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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

republican.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Setting aside Hillary's politics (which I don't agree with anyways) she is a bad choice for President simply because of who she is. She is the wife of Bill Clinton, whom the Right detests with a rage that will never cool.

If she were elected, the MSM would turn into all Monica/Whitewater/Travelgate/Filegate/Vince Foster/etc all the time.

She could come into the White House with a workable plan to balance the budget, turn the economy around, bring peace to the Middle East, make kids do better in school (actually better, not just on standardized tests), clean up the environment, reverse global warming, eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil, preserve gun rights while eliminating gun violence, get rid of sex & violence in the media by actually making it interesting, make junk food delicious/nutritious/low calorie, and bring about the Rapture for all the Christians who think they deserve it. But you would not hear one word about it in the media and all the Repugs and some of the Dems would vote against it out of sheer spite.

She could nothing accomplished because she is so hated by the Right.

If I'm going to have a Presidential candidate that's a woman, I would like one who can actually get something accomplished while she's there, not just have to defend against a bunch of old news that doesn't count any more.

THAT's why I can't support Hillary for President.

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

Sure, she disappoints the hell out of me with a lot of her stands on issues... her defense of the war in Iraq being top of the list. I am a socialist these days and have long supported feminist ideas because I feel they advance humankind in general... but I'm not deluded to the point that I think there is any candidate or potential candidate out there with a chance who will reflect very much of my political view. I think she is light years ahead of Bush in intelligence and compassion and might be a leader who would actually LISTEN to her citizens from time to time, at least a lot more than the majority of the clowns who grow fat and jowly in the halls of power now.

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

... is if Bill is her running mate.

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

Sounds like all those right-wing wackos who think ALL blacks should support Condeleeza Rice simply because she's BLACK.

I so love their hypocrisy.

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

They will just be giving the next election away if they choose Hillary Clinton for Pres or VP for the next election. It's that plain and simple. Personally, I don't care for most of her politics, but that's beside the point. There is so much polarization against her that I can't see any way for her to be elected. It would probably be a defeat resembling the Mondale/Reagan election of 1984, and we don't need that now!

I'd love to see a good female candidate on the ballot for President, but she's not the one! If she's running against Karl Rove or Dick Chenney she'd get my vote, but there's almost no other way I would ink her dot!

Disclaimer: I'm not a Democrat. I was raised Republican, but was personally more left than right. Once the Clinton/Whitewater/Lewinsky attacks started happening I could no longer keep my name on the Republican registry so I'm now a Green. Fits my political views closer than just about any other party out there.

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

Ah, political correctness... Why sex or race should have any place in choosing for whom to vote is beyond me. Pick the best candidate (i.e., the one you agree with the most) on the ballot. Now, Hillary would only be my first choice if she was the Democratic Party nominee in some future election and the other choices were either Republican or not viable. Being a woman means nothing to me--suppose the choice was between Phyllis Schafly and Lincoln Chaffee? Chaffee, hands down! My current representative is black and a woman, and I don't vote for her because of either of those two attributes--I vote for her because she has never supported the war in Iraq, and I believe she voted against the war in Afghanistan also. Now, that's a candidate!

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

There is reason to believe that Hillary will be dropping more and more of her centrist baggage as the years go by. Her husband is just starting to take his gloves off against these neocon slimeballs and if enough of that attitude rubs off onto her it will be a good thing.

She does need to tell Rupert Murdoch to go to hell though. I don't know why she thinks she needs Faux News for anything.

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

She should have had the courage of her convictions(if she really has convictions)regarding supporting the Iraq invasion.

She should have tossed her unfaithful husband out on his ass.

I think she's unelectable as POTUS.

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

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

Yes, you didn't need to wait. You didn't need to be of voting age in 1972 for that either.
It's funny when one can remember something from his infancy (or, in case of this author, probably something before she was born) and does not remember events of latest few years.

I don't remember 1972. Certainly not the U.S. elections of that year. However, I do remember 1996, as I am very sure does Ms. Hantschel.

Wasn't Elizabeth Dole a female presidential candidate too?

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

I don't know what the dems are thinking but they clearly need to lay off the hash if they think this country, which is by the way still very much pro-patriarchy, would elect such a swine. Is she really the best they've got? Poor fools.

As for our former first lady, well, there's so much to list as her virtues, where do we begin. I suppose we can start with the Iraq war which has killed almost one million people which she has, CONSISTENTLY, approved through her votes. Then there's the issue of 9/11 and how she's done so little for both the victims in New York, so little to prosecute someone in the EPA who through their negligence, spread abestos throughout the city that day (while claiming that the air was safe), so little to even uncover what really happened (and she, if anyone, has the clout to get it done if she wished). Then there's the whole healthcare thing which, sorry folks, she's not gonna do a thing to get it to everyone and her record with corporate america (in terms of campaign funding) attests to this. Where was Mrs. Clinton when those city transit workers were striking a few months back? Oh wait, she was agreeing with Millionare Bloomberg that they needed to get over themselves and get back to work! She supports the wall in Occupied Palestine, supported the war on Lebanon, supports the apartheid of Israel. There's in fact much to NOT like in this woman. And just because she's a woman, I'm sorry, doesn't mean she deserves shit from anybody! I suppose since I'm black and gay I should support Ms. Rice in her position? Right! I don't think so. She's a warmonger just like clinton and they both roll with the same circles. This was a stupid article and the author should really worry about bigger topics.

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

Condie or Hillary. Some one posted "Margret Thatcher", a big improvement.

I was a Repub. :-( . Now I am an Independant. If there were a female candidate running for Pres. who was not a R or D I would look at her stance on issues. It is stupid to decry a woman candidate just because of her gender. I decry Hill & Cond because of the party they are in. Rs & Ds are both corrupt & owned by the NWO cabal. That is why nothing changed when the Rs came to power. One administration lays a bit more treasonous groundwork the next builds on. I do not understand all the fuss over the GWB administration. They have been a lib-D wet dream... open borders, abortion funding (though in stealth mode), continues to rise, all the deficits are up, US debt & infrustructure is sold to forgien intrests, NAFTA, KAFTA ect. continue to cripple the US economy for the middle class, the police state war on drugs goes on (killing innocents during raids), the privatly owned "Federal" Reserve , IRS & the plans for the North American Union go un-challenged...Don't be fooled by Clinto's "ba;ance budget" BS. If the deficits are in place the budget cannot possibly be truly balanced. (Read Devvy Kidd & others at NewsWithViews.com. Also Arron Russo's site "freedomto facism.com".)

If Gore or Kerry had been elected they would have invaded Iraq for the same reason Bush did. Bush was obeying his masters. It is next to impossible to even run for Pres. (or Congress) if you are not rich and under the thumb of those who own the R & D parties. We need a truly "of the people, for the people and by the people" alternate party.

The sellout of the US has been going on for decades. It has not mattered who was Pres or which party is in power. Since at least 1913 both parties have been guilty of treason.

The NWO media spits out stuff to keep we the peeps fighting among ourselves & never mention a real soloution, question the Constitutionality of PACs, or the 'Fed" and allows UN-Constitutional counterfeit $$ to be printed by the NWO owned banking cabal planted in the US Treasury.

I would vote for a patriotic, Constitution supporting female in a heartbeat if she was not a member of the R or D party. Hill or Cond do not fit that bill. I think they are both NWO shills.

SamFox

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

I think that this is good advice for all voters not just women. That's the only valid reason to vote for anyone. Our Democracy has become negative. The constant advice from "liberals" is "vote for the lesser of the evils". I don't think that's a good enough reason to vote.

Why do we have to vote for the lesser evil? I think it's because both parties are owned by the same corporate establishment. Neither of the major parties will put up a candidate who's not acceptable to the establishment. They won't risk losing their share of big money campaign contributions.

What is your vote worth if your choice is between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum?

Follow Ms.Hantshel's advice. Look at presidential candidates as people who will or will not serve your needs and interests. Candidates of both parties should serve the interests of the people and they shouldn't get our votes unless they do. Instead of being forced to vote for the lesser of the "evils" we should be allowed to vote for the better of the "goods".

How can we turn things around so that we have a choice between "good and better". I believe that a simple two step strategy will work. Before the election we can, as individuals, tell the leaders of both parties which issues we want in their platforms. And that if at least one party doesn't run on our issues we will cast a protest vote. Let them know we will only vote "for" and not "against". Make them know that they can win your vote but that they can't get it by default.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

....the same way they wanted Kerry to get the nomination for '04. "Dukakis on stilts," they called him, snickering, knowing he'd lose, and they were right. Hillary would be "Dukakis in heels and lipstick." She'd guarantee a Democratic loss in '08. I sure as hell don't want her, anyway. Her wishy-washy attitude when it comes to abortion rights--the most reliable indicator there is of a politician's potential for standing firm or waffling on ANY position--has definitively crossed her off MY list.

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

I have heard and read much about Hillary Clinton as a possible presidential candidate for the past four years. Many of the comments are noted above: She's not leftist, she's too leftist; she's a woman, she's a sly political beast who stayed married only for her own carrier, she's Bill's wife; she's turning Republican. Calling her old politics because it is 2006 instead of 1992 is a new one and rather funny considering how much 1970 (or whichever year it was that Kerry spoke in front of the Congressional committee against the Vietnam War) played a role in 2004.

Yes, we should (or so I am) excited about Hillary getting strong press because and despite she is a woman. I can celebrate a woman breaking into elected power even as I deplore the policies of that woman.

I am not yet decided on Hillary, though. Should I call her Rodham Clinton or Clinton 44? I was not happy with her vote authorizing power to Pres. Bush on her belief that a president should have that power, but at least I belief she has the strength to represent and to lead the U.S. on the world stage. This is more than I can say for many, if not all, the men I have seen salivating at the idea of being president.

I was not particularly pleased with Clinton 42's domestic politics. There were good economic times for all levels of incomes, and I would like to see if that can be repeated. However, I agree with Andrew Cuomo's opponent in the contest for New York's Attorney General office that Cuomo was not a good Secretary of HUD. I also remain irritated at Clinton 42's welfare bill that he signed saying it was better than nothing and we could always fix it.

In the past few months, I have started looking at Rodham Clinton as a possible presidential candidate worthy of serious consideration. I have conflicting opinions, including the suggestion that she is the female Al Gore, trying to be something to everybody and true to nobody.

I would much prefer to see future discussions of Rodham Clinton on the issues and considerably fewer personal diatribes about whether she is Democratic/Republican; male/female light.

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

If hillary runs, the democrats lose. plain and simple.

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

Dear Allison: as a 50 yr old woman, who has been active in the women's movement since the early 70's, let me congratulate you on your article and ASSURE you, you are not a BAD FEMINIST> You give me hope that younger women behind me are accomplishing just what we set out to do. THINK FOR THEMSELVES! It was very refreshing to read your insights/thoughts and actually gave me a moment of hope in these otherwise bleak times for women. There was a time (in the late 70s, early 80s) when it was a safe bet to vote/support the women candidate. Many of us were so desperate to see women move into the "inner sanctums" of any arena that I often just supported the women. I admit it. But, even then, I longed for the day when we had real choices, and we could look at candidates for the positions they took and what they stood for. Not that women have achieved real parity, but it is MUCH better than it was. I applaud you for your critical thinking skills. Thanks for making me smile and feel as if all this hard work has been worth it. carry on. lee, wicked witch of the west

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

I like her better than hillary. I can not imagine myself voting for hillary but I might vote for Pelosi. My favorite democrat would be John Conyers. I like Fiengold too but I have some reservations about him now since he voted in favor of the patriot act II.

Hell, if I were the democrats I'd run kerry again before hillary. Kerry actually won. I do not think hillary could win even if elections were legitimate.

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

We did get McGovern, one of the most honest and promising candidates ever--which explains why he got buried in a landslide defeat. Rumors of Watergate were circulating during that election but it finally did not come out until Woodward and Bernstein broke the story.

In those days gutsy reporters and their newspapers helped get us out of Vietnam and revealed the likes of scum like Nixon. No longer. Instead the highest aspiration is to be the biggest, richest, monopolistic media.

I don't know what Hillary Clinton really stands for. It is not safe for any candidate for national office to lay out what they really stand for. Truth is turned into lies, by the cowards who now run our country.

The familiar example is John Kerry being attacked for his purple hearts. How do cowards who run away from military service get away with calling names of those who risked their lives in combat? What the h3ll kind of electorate votes for that?

My hope is that we cannot sink any lower because there's nothing lower than what the US has made of itself. But that's what I said when we re-elected Reagan. And look what we've come to.

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

And that is why I would not vote for her. The only Republican I EVER voted for was her husband, Bill (twice). Besides her right wing orientation, and the fact that she is a Wal-Mart shyster, we Dems will get our heineys handed to us in a hat if she is the nominee. Just my two cents.

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

I find her to be affable. She's pro-death penalty, though.

Here's my problem if Hillary were to run for President:

EVERY cricitism she got-- and I mean EVERY CRITICISM-- will be responded-to by her defenders with "YOU'RE ONLY SAYING THAT BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN!!"

I can predict it. That is exactly what will happen.

Any criticism of her policies-- ANY-- will be dismissed as sexism.

Example:

"So I see that Hillary's new budget includes a plan which would lease Alaska to China for 50 years? Gee, that doesn't seem like a good idea."

"SEXIST ASSHOLE!! WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN SO MUCH?!?! Maybe you don't want us to vote, either!!! BASTARD!"

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

We are, in fact, a Republic. And let us be grateful. Once you realize the difference, you will understand why Bush is yelling about spreading Democracy and grinnin' ear to ear.

From a Google search on Republic vs. Democracy

quoting from the following website:
http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

"Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good)."

In addition: Google search on Democracy vs. Republic http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/baska01.htm
And I quote:
"Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is a complete falsehood. The Founders were extremely well educated in this area and feared democracy as much as monarchy. James Madison (the acknowledged Father of the Constitution) said in the Federalist #10:

... there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." .....

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

I have never been impressed by Ms. Clinton, other than by her intelligence - shame she doesn't put it to better use. From her stand on the death penalty, to her "support" of the Iraq war, her beholden position to Big Business, and her shameless pandering to the "middle" road, I have no use for her! It has nothing to do with with her gender. She's not the kind of person I want running this country.

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

Your article brings a good point about not just voting for a women candidate to increase the feminism movement - she should also be a strong candidate with a required skill-set and believe in the values and politics you want represented.

However, I'm not sure about your definition on "feminism":

"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".

Please - this may be true for a middle to upper class white woman - but for others "feminism" really means many other things. Are you a poor Black women who is looking for multiple equalities? Are you a woman of colour who is highly educated but can't get a job based on the colour of her skin? Feminism has evolved...meaning different things to different people.

Your article could have given more breath to to the diverse forms of feminism...I guess you were trying to do that with Shirley Chisholm?

Try to do more research next time - this just touched on what you have been trying to convey.

As for Hilary...yes she is not what she could be. I wouldn't vote for her just because she is a woman....As for this lesser than two evils voting analysis - this is what happened in Canada recently. The public thought Stephen Harper should be given a chance when Paul Martin and the Liberals got caught in the sponsorship scandal. Though Martin was not the best he could be and stuttered like crazy - he would not have put more troops in Afghanistan nor made pro-war statement to the UN. The Liberals can't even get it togethor to get a new Liberal Leader for this country! This doens't really relate....just needed to get off my chest that Harper should be watched and though the Liberals need to clean it up - our country use to have a more socially responsible worldview - just look at the Conservatives new Enviro agenda - copying the states that dates back to the 70s!!!

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

I wish I could feel enthusiastic about a Hillary run for President... but I don't. That ship already sailed and Bill was the captain. I think she should stick to the Senate and make that Government body work for the people. She is supremely talented and capable, and I hope she helps us get health care right this time.

I am a feminist, which to me means I believe every person is equally powerful and wonderful in the eyes of God. What we each choose to do with that wonder and power is up to us.

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

She just doesn't do it for me. Her speaking style along would make me not vote for her. Mono, halting, strict and boring. Like listening to a math lecture in high school.
A woman president would be nice but, not Hillary. I don't have the "she's just not liberal enough" feelings. I don't think she is anything. she's all over so I feel she doesn't have a passionate thing she stands on. Just which ever way the wind blows. That's not good.
I want someone who is left of center but, realistic enough to know how to govern for all. Someone who has things they believe in. someone who can bring the country together and work together. I am so sick of partisanship.
My biggest knock is that she does believe in some torture. I don't believe in any and I think the ticking bomb thing to justify it is stupid. All torture is to be condemned. Any thought of voting for her was squashed by that.
I am also sick of pundits who only talk about her as the only democrat running. Oh Hillary you are so wonderful. These idiots need to get out more. roam around the middle of the country and talk to the real people. They are not enthralled.

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

The Real Problem is not to vote/not vote for Hilary. The real problem is Republican/Democrat. Two sides to the same coin. I love Democracy but why is it that we're limited to ONLY TWO PARTIES??? Oh, thats right, so we can be manipulated easier ( like being "guilted" for not voting for Hilary)!

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

You have my vote and I will cast it with a smile. I look forward to busting up the old-boy-network of the presidency during my lifetime.

You will open the flood gates and hopefully stamp out the republinuts preaching only white males can do the job. This is why they fear Hillary.

She is electable and furthermore when people realize a woman, a black or etc can be a good president it forces white men to be more competitive, compassionate and listen to the people.

If you can't see that you are sad people. You hate Hillary so much you'd rather deny our country the opportunity and direction her presidency will bring. You will have endured 8 years of W and you want to talk about Hillary? She is not incompetent.

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

I plan to vote for Hillary because I believe she will be really great for Israel. We need someone like her in the Knesset that will keep those cockroaches in the bottle, so to speak.

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

Somewhere in this diatribe I read the lie that Hilary is an antiwar liberal and that is pure bullshit! She has backed every aspect of this war and she loves GWB. If she gets in, we can all kiss our asses goodbye including the author!

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

Mark my words, if Hillary Clinton gets elected president we will be at war with Iran and we will nuke Korea. And that's just for starters.

Using a bit of a Bushism, if you want to speed the hand basket to hell faster, vote for Hillary.

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