indeed count.

The global rise of the FEMININE in both men and women is a huge unstoppable megatrend which serves to counter the pathology in today's world.

GO HILLARY!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is a politician first, and a woman second. She will change about as much of our system as Nancy Pelosi has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are female candidates subjected to a blatantly unfair set of double standards, as witnessed by the coverage of Hillary Clinton's "emotional moment"? Yes.

Is Hillary Clinton a lightning rod for sexism as an assertive woman who is also a Democrat? Yes.

But does Hillary Clinton represent continuity with the Republican-lite policies of the first Clinton administration? Consider the insurer-centered health "reform," the devastation of industrial cities promoted by NAFTA, the consignment of poor women and their children to permanent poverty via welfare reform, and her unrepentant vote for the Iraq War and support for an aggressive stance toward Iran.

Unfortunately, the answer to the third question is "Yes" once more.

While Hillary Clinton is clearly a victim of sexism, it is equally obvious that her policies would victimize poor and working people at home (and abroad) through her support for corporate globalization and her refusal to back substantive economic reforms to lift millions out of poverty.

Moreover, her foreign policy statements on Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela --along with her set of hawkish advisors-- suggest that she would reinforce the aggressive empire-building followed both by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Roger Bybee, Milwaukee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

over any of the Republican candidates. I don't want a born again or a minister in the White House. Haven't we had enough conservative religious bigots in the past 7 years? How's THAT worked for ya?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's only a big deal to morons who can't focus on issues. I don't like Hillary because she's a socialist. Her being a woman has nothing to with my dislike and distrust of her. She's using the gender card to attract support, and anyone who falls for that is pathetic. I disagree with Obama, but I respect him. Not because he's black, but because he is sincere and wants you to support him for what he stands for, not for the colour of his skin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why? Because if Hillary gets the Whitehouse everyone will cheer until they realize that nothing is getting done. Just like congress. Remember all the happiness after the congressional elections? All the "we can finally give Bush the finger and leave Iraq jubilation"? What happened? Status quo. What will happen if a Hillary gets elected? Status Quo. What happens if a Repub gets elected? Status quo. At least if a Repub gets it everyone will have someone to point a finger at. The conservative voter. If Hillary gets it who will the finger get pointed at? The mirror. So voting for Hillary is the same as giving yourself the finger. :)

Now rate me a 1 and move on to the next comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

click here for more actual liabilities she carries around with her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

although Sen Clinton had a tag line, "get out of Iraq when it's right." Her votes in support of the Iraq occupation should hurt her campaign.

Her being a woman is VERY important in the USA just as Obama's race is VERY important. The enormous attention that is paid to them is the evidence. In a country where the majority of the population is above prejudice, the candidates' race and sex would not be mentioned so much.

What does it mean when arch neo-con Kristol comes out in favor of Obama in the NYTimes? The Republican party is hoping that he is nominated so they can unleash their simmering hatred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary actually might care about your issues.

If you're a woman who happens to have one of Hill's bombs kill you or your children, her feminist beliefs might not be of much concern to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately it is the part of the human condition that reality gets filtered through the lens of gender. Our stereotypes of what men and women should be can often lead to disillusionment and shattered expectations.

I ask, what would the reaction be if, say, an Obama were to react the way Hilary did?

Dean had an emotionally honest moment, and look where that got him.

Reactions and stereotypes aside, there is an unfortunate power that is bestowed upon the female of our species: the power of peddling emotion and/or pudendum in pursuit of their goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's biggest argument is that she got experience merely by being the wife of a former president?

Oh yes. She is a feminist pioneer, alright.

Hillary may be a victim of sexism, but it's not for lack of her trying to remake herself into a male centrist/right winger. So, the focus on her tears (which I do believe were genuine) has extra amusement for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The national winger pundits jumped on Hillary C. being human partly because she's female. The backlash is what drove an army of women to the polls.

An equivalent effect for Barack Obama could possibly be achieved by a KKK goofball burning a cross in front of an Obama campaign HQ, and then being proud of the deed.

In general, most people despise cheap stereotyping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But her corporate lovin' politics are.

Hill-Billy is an embarrassing episode I'd like to get past.

Quickly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just by looking at the list from the article above of the MSM's echo chamber BS about a so-called 'emotional moment' is pretty darn meaningless. Re-frame the issue!!! if it is in fact one that matters at all...
I care about the real ISSUES and policy perspectives of the candidates, not their gender or their race. I care deeply about who is funding their candidacies as well. I'm reminded of Martin Luther King's speech about looking forward to the day when people will be evaluated on the Content of their Character, not their race OR gender. I am after all, part of the boomer generation.
It is and continues to be very disturbing to me that the MSM is missing the real story about the progressive movement in these United States; that We, the People want real and substantive change as we see and feel the effects of policies driven by greed and ignorance. Yes, greed has always had a role to play historically in the domestic and foreign affairs of this nation. For me, the wake up call has been the past seven years of the BushCo administration and the profound lack of accountability of both the Dems and the Repubs. Ghastly, and jaw-droppingly horrific, with plenty of brickbats for everyone, including the We, the People. Wake up, people, this is not a high school prom king and queen vote, but real life in politics in the year 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what i've never understood is why emotions (in particular tears) are considered such a negative. emotions evolved along with every other human "condition" - tears do not necessarily indicate sadness or pain or weakness...they can accompany frustration, anger, and happiness - tears remove chemical toxins created by stress...
(http://www.scienceiq.com/ShowFact.cfm?ID=64)

in general emotions help us navigate the world we live in and help us make daily decisions.

with the pervasive use of ssris i worry that we are going to end up in a nation devoid of emotion (i heard a pediatrician in oklahoma say that ssris cause truncated emotions - she seemed to think truncated emotions - especially in children - were a GOOD thing)personally i fear a world run solely on "reason" and "rationality"...

calling women "emotional" is just another bogus vestige of the victorian era - it only supports the pervasive western tradition of accepting the white (anglo) male position as both correct and preferred. unfortunately this has been the position of the dominant world culture for at least the last half millennia...

whether hillary's tears were "real" i can't say...i'm not voting for her because i refuse to vote for a female out of a knee jerk reaction to the fact that she is female (i also would not not vote for a female because she is female)...i am voting for kucinich becuase he offers what i am looking for - REAL change, not just more of the same corporate domination of washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The era of the straight male MUST come to an end. Hillary is the best chance we have for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wonderful event last night, Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire and EVERYBODY's giant step for humanKIND -- Finally, a female moving forward toward potential presidency of U.S.

These last 7-8 years under the sociopaths of the Bush Administration have, of course, thoroughly exhausted every intelligent and compassionate soul on the planet, and there have been times of endless despair and sheer horror. Who would have thought that the final spasms of the Patriarchy and Male Order social and sociopolitical organization would have erupted in the pure insanity we've seen since W (is for Waste) got into office. Personally, I could never figure out how the species could have regressed so violently and extremely.

But maybe now we can elect a woman, and not a Thatcher, either. Any maybe now we can continue to evolve into "the Blend of female and male" that our species is supposed to be evolving into. Maybe we can now finally move away from the "Dominator model" of human organization, as Riane Eisler () has termed it, and get back to development of a "Cooperation model," including cooperation with Mother Nature, and not a moment to spare, before the species destroys Life on the planet with its insanely wrong-headed "competition" model of Evolution.

I'd love to see Obama or Mr. Edwards as the country's next president, BUT I'd much prefer to see, FINALLY, a woman, and a balanced Feminist woman (vs., say, a Thatcher), become our next president. Last night's victory making Hillary once again as viable as anybody else really thrilled me. Yeah, I love the "change" thing that Obama's stretching our options towards, but I really, really LOVE the greatest change we could see in our lifetimes: A woman as leader of the most powerful country in the world.

That in itself would empower the "cooperation," feminine side of human consciousness regardless how much Hillary were able to accomplish in the wake of Bush's monumental destruction.

Go Hillary! Go Women! And Womyn, and Men, and everybody who loves Life, and wants our species to survive, without destroying the planet with our Male Order dominance of nature and all the so-called "weaker," "less fit," species! If the "fittest survive," it will be because "the feminine" was not divided off by excessive masculine, "competition" model sociopolitical and ecological orientation that has resurged the last 7 years, and so disasterously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we get the media to just shut up and let us vote. Stop the predictions. It's nothing but noise. An election is too important to turn into entertainment. It has nothing to do with free speech either. It's a very clever way for TV stations to campaign and advertise. They all have a preference. But After all they're just "informing" us. I don't see it that way. Time to rein in the loudmouths. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see. The voters are tired of the partisan, militaristic status quo, so a plurality of New Hampshire Democrats vote for a candidate who is at least as hawkish and divisive as George W. Bush--a fortiori, at the same point in her career, far more. I'm sure her new personality du jour, cooked up from the menu proposed by consultants, has helped. No one cares that she hasn't shed a tear for the 4000 Americans and million Iraqis who have died in a war, founded on a patently fraudulent casus belli, that she has always gleefully supported; it's enough that she choked up about the difficulties of campaigning, riding on her husband's frayed and semen-stained coattails while portaying herself as a feminist, a strong and self-sufficient women while Bill talks as if he were running for reelection. At least she seems to have discovered the first person plural.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Hillary is the democratic nominee she probably won't beat the Republican because she sure won't get the crossover vote or much of the independent vote. If she does win, it won't matter anyway because it will be more of the same corporate- global-greed axis. Remember Bill and NAFTA??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we are calling it a gender deal..Well lets make it a gender deal.. Can we afford an inexperience Man in the White House? No we can not. So lets vote for an EXPERIENCED WOMAN! lETS NOT TAKE IT ANY MORE... THE MEDIA THE PUT DOWNS. OBAMA SAYING TO HILLARY SHE WAS LIKABLE ENOUGH! ENOUGH?? Would he say this to a man. Did he let his abusive side come out for an instance? Yes indeed... Lets not let this man get ahead...we are doooooomed if he is the one. In fact we are dooooomed because the Republicans can't wait to take him on...On what you might ask...On experience becasue we will be begging for a Republican than see our nation risk the falling into a worse depression and an intangled web of misery!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought this was going to a piece on par with the attrocious Democracy Now piece the other day where one of the guests just kvelled to the point of nearly spittingup about the "moment" and the genuine femininity, older women, yada yada hoo hah. I was pleasantly relieved, like reading Robert Scheer's piece on the class card.

I read the Steinem piece and like my mother has often said in recent times about her famous 2nd wave sisters, she's just completely lost her mind. I experienced that for myself when she railed about Ralph Nader on Dem Now back in 1999. Bottom line is the only genuine candidates who actually represent substance are the ones who'll never be seen in 'Merkaan media long enough to even have a "moment."

You want to vote based on sex-gender/race? Vote Green (Elaine Brown) and get over it--at least you'd be honest. Besides 2008 is the penultimate "cycle" before the empire collapses for good. If we are given (don't think your vote will actually be counted, come on) Huckabuck we'll be put into the Halliburton camps when the pumps run dry, if we are given Hillary the monied-Left will just help the Sheriff Depts conduct the mass evictions, if 'Bama is handed to us, there may not be camps but there'll still be evictions while the White Supremacist whackjobs storm DC. No matter what Dim or Repuke is emplaced, we're all totally fracked.

Crazy Nick under the overpass has teaching me how to make cardboard sandwich signs about the end is near and the like. When you see us out there, you'll know it's the signal... think furniture on the lawn. Then we'll have the dogs on the run...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Obama's race a bigger deal then we'd like to admit. How many of those "undecided" voters actually decided that they could not vote for a Black American presidential candidate?

Am I the only American who thinks that race was a significant factor in the New Hampshire Primary?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will start with Obama an empty vessel sinking shortly and giving the idoits hope..How can he possible give anyone hope when you need experience to bring hope to a reality..so lets not be Idiots. He had me for a very little while when I finally realized he is a poor imitation of Martin Luthern King.. A pretend King.. because King was truly saying something.

Hillary ups and downs, she is the best candidate. At least she answers questions at her rally's more than we can say about empty vessel Obama, who his advisers don't dare to let him answer questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In these US of A stemming from the allpresent PC culture people would rather vote for a Black/Negro to be President than for a Woman.

In this comparison no merits either way will be taken into account.

Almost "everyone" agrees that women belong into the kitchen and not at the helm of such a Great Nation.

You can already tell the voter's choice by looking at the cowboy they voted into office the last time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will Hillary Clinton immediately withdraw ALL US troops from Iraq?

Will she start shutting down US military bases overseas?
Why do Italy, Spain, Japan, The Netherlands, etc. needs US bases? Can't they defend themselves?

Will she demand that the DEA stop arresting medical marijuana users?

Will she release from prison all non-violent drugs offenders?

So what her gender is matters little.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]