|
||
Women of My Generation Have Clearly Lost Their Minds
Women of my generation have clearly lost their minds. Not that I can blame them, apparently being invisible and all. Now with Geraldine Ferraro making outrageous nut-jobber remarks she doesn't even seem to understand, and realizing our tragic generation was once proud of her as a "pioneer," you can see how deluded we are as well. Worse, only this week, a heroine of mine, Tina Brown, got it utterly wrong in Newsweek, saying all boomer women had to be for Hillary. Tina drank the victim Kool Aid.
So I want my peers to meet an original (begged for him to run) pro-Barack boomer 50-something careerist woman, who chose Barack above and beyond -- hear me, Geraldine, you utter moron -- from the best field of Democratic candidates we've had for years, many of whom I've been big fans of forever, for their various courageous stands on Central America (Dodd,) Iraq (Biden, Richardson and Kucinich.)
But Hillary? Never liked her. Many of my best friends and favorite women have always felt the same. Something unsettling about her. A feminist? Maybe. But a compromised one, having risen to fame as the victim of Monica and having been famously on bimbo eruptions in her White House patrol. She was the destroyer of Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, the very blue collar ladies she is now being saved by. Kind of yucky, really. And hanging in there, through all the humiliation, and that making her a star. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Moving on.
What about my generation's desperation that there will never be another female candidate? Why? Is our gender about to die out? Do you all know something I don't? I can understand the 80-year-olds, I guess. But to me, Hillary Clinton is merely the first credible candidate, and the most flawed. And the only one not to rise on her own coattails, which is the real reason she doesn't appeal to both me and many young, yes, in their own way, feminists. And what about Claire McCaskill? She's great! And she just emerged this year! Why do we act like Hillary is our last great chance? How damaged and pathetic. I see fantastic women in their 30s all the time. To wit, Chelsea's undamaged generation. Not polarizing, like us ceiling crashers. I can sympathize, I am, too.
Another issue is, you don't know what she really thinks. Did she vote that way on the war because it would make her look tough? Or is she really such a hawk? I know a lot of women who really believe she's a peacenik, but votes like a hawk because she has to look tough to men. I am not so sure. I think she's a hawk. But none of us know for sure. This is a problem for boomer Barack women like me, and young women, too.
And another thing. And I am not even going to get into how nutty her relationship is, and no, I don't want two for one. Al Gore didn't then, and I don't now. And it looked pretty ugly on the campaign trail so far. Anyway. This whole thing about being vetted: what's the hold up on her White House transcripts? Why withhold tax records, info on fundraising at the presidential library? Somehow I fear something lurking there in the bushes, pardon.
I hate when women identify as victims, act like victims, and love victims. And Hillary, as strong as she is, wins as a victim. That is the trajectory of her career. I am a victim. Punch. So why are women whining and the identifying with being the victim again? This is so un-Tina! Hillary was the victim of an oppressive media? Of being asked the first question? Poor baby. All that good coverage on Obama was about being the victor of 11 primaries in a row -- excuse us! And is Barack playing the victim of a real calumny? On Clinton's answer to the known question: "Are you a Muslim?" "Not as far as I know?" Are you not ashamed?
What are you talking about, unfair treatment? Compared to what?
And one last thing. What I saw that ugly week with Tex/Ohio, was a woman yelling, shrieking, mocking, changing her strategy every day. I can understand the desperation, but I can't understand smart women mistaking that for strength. When she said shame on you, I was ashamed. Does that make me a sexist? Since I am her peer and a woman? No, I wanted her to be strong but consistent, not lose her cool at 3 a.m. The way Senator Obama had behaved all week.
And now she is the killer of Hope. (It was just too delusional to manage). We are not that multi-racial post-oppression society that shocked the world and for a moment was its wonder. We are, thanks to Hillary's kitchen sink and staff, the same old America they thought we were. The racially charged, fractured America Bush & Rush left us with that Obama has the prescription to heal. The one that attracted us original believers during his miraculous 2004 convention speech then swept 11 primaries in a row and apparently had to be stopped (thanks, SNL). We are the broken polarized America she wants to rule, will do anything to rule.
That we have learned can't be ruled.
Which is why I was an original Barack Boomer Woman in the first place.
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
won't you confess to your own corruptionn first? your own insanity, first?
your own gullibility? remember the fisher king problem?
no answer ,linda ?
I confess, I am male so I will keep my comments to a minimum.
But I will say that I can count the number of credible, politically engaged and/or astute women who support Hillary on one hand. And that means the lower number of fingers.
By overwhelming majorities across a broad range of ages we know almost exclusively Obama supporters. I hope one day to support a woman for President who is not like Margaret Thatcher. My choice would be Barbara Boxer!
My dear, you are a gem! I have a lady who whose sons were friends of mine through junior high through college. In her 70s now, she is a diehard democrat and is very intelligent. When she talks about Hillary, she goes knee jerk. Makes claims about her that just floor me. When I finally got some info before her eyes, she tried to rationalize. "I think she'll keep Bill under control." she said. She wants so badly to support her. Look, when Carol Mosley Braun ran, her baggage sank her and so to the good. No one cried. Why not just accept that Hillary isn't the one and move on? Obama may not be it either, but Hillary in the white house is a disaster waiting to happen.
The insanity of Hillary as a candidate? Best exemplified by the near-ancient and close-to-brain-dead Cokie Roberts, who recently quoted Billie Jean King as saying that if Hillary doesn't get the nod, "All we've worked for all these years is over!" and then lamenting the fact that for the women of the U.S. "It's the end of the world!" This is objective reporting? Obviously not! Is it rational? No! But is there anything rational and objective about the Hillary campaign? How could it be with the mater of insult, Mark Penn, at the helm? How could it be with slick willie continually wispering nonsense in her ear? Hamlet was mild be camparison!
Jerryp
Lynda Obst has said everything I've been thinking & wanting to say, exactly. And I'm beginning to realize that if Hillary gets the nomination (God I hope not) it will be very hard for me to vote for her. I don't like her and I don't like her tactics. I'm a life-long democrat - I've never felt this way before. It scares me because I'm sure there are lots of us who feel this way.
"What I saw that ugly week with Tex/Ohio, was a woman yelling, shrieking, mocking, changing her strategy every day."
So to compare, when Clinton shifts tactics or as some have said thrown "the kitchen sink" it is yelling, shrieking, mocking, etc. When Obama changes tactics and throws the kitchen sink it's called "refreshing" or keeping things fresh. Nice.
When the Obama camp sees something as racially motivated they pounce on it and denounce it as the politics of old and the surrogates go wild over the clearly racist intent. Obama supporters and various media outlets then proclaim that Obama and his campaign are simply and justly beating back racist assaults.
When the Clinton camp sees something as sexist the same process occurs over the issue of sexism. The issue at hand, of course, as you have clearly demonstrated, is that Clinton and company are apparently cast as just a bunch of irrational whiners.
Lynda, I think that's exactly why women get up in arms over this stuff, or as you have put it, "Lost their minds" (read, "become hysterical").
What do you call her shaking rage Shame on You Barack Attack? I saw her WI mailers, why is she so outraged about his mailers? I also heard about her lies on her NH ones from Lorna the NOW lady who ditched support of Hillary to back Barack are being given a copy. What I saw was an insane lunatic. How could she stand up their shaking in rage for her own crimes which are far worse than Obama's mailer? She has that guy all somber to back her up in the background with his solemn nods, oh this message came across loud and clear.
Who does she think she is his mother to scold him as if he were a naughty boy? Meet me in Ohio and explain your behavior, because that is what I expect from you? I would expect a female to have a lot more dignity than that pathetic scene. During her rant, she also said just because Barack has not introduced a universal health care plan is no reason for him to attack a Democrat. Huh? Her WI mailers she was attacking his health care plan. She further went on to accuse him of giving "aid and comfort to special interest groups like the Republicans". Again, huh? She is the one with the special interests, not Senator Obama. She terrifies me. She is either deranged or totally out of control. Unstable.
Take your pick: lying on purpose and putting on an outraged act to pull the wool over voters eyes or out of her mind. Her supporters scare me. The next day they say: you go girl give, him hell. Give him hell for what? They call Obama supporters a "cult" and they are the ones who are blindly following a woman with a long string of criminal activity as if she were a Goddess, not a ruthless, dangerous woman with such a crazed lust for power, she will cry, lie, bribe her way to get it.
Pshaw. All the people who voted for hillary need to step back and ask themselves if they voted for her because she's a woman or did they voter for her last name.
All the people who voted for obama need to step back and ask themselves did they vote for him because he's a black man.
History is being made and I strongly suspect a lot of people want to be able to say I voted for ________ and therefore I'm responsible for the first black man/woman Presidential candidate.
And THAT has screwed up all the voters who looked at candidates and their records and chose to vote because of that.
Dang, scooperss, there ya' go, making sense again! Stop it, this instant!
scooperss--Sadly, I believe what you say may, in large part, be true. It is true that it is important to step back and consider the reasons why a candidate is receiving a voter's support and unfortunately, there are indeed many who are voting without consideration of the candidate's character and platform. There are those of us, however, that are making a concerted effort to evaluate the individuals relative to the quality of their character and their platforms. I, for one, am not voting for Barack Obama because he is an African American man, nor that with his presidency, history would be made. I am voting for Barack Obama because he has integrity, is a gifted organizer, a brilliant strategist, and a man of honor who is choosing to bring the American political system back into the light of day. He is unflappable in the face of incredible pressure and he has demonstrated time and again that he has the ability to find common ground with those who otherwise would be adversaries. It has been interesting to discover that he has garnered worldwide attention and it appears that he is America's hope for regaining the respect of the global community.
Given Hillary's less than admirable campaign style, employing deception and transparent tactics that mirror the Republican playbook of old, she has demonstrated that she will implement whatever it takes to win, including placing the Democratic party at risk in the general election. To me, a 54 yr old, female "Boomer", it is inexcusable. I don't care what kind of plumbing a candidate has, nor do I care what color their skin is--I care about the content of their character.
AMEN sister!!!! well said!!!
Enough with Queen Clinton. It is time that she retires to the donor financed house in NY.
So just to play devil's advocate... How would you know if Obama has played or is playing the same games as Clinton?
FWIW, I tend to look at Obama as an excellent politician in the truest sense of the old-school form. The issue of change, hope, etc. is perhaps one of the great classics in the political playbook. IMO, Obama is a politician like any other, except for the fact that he's really good at it. In other words, in dealing with an accomplished politician, you don't know that you're getting worked. Or, if you do, you still don't care because he/she makes you feel so good about it.
One of the examples I like to use for Obama on this issue is how you can feel all warm and fuzzy about how ethical he was on credit card interest rates, because Obama's virtues are so much stronger than anyone else's. He just wouldn't stand for a 30% cap! (Mind you he did nothing to put forth a lower rate in an amendment). So, while you and Obama can revel in his amazingly high ethical standards, the credit card companies have their way with you. But hey, the guy you support has really great integrity and told you so.
I've said this elsewhere, check CAFA, nuclear power, energy policy, medical malpractice, iraq de-escalation, and so on. Each and every time there has been a pretty face put on the rationale for what he has put forth and each time their is some compromise to pugs or big money. If you can look at these issues and still say that Obama is a new kind of politician, so be it. Notice I didn't say "If you can look at these issues ad still vote for Obama..." That's not what I'm getting at. If your argument for voting for Obama is that he is a new kind of politician I'd encourage you to do your homework. If you like him on the issues, vote accordingly, but don't pretend the guy isn't maneuvering like the rest of them.
My final case in point would be the Kyl/Lieberman act. You know, the one that Obama bludgeon Clinton over the head with trying to point out his superior judgment? Take the larger context of the following with a grain of salt, but the details of how Obama navigated that are telling.
"On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action."
So, would a new or old school politician play those games? Would that not qualify as a "less than admirable" tactic?
Hello! I recall all too well Hillary's answer to the Iraqi ladies who came to the USA to plead with Code Pink for her help in ending the war in Iraq. Any female that would condone the slaughter of those innocent children and babies due to our cluster bombs and attacks in civilian area disgusts me. I have zero respect for her. It is most likely illegal for her to be running and if she cared so much about the country she would not have done so. Bill's "buy one get one free" and toted return to their 1990s co-presidency and him as her close personal adviser should wake you people up. HE WAS IMPEACHED. He does not get a 3rd term in DC. Period.
Truly, scopess, my first choice is Cynthia McKinney. She voted no to the Patriot Act, like me, Obama, Alice Walker and the rest of Code Pink and others was against going into Iraq. I do not however feel a 3rd party candidate can ever win an election and I do not know if she has leadership ability.
I do not consider Senator Obama black, I consider him a man. I like his voting records, except for the Patriot Act, I admire the work he has done on behalf of our veterans, especially the homeless Iraqi ones. I like that he helped make the US Spending website a reality; that he co-sponsored Election Fraud Prevention legislation, that he is against FISA and for Net Neutrality.
Hillary voted yes to the Iran Resolution and he wrote a counter resolution to slow down the rush into Iran. Obama seems to be the only candidate that knows we are low on troops and I seem to be the only person who knows the government has been whispering about bringing back the draft.
Scooperss, you and Ferraro and Clinton has insulted the intelligence of millions of voters and elected government, even the old retired ones with your statement. Hillary's supporters already say they are voting for her because they want a woman president, including Gloria Steinem who wants her to break the ultimate glass ceiling. So why ask them to ask themselves the question. They know it.
i agree with so much of what you are saying Linda - it's time for some third wave feminism. However, you lost me with Tina Brown being a "heroine" - yikes!
We do not call the hugh percentage of blacks that have voted for Obama clearly loosing their minds (and these were for the most part Hillary supporters and he not been in race). Sexism world wide is more pervasive than racism. We had a boycott on South Africa for years yet we think cultural relativism is ok in countries in Africa and the Mideast. Woman are delusional if they do not think sexism dominates their life. I can almost tell you who will support Hillary and who will not . The Kennedy woman that support Obama--Caroline--never held a job, Maria--married a Republican. and the men--Ted get real. The ones' that supported Hillary--Bobby's kids==all held public office. Arianna Huffinton--married to a Republican. White woman (especially college educated) in the US are all uncle toms and that includes myself sometimes. I give blacks credit that they support Obama in droves. Duh. I support Hillary for the same reason that blacks support Obama--she is one of mine and she is intelligent and somewhat supports the issues I believe in. Lest one thinks I am gaga for Hillary, sadly enough I do not think Hillary would support Hillary--she would be an Obama supporter.
I can almost tell you who will support Hillary and who will not . The Kennedy woman that support Obama--Caroline--never held a job, Maria--married a Republican.
____________________________________________________
Hillary also married a Republican.
And on the subject of jobs, you make her sound like some sort of blue collar heroine. Like the Kennedy's, Hillary started with a leg up on most people, including blue collar Whites. Meanwhile, Obama was raised by a single mother (which he has in common with many blue collar Whites) and did not have any birth privileges to get him into Harvard.
It never fails to amaze me how poor and middle class people can be made to vote against their own real interests simply by someone playing the race card, whether overtly or subtly. But that's life in the good ol' US of A.
If you look at the life stories of the unemployed factory workers in Ohio who voted for Hillary and compare them to the life stories of th two Democratic candidates, these folks' histories are way closer to that of Obama than they are to the Clintons. This is simple fact, not a fictionalized interpretation.
So you have to ask, what is the big attraction to Hillary Clinton? Why do these folks think this daughter of privilege, this former Goldwater Girl, who married an ambitious, amoral man who would become a governor and then POTUS, a woman who never wanted for anything in her life and now feels entitled to job of POTUS based largely on who she is ... how could they possibly believe she was more like them and thus would do a better job of looking out for their interests?
Racism is such an easy charge to make, but it can also be a simplistic answer to questions that are far more complex. But it is not far-fetched to say that it is part of the equation, that the Clintons well realized this, and did nothing to discourage voters from identifying with them solely because they are White.
Well me being a black man in America never had to experience sexism, but the racism i grew up with. So lets see who is responsible for the two. We as black really never been in the position for racism or sexism to benefit us in any way what so ever. So the very people that the two candidates are trying to persuade whould be responsible for this. Yes i would be talking about the white male. Is this the most ironic situation possible. But their campaign is blaming each other. So sad the situation.
Whatever is this supposed to mean? Senator Obama has a great team of supporters from diverse backgrounds who have gone out knocking on doors, holding voter registration drives and getting record breaking numbers of people of all colors to register to vote. Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver never held jobs? Wrong. Shriver is quite a feminist and accomplished woman. My father voted Democrat and my mother voted Republican, so what does that have to do with anything? How much do you know about Hoffman-La Roche and Hillary's relationship with them? How much do you know about Bill Clinton and Dubai? Probably not much, judging by your comment. The author of this article appears to be an intelligent thinking person, unlike those who critique Obama and his voters unfavorably.
I am dedicated this response to Lynda and danika........Hope you get the story....
You maybe further behind than you think....and a supporter, unwittingly of the Right Wing...sad !
Re: The Sisterhood Split by Jessica Valenti
03/07/2008 @ 9:21pm
I read with great sadness, and no surprise, Ms. Valenti's take on why some women feel no shame in voting for Mr. Obama, instead of Mrs. Clinton.
The problem with the fight for gender equality is that the "isms" have always been at odds, and women have always given in and sat at the back of the bus. While Ms. Valenti may not have been here way back when, in the beginning there was always a tension between color and gender and, most unfortunately for the women's movement, color won.
I left the feminist movement over ten years ago because as a movement goes, it was moving nowhere. We were too inclusive, and you cannot win a battle, much less the war, if everyone's issues have to come into the picture. Feminism is about achieving equality between men and women, and this will never happen until the feminist movement becomes just this.
I also left the movement because I decided that the women were worse than the men. I was one of those radical types that demanded the world--equal pay, full funding of womens' sports programs, full prosecution of crimes against women and harsher penalties etc., etc., etc. Each time we would come close to achieving something, the weakest link was always a woman selling out. I am strong, and I am brave, but my heart could only take so much.
Hillary Clinton has spent her life helping the middle and lower classes in this country, most of them made up of women and children. She has withstood pressures that many could not, and when it would have been easier to walk away she stayed and fought. She has raised a strong, smart and confident daughter in a world that makes this an almost impossible feat. She brings to the White House a lifetime of hard work, hard-won battles and experience that small countries could not muster up if they had to. For any woman not to vote for her would be a travesty to themselves, this country and to Mrs. Clinton because her being a women is just a bonus we get by choosing the best candidate by far. I should not have to point this out, as it is obvious and it is breaking my heart.
I will not give credence to the novice Senator Obama's bid for the White House other than to state for the record that once I confirmed that his church gave Louis Farrakhan a "humanitarian" award and Mr. Obama did not speak out or step down from this church, he became a non-issue as far as having even the minimum requirements for President of this country.
To all women everywhere I issue this challenge. It is time to walk to the front of the bus and become the driver. It is time.
Jennifer Beegle
in memory and to honor Andrea Dworkin
Houston, TX
Re: The Sisterhood Split by Jessica Valenti
Jennifer--And what have you felt about Hillary's statements regarding Obama's record regarding reproductive rights and Choice as she was campaigning in South Carolina and New Hampshire? You really must view Lorna Brett Howard's position statement. She is the former president of NOW, Chicago Chapter and was a former Hillary supporter until Hillary began to demonstrate the content of her character. She informed voters that Barack Obama's record on Choice and reproductive rights was weak when in fact, that was patently false. In fact, according to Howard, he had a 100% voting record of support. And we wondered what in the world had happened in New Hampshire! What other issue is she providing false information about, using sound bites and clips favorable to her deceptive information?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs (If the link doesn't work, plug in Lorna Brett Howard on YouTube's site)
It was Hillary's campaign that gave the wink, wink to Canada, NOT Barack Obama.
It was Hillary that encouraged voters to consider McCain, should they choose not to vote for her, a Democrat, putting at risk the Democratic party in the general election in the fall. (She has foolishly provided fodder for John McCain, no matter which Democrat wins the nomination.)
Hillary has stated, "I believe Michigan's delegates should be seated and yes, I believe it was fair." Fair? Fair, you say? We, in Michigan had one choice on our ballot--Hillary Clinton. We were told that NO delegates would be seated and hundreds of thousands of voters stayed home--for, after all, what is the point, particularly if their candidate wasn't even on the ballot?
While I can agree with you on the merits of feminism and the strength of your arguments, as a 54 year old white female, I refuse to vote for someone who has demonstrated time and again the poor quality of character. She will do anything, and say anything in order to win, regardless of the cost to the Democratic party. Her 3am ad was inexcusable--if she thinks for one moment that she can distance her self from McCain relative to the war, she has another think coming. If she thinks that she can prevail when in a head to head comparison of her experience vs. McCain's, she loses hands down. Her trip overseas with Chelsea, Sinbad and Cheryl Crow hardly constitutes experience in the face of crisis. We all know that Chelsea would not have been anywhere NEAR a questionably dangerous situation.
The 3am ad was foolish and a very poor tactic that will backfire, most importantly against the Democratic party. Someone who uses such poor judgment is not someone fit to be our president, and I don't care what she claims she has as her experience nor do I care about her plumbing--she has no integrity and this, in and of itself, excludes her as a candidate for whom I would place my support. It is not what someone ELSE connected to Hillary did or said that I find offensive, it is Hillary's OWN statements and Hillary's OWN behavior that are reprehensible.
Yannaview when you find proof of Hillary's record please show it to me. I have no problem with a woman president, but this is not the women. No matter how you feel about her the voters are speaking. They are speaking loud and clear. This race would have been long over. Just go and look how 24% in Texas and 25% in Ohio. That is the percentage of republicans who crossed over to vote for Hillary after Rush Limbaugh encouraged them to vote in the Democrat primary so that it would drag out the whole summer. Look it up for yourself. The republicans want the weaker candidate so that they can drag the 1990's back up. They have nothing on Obama so they want Hillary.
Hillary never said that McCain would be better than Obama
http://tinyurl.com/25xmec
and I know that she would support Obama over McCain.
And she would probably be his VP if he could handle having such a power experienced woman as his VP.
When has Hillary shown a sense of entitlement?
Please do NOT stay at home. Yet another Obama supporter crying "if my candidate doesn't win, then I want the other side to win?" If you care about women's equality, civil rights, right to privacy from government snooping on your calls, then you need to vote Democrat in November. You need to vote.
Hillary would take a VP slot? You haven't been paying attention. There is no way that she'll accept second fiddle now. Frankly, the only part of this election that I want "brokered" is the part where they decide to have a joint press conference stating that "after much conversation Hillary has decided that she is going to stay a Senator and do good work from the floor."
It's not that we have a problem with Hillary getting the nomination if Barack loses, the problem is he's not losing, he's winning, and she seems to be pulling out every trick in the book to figure out a way to get the nomination even if he has more states, more votes and more delegates. I don't think she'll succeed on those grounds, but if she were to, I would seriously have to rethink my lifelong support of the party of the people.
That being said, I would like it to be understood, and I'm sure I speak for a large number of Obama's supporters when I say this, had Hillary managed to find a way to win the contest fair and square, without tearing down her opponent and pulling political sleight of hand with the super delegates (e.g. "I won the states that matter") I would have been more than proud to cast my vote this fall for America's first female president. As it stands now, given some of the things she's done and the arguments that she's still trying to make, I'm not so sure I would be.
Sophiamd
About that staying home. Yeah we will stay home if the super delegates overturn the voters will. I also see older white women becoming swing voters all of a sudden. And we do not want Hillary on our ticket, period. We do not want anybody with that kind of character on our side. If you are not about uniting this country then you can stay at home on Nov 4th too.
No sane person wants a Bush/Clinton dynasty. No sane person wants an impeached ex President back in DC. Yes she is powerful in using her contacts to destroy lives. Powers spoke a truth about her. Sick people voting for the Clintons. If Hillary was Martha Stewart she would be in jail, not running for President. I am not a Democrat, I am a citizen and I will not vote for corrupt Clintons and have a hard enough time voting for the corrupt DNC that is allowing her to run. I will vote for Obama, but is she is the Democrat pick I will vote for Cynthia McKinney in November. You people can have your war in Iran with Clinton or McCain, but my conscience will be clear.
We can't possibly know evrything about these candidates before we vote for them,that's why reputation is so important. As far as I can see (with all the research I've done). Hillary has a very bad reputation and I can't say the same thing for Obama. Hillary is not my idea of what the first woman president should be. The tactics I've seen her use during this campaign shows weakness and instability.The more she acts up the better she makes Obama look. I can't in good conscience vote for her,she's an embarassment to every decent woman in America.
Repeat that over again and again everyday til Nov 4th. Maybe it will sink into the many brainwashed Hillary supporters heads.
She would be a non-issue even if she were a man. And her name would be Mitt.
I totally agree. And I'm white, middle-aged woman.
Good article! I have long been arguing (I'm a male 36) that younger women are by far the most intelligent and rational women I know. To me a feminist means that a woman would get equal treatment or consideration (and pay) as a man. I'm for this 100%. The Hillary's and Ferarros are Gloria Steinham wannabes and their outdated paradigm of feminism belongs in the scrap heap of all the other obsolete relics. Would we have even heard of Hillary Clinton had she not been married to Bill? I can think of so many more women who have accomplished so much more ON THEIR OWN MERITS, not on their husbands. No Lynda, we don't see you the way we see the so-called boomer feminists. We (as men) see you as intelligent, rational human beings on an equal par with anyone else in the world, male or female. Have a great day!
And younger men are by far the most intelligent and rational of their gender, IMO! I love it when 20-something men say they want their wives to be the breadwinner so they can stay home to be with the kids. Blew me away the first time I heard that in a university class! I'm female, married and 52, which puts me in the Boomer gen. I waver between the second wavers and the radical feminists, although I don't feel I benefited from either group; each are too strident..
I could've slapped my husband when he told my very helpful three-year old son, "Men don't clean toilets." Bastard! My son hasn't cleaned a toilet since then, nor done what he perceives to be "women's work." Sometimes men don't realize how much what they say influences their children. Older men can be stuck in a "50s mindset" whether they were growing up then or not. Many of them are looking for a "mommy" figure of their own (hell, I could use a 50s mommy to cook and clean and keep me organized!)
The young women of today won't put up with that crap from men, and I don't think most of their male counterparts would even want to treat them that way.
It's going to be 20-30 years before we see equal respect much less equal rights. But let's keep working on it anyway.
I am a 44 year old black male. I do not care who makes the most money or do the house work. I just want us to be a team. In my civilian job I make 90 to 95 percent of the decisions. But when I come home I push a lot of that on my spouse. Whatever she decides I roll with it 100%. So it is not just the youth.
I love it when I see those that can more eloquently, succinctly put thoughts forward, as compared to my rudamentary skills - well put sonnyo88! Well put! Say it again, don't mind a woman for POTUS, just not her. And my nipples harden, when in conversation with brilliant women - they're thought processes are so far removed from our testosterrone based views. That can't be separated by color coding.
I am having trust issues with Senator Clinton. When she says with a sincerity in her face that the elections in Michigan were fair– even though her name was the only one on the ballot, it makes me pause. It speaks volumes, if she can distort the obvious what will she distort if she becomes president. Don’t say this is just politics, that is not good enough. Will there be an even greater credibility gap if she becomes president?
Thanks Lynda for the excellent, common sense, and plain-spoken post. My lovely boomer wife just read the post after me and thought you nailed it also. She was leaning strongly toward Hillary, but since March 4 has been drifting toward Obama. Hillary's kitchen sink attacks, grasping at straws, and essentially most of the points you have pointed out here refute the notion that she is ready to lead. Meanwhile, Obama stays calm, articulate, decisive, and within himself. He's the one who looks ready to lead.
"And now she is the killer of Hope. (It was just too delusional to manage). We are not that multi-racial post-oppression society that shocked the world and for a moment was its wonder. We are, thanks to Hillary's kitchen sink and staff, the same old America they thought we were."
Wow, you got it spot on.
Liberals arguing with Liberals... thats like watching paint dry while sitting on a block of ice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
