I Like Hillary Too

This piece in TAPPED really worries me:

A FINAL WORD ON HILLARY. For this round of the debate, at least. Let me begin with an anecdote. A bunch of us Tappers went for drinks the other day, and Hillary Clinton came up. It was a mixed crowd, but, reflecting the magazine's writing employees, mainly men. As the conversation turned to '08, a young woman spoke up softly. "I like Hillary," she said. Very quickly, several men raised their voices against her, expounding, at great length, on everything that was wrong with Hillary, and why she couldn't win, and why no one should support her. The young woman said nothing in reply, and, in fact, said nothing more for the remainder of the evening. But I'm not sure that her mind was changed.

I like Hillary too. If she is the nominee, I'll support her. I am not in love with her political instincts frankly. But I am not a big fan of Obama's instincts either. As for Edwards, his record on Iraq was probably the worst at the time of the vote on the war in 2002 AND through the 2004 primaries. But he got himself straight early in 2005. Frankly, Edwards seems the best POLITICIAN of the bunch. But being President is more than being the head politician. Heck, George Bush is a good politician too.

Why am I rambling here? Because I can understand how women like Garance, who wrote the piece I link to, get their radar up with all the Hillary hate. It does seem over the top. Sure, there are problems with Hillary Clinton, but so are there problems with Obama and Edwards. And it is clear that men are not as driven to discuss the flaws in the male candidates. Are they sexists? I doubt it, but the concern Garance expresses seems not unwarranted.

< Pork or No Pork? Iraq Funding Bill | Alberto Gonzales Signed Off on U.S. Attorney Firings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I like HIllary Too (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    And I like John Edwards. Either one would be fine with me for President. I'm still more than lukewarm on Obama. I can see him for Vice President...maybe...or President in 2016 (after our 2008 Democrat President has finished her/his two terms) but not now.

    I agree with you on Obama, however.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by dkmich on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    My own personal poll of one, in rank order is Edwards, Obama, stay home....  I don't like Hillary and will not support her because she is DLC.  This is the same reason I wouldn't support Vilsack.  One has a penis and one has a vagina so that must make my opinion of them a sexual.  Skin color and type of sexual organ are not important to me - at all.

    Hillary has some interesting crossover (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by shpilk on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    support, and I know two recent x-republicans [co-workers, both males] who have already expressed strong support for Hillary.

    She has appeal at least to some of the moderates.

    But there is most certainly sexism and an irrational fear a woman running things as expressed by others in my workplace.  

    I have thought the same thing for some time (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:28:24 PM EST
    John Edwards politics since 2004 seem closer to my own.  However, I could vote for HRC or Obama, with enthusiasm (different reasons for each).


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:49:04 PM EST
    I met her a year or two ago at an art opening, When I talked to her she was super focused  a with warm intense but quiet energy. She was, extremely charismatic. Hard to explain,  but a certainly a star personality. She commands attention in a quiet way while being somewhat vulnerable.. In a room of a hundred people she was not the star of the event, the artist was, For me that says a lot.

    I do have big problems with some of her politics, and  would prefer Feingold, but that does not seem possible at this point, not that it ever did.

    And besides it is not such a bad thing for America to have a woman President these day. It would could help mend international relations.

    In any case Hillary would certainly be a refreshing change from what we have now.  

    PATRIOT Act (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    I can forgive voting for it the first time, in post-9/11 trauma. The replay is unacceptable.

    Yup Yup Yup (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    That was where it went all wrong for me too!

    My problem with Clinton is that I don't feel... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cal11 voter on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:28:00 PM EST
    I know who she is now as a presidential candidate.  I know too little about how she really thinks.  Sort of the same problem I have with Edwards.  I feel I know Obama's thinking much better.  But I don't dislike any of the Dem presidential candidates.

    her voting record (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    is within a hairs width of Obama's, and they're both pretty liberal. I'd be okay with either in the WH.

    Frankly, given the theatrics around the supplemental, I wonder just who in our party really does have good political sense.

    Same as many others on this thread (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 02:51:06 AM EST
    I really don't know where Hillary stands on issues. She's too hawkish for my tastes, but I think she has potential on the health care issue.

    I don't doubt that many men, even those on the left, can't handle the prospect of a female president. I don't know why, however. That said, I'm not in Hillary's camp and don't want her to win the nomination. Not because she's female, but because of her politics (or as best as I can tell what her politics are). But, if she wins the primary, I intend to vote for her, unless something extreme happens that changes my mind.

    i can't stand hillary and i'm female (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by conchita on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    in fact i told emily's list to take a hike when they endorsed her.  i enthusiastically voted for her in her first run for senator, couldn't bring myself to this time.  she has let me down consistently as my senator.  i don't trust a thing she says.  she hasn't taken a stand that isn't politically expedient that i can remember.  btd, this truly surprises me that you would support her given her hawkish ways.  

    Given the Choice (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    Between Hillary and Giuliani, would you just stay home? I did not vote for her the second time around either, because of her pro war stance. But if she made it to the top I would almost certainly pull the lever for her over any of the other contenders.

    it isn't about gender (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by profmarcus on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:25:59 PM EST
    it's about hillary representing (and supporting) all the corrupt power and money infrastructure that's been dragging our country down since wwii... we've had the occasional (very) brief respite, but it's basically been full-court press since the reagan era... the difference between hillary and mccain is essentially the difference between rumsfeld and gates... rummy is an in-your-face, no apologies, k.i.t.a., s.o.b. from the get-go, wedded to the military industrial complex and damn proud of it... gates holds to the same beliefs, but it's all couched in a lovely charm school veneer... scratch hillary, and you'll find an imperialist war-lover right below the surface, sucking from the same power and money teat as the more obvious r's who, like mccain and rummy, you don't have to scratch to know what they're all about...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    You have to wonder (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    how much of what Hillary presents is fakeout and how much represents what she'd really be like as president. I suspect she took on the hawk persona to short-circuit accusations that a woman would be too weak and dovelike to be president in a perilous world. But after decades of presenting that face the question is how much of anything else she's actually managed to hang onto or whether she's completely internalized the rhetoric and become the thing she appears. How ironic it would be to vote in the first woman president, a Dem to boot, and find no difference from the Rethug hawks. Too painful almost to contemplate.

    Mostly fakeout imo (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    Or I hope so.

    The more I read about her (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    the more I think that. But I worry too.

    Thanks for this (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by taylormattd on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:25:13 PM EST
    post, BTD. I've felt the same way, but I'm always afraid to say anything. I certainly understand why folks get angry with her, and her judgment regarding foreign policy can (at least) seem poor.

    But let me tell you. When she announced, I had butterflies, corny as it sounds. The thought of a woman for president is unbelivably exciting to me. Not the mention the thought of the target of so much right wing hate defying the odds and winning the presidency. Too fun.

    Maybe it is all still left over from 1992 for me. Whenever I hear "Don't Stop", I am instantly transported to the evening when Bill Clinton won, watching Bill, Hillary, Al, and Tipper on stage beaming as that song played.

    It felt like such a hopeful time for me.


    The Hawk Persona (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Stewieeeee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:19:15 AM EST
    is a construct of anti-war activists who have totally overblown everything she's said pro-war and totally devalued everything she says that's anti-war.  she says "i believe in diplomacy before war," hop on a blog and it turns out she said this:  "i believe in ... war."  no kidding.  this happens all the time.  ergo, everyone's convinced she's totally pro-war.

    it's also a construct of news shows like hardball that, like blogs, get lots of mileage out of reducing things down the starkest of binaries.  for instance, you have to have voted against the war resolution in order to be against pre-emptive war.  you can't be both.  

    people say "I know where that person stands" the most when that person fits into the neatest box.  

    if "it" is hillary being the pro-war hawkish democrat she's made out to be by her critics, is "it" an act? isn't even a relevant question.  

    the nature of all debate surrounding hillary is total convolution.   it relies on hearsay, it relies and worst kind of conjecture where everyone refuses to talk about the facts, but make omniscent judgements about motivations.  she did this because ... she did that because.... if she said that it was only because... etc. etc. etc.  the dirty little secret about hillary is the utter simplicity.  she has actually never pretended to be anything other than who she is.

    people say "I know where that person stands" the most when that person fits into the neatest box.

    i, for myself, know exactly where hillary stands on the iraq war, on war itself, on executive authority and just about anything else.  but if anyone asked me to describe it, it would start a discussion that centers around the INvalidity of the niche in which i think she exists, and the supreme validity of the pigeonholes offered by pundits from both the main stream media and blogging aristocracies.


    I'd be the last person (none / 0) (#38)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    to say I know where Hillary stands. She's very guarded in what she says, and very strategic (in terms of guarding herself from criticism from the right) in what she does. I don't think she's "pro-war" so much as politically calculating when it comes to, i.e., actions that reward members of the MIC who can help or hurt her career. I think she may well have started out about as progressive as the right paints her but their abuse over the years has had an effect. I just don't know how seriously to take it. I certainly take her clear stands of political calculation vs complete unwillingness to openly declare her moral stands quite seriously. It's the reason I'd never support her as a candidate, unless she became a great deal more forthcoming about what she really thinks and believes.

    Not fitting in the right boxes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stewieeeee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    Is she?

    I expect (none / 0) (#40)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    she fits nicely in some box or other.

    She just doesn't want us pleb voters to know which one.


    All 3 of them are shape-shifters (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by fairleft on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    more than they are anything else. So, I also don't understand why there's particular hostility toward Hillary (or exceptional enthusiasm for the other 2), but I think it has more to do with the mainstream image of her than anything else. Sad that supposed progressives buy into those lies.

    Hillary is pure, straight Money Party... (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by A Citizen on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    the country does NOT need another President who wants to make Military Keynesianism her policy base.

    Nor do we need someone who wants to stay in Iraq forever. Kinda the same thing.

    We are fast approaching the time when global ecological disaster and the failure of a top-heavy economic system will make the possibility of continued human life on this planet an open question.

    Am I eggagerating?

    Current trends show the end of 90% of the fish population in the world's ocean's by 2040.

    And nobody in any position of public policy making makes any mention of it.

    The Pentagon is planning to repulse millions of humans whom the predict will attempt to walk to the northern hemisphere it a desperate effort to survive.

    And our choices are what?

    Billary? The best Republican president ever...

    Obama...a good speaker with no policy to deal with the upcoming catastrophe....

    Edwards...a guy who at least understands that we cannot continue on a diet of SUVs, 'Dancing with the Stars' and Bob Novak.

    Al Gore is our best chance for survival.


    She gets in...kiss yer stupid ass GOODBYE!

    Let's just see (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    how SENATOR Clinton handles the Iraq supplemental bill. She's still interviewing for the job, right?

    scratch hillary, and you'll find an imperialist war-lover right below the surface, sucking from the same power and money teat as the more obvious r's who, like mccain and rummy, you don't have to scratch to know what they're all about...

    Thank you professor for that brief glimpse of reality.

    Perhaps her best quality. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sanity Clause on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    I'm not ready to endorse any one candidate yet.  I'd like to know at least a little bit about these folks other than where they buy their clothes or who does their hair.  I suspect that if we all judge Hillary and Barack on their respective job performance as US Senators over the next ten months, we won't see an iota of difference.  Unfortunately, we probably won't see either one of them taking a lead role in ending the war, or establishing universal health care, or saving the environment either, because they're too damn busy campaigning to actually do the people's work.  Oh, well, so it goes.  As to the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) response to Hillary in the younger male demographic, I think Tucker Carlson may have inadvertently hit the nail on the head when he said recently, "there's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary."  Maybe that's because she has adopted an aggressive public persona to demonstrate her potential Commander-in-Chief capabilities, but I'd say that's pretty damn sexist and that worries me.

    What is intersesting to me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:00:57 PM EST
    is the positive/negative reaction to the Clinton name.

    If she was Senator Hillary Smith (D-NY), would anyone be discussing her candidacy?

    I doubt she'd be a candidate, or a senator (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    IF Hillary Smith is still DLC, (none / 0) (#29)
    by dkmich on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    she still a no vote to me.   This has nothing to do with female or Clinton.  It has to do with policies and being the Queen/King/Water boy for the DLC.  

    BTD talks about who is a good politician.  Well, to me, that is the one thing I don't want most.  I am sick to death of politicians and pragmatists. Neither one of them ever invented electricity, telephones, or penicillin.  I would prefer an FDR.  A visionary with the balls to create a new deal.  


    puhleazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    Are they sexists?

    you even need to ask? let's see now: she's ambitious (ok for a guy, not a woman). she does things thinking how they'll look politically (again, ok for a guy, not a woman). she's "power hungry" (isn't that a politician, by definition?)

    let's face it, idiots like tucker carlson are scared of any woman smarter then they are. hillary's accomplishments make most of the rest of all the announced candidates pale by comparison. apparently, she's done a fair job as senator, because they re-elected her handily.

    edwards didn't really impress me in 2004. he's been out of the loop since then, and now his wife's illness isn't going to help him. obama has little to recommend him at this point, he needs seasoning.

    "good politician" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Andreas on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 02:54:30 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat wrote:

    George Bush is a good politician too.

    No comment.

    What (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    No cut and paste from WSW?

    I think you're wrong. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:15:20 AM EST
    about only one point in your post, which is spot on in every other regard:

    Frankly, Edwards seems the best POLITICIAN of the bunch.

    I'm thinking that what you mean by this is that 1) Edwards' politics agree with yours and/or 2) Edwards is conducting his campaign along the same lines you advocate.

    But the proof of political quality is in the results and Edwards has been running third and, if anything, fading over time.  The best politician (as a politician, not a statesman or person) is the one who wins.  It's not at all clear who that will be.

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    I am a free trader for instance.

    Edwards is not really a favorite of mine.

    I call him the best politician because he has doen the most with what he had.

    As for running 3rd, you are not so foolish to play this national polls that do not matter game are you?

    See, Edwards is a better pol than you . . HE is is Iowa and Nevada and South Carolina where it matters.


    On Iowa. . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    we'll see.  If Edwards is able to use a couple of good state showings to catapult himself into first that would clearly show political astuteness.

    With respect to his practicing your kind of politics I'm referring less to his ostensible policies and more to his political approach -- ie the so-called Politics of Contrast.

    I'm not trying to disparage Edwards as a politician -- he is good.  I particularly like the fact that although he's perfectly willing to shiv his Democratic opponents in the back he does it with a finesse that doesn't turn it into a Dem-on-Dem brawl.  It's just that I think Clinton and Obama are also excellent politicians and I see no evidence that Edwards is better than them.


    As Ben Masel pointed out (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    both Obama and Clinton voted for scene two of the Patriot Act.  Perhaps the reason why Edwards wins my favor is only because he wasn't there to be able to chap my butt too but right now he has my support above and over Clinton and Obama.

    P.S. I love his spotlight (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:23:46 AM EST
    on the growing poverty in our country as well.  He is a tested soul too having lost his first child to an early unexpected death, I don't anticipate that his wife's illness will affect a whole lot since they both obviously have grown huge spiritually through hardship.

    Gender is not the issue (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    I present Condoleeza Rise as president of the United States as an example. Does that really bother anyone because she's a woman? I think not.

    Rice (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:01:17 AM EST

    Backlash effect... (none / 0) (#33)
    by rob on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    While it may be anecdotal at this time the more Hillary hate better she is doing in the polls. There may be a backlash effect especially among yonger women.

    Younger... (none / 0) (#34)
    by rob on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    That should read "younger women".

    by Mia T on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:02:04 AM EST

    Mia T, 10.02.05

    "It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem." (G. K. Chesterton)

    While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

    These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

    Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. This requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically anti-military--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

    It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."