If it does, than it's a bad idea - how about 'humanism' instead of 'feminism'? Wealth and power corrupts everyone, regardless of race, sex, creed, and sexual preference. The consolidation of power under the president that Cheney so strongly supports is just the drift towards fascism - and Rice is going along with it, even actively supporting it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand these movements based on racial or sexual identity - is the fact that Condi Rice is now head of State a 'success' to groups like the NAACP? I mean, what's next? A 'masculinism' movement? It's like the 'gay pride' rallies - that's all very well - but have you ever seen a 'white pride' rally? (aka a neo-Nazi rally?) Let me tell you, it's kind of disturbing.

Perhaps a NAAPP is needed - a National Association for the Advancement of Poor People - that would put all the concerns - anti-war, education, employment, the environment - under one tent. We're all going to have to work together, like it or not, and the small number of plantation owners don't like to see the po' white crackers shaking hands with the po' black folk, that's for sure. That kind of thing calls for immediate police intervention to separate the groups. 'Keep 'em separated, keep 'em stupid' - that's the plantation owner's mantra. It used to be a capital offense to teach slaves to read and write, remember?

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

We might take note of the fact that the beauty contest is another American contribution to Western Civilization. Unfortunately, electoral politics oftentimes is just another form of the beauty contest. We vote for the person we find "most attractive."

Mrs. Clinton's detractors often attempt to make fun of her clothes or her hair style or some other feature in her appearance. Who cares! Is she up to the responsibilities? Can she hire the people needed to get done well the terribly difficult, even impossible, job of president? I think she can.

A more serious criticism is the one of family dynasties. Since name recognition helps greatly, our American political class (yes, ruling class) gets ever more ingrown. My congressman gets automatically elected because his identification with the office he holds has become almost an inheritance; he's more a follower than he is a leader. That keeps his bread buttered.

With Senator Clinton's history of leadership on health care, the time may finally be ripe for a surge there. But the occupation of Iraq is the big issue. If you believe we need to get out of there now, whatever the consequences, she has made clear that she does not share that view. Her gender does not begin to compare in significance.

What matters most to me is which candidate is best at uniting a majority of Democrats for progressive change. Who can bring anti-war advocates together with advocates for the middle class?

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

This subject was covered not too long ago on Alternet. At that time, posters noted it was a waste of electronic space.

Give me Hillary Clinton's positions on reproductive health, access to contraceptives, sex education in schools, family leave with pay, paid time off for new mothers, and other so-called feminist-agenda items. While you're at it, give me all the other candidates' positions on these matters, too.

Being a feminist does not mean automatically voting for a woman, but it sure as heck means voting for the candidate who supports women's rights. Too bad Alternet, along with most of the rest of the new and old media can't be bothered to help busy readers determine where candidates stand on such issues.

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

Wealth doesn't corrupt people. What it does, whether they start poor or rich, is take the already existing corruption in people, and make it more dangerous. It "enables" that corruption, it doesn't create it. What makes favoring Mrs. Clinton's candidacy a slightly greater preference, because she's a woman, is precisely that she's not Condi, though she may not be a more conservative democrat than we'd ideally like. But who said that's a disadvantage in the 2008 race? I don't believe we know how conservative or liberal any of the dem candidates are, based on their presidency-seeking rhetoric. Hillary may sound a lot more conservative than she intends to be, because she believes that's where she's likely to find the greatest number of votes, and not because she has any undying passion about it. Other candidates are also playing to the "greatest number of votes" approach in shaping their rhetoric. They simply view their potential constituency, the potential for the greatest possible number of votes available to them, differently than Mrs. Clinton. So far, it's Hillary for my vote, not because her rhetoric is entirely in line with my values and hopes for this country, but because rhetoric can be deceiving, but because, far more important, she seems to have, for now, the best chance of beating the republican nominee, whoever that will eventually be.
john polifronio

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

Feminism should not be defined as merely voting for a woman candidate.

If this were the test, Elozabeth Dole should have been supported by the feminist movement and taken over the GOP for them.

Senator Clinton is another matter entirely.

She is the first woman candidate who is not running as a woman's candidate.

Instead she is running as a Democratic candidate who happens to be a woman.

If elected one will not expect an overtly feminist agenda from the Clinton Administration.

Instead one may expect an Administration that forms its policies based on feminist values.

In a high office like the Presidency, the expectation that the incumbent, or even a serious contender can run and win on an idealogical basis is unrealistic.

Clinton is able to run and is a credible candidate partly because of feminism. partly because of her personal history and partly because she has chosen to mediate between the left and center.

Clinton's Administration, if elected will be a moderate left of center coalition and she will be building it as she governs.

Feminism will have a strong and profound influence, but will not be the exclusive arbiter.

In large part this is because so much of the Presidency is absorbed by national security, law enforcement, treasury and other concerns which feminism has not defined in ways understood by the general public.

In my estimation if Clinton is not elected in 08 it will be at least three Presidential election cycles before the issue is raised again.

Another entire generation will grow up knowing that a progressive leaning woman candidate cannot rise any higher than the cabinet or Senate.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

By Eco-Feminist and Spiritual Liberator
Eileen Fleming


http://www.aljazeerah.info/
Al-Jazeerah, February 26, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton's ILLEGAL Jewish Only Colony of Gilo and George's Ancient Indigenous Christian Village of Beit Jala

On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton's delusional remarks to AIPAC/ American Israel Public Affairs Committee, prove she has never outgrown her favorite movie and for she remains a resident in the land of Oz.

The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician purred to AIPAC, "I've been a strong supporter of Israel's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have spoken out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel's right to build that fence of security."

Clinton not only cares naught for the rule of law, she apparently does not read the august Washington Report on Middle East Affairs , "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

Clinton continued selling out we the people of America and the cause of peace and justice, "On my trip to Israel a little over a year ago, I went to see the fence with my own eyes. During a trip to Gilo, a Jerusalem neighborhood, I was greeted by Col. Danny Tirza, who was overseeing the construction of the security fence."

The facts on the ground are that Clinton 's Orwellian spun 'neighborhoods' are all ILLEGAL colonies for everyone exist on legally owned Palestinian land.


This reporter also went to see "the fence" which in actuality is composed of 25 to 30 foot high concrete slabs with razor wire, trenches, sniper towers, electric fences, military roads, electronic surveillance, remote controlled infantry and buffer zones that stretch over 100 miles wide that deny Palestinians access to their land, families, jobs, and resources.


Clinton's Jewish only colony of Gilo is less than a mile away from the ancient indigenous Christian village of Beit Jala , which is a five minute car ride from downtown Bethlehem. The Wall will soon completely separate Bethlehem and her sister villages of Beit Sahour, and Beit Jala from the northern parts of the West Bank. Because of Bethlehem's significance to and historic ties with Palestinian East Jerusalem, Bethlehem 's economic demise may well mark the beginning of the end of any viable Two-State solution.


If The Wall is completed in this area, 4000 dunums of the areas most fertile land will be isolated in order to accommodate for the expansion and the building of the ILLEGAL colonies/settlements of Gilo and Har Gilo. This means Beit Jala will have no potential for expansion.


This growing ghettoization of Bethlehem is not only destroying ancient communities, but the influx of nearly 900 new settlers, and plans for 30,000 new settlers to colonize the occupied West Bank , violates International Law and the Road Map, which prohibits settlement expansion.


The Wall and all of Israel 's settlement colonies are illegal under International Law, but Clinton cares naught for the rule of law and the truth is The Wall is an APARTHEID Wall for it divides, separates, humiliates, dominates, controls and denies inalienable human rights to the indigenous people of the Holy Land.

TBC

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

Clinton continued in her denial of reality, "Col. Tirza's explanation in his graphic depiction of what was part of the daily life of people living in that one neighborhood, gave me an even greater appreciation for the imperative of the fence and the need to do everything possible to protect Israel against these continuing attacks."

The truth is the 'attacks' originated because of the illegally settled inhabitants that are encroaching upon the indigenous people of Beit Jala and the 40 years of Occupation. International Law states occupation is to be temporary and the occupiers are not to transfer their population into occupied territory.


What Clinton is apparently clueless of is the fact that in the year 2000, in Beit Jala, some hopeless militants who had given up on the 'peace makers' of the West to demand Israel adhere to International Law, UN Resolutions and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, infiltrated this previously peaceful Christian village to shoot into the illegal colony of Gilo. The Israeli Defense Force immediately retaliated and the bedroom of George of Beit Jala was decimated.

The shrapnel that pierced the wall of George's sanctuary read "Made in USA" and was delivered from American made Apache helicopters that buzzed over his innocent head. If George had been in his bed, he would be dead.


I first met George of Beit Jala in June 2005, shepherded by an Internet connection, George Rishmawi, a Palestinian Christian, who met with the USA delegation from the interfaith, non-profit Olive Trees Foundation for Peace/OTFFP, of which I am a member. The OTFFP is dedicated to raising awareness and funds to help replace the over one million olive trees The Wall has destroyed.

During my initial visit with George of Beit Jala, I learned that he, his sister and mother all suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome, but Clinton, USA and Israeli government all just consider that collateral damage. George's father told me he has no bitterness about what happened even though the snipers had not even been near their home. The most difficult thing for him is the lack of employment opportunities in Bethlehem and being dependent on relatives and friends to feed his children.



Clinton's delusional pandering continued with, "Now as a thriving democracy… Israel has also used its strengths to forge alliances throughout the world even when those efforts have not always been welcome."


Clinton apparently has never paid attention to Jeff Halper, American Israeli, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and a Noble Peace Prize Nominee for 2006, who informed this reporter:

"Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control…. 1967 the Israeli government has destroyed over 2,000 Palestinian homes. 95% of the cases have nothing to do with security. All these homes are on Palestinian private property. The Israeli government will not grant permits for them to build on their own land, and in reality are quietly transferring the Palestinians administratively from the land. They make conditions so intolerable that the Palestinians give up and leave and this is exactly what they are after. Not only do the Palestinians receive no warning when their homes are to be destroyed they are fined $1, 500.00!

TBC

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

"The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation… Missing from Israel's security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists…and that "security" requires Israel control over the entire country…rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation.

"Israel has no constitution but has a Declaration of Independence which promised that Israel would abide by conditions and UN resolutions. They have not fulfilled the agreement which was the basis of their independence.


"One out of three Israeli children lives below the poverty line. It's probably about 80% for Palestinians. Jews are like everyone else, those who have been abused grow up to be abusers. Things here have been turned on their head: its victim mentality and denial about the occupation. Once Israelis accept the fact that they are occupiers they will have to admit their State Terrorism."


"It has been said that the Israeli's do not love this land, they just want to possess it. There have been three stages to make this occupation permanent. The first was to establish the facts on the ground; the settlements. There are ½ million Israeli's and four million Palestinians here. They have been forced into Bantustan ; truncated mini states; prison states. It is apartheid and Bush and Hillary are both willing collaborators. In 1977, Sharon came in with a mandate, money and resources to make the Israeli presence in the West Bank irreversible.

"The second stage began in April 2004 when America approved the Apartheid/Convergence/Realignment Plan and eight settlement blocs. This is just like South Africa! The Bush Sharon letter exchange guaranteed that the USA considers the settlements non-negotiable. The Convergence Plan and The Wall create the borders and that is what defines Bantustans . Congress ratified the Bush plan and only Senator Byrd of West Virginia voted no and nine House Representatives.


"Israel has set up a matrix of control; a thick web of settlements guaranteed to make the occupation permanent by establishing facts on the ground. Israel denies there is an occupation, so everything is reduced to terrorism. It is our job to insist upon the human rights issue, for occupied people have International Law on their side."


Clinton concluded her hustling by putting her foot in her mouth, "It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever."


Tough and smart comprehends that the only way to security for Israelis is justice for Palestinians. Tough and smart would demand an end to the occupation and ensure that all people do indeed have equal human rights. No enduring peace, no security, and no reconciliation is even possible without the foundation of justice. Justice requires mercy on the occupied and oppressed and is always nonviolent.



SOURCES:


http://clinton.senate.gov/


Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory: THIRD INTIFADA/UPRISING NONVIOLENT: But With Words Sharper Than a Two Edged Sword by Eileen Fleming


http://www.wearewideawake.org


Eileen Fleming is an Author, Reporter and Editor of WAWA: http://www.wearewideawake.org/

PHOTO of George
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
Feb. 26, 2007

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

I reject the notion that just because Hillary is "considered" the first female that perhaps OFFERS the possibility of becoing the FIRST female President that I am obligated to vote for ..I reject that notion entirely and forthrightly and find that absurd thought figure too, no doubt, some will vote for her JUST BECAUSE she offers up the possibility!!! Seems to be a ridiculous stance that just reinforces the notion that if things WERE as they SHOULD be, not everyone SHOULD have the "right" to vote just due to citizenship/age/registration TO vote...Seems what is forgotten, one should be voting FOR the BEST candidate, no matter the gender, race, thnicity, religious perspective, etc.
ABSOLUTLY NO, NO WAY will I cast a vote for Hillary JUST BECAUSE she is female, nor a "first/historic/etc"...IF she ever gets around to actually defining and standing for something or other and off that politically position fence she sits on, perhaps she will earn the consideration of my vote..As it stands , she has no grasp on it. (and found her response to the Geffen remarks abysmal and desengenous and RIDICULOUSLY MISPLACED, which cause me to even FURTHER figure she does NOT get my vote.She and her team were woefully out of line in attempting to lay it on Obama and took it to repulsive extreme in demanding HE give back the support dollars --especially considering the funds gathered by HC from various questionable sources no matter how "cloaked" in legitimacy..the sources themselves have questionable linkages and we all rather know/realize such!!!)

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

At what point will Americans stop asking these insane questions?

"Must I vote for any woman who runs for President -- just because I'm a woman too?"

"Should I vote for the black candidate, just because I'm black?"

"Should I vote for that redneck, smirking 'beer buddy' with the brain of a rock squirrel - the guy who only survived the debates with a wire in his ear - just because..." oh never mind.

Thinking back on Election 2000, I remember a media droning, over and over, "Gore is too stiff, too intellectual. He's so boring." And "Bush is such a funny guy!" -- nudge, nudge -- "Isn't he a funny guy? He told us jokes all day long, as we followed him around!"

Yeah, very funny. I'm laughing my head off. Gore is out there making a difference -- practically a rock star -- and apparently not boring at all (he just won an Oscar and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. Boring stuff. The media was right about the intellectual part though -- have to give them that.)

Meanwhile... please tell me again why I wanted an exciting president? Was I getting too much sleep? Were we all too happy, too positive about our national outlook? Were we getting along too well? Was the surplus too high? Were we all just missing a little 'terra' in our lives? Yeah - I didn't know what 'fun' was, until I found out my own president was spying on me....

Please. ENOUGH. Can we stick to the issues - the real issues this time?

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

As a participant and beneficiary of second wave feminism, I have never repudiated its goals, and I'm proud to say my daughter has been a staunch feminist since grade school. But I won't vote for Hillary in the primary and I surely won't urge my daughter to. Ask yourself: Was the UK a better place because Margaret Thacher became prime minister? Hardly.

Now, will Hillary Clinton, who has built a humongous war chest from large donors who will demand their due, move the progressive agenda forward? She still refuses to recant from her initital support of the war. She voted for the bankruptcy bill that keeps millions of ordinary Americans in outrageous debt. She waffles on reproductive rights. She bungled a chance to fix our health care because she wouldn't explore a single payer system that angered the insurance companies. She has shown no leadership in creating a real peace plan for the Middle East because she dares not anger the religious right.

A lot of awesome women have poured their lives' energy into the feminist movement, and I am grateful to them. But I am pro-choice in every sense of the word, and I'm still looking for a candidate.

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

well, golly, gee whiz, you mean I can stop looking at issues and just vote my "what-I-am"? Is there an atheist, anti-war, pro-constitution, working class, intelligent, non-quackery, iconoclast, on the ticket anywhere?

Forget it. Do I really care about whether or not a woman is president? NO, but I care deeply that we get a president who actually doesn't despise democracy. Go Kucinich.

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

I can't believe anyone would possibly mistake Sillary for a feminist just because her genitalia is correct. She got where she is basically by glomming on to an alpha-type male and riding his star upward. Maybe if she'd kicked him to the curb 8-9 years ago, struck out independently, and then actually done something significant in the senate in the meantime, then she might have some standing as a feminist heroine. Of those running, Biden's spearheading of VAWA a decade ago probably gives him a better claim on this count.

Someone (GregA) over at Huffington Post just the other day made the astute observation that the future of mainstream progressive thought will not be identity politics, but will focus instead on good governance. I.e., can he/she run this big household? Too bad feminism jettisoned the domestic arts long ago.

If modern feminism is about doing pretty much whatever the h__ someone feels like, and then offering flimsy rationalizations and making others adjust to the consequences, I'd say BushCo has been prototypically feminist in its behavior. That a woman might be able to get away with this sort of thing easier is not much comfort.

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

I thought the entire point of feminism was NOT to be compelled to do things against one's will because it is what women (or feminists) are "supposed" to do.

I thought the entire point was FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! Not to be beholden to a different set of ideological chains!

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

I live in Britain and am old enough to remember when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. Life under her was not pretty and it was British feminists who probably hated her the most.

Like Thatcher, Hillary Clinton is a political reactionary, she only looks progressive to some because George W. et al are even more reactionary. What's more to the point is that she only got where she is today by being married to Bill. Were it not for that fact she would not be standing for the Democratic nomination for President. As for for making a few anti war noises about Iraq, I think Hillary realises the game is up and is simply jumping on the antiwar bandwagon. As for The MidEast generally Hillary is an ardent Zionist. I have seen her on TV at some US Zionist Congress saying that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. So she will go along with anything that George W. has planned for the Iranians.

If you want real social change in the USA then look to the union strugles of the 1930s, the black civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, the anti Vietnam war movement, the feminist movement, the lesbian and gay movement. They all made major social changes by organising out on the streets. But at the same time much of what they achieved has been rolled back today because many of the leaders of these movements became co-opted into the Democratic Party.

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

and the men who love them

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

Writing like this gives women a bad name. It reads like something out of the early 70's. Except back then women were charting new courses. Now the author simply jumps on the 'feminist' bandwagon. That train left a long time ago. By the way, it's Sentor Clinton, not Congresswoman. This was not a well written article. You might want to try another subject. Thanks ,ANNA

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

The better question would be "are the Democrats going to self-destruct by nominating Hillary ? "

I liked her as a first lady with Bill. I think they were, in some instances, a "co-presidency". There's no doubt they're both intelligent and informed; we had the "two for one" they had promised.

What everyone is forgetting is the rock-hard 25 to 30 percent of the electorate who still drink the conservative KoolAid. They despise Hillary, fueled by the lies of Coulter, O'Reilly and the rest. If the Dems nominate Hillary, you will see these bottom-feeders organise more tightly than they ever have to vote as a bloc and crush us again.

Regardless of her pandering cha-chas to the right, Hillary is the devil incarnate to them. If she thinks she is electable, she is more deluded than Dubya.

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

...chromosome to support as my candidate?

I mean, since everyone is choosing sides based on anatomy and pigment, I might as well pick the side who will govern from their naughty bits and ethnicity, too.

Policy be damned; Naughty Bits--both their color and their shape--matter most of all.

Now get out there, ye progressives, and vote for the Naughty Bits you can be proud of!

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

I don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House, even following behind Hillary as he returns.

He screwed this country, Al Gore, and women everywhere for a blowjob and a cigar. "Becuz ah cood" he says. Hillary stood by her man. Yuck!!! There's precious little Feminist about that.

I am ready for the changes we need to make. That means sweeping out the greedy power brokers. We must sweep them right out of there. It means replacing them with those who represent real change and a new direction. I say this with certainty because if we don't do this, the rest of the world will close doors on us and turn their backs to us in ways we have yet to imagine.

Is anyone perfect for the job? No. Will we get any solutions from those that created our problems? NO!

Think. Do you really want any of those connected to old ideas of Empire bringing the old guard and the rule of the few excessively rich further into the future? Do you want Henry Kissenger and his cronies to continue to make behind the scenes failed policy for four MORE years? Or eight? Haven't you learned anything? Haven't we all?

Let's look for the BEST of what remains of the past politicians and look for the BEST of those with the new ideas and who are on the next path. Let's put them together and tell them we want to go in a new direction. We must get OFF the old tired roads of a failing Empire. We must blaze new routes to the future - a healthy, sustainable future. We must envision and then create this new future. That is what the rest of the world is doing and we are falling farther and farther BEHIND!

The old guard in a new dress can't create anything new. That is why we are surrounded by destruction and shallow vestiges of a faltering culture. They can't even see it. They actually believe we care about the tabloid fodder that they put in place of real journalism. They actually believe polution can continue to poison our planet and greedy corporations can continue to suck the life's blood out of our lives and our children's lives. They believe they can behave this way around the world and that no one can see through their lies and false fronts. The world sees. We see.

They refuse to honor this beautiful planet and recognize the signals if distress being sent to us in every season! Stop them from moving forward in the wrong direction. Tell them NO! Then, get off the road they are on. Leave them standing there with their pointless sabers rattling. There are other paths to follow and to create.

Be the change you want to see in this world. Find a starting place. Begin on the new path. You are not alone. Millions of others are already there. Once you look in new directions you will find you are in great company. You can see them out ahead of you! You are not alone in your questioning, your search, or your dreams.

Get up, stand up, get moving and get back to creating a real culture with global values. Our survival as a species depends on our making this change. It depends on you.

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

No third termites!

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

...because she is a Clinton, and proved herself during her husband's time in office, (that eight years of a Clinton is better than eight HOURS of George Bush and his Nazi GOP), and also because no other Democratic candidate running HAS A CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING IN REDSTATE REDNECK NAZI AMERIKA.

Except maybe Al Gore. Who's not in the race yet.

THAT'S why a feminist should support Hillary. Because a smart feminist doesn't fall for the media pushing a man THEY DAMN WELL KNOW doesn't have a chance in winning in Nazi Amerika... for that matter, ANY OPENLY anti-war candidate.

No matter what the polls say, ENOUGH people do not vote for doves. To deny that simple fact is to deny reality.

However, ENOUGH people would probably PREFER a Dove Veep after eight miserable warcrime years of Cheney, as long as the President was not an OPEN DOVE.

I grew up in Redneck Redstate Nazi Amerika; I KNOW the mindset. A woman has to at least appear TWICE as hard as a man (at least on the surface) to even BEGIN to be accepted, and then even harder to be admired as a leader. And have a husband AND family while doing it.

And it's not much different in corporate Amerika either, except for the husband and family part.

What Red State Nazi Amerika really wants? Someone to tell them what they want to hear (we can win this with honor and honor and support our troops sacrifice), while actually doing what they unconsciously, at this point, want them to do (pulling the entire US military out of the Mideast ASAP.)

There's only one candidate doing that right now, and doing it with a shred of credibility (from her HISTORY), and she just happens to be a woman.

And I would be remiss if I didn't at least acknowledge the issue of race, and who Red State Redneck Nazi Amerika would vote for first... a white woman or a black man.

The answer is, who REALLY got the vote first, white women or black men? The answer to that question will tell you how America views and treats these two minorities.

This is a trick question, and it includes how many black voters were purged (illegally and wrongly) from the rolls in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Not to mention voter intimidation throughout Red State KKK Amerika in the 1950's and 1960's.

Am I suggesting for a moment that it is remotely right? Of course not. I'm suggesting that it's merely America and American history, and that America will have a white woman Presdent before it will have a black President (and he will have to be VEEP for EIGHT years to pull that off). And that there will be at least FIVE black Presidents, male AND female, before there would ever be an OPENLY gay female president, and at least two of THOSE before there would be an OPENLY gay male President.

IF Amerika survives that long.

That's how the unfortunate majority of Amerika sees and treats the "hierarchy" of minority (and I apologize in advance for leaving others out, but in politics, they generally can fit in between the other major categories.)

Some would say it is racist to even talk about this; I maintain it is foolhardy to not, unless you want more years of Nazi GOP control.

Acknowledging racism in American and Amerikan history is not espousing it; on the contrary, shining the light on evil is the only way to purge it.

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

As a former second-wave feminist leader and a die-hard women's rights activist, may I say that our whole fight was/is about equality - a simple idea to comprehend, a tricky concept to implement in our culture given the institutionalized preference for men our society holds so dear.

To the question "Should a feminist vote for a women simply because she is a women?" Of course not. But, should you have two candidates who are equally qualified, vote for the women.

I would even give an edge to a woman over a man because exposing this country to a woman president is, in itself, good for the "male pattern-interrupt" benefits it would bring to our culture. That is a perfectly valid point to go in the woman-for-president column. Each of us will will have to decide for ourselves how much weight we will give that point.

My fear is that feminists will be "inadvertently unfair" in their attempt to be "overly fair" in the woman vs man contest by not acknowledging that breaking the male tradition of presidential power does deserve some consideration as a credible positive.

Common sense and personal political preferences would have to dictate, on an individual basis, whether that particular positive tips the balance to the woman candidate.

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

First off, she is a Senator not a Congresswoman. That's important.

She's too tied to corporate interests. She's too much into war and toughness. She's willing to compromise on reproductive freedom. She's part of the Democratic Leadership Council. Rupert Murdoch gives her money.

Her last two outings (on C-SPAN) were yukky and I would not vote for her were she the only candidate running.

I am a long time feminist and voting for women who are too right wing doesn't work for me.

Take care

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

Just because she's a woman. That's like saying I should have voted for bush because I am a white man. Gimme a break!

I can only wonder what the term progressive or liberal means when equated to hillary, a sponsor of an amendment to ban flag burning.

I'd vote for Cynthia McKinney before I'd vote for any of the candidates I've seen so far. But I wouldn't vote for McKinney either I prefer someone more level headed like John Conyers.

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

. . . on this board, and within the last few weeks? If I had an extra hour, I could probably write a pretty coherent essay on why being a feminist means NOT voting for Hillary -- but then I'm a cranky 50-something lesbian who remembers when feminism wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party (and is nutty enough to believe that somewhere out there this is still true).

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

The other week I saw this question disussed on Eldridge & Co.. I was astonished that the thought could even occur to so intelligent a person, yet she professed herself conflicted.
To me it is a no brainer -- vote your politics not your gender, or your skin color.

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

Vote for whoever can win against the Republicans....whoever. Vote for whoever has the best chance of making sure the world is free of political psychopaths like BushCo for at least 4 years. We need the strongest candidate to defeat THE EVIL EMPIRE.

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

I can't even imagine how many feminists are insulted by this drivel.

Hillary is an oppressor; how can her ideology possibly be helpful to any liberation movement?

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

She knew that there was no significant WMD threat. She also knew that even if there were WMDs, there was no delivery system. Now we want to know why she did it. For real. If she won't tell us that, what else won't she tell us? And if she won't talk real issues with voters, what does she think we should base our votes on? We should just be groupies and vote based on looks and sounds?

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

didn't hillary co-initiate a bill with a republican to make it a crime to burn the US flag?

how does that fit into feminist politics?

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

Being a feminist implies to me having an ounce of brains. The only thing feminist about Hillary is her gender. On all other counts, other candidates fill the bill (no pun intended) much better.

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

A black guy or a white woman is NOT going to win. You want another Bush???

Where do you all live? New York City? Go talk to a cab driver or a garbage man. They are NOT going to vote for her.

Not to mention all the cowboys we have out here in the west.

What about Tanner in Montana? What about the Mayor of Salt Lake City? We need someone male and white with a crew cut...

Besides- she has supported this war. That is NOT feminism. That is going backwards.

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

Ever since the November elections, we have had the possible 2008 presidential candidates shoved in our faces -- and NOT equally. The media tell us what to think about whom, and we fall into the trap every time. So we wind up on election day holding our noses and voting for 'the lesser of two evils'.


Hillary? Who constantly watches 'the center', a continually right-moving target, and follows wherever it goes? She is in no way a progressive. What she is instead is a politician all the way, looking at every possible angle for her personal advantage. She is no feminist. She is a thoroughly integrated elitist who supports globalization, the path laid in concrete by Bill with NAFTA.


We are soon to find out what that means down here on the ground. Spychips, perpetual war to benefit perpetual war profiteers, the complete takeover of the U.S. by foreign investors, the dissolution of the U.S.A. in favor of the North American Union, the nullification of the Constitution. The utter disappearance of the middle class and a clearly defined corporatocracy at the top which will control the rest of us, the peasant/serf class. It's almost here, folks, and it doesn't resemble 'the kingdom of God' in any way. This is fascism.


I would vote for Dennis Kucinich, a man of integrity; Bill Moyers, a man of integrity who knows government intimately; Al Gore -- with some reservations -- but we know he is genuinely concerned about the environment. And I would vote for a woman in a heartbeat -- if she had the kind of credentials and track record those guys have.


I repudiate the Democratic Party because it no longer represents the grassroots. It represents rich elites who differ very little from the rich elites who call themselves Republicans. Those two labels no longer mean anything like their traditional meanings; elite Republicans are not 'conservative' and elite Democrats are not 'liberal'. "By their fruits you shall know them." (Jesus)

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

Whoever is strongest on a broad range of issues such as women's, minority, children's and poor people's issues gets my vote. These are the people who need the most help and it's about time any president addressed the most needy.

I'm sick of the infighting between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. They should be talking about the world's most pressing problems. Whoever addresses these problems the best should win the nomination. I'm unimpressed with the way they're going after each other instead of talking about global warming, the impending war with Iran, leaving Iraq, etc. Actually, it's was media construction about Geffen. All three of them should talk about the challenges facing us instead of their egotistical need to be president. It's surprisingly small-minded from supposedly Democratic candidates.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are equally owned by AIPAC, the DLC and corporations. There's no need to single out Clinton. Check out Media Matters which debunked every Clinton myth you've ever heard:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130005

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

I think that there is no question about whether or not one should vote for Hillary because she is a woman not. Feminist voices can be heard from women and men. A feminst should vote for the person she or he beleives to uphold the ideals of feminism, which if I remember from my Woman's Studies 101 class is the idea that all people are equal what ever their sex, race, class, ability, sexuality, religion, etc is. Voting for someone because they are a woman, even if they continually uphold the status quo and they give into the patriarchy every chance they get, does not further feminism's cause.

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

Rep. Watts of OK was a rising figure in the Republican party because he was black and very conservative. His father, however, said that a black man voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. This is the crux of the matter. If your focus is on feminism, is voting for Hillary going to further feminist agendas more than any of the other candidates or not? If the answer is yes, then you vote for her. Otherwise, vote for whomever would further your agenda. If your focus is on something else, then vote for the person who would further those ideals that you think are most important. Personally I am not impressed with Ms. Rodham's stand on Iraq or the Palestinian/Israeli situation and I have yet to hear her come out with a suggestion for anything that is significantly better than anyone else's position.

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

You make so many good points. You don't seem angry, instead you write from a calm and thoughtful perspective. I like the little sarcasm (Gore is doing something). Just wanted you to know I agree with everything you said (therefore, you MUST be right!). Thanks.

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

Does Being a Feminist Mean Voting for Hillary?

Yes, if you're a STUPID feminist.

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

This is the second time in less than six months that there has been an article about wether feminists should vote for Hilary because she is a woman. Not only is it a bit silly since any sensible person will know that you should vote for aomeone who supports the same causes as you. They might as well say that all christians should vote for Bush since he is a coreligionist.

What is really annoying about this is that an essay on something similar was written. Other people have expressed why the whole idea behind the article is wrong much better than I have. Alternet please go back to your former high standards. Don't become the salon of the leftist new sites.

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

As a woman, I must say that I would LOVE to see a female President elected--but that President is NOT Hillary.
She voted for the war, and has refused to admit that she, along with scads of our elected officials, really screwed up. Those who do not acknowledge or admit mistakes are doomed to repeat them, and We, the People, cannot afford that right now.
Let's take a look at another part of her "history" or "experience". She occupied the White House for eight years--during which she was very publicly humiliated by her hound-dog husband. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Bill Clinton, but I was and remain perplexed at Hillary's reaction--or lack of. Any self-respecting woman would have dumped a man like Bill long before his indiscretions became front page news.
Instead, her political aspirations trumped--so she rolled over and became a victim. I cannot imagine what their daughter endured being in the middle of it all for all of those years, it must have been extremely frosty and dysfunctional home.
My point is, IF she were to be elected, to what degree might she be willing to play the victim during her term? I don't know about you, but I have had enough BUSH FAMILY DYSFUNCTION for the last several years, and feel like we can do without Hillary's baggage getting in the way of corrections that MUST take place before this country falls apart.

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

To vote for a woman merely because she is a woman is doing feminism a severe injustice. The question is who is going to give women, or any other minority the best opportuntiy for advancement? That is the person to vote for. The best course is one that advances ALL Americans regardless of gender, race, religion, economics and does not promote the advancement of one group above another. Hillary would not be a good choice for feminists - for the same reasons she would not be a good choice for anyone else.

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

Was at a party several weeks ago and the subject of Hillary came up. Every single woman at this table (perhaps a dozen), ranging in age from 17 to the mid-80s plans to vote for Hilary primarily because she is a woman, and because of their hatred of Bush who has turned them all against a man, any man in office.

Perhaps this is not an issue of feminism so much as a reaction to the macho male that has affected the security of ordinary women.

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

As a feminist I understand that I don't have an obligation to vote for a woman(I would have voted for Senator Elizabeth Dole had that been the case) but I do have an obligation to vote.

As a white woman feminist do I have an obligation to vote for the person who did not have white skin? Or, do I have an obligation to vote for the person who did not have male anatomy and managed to get very far in pre-feminist America?

I believe I have an obligation to future generations of Americans. Here are the thoughts I ponder as I watch the Clinton/Obama dance.

1. When Ms. Pelosi became Speaker of the House: An article in the Los Angeles Times
quoted a professor about that historic moment in our history. She said that Pelosi
becoming Speaker was a great thing for women. She wrote that the 'power of the
mirror is huge."
I agree with that. A female president will be a positive reflection for every girl
in our country. The power of the image of a female president is something we can
only imagine at this point.

2. The Supreme Court: It is a sad reality for Americans that there is one woman
on the Supreme Court. Granted not all women justices are in tune with the the idea
of self-hood as it applies to women and reproductive rights but, I think we know
who Huckabee or McCain would pick as the next appointment.

3. Ralph Nader: I recall that in the year 2000 a 27 year old man came to me and
said that he was voting for Nader because "both parties are the same."
I tried to reason with him. I tried to explain the impact of a conservative Supreme
Court on the nation. He said "well, if Roe gets overturned it will just go
back to the states anyway." He said it with a shrug. I gasped. I have not talked
to this young man since that day. So I don't know what he thinks about our Supreme
Court. I hope he has a little more understanding of the seriousness of voting and
the state of our democracy.

4. Obama:I recall an NPR show and Senator Obama was talking to people in the midwest.
This was on the heels of statements he made about democrats and religion. I heard
him say, in that coded talk christians often use, 'His truth." He continued
talking with the people using phrases like "His word." It struck a nerve.
I thought "He's not talking to me. I also read a speech he gave on religion
and was uncomfortable. Particularly a section of the speech that had to do with the issue of abortion.

I know there are many people who can argue me around a room with what I have just
written. However, I see some very dire times ahead of us. I want to to be able
to say to my daughter "President Hillary Clinton." Senator Clinton has
many skills and attributes. I see the power of girls and women in the country as
stronger and louder. As I watch the images of women in wartime from Iraq and Afghanistan. As I watch our Supreme Court. I think of President Hillary Clinton and this thought brings me a lot of happiness.

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

I thought the real goal of feminism was gender equality, not promotion of women, even unethical or unqualified women, at all costs. A true feminist should cast her (or his!) vote for the candidate--for ANY office--that she deems best qualified and most in agreement with her own positions on the issues, regardless of whether that candidate is a woman or a man.

My own impression is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is insincere and likely to take any position she thinks will help her get elected. She is a "Republican-lite," a right-wing Democrat who supports big business at every turn. She is still nominally pro-choice, but has indicated that she could be persuaded to abandon that position if it becomes less popular. Then there is her refusal to reconsider the wisdom of her decision to vote for the illegal war on Iraq--a vote she cast because it looked like the popular thing to do at the time. These attributes are not what I want to vote for in a presidential candidate, and the gender of the candidate (Joe Biden is pretty much the same) does not matter.

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

isn't feminism all about making YOUR choice nomatter what....?
it's great that we have a woman runing,that must mean lot of social changes happened in past years,and we have moved forward....
but to feel pressured to make a choice because of something that really isn't that important in over all policy...
because its not about promotion of equality anymore,
you are not saying women are equal as men by voting to hilary,you are simply saying....
yep,i want her to be the next president,
so you just do that IIF you want that,if thats your choice,
now,if anything,any prometer that logically don't have an impact on overall performance,.---being woman,having a name that starts with H,-having a certain astrological sign---
shouldn't be a factor,
not because you are feminist,but because you are being responsible and fair,and you know you are making an important decision,

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

Well, I wouldn't vote for Condi just because she is a woman. However, I did vote for Hillary once. I said to myself "anyone who has born children can't possibly send another woman's to die." On that I was wrong. I won't vote for her again. Would Kucinich be a better choice for women? I will vote for him rather than any other person who might be in the running that I know now, but I'd rather a woman who will not vote for the war and who will not vote to overturn or weaken Roe vs. Wade. Sue

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

Feminism does not mean "female only." I can think of quite a few men who are more feminist than Hillary. Certainly we need more women running things, but getting the right person is more important than getting just any woman.

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