Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

I Won't Support Hillary Just Because She's a Woman

By Allison Hantschel, Sirens Magazine. Posted October 19, 2006.


Looking solely at Hillary Clinton's political credentials, she's not the candidate for me. But am I a bad feminist because I don't want her to be president?

If I were to support Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008, it would only be out of hope that this would be the thing that would finally make Rush Limbaugh's fat head just explode.

The talk-show blowhard, who rants about the New York senator and ex-First Lady's clothes and hair and presumed sex life all day long on his program just might be pushed over the edge into complete and utter loonytown if he had to watch her campaign cross-country. And who wouldn't love watching that?

But aside from its potential entertainment appeal in that vein, I'm unexcited by a Hillary candidacy. I'm uninspired. I'm ... indifferent.

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.

And looking solely at Mrs. Clinton's political credentials, she's not the candidate for me.

She's too centrist. I'm a bleeding-heart, borderline-socialist, anti-war liberal who believes corporate wealth is the source of most of the country's problems. Hillary never met a credit card company lobbyist she didn't like, she won't push for legalization of equal rights to marriage for all, she concentrates her attention on a culture of sex and violence in the media instead of on the culture of corruption and violence in Washington today.

She represents a Democratic ideology of the past. The 1990s were fun. I was in college then, and I enjoyed the tech boom that had people fighting for my job skills when I graduated. I loved that period of my life. But it's over, and so is the political climate that made her and her husband's bipartisan compromising palatable to most Americans.

I don't like legacy elections. Government's too incestuous as it is, and after watching the havoc wreaked by a guy who got the job because his dad was president, I don't want somebody getting the job because her husband was.

True feminism is about wanting women to have the same freedoms, choices and opportunities as men. And that means an equal opportunity to be judged by our actions and our beliefs, not our gender.

Besides, we didn't need to wait for Hillary to support a woman presidential candidate.

The late Shirley Chisholm was elected to Congress in 1969. The Brooklyn-born African-American woman was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and the author of two books. Her run for president in 1972 was the first woman's candidacy to be considered seriously by the Democratic convention-goers, and she received more than 100 of the delegates' votes for president.

Throughout her political life, she told young women to follow their dreams no matter where those dreams took them.

When Chisholm announced her historic run, she said, "I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people."

Now that was a woman I could have cheered all the way to the White House.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, politics, hillaryclinton

Allison Hantschel is Sirens Magazine's political editor and a 10-year veteran of the newspaper business. She publishes First Draft, a writing and politics blog, and edited the anthology Special Plans: The Blogs on Douglas Feith and the Faulty Intelligence That Led to War.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I won't support Ms. Clinton AT ALL.
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 19, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not for president. I'll let my brother suffer for living in NY under her reign.

Not even if she called a press conference and demanded a new 9/11 investigation.
LOL


I'm sure it would be no better than the last one.

It takes a village to raise a democracy.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

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

Lieberman's
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 19, 2006 1:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary suffers from Lieberman's Disease which is do what the richest and most powerful people want and to hell with everyone else. Follow the rich into war after war and killings after killings, that is Lieberman's Disease. Rice is a Lieberman's disease sufferer also. We need a good person in the Presidency not a bought person. Doesn't really matter what sex or race, look at their record and their current works and then decide. Right now Gore and Feingold stand out. A lot depends on what happens in November. If there is vote fraud in November we will know and we will be outraged and we will impeach.

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

» Hillary '08.....NOT! Posted by: CatDad
Speak of what you know
Posted by: slydad on Oct 19, 2006 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You obviously don't listen to Rush. He doesn't talk much about Hillary. He usually rants about whatever the hot political issues of the day are and she's not always in it.

Back when she was pushing her socialist agenda from her husband's left flank, he talked about her a lot and pointed out a lot of things about her that are true and that you have eluded to in your article. Asside from being a socialist liberal, she's a political slut. She will swing whichever way she needs to to get a vote.

Back to Rush though . . . He's actually mentioned at one time that he would like to see her be the Democratic nominee because he thinks that her nomination would insure a Republican win.

Maybe you should listen to Rush a time or two before running off at the mouth like that. You might actually even learn something too.

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

» Begone, troll... Posted by: willie.horton
» Only idiots, eh . . . Posted by: slydad
» Limbaugh is just an entertainer. Posted by: colinmeister
» hardly Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: hardly Posted by: slydad
» Blood on his hands Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Rednecks and neocons Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: joanmo
» I stand corrected Posted by: slydad
» Right you are Posted by: slydad
» You're drowning in Kool-Aid Posted by: YogiBear
» Exactly Right Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: jareilly
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: slydad
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: jareilly
» RE: Speak of what you know Posted by: slydad
That's nice
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Oct 19, 2006 1:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's fine but what I find sexist is the multitudes of people who love to talk about why they won't vote for her.

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

» RE: That's nice Posted by: slydad
» Haterade Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Haterade Posted by: slydad
» Wev Rush followers Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Wev Rush followers Posted by: slydad
» RE: Haterade Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Haterade Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Haterade Posted by: mjabele
She may be the best our political theatre has to offer :-(
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 19, 2006 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gotta give her a little credit though. She didn't vote for the military commissions act whereas a victim of torture, mccain, did.

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

Hamish
Posted by: JDBishop5 on Oct 19, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of the religious right.

"If you don't agree with every damned thing I believe, then you cannot be the right person for the job."

If you are so cocksure you are right, run for office.

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

» RE: Hamish Posted by: eringhorm
» RE: Hamish Posted by: JDBishop5
» RE: Hamish Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Hamish Posted by: JDBishop5
» RE: Hamish Posted by: sterlingdave54
Finally, an article I can somewhat agree with
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Oct 19, 2006 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe in legacy candidates, either, including GWB. Hillary simply carpet-bagged her way to the New York senate seat and has no executive experience.

However, slydad is correct -- this author obviously doesn't listen to Rush, as most on the Left who disparage him do not. If she did, she would know that, far from pushing Rush into "loonytown," Hillary's running for President would provide him and his listeners with all kinds of great material to work with. Rush is an entertainer -- something those bores on Air America never figured out.

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

» The truth comes out Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: The truth comes out Posted by: aonghus36
» I heard a right-winger say Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Internet and universities Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Internet and universities Posted by: ISlamIslam
» Talk radio Posted by: jwg
» Progressives say Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Truthiness Posted by: ISlamIslam
» You can Posted by: Donna_Darko
I wouldn't vote for her...
Posted by: adp3d on Oct 19, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if she were a man, I certainly wouldn't vote for her because she is a woman. On the other hand, if she gains the nomination she will undoubtedly be the lesser of two evils, so I would have to hold my nose and pull the lever for her. Just like I have to here in Michigan, where Senator Stabenow has disappointed many progressives on her vote for the Torture and Flushing of Habeas Corpus bill. Some have suggested voting Green, but that might serve to hand the election to the Republican. I can't remember the last time Michigan had a GOP senator.

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

» RE: I wouldn't vote for her... Posted by: Floradora
Go Hillary!
Posted by: mylesh on Oct 19, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an activist Green Party member I long for the Democrats to nominate Hillary. We will put the nonsensical argument of the spoiler issue aside with her nomination. She is despised by real progressive Democrats. So many will flock to the Green Party in 08, that although unlikely to win, at least it'll receive enough percentage points to be eligible for federal funding in '12. Maybe the tables will turn and people will start seeing the Democratic Party as the spoilers. The race ought to be between real progressives (Greens) and Republicans.
Democrats, being Republican-lite, shouldn't make the cut.

Over 10 million Democrats voted for Bush in '00. Now, let's hope that there are tens of millions of voters who see Hillary and whoever the Republicans put up as evil twins separated at birth.
Go Hillary! Go Green!

Myles Hoenig,
campaign manager for Ed Boyd, GP candidate for Gov. of Maryland

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

» Not "Spoilers" just Opportunists Posted by: AdamSelene40
Good article
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 19, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would be like voting for Mike Tyson because he's black...Or Jeffrey Dahmer because he's gay...Or Charles Manson, because he's still got that 60s idealism.

Or to use a sick, extreme example: voting for Condi because she's black, and because she's a woman.

If there were a white, male, spoiled rich kid who spent four years stopping wars, taxing the rich, helping the poor, and pissing off Rush Limbaugh, I might even vote for the first time in a long time, just to see him piss off Rush Limbaugh for another 4 years.

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

» LOL Posted by: jwg
Any Woman Will Do
Posted by: Abushite on Oct 19, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having a woman as president cannot be worse than the male scumbags who are/were in the administration/house/senate.

Hillary , though not perfect is a lot better than all of the Republicans and most of the Democrats

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

» RE: Any Woman Will Do... Posted by: Floradora
Hillary is OK
Posted by: gypsyray on Oct 19, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did I miss something? The only relevant fact in that blog seems to be that Hillary is too centrist. Of course she is centrist; how do you think she got to where she is. You may find a “bleeding heart, socialist,…”, to vote for but it would be a wasted vote. Legacy election? Don’t worry about it. I doubt that she will be as good as Bill. He is too tough of an act to follow. I think she will do well in her own right and I believe that she is our best valid hope.

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

» RE: Hillary is OK Posted by: ekipnrut
» Hillary is not "Centrist" Posted by: LDavistrueblue
Two Words
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Oct 19, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not sexist to criticize Senator Clinton. She is the putative front-runner for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and must withstand scrutiny.

I will therefore add another reason to withhold support for her campaign. In the early years of President Clinton's tenure, Senator Clinton had a unique opportunity to help refashion American health care and to recommend a plan to provide affordable, high quality medical service for all citizens.

Instead of presenting a model for universal, publicly funded health care on, perhaps, the Canadian model, Senator Clinton sought advice on the matter from the corporate sector. She received the same sort of counsel that Vice-President Cheney got when he invited the oil companies to construct U.S. energy programs. The result was a public policy disaster.

I did not expect that a sensible health care plan would have prevailed at that time (and hold little hope for one now) in market-driven America. Senator Clinton need not, however, have capitulated leaving U.S. citizens without decent health care, except for those who can afford it. She might at least have opened up a robust public debate.

Do not worry about failing to follow the mantra "Vote for a woman, any woman. Instead, construct a list of good candidates and, if a woman is among them, vote for her.

Feminism and the quality of social life generally will not be enhanced by voting women "uber alles."

For those who disagree, I have two words: "Margaret Thatcher!

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

» RE: Front runners Posted by: sliver
kind of reminds me of....
Posted by: okcamp on Oct 19, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this Black gentleman I was dating (I am white). He tried to play the race card because I wouldn't have sex with him.
He says, "You won't f**k me because I'm Black."
To which I resond, "No, I won't f**k you because you're an asshole."

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

» RE: Subtly conflicting... Posted by: fredo1012
» RE: Subtly conflicting... Posted by: okcamp
» your typewriter keys are sticking Posted by: LDavistrueblue
Not for Me
Posted by: inanaturallight on Oct 19, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a New York resident I've had the pleasure of Hillary for a senator and I'm gravely disappinted in her performance. She is an opportunist that blows with the wind, and I find it difficult to hear folks extoll on her virtues. As a democrat her voting record hasn't been encouraging at all. One would expect someone of her intelligence and purported interest in the masses to do far better than she has done; she has been a non-entity in the senate.
I won't discriminate against candidates- woman, black, hispanic naturalized immigrant, I don't care. It's going to be their record that I will look at, and Hillary's record just plain sucks. I fear if it comes to a choice between Hillary and some relatively centrist republican I'd vote for the republican, if the republican sucks too I won't pull the lever. I can't bring myself to vote for her because of her record and because of what I see happening- more 'free trade' (free exploitation) agreements that leave American citizens and others out in the cold, talk about health insurance but no action, and sucking up to the rich and powerful.
Hillary is for Hillary and nothing else.

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

Yes, you're a bad feminist
Posted by: 4equalrights on Oct 19, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're the kind that keeps hindering women's chances of gaining proportional representation. You see, when women run against men in political races, men get the big campaign bucks and have the additional advantage because many men won't vote for a female candidate simply because she's a woman. But women don't do that. When have you ever heard a woman say she isn't going to vote for a man just because he's a man? And female candidates find it harder to get campaign funding because men doubt their ability to win against men. What ends up happening is that men vote for men and women vote for men and therefore women candidates are generally disadvantaged. IF women candidates win, it's because the men have decided to support her, not the women.
When women like you speak out against women candidates, men feel even more justified in their votes against women. Women like you are the ones that get quoted in the media to demonstrate--not that women take issues seriously and will vote for the candidate that best represent their view--but to perpetuate the "cat fight".
The solidarity of women is the greatest fear of those in power. Their aim of keeping women divided works because of the complicity of "so-called" feminists like YOU.

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

» RE: Yes, you're a bad feminist Posted by: perspicuity
Here is why None of us should support Mrs. Clinton
Posted by: Intraspecto on Oct 19, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. She is all for the war in Iraq
2. She has a thing against your freedoms. (IE 2nd Ammendment)
3. Just because we had economic prosperity under her husband, let us not be under the illusion that we will or can or should under her.
4. She is the other side of a bad coin. (IE republicans)
5. Do you really think she would pull us out of Iraq? See statement 1.
6. It is not about male or female, or progressive vs. conservative...see point 1.

Peace

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

» You are a fool. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» sigh.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
dakala
Posted by: dakala on Oct 19, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have argued this for years – I towed the Democratic Party line between clenched teeth just so I would not "throw away" my vote. And what this kind of thinking has led to is that I have almost never voted for ANYONE that I believed in, and the dumbing down of the Democratic Party values has occurred. Thin line now between the two parties, and the word LIIBERAL, is now a dirty word. I will never vote the lesser of two evils again, and Hillary is another Lieberman. NONONO to warmongers, centrists. I will THROW AWAY my vote for a progressive, ecologically-minded, LIBERAL who is prochoice and profreedom of speech and against this war and against torture and against the right wing fundamentalists of all kinds! It is not throwing away your vote – if the democrats lose enough votes to a LIBERAL person them maybe they will start listening. BY THE WAY, I HAVE WRITTEN AND BEEN ACTIVE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR YEARS – AND THEY GIVE ME NO ANSWERS, EITHER IN THE FORM OF A GOOD CANDIDATE NOR IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN RESPONSE.. The Democratic party has now lost their backbone and lost me altogether. HELL, I WOULD VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS BEFORE I WOULD VOTE FOR HILARY – AT LEAST I TRUST HIS INTEGRITY.

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

the author and Hilary are birds of a feather
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 19, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now let's see if I can escape the tender minstrations of the Alternet Ministry of Truth (and escape banning) for "attacking" other people on Alternet as I set out to expose yet more fakeLeftism:

quoted from the article:

But am I a bad feminist because I don't want her to be president?



If you are a feminist, you are AUTOMATICALLY bad. Once are a feminist, one need not do anything else to qualify as "bad." Just being a Identity Politics FakeLeftist, out for SPOILS politics, being a tool of the upper class used to divide men against women, that all makes feminists bad right from the git-go....

quoted from the article:

She's too centrist. I'm a bleeding-heart, borderline-socialist, anti-war liberal who believes corporate wealth is the source of most of the country's problems. Hillary never met a credit card company lobbyist she didn't like, she won't push for legalization of equal rights to marriage for all, she concentrates her attention on a culture of sex and violence in the media instead of on the culture of corruption and violence in Washington today.


But the author writes about the same things as Hilary politics about. Let's take a look at the title of the last article the author wrote for Alternet:

The Last Defenders of Marriage


Hmm. Not about "borderline socialist" stuff like progressive taxation of the rich or about universal healthcare, but about MARRIAGE. Gee, sounds like Hilary.

more quotes from the author:


The institution of marriage isn't under attack by gay couples -- despite what conservatives would have you believe.



Ah, more sex and gays and Identity Politics. Just what the overclass needs to distract the political debate from economics populism!
Let see what Siren Magazine, which the author writes for, typically writes about! From the magazine:


Beauty
Fashionista
Voyeurism
Sex
Friends & Lovers
Health
Habitat
Travel
Being a Siren
Soapbox
Lit



More noneconomic feminism. It's all about getting special privileges for women instead of taxing the rich for the benefit of all Americans, aint it.




Dear Fellow Sirens,

We like to think we’ve made Sirens a place where we can say anything—whether it involves the aspects of sex usually left unspoken, the thoughts we’re not sure we’re supposed to have, or the political debates best kept out of polite dinner party conversation. But we’ve been doing a lot of the talking ... more...

ah, no. Siren has the exact same, officially-approved, overclass-friendly, pseudo-political debates found at dinner parties among ALL the so-called politically aware Americans, which is to say PSEUDOpolitical debates about overclass-approved topics like feminism, identity politics, race, gender, gays, the environment, foreign policy, etc. Just the type of fakeLeft and rightwing nonsense written about on Alternet and Siren.
Here are some of the current stories on Siren:

Porn: Does It Help or Hurt our Sex Lives?
Slut Is Not a Four-Letter Word
The Kinky Stuff We Save for Marriage


Typical fakeLeft nonsense.

The fakeLeft is an overclass tool evolved in the overclass-dominated ideological ecosystem of America.

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

It's The Timing
Posted by: R.I.P. on Oct 19, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To overcome the Republican Machine, Democrats adding the issue of the first women president to their already dismal stance on the current state of affairs would not be rewarding at the polls. Objective: get the current gang out..... then it will be possible to have a women for president if we so desire.

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

Shirley Chisolm
Posted by: steve7193 on Oct 19, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen to your comments about Shirley Chisolm. I cast my first ever vote for president for her, in the California Primary election.

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

Definitely Not a Bad Feminist!
Posted by: patsy6 on Oct 19, 2006 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allison, you rock!! And I say that even though I might be just barely old enough to be your mother. Hillary Clinton is not just a centrist, she is center-right, and, most importantly, she cannot possibly WIN the presidency. I live in New York State, and I voted for her in 2000 but voted for Jonathan Tasini in the September 06 primary. I will not vote for her in November 06. Feminism should encompass not just the rights of women, but the rights of all humanity, including the right to live in peace. Senator Clinton's pro-war vote, her refusal to say that vote was wrong, and her current fence straddling war stance are unconscionable.

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

nanabooboo
Posted by: kyblue on Oct 19, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree!

We need to elect someone who will stand up to the mega corps, not sell out for fund raisers by Rupert Murdoch.

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

WHY this eco-feminist will NOT support Hillary
Posted by: wawa on Oct 19, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On November 15, 2005, Senator Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha'aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it "is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."


Senator Clinton did NOT visit the Little Town of Bethlehem in Occupied Territory, to see what The Wall has done to the Bethlehem economy. But I have-and I was there the same time as Hillary.

Every local, taxi driver and would be terrorist knew all the many ways around the concrete boa constrictor and electrified fence which had enormous gaps, holes, and other ways to get around checkpoints and avoid The Bethlehem Terminal which divides the sister city of and from Jerusalem.

Israel has built the bulk of The Wall well inside the OPT for the purpose of capturing Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian land and resources they control, on the “Israel side” of the wall.

Twenty percent of the wall’s route is inside Israel or along the Green Line,while 80 percent deviates from it, encompassing fifty-five Israeli settlements and other land in the OPT. These settlements contain the vast majority of more than 400,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The wall succeeds in providing contiguity among the illegal settlements, their access roads, and Israel, while severing Palestinian cities, towns and villages from each other and from their land.

B’Tselem, a leading human rights organization in Israel, unequivocally concluded in its September 2005 report, “Under the Guise of Security”, that
contrary to the state's claim that the Barrier's route is based solely on security reasons, the main consideration in setting the route in some locations was to include on the “Israeli” side of the Barrier areas which are slated for settlements expansion. In some cases, the expansion amounts to the establishment of new settlements.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes international humanitarian law and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the “Israel side” of the wall.

The Israeli Supreme Court, international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, state that the settlements themselves violate international humanitarian law.!

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel, as the occupying power in the OPT, from transferring members of its own population into the OPT;

Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, a component of customary international law, also prohibits Israel from making permanent changes to the territory, such as establishing Jewish-only settlements, that do not benefit the local inhabitants.

Evidence indicates that the wall is, in fact, very much “against” the Palestinian people. The humanitarian, economic, and social impact of the wall on Palestinian communities has been nothing short of disastrous, as extensively documented by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, relief organizations, and human rights groups, among others.



At The Terminal in Bethlehem, upon the thirty foot high Wall, a hundred square foot sign from The Minister of Tourism hangs and proclaims in Orwellian logic: PEACE, PEACE, PEACE.

"Peace, peace, peace, they say, when there is no peace."-Jeremiah 6:14

ONLY a pandering politician or an idiot could claim The Wall
"is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."

MUCH MORE on WAWA blog

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

» Palestinianism Is Terrorism Posted by: BurtonLT
» Zionism is ethnic cleansing Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Palestinianism Is Terrorism Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Hillary is a DINO
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 19, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrat in Name Only. She is a political chameleon. If it were to her advantage to be a fascist or communist she would be one tomorrow and try to convince you she had been one all along.

Hillary is a very smart woman that is way too ambitious for her own good. She has no governmental experience as an executive and not even a complete term as a Senator. We do not need any more Presidents that need OJT.

Look at here resume and voting record. In Arkansas, a state long suppressed by a political oligarchy, she had all the right connections. In the Senate she has voted more like Joe Leiberman than Russ Feingold. She's aligning herself with Rupert Murdoch, you know of Faux Newz.

I trust her about as far as I can throw my car.

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

» RE: Hillary is a DINO Posted by: fork
» RE: Hillary is a DINO Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Hillary is a DINO Posted by: fork
» RE: Hillary is a DINO Posted by: inanaturallight
» "way too ambitious" Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: "way too ambitious" Posted by: fork
But am I a bad feminist because I don't want her to be president?
Posted by: fork on Oct 19, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, you're a bad feminist because you pander to the right by misrepresenting the feminist position as "vote for a woman regardless of her ideology". I'm sure there are some feminists who would do that, as well as some that would vote for a woman simply to offset those many votes against a female candidate just because she's a woman.

But the feminists I know would vote for the candidate that best represents (or promises to, anyway) their interests/feminist principles (of equality and social justice). In other words, they'd vote just like you.

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

Tim Quernemoen
Posted by: quernemoen on Oct 19, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The talk-show blowhard, who rants about the New York senator and ex-First Lady's clothes and hair and presumed sex life all day long on his program just might be pushed over the edge into complete and utter loonytown if he had to watch her campaign cross-country. And who wouldn't love watching that?"

I think your right, who wouldn't love that more than Rush himself. Sounds like you might tune in more often and if your right I'm sure others would too. Sounds like bigger ratings and more money for Rush Limbaugh. I guess conservative talk radio host win either way the election goes. If Republicans win, they ar leading a movement. If Republicans loose, the rank and file will be so worked up that the will listen to talk radio to hear their views articulated by another.

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

I won't support Hillary because she's a closet
Posted by: catnapping on Oct 19, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
republican.

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

» RE: Yeah ! Posted by: saywhat?
me neither
Posted by: mviscid on Oct 19, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton is not my kind of candidate and I don't see why that makes me a bad feminist. A few East Coast friends have had college womens' dinners with her. They report that all she talked about was getting at these women's families' donations! She just seems like a power-hungry single-minded politician, just like the rest of em. And the language she uses to talk about feminist issues (in the scant few times she has in public recently), it's too compromised. Too willy-nilly. While she's obviously accomplished and ambitious, I don't consider her tactics as viable for introducing or championing womens' issues. Seems like she'd sell abortion rights down the river if it'd win her the presidency.

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

The problem with the electorate in a nutshell
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Oct 19, 2006 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything I have believed that is intrinsically wrong with the current hellhole that is America is confirmed in both the article and the comments beneath it. This is why the country is in so much trouble and has headed down the fascism hill at 100mph and accelerating. Not one of you has offered a candidate that will even come close to her contending this abberation that is in power. Trust me people, ANYBODY in the democratic party who is elected can start the process of removing this evil cabal from power. Throw your electoral strength BEHIND the person, man or woman, who has the capacity to put up a good fight. Any dem is worth 100s of these cretinous terrorists. Hillary may have her faults but I honestly believe she is no terrorist. And she is the only candidate with any potential. THE ONLY. Life was good under Clinton, remember those dear dead days? Like someone says we are all wearing the blue dress now. Get the fingers out folks, get the only possible dem in the White House and we'll take back the country and our freedoms and liberties!!!

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

You may be a "bad feminist".
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 19, 2006 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I wholeheartedly welcome you into the humanist persuasion. There's no reason in the world why humanists shouldn't take in reformed feminists, who've realized that simply dividing folks along gender lines is, well...simple-minded.

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

Hillary a "centrist"?
Posted by: SufiLizard on Oct 19, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well this article is much too short to cover ALL of Hillary's shortcomings, but let's start by not using the right-wing frame for describing Republicrats like Hillary.

She is not a centrist. The only thing she is in the geometric center of is the continuum between right and far-right.

A true centrist, or a moderate would be in favor of universal health-care that isn't designed by the for-profit hospitals and insurance companies. She would believe in progressive taxation, not tax-cuts for the wealthy. A true moderate would take a more balanced view of the situation in Israel with regard to the Palestinians. A true moderate would oppose the Iraq war with every fiber of her being. And she would oppose torture as well.

Being a pro-choice Republican does NOT make you a centrist Democrat.

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

» "True moderate" Posted by: BenjamminH
» RE: "True moderate" Posted by: SufiLizard
great stuff
Posted by: questionthemark1 on Oct 19, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here, here.

Great short article. I feel that all too often I don't hear this sort of thing from feminists. Sadly I think there are a lot of women who would support her just because she's a woman, just as there are a lot of men who wouldn't support her because she's a woman. And besides, its not like Hilary is remotely friendly to the feminist cause...whatever that is. Hilary is nothing but a false leftist, not too unlike her husband.

Question the Mark

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