xtcian

Now I'm just passing this along but the past two weeks, Bill Maher has been saying that if you hate Hillary (even if you're a Democrat) your problem lies within.

Just sayin'.

Hey--I keep hoping: when are you going to write about the end of the strike?

The fact of the matter is that even if Hillary Clinton was, in fact, perfect, I think the fact that 47% of Americans say they'll never vote for her under any circumstance makes her a hard sell. But there are substantive reasons not to want her to be the democratic candidate.

1. Her Iraq vote, compounded with the increasingly outlandish justifications for it. In one of the recent debates, she started just making shit up on the spot, saying that Saddam Hussein was a threat because he was an egomaniac and was competing with Osama Bin Laden. Or she claims that Bush misled her, which while technically true, is even worse: She's saying she was fooled by the biggest fool to ever be President.

If she was honest with us she'd say that at the time, the Iraq invasion polled well, and she was afraid to stand on principle to vote against it.

2. She has a Scientologist's contempt for ground reality. Every time I've seen her speak recently, she's trotted out some anecdote that fits all to well with the point she's trying to make. "On the way in here I spoke to three teachers and they said ..." Bullshit. She just makes stuff like that up. When America Ferrara was interviewing her, and America asked her what advice her mother gave her, she said went off on a rant about "Believe in yourself." She just made it up on the spot.

3. The carefully coded race-baiting. Read Frank Rich's article for a deconstruction of it. As Grandma Klea always said, one must avoid even the appearance of evil, and even in the unlikely event that Hillary's triangulation of black, white, and latino voters was unintentional it was still wrong. Given the legendary political acumen of the Clintons, could it all be in our imaginations?

I'm an Obama partisan, it's true. If Barack wasn't running I'd find a way to love Hillary. It's not like she isn't smart, and aside from my Quaker peace-mongering I'm mostly on the same side on the issues. But voting for Hillary is settling for a deeply flawed Presidential candidate. Why settle? There's someone running who, all hype aside, has a fundamentally different approach to how to be a politician. It all may end in tears -- when haven't we been disappointed by a politician? But why not try something different, when the same old thing has been so disastrous?

Yeah, me too. Reminds me of a conversation that I had with my 8 year old daughter last night. She told me that she would not vote for Hillary because she did not like her hairstyle. I was a bit horrified by this comment, but I did not want to dictate her thoughts or squelch her independent thinking. So, I said, "I can respect any opinion that you have, as long as you have a good reason as the basis for your opinion." So, we talked a bit longer, and Helen told me that a bad hairstyle was not a good reason NOT to vote for someone, and then she told me that she would vote for McCain because we have always had a white man as President. (God help me! I nearly had heart failure over this comment!)

So, I gently reminded her of the fact that we have always had a white man as President because up until recently it has been a white man's world. I talked all about women getting the vote in 1920, title 9, and the importance of supporting women in general, because "women are as good as men" and Hillary has a lot of experience, is very smart, would do a good job, etc. I also reminded her about all the civil rights movement information she learned this month.

Of course, Helen asked me, "if it is so important to support women, why did you vote for Obama?" Ugh. The true answer was a combination of "I don't care for her husband", "she bugs me", and other thoughts that I could not articulate well.

I may as well have told her that I did not like Hillary's hairstyle either. Ugh.

In other news, did you see that Uno the Beagle won Westminster's Best in Show? CM - did you watch? He was such a cutie bad boy beagle. Hurray for Beagles!

By the way, Washington & Lee University has a student mock convention each year, and historically the convention has predicted the nominations accurately. This year, they predict it will be Clinton.

http://www.wlu.edu/x10399.xml

agreed. and i have a nervousness akin to what New England sports fans used to feel - a growing optimism that Obama will win, but a fatalistic sense that somehow Clinton will pull it out in the end and my hopes will be crushed.

I think there's a grain of truth to Krugman's editorial blasting Obama's supporters (of which I am one) in the Times the other day. For those who didn't read it, he basically said we were a cult of personality and reminded him of Nixonians. Looking at some statistics somewhere the other night, Clinton supporters are far more likely to say that Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief than vice versa. This is pretty odd considering that their platforms are strikingly similar.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of reasons to prefer Obama, but I haven't heard any of my Clinton supporting friends say a single harsh thing about Obama, while the reverse is certainly true. And more worryingly, I often detect more than a hint of misogyny when many people on the left trash Clinton.

I think it is difficult in contemporary America for a woman to be a strong leader without rubbing people the wrong way. That is a difficult thing to rise above because it's deeply ingrained in our cultural norms.

I like to think that my problems with Hillary have nothing to do with misogyny. If you look above, my objections to her have nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with how she's behaved in her public life.

Of course there was that private e-mail to my family where I talked about her releasing her flying monkeys ... but I felt ashamed about that even as I wrote it. Not enough to erase it but don't I get points for feeling bad when I'm doing something wrong?

I do really believe that women can be political leaders, and whenever I can, I vote for them. It's unfortunately the case that this election, I can't.

Nick Kristof's article "When Women Rule" in sunday's Times addresses the problems women have in politics head-on. You can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/2nzprs

One interesting thing he says: "Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership."

Interesting that Obama's whole message is based around consensus-building, something that 'Scholars' think women are better at. Maybe he's doing better than she is because he's a man packaging what some regard as a feminine skill set.

Makes ya think, don't it?

Obama seems like a perfectly nice fellow, and someone with a fresh take on politics. However, I don't believe for a moment that he will be able to "bring people together" for the simply reason that Democrats and Republicans don't agree, and he holds very liberal positions. He may want to be a uniter, but just like Bush, it ain't up to him. He can't expect everyone else to fall in line with his ideology. It won't happen.

It won't let me post the link about the end of the strike.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

What you wrote was a very important post, but I also would like to second and third those who want to hear your take on the end of the strike too.

"...inspirational haze..."

If that is the best way you have of describing the source of your political allegiance, I think you have another bigger issue than whether Clinton is the right choice. When candidates of any stripe lean on claims to "change" and "hope" it is time run. Review their substance.

It ain't misogyny.

You like Kirsten Gillibrand, right?

You like Nancy Pelosi, right?

If you're like most O'Bama supporters, you joined in the rejoicing when Donna Edwards successfully primaried a male hack Democrat incumbent last night to become the presumptive new Congresswoman from Maryland's 4th district.

It's that Clinton is establishment. She talks out of both sides of her mouth. Her approach to universal health care is to make it illegal not to have insurance. Great. That'll help me with my HMO. If elected, she would capitulate to the Republicans, just like her husband did.

So Piglet (and Ian and others who know)...this is a serious question: What is Obama's approach to universal health care???

I've had trouble understanding it, but I want to. I'll vote for him if he has the better plan, 'cause it's the most important issue to me.

If Hillary makes it illegal to not have health care, then the govt will have to find a way to make it affordable, and employers will have to find a way to get it, etc. etc....

Obama wants to NOT require everyone to have healthcare, but make it cheaper and hope they get it. Think that will happen??

Hillary actually has experience trying to get a health care plan through. Of course, maybe that has made her too shell shocked to try...

Can anyone clarify these issues for me, without referring to Hillary's hair color and Obama's charm??

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

"What is Obama's approach to _________"

Great question. Listen to his speeches, as inspirational as they are, and you'll never hear an answer. Eventually that'll have to change, won't it?

matt...geez, he's not making stump speeches outlining his platform because he's in the business of charging people up right now. he's got fairly specific goals & plans (which, granted, will need to be further honed), but the inspirational speeches he's delivering these days are better currency in the primary world. yes, he will have to start drilling into the issues more if he's the dem. candidate, but you seem, from your comments, to be suggesting that he's got a shapeless mission. do you want me to outline his platform for you right here? you could find a pretty good itemization of his "approach" online somewhere i'm sure.

I've looked on-line for his approach to health care. I only see that he wants to make it more affordable, not allow or push everyone to have it. As Ian said, these are serious issues.

So why is it that it's okay to say, "Well, we don't really know what Obama's going to do, but at least he's inspiring people"?

I can think of another leader who was an inspiring speaker, and his name was, .... okay, just kidding on that part....

The point is, Piglet criticized Hillary's health care plan. WHAT IS OBAMA'S PLAN??

Too many people are uninsured and underinsured, and for those Republicans out there who don't care, it costs us more in the long run financially, not just in human suffering.

noj,

I know Obama's against the war, for gun control, against global warming, for universal health care, against lobbyists, for etc... That's about the depth of it. Yes, he's been that vague with his platform, and I'm not the only one noticing. Here is a Senator, accomplished lawyer, former editor of Harvard Law review who has virtually no paper trail on policy issues. How is that even possible?

Here's an interesting take on the upcoming election in this week's Independent:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A176339

Name me something important that Obama has achieved in his political life. Name me a law he has supported that matters. Name me a subject that he cares deeply and passionately about, the way that Edwards did about poverty, that Clinton does and has for years about health care or, for that matter, McCain does about security.
And, that scares me. Because it is absolutely imperative that a Democrat win and I don't think that a person who, at the end of the day, is about "hope" and "change" can win. Americans get pretty nervous about demogogues eventually and that what he smacks of right now.
I don't know where his passion lies, I can't see what big, or small, issue drives him, drives his life and that makes me fear that his driving issue is being president. When he says that he doesn't have to manage the government, that he is the visionary, that scares me. I don't want a paper shuffler but I want a person with achievable goals.
Jackie

Ian, I think I agree with your position 99% of the time. But I gotta say, I just don't buy the Obama hype. I'm a Hillary supporter because I think, in the end, she will be able to get the job done the way I want it done. I'm sick of empty promises and rhetoric. I think Obama *sounds* great--he's got all the buzz-words we want to hear right now. Man, we are so desperate to hear what he has to say. But in the end, to me personally, he seems like a good cheerleader--Rah-rah---but a lot of fluff. I think he has no clue as to what it will take to actually get things done and I think Hillary has the experience, saavy, whatever to push "policy" through. And I like what she is pushing. Obama, to me, he's totally unrealistic.

Why is experience suddenly a 4 letter word? Hillary has been around the game for a long time. That's a liability to some people, I know. But I think that gives her the background needed to know when, how and who to work to move things through. It just seems naive to think that suddenly, with Obama as President, the rules will change and everyone will play nice in the sandbox. Hillary has real and realistic ideas, in my opinion. I like her ideas about health care, I like her stance on non-traditional families, education, etc. I hate that she voted for the war. That really upset me. But there's more to my vote than the war.

Anyway, Go Hillary! I put your bumper sticker on my car this morning---and though Lee doesn't know who she's voting for yet, she thinks that's sexy!

Experience, experience, experience… By that measure, we might as well elect McCain. JFK was 43 when he took the oath of office.

As Hillary sinks, I’m seeing a lot of desperate pissed off women who’s only reasoning that Hillary isn’t winning is misogyny, using the Mantra of Experience to justify the first woman president. Because she’s a women, she deserves to be president. Well, experience comes in many forms. And much of Hillary’s record is abysmal. Notice how she managed to Not Vote on the Warrantless Spying Bill. She was the only Senator who didn’t vote For or Against the bill (Obama voted against) that was approved yesterday which will “legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecom.” (Glenn Greenwald, Salon.)

With experiences like that, who needs Enemies?

CM - here is a link to Obama's health care plan.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
I find that it's weakness is that there will be some people who aren't officially covered by this plan. I'm not sure that forcing people into buying health insurance is such a great idea either if they can't afford it (people in this state are supposed to buy collision insurance for their care but that doesn't mean that they do).

Health care is my top issue for sure and my biggest reason to support Obama over Clinton for this issue is that I feel that she is more likely to be in the pockets of big pharma and insurers because she has a history with their lobbyists. I think Obama's statements about how these folks are part of the problem and this needs to be addressed is the clearest most honest thing I've heard in this health care discussion. My only hope is that if he is elected he doesn't go the way of most politicians and start backing down from that.
My biggest fear about Obama now is disappointment and I'm afraid many of us have set ourselves up for that because we're expecting so much from him.

If you are talking about the dart match on espn while we were all killing time pre-dook game then I concur, that was one of the most engrossing sporting events I have ever seen in my life.

Wow. I don't know what else to say.

Here are all the detailed policy positions you could possibly desire:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

This very conversation (and it's a good one!) is why I fear for the Democrats' chances in November.

Now, if only we could borrow some of Obama's charisma, sincerity, energy and youth appeal, and apply them to HC's solid experience/skills and detailed plans for health care. Voila - supercandidate. In my dreams.

Sean -- Thanks for that Obama booklet. I am going to print it out and read it thoroughly.

- Anne the Undecided

After having read the blueprint, I can see why he doesn't talk about it. Not only is it vague ("Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission."), but where it is more specific it simply leads to more questions (how to pay for it) or is rather naive (the proposed legislation appears unlikely to pass even with a democratic congress). But it is indeed far more specific than anything I've ever heard from him, and similar criticisms can legitimately be made of the other candidates, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in my opinion. Thanks for the link.

Thank you, Neva. I ask these questions mainly because I really really want Obama to succeed IF he is going to be able to do the right thing. He may well end up being the nominee, but I hear so many platitudes about him. And hell, if Hillary has a tendency to back down for poltical reasons, maybe Obama will fight more for the uninsured...if that's realistic. Remember, Hillary tried to get a new health care plan thru in 1993, and was beaten back at every turn. She knows what she's up against. Will Obama fight more anyway? I hope so!!

But I agree - his plan doesn't force everyone to be covered. That is worrisome. I wish people would look at the plans instead of arguing based on charm and looks.

KTS, you are wrong when you say "As Hillary sinks, I’m seeing a lot of desperate pissed off women who’s only reasoning that Hillary isn’t winning is misogyny..."

Nope, actually, we're seeing that 99 percent of the anti-Hillary comments out there are "I don't like her, I'm not sure why" or "She's bitchy" or things they would never say in normal circumstances. I do NOT think she should be president just because she's a woman, any more than I think Obama should be president just cuz he's cool and young.

But I see educated people saying things like "She just strikes me the wrong way, therefore, she shouldn't be president," or "I wouldn't invite her to a party," which they should frankly be embarrassed to be saying when the stakes are so high. I am not depressed or lonely, but yes, some of the anger toward Hillary is mysogynistic.

If Obama is going to fix what ails us, then I'm all for him.

But he's not really pressing universal health care. WHY?

Question: Is it possible, under current PC rules, to dislike a female candidate without being a mysogynist? Male candidates strike some voters "the wrong way," yet no one accuses them of being sexist. Why the double standard? It's precisely because she's a woman that one isn't allowed to dislike her?

Interesting topical piece by Erica Jong in today's Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/patriarchy1000-hillary_b_86408.html

Matt, have you ever, in the history of politics, seen any candidate criticized constantly without justification as often as Hillary is - for instance, when people criticze Bush, do you ever hear comments like, "I kinda don't like him, but I'm not sure why" or "he strikes me the wrong way, and I can't explain it"?

The best justification I've heard for not voting for Hillary is that she's going to back down, whereas Obama won't. That is something that has been swaying me. But this "wellll...I just don't like her" nonsense has GOT to stop.

It's not necessarily misogynistic in every case, of course, but in some cases, it has to do with people feeling uneasy with a woman being driven.

I notice that when people here dismiss Obama, they have a reason: They don't see substance to him, they fear a lack of experience, or something else. Not "He just strikes me as really annoying."

Yes, it's possible to dislike a woman without being misogynistic. Like with anyone, I'd prefer you have actual reasons. I'm sure many of the Hillary supporters dislike Ann Coulter - because of her views, not because she has a vajayjay and is driven.

fair enough, cm. But I think most people who dislike Hillary dislike her because of the way she acts, not because of her gender. It's not like there's no other possible reason. But it certaintly could be sexism in some cases. I worry that if Obama loses, either at the convention or in November, some will insist it's because he's black (and America is still racist), not because he was a flawed candidate. It's too easy, and all too common, to blame others.

Coming late to the party, but this is a really interesting discussion.

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Hillary is that, earned or not, she is such a polarizing figure that if elected, we could be subject to 4 more years of mud-slinging, dirt-digging, and back to the same old fights we've been having since Bill Clinton took office. It's one thing to say she has specific plans, the real question, to me, is how the hell is she going to get them enacted when half of the congress (and nearly half of the country) hate her? It's not going to happen!

I'm sick of all that. I'm sick of the Bushes and the Clintons.

Obama's positions are very similar to Clinton's. He does have plans. But he offers the added benefit of creating in people the desire to compromise, to move a little bit. And that isn't something to be taken lightly.