Hillary's Gift to Women

In Friday's New York Times, Susan Faludi rejoiced over Hillary Clinton's destruction of the myth of female prissiness and innate moral superiority, hailing Clinton's "no-holds-barred pugnacity" and her media reputation as "nasty" and "ruthless." Future female presidential candidates will owe a lot to the race of 2008, Faludi wrote, "when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys."

I share Faludi's glee -- up to a point. Surely no one will ever dare argue that women lack the temperament for political combat. But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through the "glass floor," she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face.

A mere decade ago Francis Fukuyama fretted in Foreign Affairs that the world was too dangerous for the West to be entrusted to graying female leaders, whose aversion to violence was, as he established with numerous examples from chimpanzee society, "rooted in biology." The counter-example of Margaret Thatcher, perhaps the first of head of state to start a war for the sole purpose of pumping up her approval ratings, led him to concede that "biology is not destiny." But it was still a good reason to vote for a prehistoric-style club-wielding male.

Not to worry though, Francis. Far from being the stereotypical feminist-pacifist of your imagination, the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of Tehran -- along, of course, with the bomb-builders and Hezbollah supporters. Earlier on, Clinton foreswore even talking to presumptive bad guys, although women are supposed to be the talk addicts of the species. Watch out -- was her distinctly unladylike message to Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and the rest of them -- or I'll rip you a new one.

There's a reason why it's been so easy for men to overlook women's capacity for aggression. As every student of Women's Studies 101 knows, what's called aggression in men is usually trivialized as "bitchiness" in women: Men get angry; women suffer from bouts of inexplicable, hormonally-driven, hostility. So give Clinton credit for defying the belittling stereotype: She's been visibly angry for months, if not decades, and it can't all have been PMS.

But did we really need another lesson in the female capacity for ruthless aggression? Any illusions I had about the innate moral superiority of women ended four years ago with Abu Ghraib. Recall that three out of the five prison guards prosecuted for the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners were women. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski, and the top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. Not to mention that the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq at the time was Condoleezza Rice. 

Whatever violent and evil things men can do, women can do too, and if the capacity for cruelty is a criterion for leadership, as Fukuyama suggested, then Lynndie England should consider following up her stint in the brig with a run for the Senate.

It's important -- even kind of exhilarating -- for women to embrace their inner bitch, but the point should be to expand our sense of human possibility, not to enshrine aggression as a virtue. Women can behave like the warrior queen Boadicea, credited with slaughtering 70,000, many of them civilians, or like Margaret Thatcher, who attempted to dismantle the British welfare state. Men, for their part, are free to take as their role models the pacifist leaders Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Biology conditions us in all kinds of ways we might not even be aware of yet. But virtue is always a choice.

Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them.

Comments

[IAM4CLINTON]

Hillary Clinton, whether she wins the nomination or not, has won the larger and most lasting battle for women in this country. No more will our little daughters grow up thinking that the POTUS is not something in their realm of possibility- in fact, the country is better off by just her candidature.

What a profound legacy that Hillary has earned.

[NorVaGal]

It's too bad that she is now in the process of tarnishing that accomplishment. Now, another woman will have to take up the banner to show how to run for POTUS with honor and dignity.

[NAMI]

only women who have inferiority complex think as you do !
many are ashamed of Hillary 's behavior'

[Eddieboyd2001]

so you voted for Hillary because she's a woman? not because her veiws on the issues?, yet some African Americans get jumped on because Sen. Obama is biracial.
Hillary voted for the war,she continues to vote for the funding of the war,She has lied throughout the election. She send her attack dog (james carville) on people that support Sen.Obama.
The Senator from illinois will win and lead this country back to respectability. and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

[bfbenn]

I agree. And even if that is her only lasting legacy, it's a significant achievement.

[DiogenesII]

Part 1
"A mild affliction of necessity became addiction, full flowered".

Ms. Ehrenreich has written a very thoughtful and in this environment, a very courageous piece.
As a man of color, a very strong and ardent advocate for the rights of Women, owing to the efforts and sacrifices of a family, generations of strong Black females confronted with the dual indignities of gender and racial prejudice of an unenlightened, institutional and a deeply entrenched "natural social order", which subjugated those perceived to be inferior. It is unimaginable and perplexing, that those fighting the good fight for social justice and parity, could/would in their blind passion, sanction the activities of this woman. I use the term, this woman, blessed with a very strong intellect, tenacity and irrefutably resolute, would be sanctioned as the "standard bearer" of your cause. Hillary is the very antithesis of all you stand for. She represents and has demonstrated virtually every flaw of character, you ascribe to those hostile to your interest. Her actions, and by virtue of your acceptance, your ardent absolutism of the mind-set which drives those actions, greatly harms the many, to feed the unabated, narcissistic ambitions of one.

It's a personal affront to me, as it dishonors the great contributions of the "small" women who nurtured a strong and "not" angry Black Man.

[DiogenesII]

Part 2

"The only thing more discouraging than the "unprecedented" hostility shown towards Hillary Clinton is the fact that so many educated women are throwing the stones themselves". This statement is both perplexing and suspends logic and rational thought. Your admonishment of women who have objectively or subjectively, who have exercise free will and a choice that does not favorable comport with your conclusions, attaches a certain "seditionist" indictment for having embraced and exercised the essential element of the movement. Must they now consider "memberships" revoked, or could it be in your zeal to justify your position, you've dismissed or rejected the tenets embodied in "Third Wave Feminism"?

Progressive entities evolve. As long as it remains true to its original intent and mission; to its essence, it should be considered good. Any effort to repress or disrupt that trajectory, either by internal or external forces, should be summarily and perfectly expelled. If you are advocating progress, by device of “Any Means Necessary", if you're suggesting that "Imitation is singularly Righteous Path" to full female actualization, you only serve to further arm the voices that wishes to deny you your rights.

[lafrance]

History is littered with tough as nails women. Women who did one better than their male counterparts. We do not need to prove our ability to be tough. History proves we can.
We need to prove we can take on power without being asses. And can run a good campaign without swimming in muck.
Or have supporters whine about sexism everytime a woman is treated as an equal.
I have seen women who are good leaders who did not need to crush a can of beer against their forehead to prove anything. But, Clinton needed to prove something with her dirty campaigning and delusions that she keeps going even now.

[Amminadab]

What was dirty about her campaign?

Please provide facts, rather than more smears.

[ipitombi]

Tell me this, Ammidrab, - which part of the State of Denial do you live in? I'll like to know so I can stay miles away from thee.

[NorVaGal]

Hillary's Dirty Campaign:
1- ONLY Sen. McCain and she passed the CIC threshold. All Sen. Obama has is a speech.
2- Obama has change you can xerox. They're only WORDS. Unlike HER words, of course.
3- ONLY PRIMARY STATES are important. Caucus states are unconstitutional, because ONLY the POPULAR VOTE is important.
4- Signed pledge that MI & FL votes and delegates wouldn't count. MI/FL must now count because she needs them- ASAP.
5- ONLY BIG STATES that SHE won are important. Smaller states? No way.
6- Popular vote isn't important. ONLY DELEGATE COUNTS is important.
7- No such thing as pledged delegates. ALL delegates should vote for her even if it overturns the popular vote (not important anymore) in their districts/states.
8- BITTER comment demeans blue-collar voters. "Hard working white Americans" comment is just a fact of life.
9- ONLY WV and KY are important because no Dem can win GE without 'em.
10- Jeremiah Wright wouldn't have been her pastor. She would've left.
However, not leaving her lying, cheating husband was courageous.
11- Sen. Obama hasn't been fully vetted. ALL of his scandals must be invented, exposed and widely publicized. HER scandals- what scandals?
12- Whites WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN (even though millions of them already did and continue to.)
13- ONLY ELECTABILITY is important, and only SHE is electable. No, wait. Actually it's MOMENTUM.
14- Momentum? No way. Momentum is silly.
15- Take your pick........

[LawSource]

HERE IS SOME OF THE DIRT you requested......


HILLARY Clinton is a part of that Republican smear, in that 3 on one pile on Pennsylvania debate, she try to link Farrakhan and Hamas to Obama. Given the FACT THAT Obama previously in the Ohio debate already strongly Denounce and Reject Farrakhan. Despite this, she resurrect the subject with no NO FACTS or EVIDENCE whatsoever, just to “SMEAR” Obama period!!

[bfbenn]

This is a typical tactic of an Authoritarian Follower (usually Right Wing, but not always). Ask for facts, and then when provided those facts (ably provided by several responders above) dispute those facts with meaningless responses.
Just shows that our perceptions shape the facts, right? NOT!
What did it for me was when she stated that "we" would "obliterate" Iran. Don't bother to respond with her post-statement spin. That any human being would say those words in a serious forum just stunned me. That it came from a candidate that claims to be Progressive (to ANY degree) just made it worse.
The thing that I don't get - why does she seem to attract this personality type?

[NAMI]

HER ardent supporters are truly disgusting by whining about sexism....­..........­in this campaugn there was more RACISM .
ANY FOREIGNER WOULD TELL YOU THAT IN GENERAL THERE IS MUCH MORE RACISM THAN SEXISM PRESENT IN OUR ..........­....U.S.A.
so Complainging about SEXISM by these female supporters is not only a BIG LIE .but proves women have a tendency to whine and complain and nag.

[dailyrev]

Outstanding, this is one of the finest writers working in America today, at her very best. I've got a little advice for Hillary, from the perspective of the ordinary Joe and Jane's non-penthouse life experience, here.

[Jodiilyse]

I have to agree with whoever said that the most disappointing thing about this election is the number of feminist writers who have come out to bury Hillary Clinton--not the fact of it--but the tone and the double standards they've been using. To read this piece or any of the last fifty written by Maureen Dowd, you would think Barb and Mo were either Hill's very-recen­tly-thrown­-over best buds or mind-reading flies on the walls of every room she's visited in the past 25 years.

The Hillary they've discovered isn't even interesting enough to make a good cartoon. She's always petty, always self-serving, always says the worst possible thing and means it in the worst possible way. She's the only politician who was foolish enough to believe her own hype, the only candidate who thinks she's better than the other guy, the only woman who stayed in a marriage that didn't play like a fairy tale.

Barack Obama, of course, is simply running for President out of the goodness of his own heart. He had no designs on higher office when he gave his "purple America" speech or wrote his books or ran for Senator. Some of his best friends are racists, but he's not, and anyone who thinks he tolerated those racist-folk for political reasons, well, they're racists, too!

It's mind-numbing but simple. The goose is bad; long live the gander.

[mikekev58]

Thank you, Jodiilyse.

If the rough and tumble of this primary campaign - mild compared to other primaries (see 1980, Ted Kennedy) and general elections - evokes this kind of vitriol.

One of the best writers in America?

This foot-stomping, willful distortion of Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the reasons why close to 20% or more of Hillary supporters can't stomach the notion of voting for Barry.

[McFlipFlop]

You are wrong about the other primaries, like 1980. Hillary has stooped where no one has stooped before, especially with her putting McCain above Obama. Examples:

Obama's run is a fairy tale, Obama wasn't really against the war, Obama is like Jesse Jackson (they're both black, get it), Obama isn't pro-choice, Obama only wins caucuses, Obama only wins states that don't matter, Obama is all talk and no action, Obama plagiarizes, Obama's followers are a cult, Obama is an empty suit, Obama isn't ready on day one, Obama might not be able to handle a terrorist attack, McCain is a better CIC than Obama, Obama has no experience -- only a speech in 2002, Obama is disenfranchising FL and MI, I would not have stayed in Obama's church, Obama lied about being a professor, Obama takes money from oil companies, Obama is an elitist, Obama is out of touch, Obama can't get the working class white vote, Obama is not electable, Obama shouldn't win because I am entitled, even if it takes superdelegates overturning the will of the voters.

[NorVaGal]

IMO, Jodi, the most disappointing thing about this election is the way Hillary Clinton threw away an inevitable nomination by choosing to go negative and deciding to take the lowest road possible enroute to the gutter. EVERYONE knew that she is magnificently intelligent, capable, and caring-- until, we NOW know, she gets crossed. Upon which she has become totally unscrupulous and unbelievably selfish and spiteful.

People seem to forget that quite a few disappointed candidates also ran and eventually dropped out of the race due to insurmountable odds. NONE of them, Dem or Repub, have resorted to the tactics that Hillary and Bill Clinton have adopted. NONE!!!! Sen. Clinton certainly is entitled to stay in the race as long as she chooses. But, is she really entitled to doing perhaps irreparable harm to the Dem party in the process? I think not. Yes, Hillary has been an eye-opening disappointment.

[Marsangusidaho]

Why, yes. How dare this woman actually stay in the race to challenge a man! Doesn't she understand her place in this society?

[reid]

Exactly! Well-stated. I had a somewhat positive opinion of her early in the campaign, but that started turning about when she made that cheap "Xerox" line in a debate. It just went downhill from there. The Clintons (both of them) have made it plain they'll say anything to get the prize, including smears, distortions and, lies. Sad.

[terragazelle60]

Exactly, even on the repub side Huckabee and Romney was never dirty against McCain...they ran on what and who they were...not that their opponents were bad or an empty suit.

Hillary only knows one way to behave...now I am part of the Left Wing Conspiracy I guess.

[Northshorewoman]

An inevitable nomination? That is such an insult to Sen. Obama. And aside from that it is not factual it is a myth perpetuated by media and pundits.

[ghostwriter5]

I too am disappointed at the tone especially of Maureen Dowd--it is like she is trying to spread nasty rumors about her ex-bff who stole her boyfriend in middle school. I'm afraid of the toxic fumes emitted from my NYT and it is worse when it gets mixed with Frank Rich's venom on Sundays.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Kudos, Jodiilyse -- I'm very pleased that you shared your views.

The more people have been "feasting" on Senator Clinton like a bunch of vultures the more I'm reminded of the adage that goes something like, "You can judge a person by the friends they keep."

Well, in my humble view one of the most intelligent, gentle, kind, inspiring and wise women of all time is Maya Angelou -- she is a national treasure. I love every wonderful word she pens or speaks. Maya Angelou is a "good" friend of Hillary Clinton. That's how I know what kind of person Hillary Clinton is.

[bikemessenger]

A ridiculous post.

[vote4kucinich]

If Hillary Clinton really had the best interests of the country as her main focus she would decry the fact that she was not attracting the votes of a broad spectrum of Americans rather than emphasizing her support by white Americans. I think the 'college educated' voters would have given her a second look. You shouldn't be able to win the Presidency by dividing Americans. That's why Obama will be the nominee.

[Amminadab]

Obama has been incredibly divisive...... and unless his supporters start working to heal the divide, Obama will be an historical footnote.

[NorVaGal]

When has Obama been incredibly divisive?

Please provide facts, rather than more smears.

[kcam44]

You really are in denial my friend. A month ago, there were thousands of Hillary supporters on this website bashing Obama, saying that he would not win. (Where are they now?) Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, there's not many left. You need to gather your Hillary supporters, go to WV and tell Hillary after her win tomorrow, that it's time to drop out. Let the healing began, I'm all for it.

[mikekev58]

With Barry garnering 90% of the black vote, why would Hillary decry her constituency? It is, in fact, a broad constituency, with the exception of blacks and college educated. In some large states, she has even split the 18-29 y/o vote with Barry.

Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all has the support of "college educated" voters.

They were wonder Presidents, weren't they?

[NorVaGal]

The black vote has been the most faithful, dependable constituency the Dems have. Hillary carried their support 2-1 until SC. They appear to have not appreciated Bill and Hillary's race-baiting this season. Who can blame them?

[mawrm]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "broad" is, but when you cut out the college educated, you're removing a HUGE chunk of the Dem party that you don't have a chance in hell of winning without. And you might want to review the states where Clinton split the 18-29 y/o vote and see what percentage of the electorate that group was for those particular state.

[Rule Of Law]

Women are at their strongest and most transformative when they advocate for peace, justice, fairness, and the emotional nurturing of society. These powerful things terrify men used to running the world through threat and violence. Apparently, women insecure in their own feminine strength, like Faludi, are terrified as well. It doesn't take a man, warlike and arrogant, to be President and certainly not a woman who feels compelled to act like something she is not.

What it does take is a person--one with the most profound moral courage and sense of self, to listen and learn, and then lead. The very best Presidents have been those with well a developed nurturing side, able to recognize societies ills and willing to act to rectify them. Man or woman, that quality, not the martial, shot swigging, bomb 'em back to the stoneage posturing, is what makes a country strong and humane. To extoll nastiness and ruthlessness as the prime aspects of Presidential character, is just more of what got us where we are now.

[Ironfox]

" Women are at their strongest and most transformative when they advocate for peace, justice, fairness, and the emotional nurturing of society ".

Really? Exactly which of the female national leaders of the past half century have exhibited these exemplary traits and behaviours? I think you need to re-read the Post.

[Rule Of Law]

No--you need to re-read it. Those women WEREN'T at their strongest or most transformative, obviously.

[opines]

The problem with Hillary is that if you triangulate to arrive at your positions, if they are determined by polls and political opportunism, you are seen to have no principles, no hard held convictions. What determines her position is what she deems best for her political advancement.

Simply put, Obama is more trusted to end our Iraq involvement and to champion the interests of the middle lower classes as we confront hard times.

Surely enlightened feminism doesn't hold that any woman candidate must be preferred to any male candidate. All other things equal, let gender decide. But Hillary was overconfident and overmatched; a very bad combination.

Women's causes will advance further under Obama then they would have if Clinton gained the Presidency.

[mikekev58]

At this writing, 49% of primary voting Democrats has determined that Hillary Clinton is worthy of our vote and therefore of our trust.

I'd like to know what in Obama's history indicates that women's causes will fare better under him than if Hillary gained the Presidency?

I have no problem with women declaring their independence by refusing to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. But the nastiness belies something radically wrong with some of these women, prominent and otherwise.

Would that blacks would take the lead from women who have chosen to vote not on the physical similarity to the candidate but on the candidate's history. Unfortunately, many blacks have chosen identity politics and seek to justify voting for a black man by going along with the distorted narrative of the Clinton's race-batin­g/race-car­d-playing, and with the most through the looking glass accusation of all, racists.

It's utterly disgraceful.

[NorVaGal]

Mike: Would that Hillary's white women would take the lead from blacks who have chosen to vote not on a platform of racial division but on a candidate who seeks and practices unity and peace, at home and abroad. Unfortunately, many HRC voters have chosen identity politics to seek to justify voting for a woman who has lost fairly and squarely by engaging in race-baiti­ng/race-ca­rd playing, and the most through the looking glass tactic of all, racism. Yes, I am a woman who believes that women will fair better under an Obama presidency than if Hillary gained the Presidency. She has shown thrown her inept, debt-ridden campaign how ineptly she would also run the country. You have the right to trust Sen. Clinton. I have the right to trust Sen. Obama.

[mawrm]

mikekev58, as an Afr-Am, I find your comment hugely insulting. The bigoted insinuation that most blacks did not review the facts and make an intelligent decision not based on race is sad and speak volumes of your own character. Nevermind Clinton polled as high as 80% among black voters prior to South Carolina.
It's not a distorted narrative, it's the truth. And the fact that so many non-blacks picked up on the race-baiting of the Clintons is proof-positive that the Clintons engaged in it so much to the point that it was painfully obvious even to folks who rarely ever encounter it.

[lisakaz2]

His local NOW heard HRC doing something nefarious in distorting his record on women's issues (I believe he got a very high rating) and pulled away from them over it.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Thanks for posting, mikekev58 -- you are "right on". In HuffPo a voice like yours is seldom heard. Identity politics has been front and center -- I was appalled to think that 90% or more of blacks have been voting for a black candidate but the minute Senator Clinton said "white voters", the racist shouting began. She was stating a fact, yet even Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) was critical of her.

I agree when you write, "But the nastiness belies something radically wrong with some of these women, prominent and otherwise." A good example of what you are saying is posted today in RCP -- it is worth reading and the link is --
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/clinton_campaign_brought_sexis.html

[controversy101]

With all being said and fair, I believe Senator Clinton would make a great president. Her latest comments did play pointedly towards a race and gender card which the neo-cons will only use against either nominee in November. This battle for the dem presidentail candidate has been one hard fought struggle and embarassing. But I believe Senator Clinton has every right to continue to fight. My only worry is that come november, some of those who are angered at Senator Clinton or Senator Obama will behold their grudge when voting. As hard as Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have campaigned, it's terrible to believe that Senator McShame may become president. After all, if you look at the neo-cons who post on this forum, they only offer what's wrong with our candidates and never responds with what's right with their nominee, McShame. I'm an Obama supporter but I will vote for Clinton if she pulls the nomination. The big picture dems are missing is Roe v Wade, the economy, our civil liberties, and the continuing of the war that daily drains millions from our economy. If McShame wins the Office in November, I believe Blacks, women, and all those who are struggling to find jobs here in America should no longer complain and accept the fact that WE gave the neo-cons four more years to reduce wages, outsource jobs, and remove healthcare while allowing CEOs to get richer by downsizing American jobs.

[Maassive]

"To me, there's no doubt, there's a movie to be made on this campaign, and made even objectively, Hillary would be the villain and Obama would be the hero."

That's a quote from an interview with Rod Lurie, director of The Contender and Commander in Chief, two of the most important films about women in presidential politics. The interview just went live at Film.com

http://www.film.com/dvds/story/qa-commander-chief-director-rod/20778341

[theLeftPaw]

Yesterday I blogged about the original purpose of Mother’s Day in America (which can be found here: http://mothersdayforpeace.com/), and I remarked on how the woman that authored the “Mother’s Day Proclamation” (Julia Ward Howe) appeared to view the nurturing abilities of woman as a strength, and a key reason why women’s leadership is a necessity. I don’t consider myself a feminist exactly, although I may share some ideas with feminism. However, what truly bothers me about Hillary’s (and other modern females leadership’s) strategy is this absurd notion that depending on might and fight makes for strong leadership. Why can’t we all agree that there are differences, and that a balance between the sexes would be ideal? I would love to see a woman in the Oval Office, but I would prefer it be a woman that is clearly proud to be a woman, not one that seems to think she needs to emulate the strengths of men to succeed - THAT is the type of thinking that should be considered outdated!

[chelliza]

Reading through these comments is depressing. I would have happily voted for either of these candidates. It is hard for me to imagine that women will give up Roe V Wade, keep the war going and extend these economic policies for another 4 years. As a woman, I do not understand the idea of sacrificing our children's future for any reason. McCain voted against the equal pay bill just recently. He doesn't even pretend to care about women. He called his wife, in public no less, the worst name a woman could be called (in my opinion). I can not comprehend how anyone with reason could do anything to help McCain become president. I know many Republicans who even feel this way, yet there are really Democrats who would support a McCain presidency? Is there any real reason in this?

[merhoba]

I as a woman would love to have a woman President. However, Miss Spoke (HRC) has put the woman's movement back 200 years. She is just plain vile and an embarrassment to my gender. Her racial nuances disgust me, her idea of obliterating Iran frighten me, her pandering is a con to get votes any way she can, her sexist campaign is so blantant it is pathetic! Please Hillary be a real woman and go away and leave the woman so air to breathe.

[mikekev58]

"However, Miss Spoke (HRC) has put the woman's movement back 200 years."

Such stupid melodrama.

I'd like to know, when these "set-back" statements are made, just how - in concrete examples, Hillary has done anything but advance the cause of women in her run for the presidency?

[lisakaz2]

When things get tough, send in the first lady...

Remember that lie? How does her lying help women?

[SethBLiNK]

Many thought that this would be the year that American voters would finally show the wisdom to reject the macho posturing that we've grown tired of from males in favor of some of the qualities more associated with female leaders... concensus building, openness to new ideas, a willingness to talk and reason.

And guess what? They did? However, these more traditionally feminine traits were offered by Obama, while Hillary was authorizing wars and promising obliteration. Just when America was ready for a woman President, Hillary decided to run as a guy, only tougher.

It's all about timing.

[mikekev58]

I suggest you ask her colleagues in the Senate about Hillary's working "across the aisle", her willingness to talk and reason.

If Obama is offering the more traditional feminine traits - and I would take strong issue that they are exclusive to women - he's got to find a way to do so without coming across as aloof and so easily knocked off balance.

Thought she's now fudging on it, Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton "our first black president".

I guess Barry will be our first black female president?

Nah...just our first black female presidential standard bearer of the Democratic party. We'll just never know how his feminine traits would've served him in the Oval Office, due to his defeat at the hands of John McCain.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Is there any way the Obama supporters are going to stop for one minute and think what their rants against Senator Clinton will do? They will further alienate the Clinton supporters so they would rather vote for "anyone" other than Obama.

The Obama supporters juvenile behavior and demeaning comments about Senator Clinton are largely coming from those who are less than 30 years of age -- the just out of high school and college age rock star struck bunch. They swoon, they faint, they work like beavers texting each other to "get out the vote" -- it worked because no one has more time than unemployed kids. The "majority" are still getting money from their parents.

In addition, if these "kids" were really interested in "change" they would have insisted that Obama talk about substantive issues while on the stump so that the other candidates would have been forced to do the same.

Instead they were happy to hear Obama tell them, "This is our moment." "Our time has come." "We are the ones we have been waiting for." Really? Why is that? And what do we do next? And what is the "change" you are talking about? Did any of the "kdis" ask Obama those questions? If they did, I did not read about Obama's answers.