Iowa Women's Wake-Up FYI To Hillary

The women of Iowa, particularly but not entirely younger ones, just sent Hillary a wake-up FYI. It basically states: "While we might love to see a woman president, it isn't going to be you if you don't start telling us precisely where the pain and gain will be should you win the election." Women are too smart, informed, and astute at reading between the lines to back a presidential candidate who isn't being straight with them -- especially when she is a woman.

Vague generalities about change -- absent clear evidence that as president she'll take on powerful corporations intent on retaining the status quo -- are killing her candidacy.

From her website page on Iraq:

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

It's NOT clear! What's this "begin ending the war" and "begin" to bring the troops home? When? How? And, how long will it take?

From her website page on the issue of comprehensive government reform:

"Well, how about this for a new approach? No more cronyism, no more corruption, and no more deception. And here's an old-fashioned idea: let's start appointing qualified people to positions of power again."

Great! But how? What will be different? And don't give us that 10-point list exercise in obfuscation found on the same page as the quote.

She needs to give women CLEAR, CONCISE reasons other than gender to vote for her. Barack Obama is simply too appealing to do otherwise. And Edwards is not far behind when he is behind. Hillary needs to wake up or walk away. And this is from a woman who'd like to see a woman president someday.

I'm willing to wait, though, because she'll need to be one worthy of it. She'll need to be honest and clear about where she stands. And while I grew up a few state doors down from New Hampshire, my sense of the people there is that they'll feel this way too.

We got to know the real Al Gore long after he lost the election. I don't know many women who'll waste their vote on a repeat of that scenario. Let's see if Hillary reads the FYI or allows herself to be over-managed, continues to send the same vague messages, and plays it safe in a world that is anything but safe. If so, she should start working on a Nobel Prize because this country needs answers now.

More from this author

Comments

[Duncan]

I don't know how any American can vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Ms. Reardon, hypothetically scolding Sen. Clinton: "While we might love to see a woman president, it isn't going to be you unless you start telling us precisely where the pain and gain will be should you win the election!"

To Clintons suggestion that "qualified people should be appointed to positions of power again" Ms.Reardon responds "great! but how? WHAT will be different?"

I can only ask Ms. Reardon whether she thinks these questions have somehow been answered more comprehensively by her hero, Sen. Obama?
Ah, but her answer is contained in the post as well "Barack Obama is far too APPEALING..." for that.

And that IS what it comes down to isn't it? Sen. Obama is free to be "appealing" while Biden/Dodd/Clinton/ must account for every vote and every quote in long careers in public life, while Sen Obama has largely soared abo all that on the wings of "the audacity of hope".

The primary season will now begin in earnest, and all the candidates, hopefully including Sen. Obama will now bequired to put forth some specifics to voters in states OTHER than Iowa.

These will be states like New York, and Michigan, and California.... where Mr. Obama will not be able to personally dazzle every voter with "appeal". He will, however meet a press core (particularly in N.Y. and California) much used to candidates with "appeal" and "star power" and VERY unlikely to throw underhanded softballs

I congratulate Sen. Obama on his win in Iowa. It really HAS been inspirational and fun to watch...and should he be the Democratic nominee I will certainly vote for him.

But before picking drapes for the oval office, or,... say... a secretary of defense, he has a few specific questions of his own to answer, and a whole lot of people anxious to ask them.

Iowa is one thing but it takes a bit more than that to get hired for the top job.If you dont believe me you can ask President Dole, or Presidents Harkin, or Muskie, or Gebhardt. Regards................................tm

[Bulbul]

Also If I may add I choose Hillary, not because she is a woman, we need to choose the best we think. Gender, Ethnicity or Race is secondary and non issue !

[Bulbul]

Thanks but no thanks, keep all your FYI`s to yourself . I consider myself fairly intellegent woman and know whom I should be supporting. My mind is wide open and I am also aware that all of the politicians are flawed and are capable of little or more spin.

Are you ?

[JCPal]

Rodham Clinton had a great line after her devastating Iowa defeat. She stated to voters in NH that they should consider not to take a leap of faith but vote for someone who has produced change. She claims she has been vetted.

Fact is that is a great line but it falls short of the mark in the fact that to my mind Hillary Rodham's record is hardly inspiring. In fact it is full of holes.

Good luck with that line!

[Dap]

Dear Dr. Reardon,

Happy New Year to You and Yours. I could not agree with you more, this has been my sense toward Senator Clinton also. I believe you have it exactly correct. Agape.

[FogBelter]

Ms, Reardon, I never thought Women were to be the salvation of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In fact, the notion that any group in America, be it woman, or latino, or black, or gay, or Catholic, or what have you, will vote in a unified block is patently absurd.

From the time she was First Lady to the present the greatest criticism I have heard personally about Hillary has come from woman ... for years, by my own ears. It would have been best for Hillary to escape her convent of rabid supporters, who envelop her with unfounded, overly optimistic notions of the mindset of the American Woman ... and talk to some REAL American women themselves.

It isn't the 1970s anymore, Helen Reddy's "I am woman hear me roar" isn't wafting from the "Close and Play" much nowadays. American woman are ROARING!

Would we have seen women success stories like Oprah or Martha Stewert in the 60's?

Since I entered the job market in the late 1970s seventy-five percent of my managers have been Women, with the majority being great in their positions. The dirty little secret, I guess, is that American Women are sophisticated, and it is actually an insult to say that sex of the candidate would be the only motivating factor for a woman's vote for President. It insinuates that in a time of great challenges, woman wouldn't care about where the Candidate stands on an issue, as long as they had a woman to support.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been arrogant and intellectually lazy in their approach to the electorate. They have refused to hear what the People of the United States are saying and they got burned in Iowa. They are out of touch and think they can pull out a victory relying on stereotypes rather than realities.

As I said, I have had women bosses the majority of my working life, and I have no doubt a woman President would be a great opportunity for the United States, the question for all Americans is ...

Which Woman?

[UtahLiberal435]

Uhh, actually, one of the big factors that figured into Obama's Iowa win was the college age female contingent. While there are many, many smart women that age, when I saw Obama speak in Iowa City, most of those "women who were too smart" (to believe Hillary) simply gushed about how 'hot' he was.

And as someone who just spent 10 days in Iowa, and watched the disgusting 24/7 blitz of campaign ads and telemarketing that Iowans were subjected to, I can attest that every single candidate out there went very, very negative against their opponents...Obama included.

However, one of the worst things about this presidential campaign is its unbelievable length and intensity. The entire media industry is now addicted to campaign advertising cash, and easty-to-fill punditry air time. The motel, restaurant and catering industries are now addicted to caucus and primary cash flow. Expect ever more states to move their primary and caucus dates up. We'll see 4-year-long campaigns from now on.

I feel very sorry for the average Iowan.

[roncraw]

How many states allow out of state people to vote? Most came from Ill. Obama's home state.

[longislandlol]

I have it from a good source that young and middle-aged women who were either separated or divorced from their spouses did not vote for her-- most of these woman left their cheating husbands and now have to make do on their own devices in this worsening economic maelstrom-- did her handlers ever factor-in the socio-and psychological issues a woman has when she opts to leave a cheating spouse, rather than stay in a marriage of convenience-- women in the above situation will never vote for her in a general election-- never!! There is a virtue known as PRIDE!!!!!

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

Hillary needs to loose her pussy handlers and take off the gloves (and not just with Democrats who challenge the inevitability of her nomination)! If Hillary being Hillary is too scary to the self-esteem of frightened white males, so be it. They aren't about to vote for her, anyway. After eight years of Bush, anyone in their right mind ought to be mad as hell!

[Justtellthetruth]

Heres another maybe more pertinent issue:
Hillary has generally dodged and obfuscated any questions regarding US foreign policy in the middle east, specifically those regarding Israel and the settlements, an issue which has contributed more to the rise in terror that led to 9/11 than just about any other single issue.

In fact, of all of the candidates, her answers point towards maintaining the status quo, presumably because her hawkish major backers demand this of her. Her hawkish stance on Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon all confirm this trend as well.

The TOP candidates, Obama and Edwards, BOTH have talked more openly about the connection between flawed US foreign policy and terrorism and have talked about changing US policy regarding the settlements, which are the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment.

It is clearly the belief of those who fund Hillary that they have fooled the US public into believing that supporting Israel = supporting the settlements and the occupation that is necessary to help them steal more land.

Iowa is clearly a wake up call to those hawks (who are no freinds of Israel at all) that supporting Israel is NOT about supporting the settlements, and that american citizens DO recognize that our policies there have led to increased terrorism in both Israel and the US.

Both Edwards and Obama have said they will continue to support israel, but have insinuated (in Obamas case) and said outright (in Edwards case) they will completely retool what that support means and how it is applied.

IE, a vote for Hillary means a vote for endless, pointless war in the middle east, further draining the resources of this Nation at a time when we should be IMPROVING our international relationships in order to sell our goods and services in the broader markets.

[Kungfublood]

so smart and you just now begin to have doubts? You should never ever make such sweeping statements if you want to be taken seriously and if you want a non liar don't vote for a liar. I personally don't care what body a person is wearing this time around, all I care about is their integrity and love of America first , she lost both decades ago.

[resonate]

Thank you! Any perceptive person can see through Clintons shell and its not what we want in the white house.

[flatus]

Kathleen, it sounds like you are waiting to see some improvement from Hillary before you jump aboard. Why?

All you need to know about Hillary is that she is "Queen DLC". She can, therefore, give us no specifics about how corporations would be negatively affected by her presidency because there will be no negatives.