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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think Barack is kinda vague, too.
I think the same criticism can be made about Obama. He talks about change but doesn't really say how he will manage it aside from some bromides about reaching out and not being divisive. Bill Clinton tried that when he was elected, even appointing Republicans to his cabinet. One of them, Louie Freeh, repaid Clinton by using his position as FBI director to support right wing attacks on Clinton.
Anyone who thinks that playing nice will stop the swiftboat crowd from their vicious attacks and bring about change in our politics is naive and dangerously ignorant of what has been going on for years.
Hillary's advantage is that she is well aware of the depths to which the far right will stoop and is fully prepared - unlike Gore or Kerry - to fight back. Obama better learn this now if he is the nominee.
Right on the money KR! I was beginning to have doubts about the political acumen of the fair sex. The Iowa vote confirms what you say so eloquently. Women are not going to be fooled by Hillary because they do read between the lines.
The problem with Hillary is her inauthenticity. There is no heart in the process. All is mind strategy emanating from consultants, pundits, and polls. So if the polls say that people, and women in particular, want to see the human side (the heart) of Hillary, make another TV commericial eulogizing her qualities as a mother -- make a few appearances with mother and Chelsea. That ought to do it! Thank goodness it does not. As you say women are much smarter.
Barrack's win in Iowa has made Hillary's (and by extension John's) campaingns redundant. However, we still keep hearing that Hillary has a superb organization and lots and lots of unspent money. As if she did not have that in Iowa!
My read tells me the people of New Hampshire (women in particular)are about to hand another big surprise to the Clintons. A surprise that they are not gonna like.
I think it a measure of progress that at least among Democrats there has been no race or gender baiting. It is clear that support or rejection has come mostly based on records though I am still unsure what Senator Obama's record is. Frankly his appeal is boggling. He voted against the war but supports keeping troops indefinitely. He talks bipartisanship with Republicans yet seems willing to trade labour standards and wages for corporate support. Mr. Obama it appears is a farce.
I think I just had an epiphany. Men can bullshit Men. And women can bullshit men. And men can bullshit women. But women can't bullshit women. The women of the country see through Hillary. And if she has to change her message to get the votes, then what is the real message and what is the hype? Edwards and Obama's messages seem far more consistent.
Has HRC even mentioned abortion and how the forces on the right have stampeded women's rights and reproductive issues back to the 1800s? You would think if she wanted women's votes that she would be making appeals, loudly, for absolute fair salaries, reproductive rights, healthcare and childcare issues. Sure she throws folks a bone in her speeches, and possibly more in her cutesy Mother-Daughter meetings in IA...but how does she think she is going to draw women if her platform really holds no planks addressing women directly? This is a longwinded way of saying she is running as a man (and a right-leaning male at that) and expecting to be a shoo-in with the women. I know some can point to her policies and say she is addressing healthcare or childcare.
What has HRC done, her whole senatorial career, other than wait and spin her webs? Even so, I would not have had trouble voting for her old values, except for the last 8-9 years she has been openly courting, and falling deeper and deeper in love with corporate money bags. At one time, I really could have got behind her politics and potential for change. It is a pity that she is making me agitate against her. Not just ambivalent to her, I have to REALLY dislike what she is doing...an
pardon this male's input
GREAT Article
i think you are correct about a lot of women but it doesn't change the fact that women have, in general, disliked hillary as a woman since they found out she was bill's wife. jealousy is really unattractive and can now be couched in political philosophy.
You are so right! Thanks to Iowa there is still hope for our future. Thank you Iowa!
Women are no longer blindly following a candidate because she is a woman. Thank God women are finally showing that they are intelligent people with the capability to think for themselves and not do what the men want them to do. P.S. I am a Male.
Unlike Barack Obama, Hill/Bill were anything but inspirational. Barack has inspired a great number of people - not simply because of his minority roots - but more for his understanding, compassion, drive, and intellect. He not only realized years ago that real Americans were tired of the politics of personal destruction and partisanship - he has actually done something about it - leading by example. Barack has refused to lower himself to the level of attacking his opponents. He restricts and focuses his attention to attacking the policies. Other successful candidates like Huckabee are following Obama's lead. And Hill-Bill, the "experienced triangulating politicians" are just now learning how out of touch they really are with the American people. They have paid no attention to the historically dismal approval ratings of our bickering Congress. Indeed, the Hill-Billies are locked in the past while this country leaps forward -yearning for a future in which politicians cease the fingerpointing and begin to collectively tackle the tough problems facing all of us.
Hillary lost in Iowa because her campaign, her very being, is backward looking. Americans want change, not a restoration of a former nightmare.
The folk around Hillary are old and tired. That is not the future most Americans want for their country.
Edwards/Biden 08'
Kathleen, it help if you spelled Barack correctly.
I don't believe HRC lost in Iowa because she is a woman-- let that be clear. She lost precisely because of what you said: she wasn't clear about where she stood. She's supposedly anti-war, but voted for Kyl-Lieberman.
Her message was confusing. She never took a clear stance on anything, and wanted to be everything to everyone.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
