home

Hillary: Chances of Another Presidential Run "Close to Zero"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

During an interview on Fox and Friends this morning. Hillary Clinton said the chances of her running again for President are "close to zero."

She said the chances of her becoming Senate Majority Leader or a Supreme Court Justice are "zero."

Hillary has made more than 50 appearances for Barack Obama. But, according to this report, that's not the reason her former supporters are now lined up behind him. The reason: Sarah Palin. [More...]

"Palin — God forbid! Where did they find her?" Evelyn Fruman exclaimed on Monday before a Clinton speech at a Jewish community centre here.

"God forbid!" Gail Silverberg chimed in. "Hockey moms and lipstick on a pig and six-packs? I don't want that stuff."

Nearby, Rina Jampolsky was wearing a "Hillary Sent Me" button next to a pin saying "Barack Obama" in Hebrew. "I thought I wouldn't vote at all when Hillary left the race," she said. "But as soon as McCain selected Sarah Palin, my decision was made."

When John McCain looks back at why he lost the election, I hope he recognizes that it wasn't just the economy. It was equally his brazen Hail Mary pass in choosing a spectacularly unqualified and unacceptable candidate as his running mate that women saw through in a nanosecond.

< The Polls - 10/14 | Supreme Court Denies Cert for Troy Davis >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary: Chances of Another Presidential Run "Close to Zero" | 203 comments (203 topical)
    She's right, on all three counts. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:32:37 AM EST


    That's depressing (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    but never say never.  Obama did say he wasn't running in 2008 and changed his mind.  

    Clinton and Obama are two very (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    different people. I have no doubt that she is telling the truth.

    She knows that they won't let her.

    [ Parent ]

    Who's they? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    Who knows what will happen 8 years from now. There is an opening in 8 years that she can take if she wants to try again and there will be lots of people who will ask her to.  

    She's a politician and one angle is that she doesn't want her supporters to pine for a 2012 run that you see in PUMA sites.  And there's already a stereotype out there that paints her as too ambitious.  This can help deflect that and help people to move on in this and the next election cycle.

         

    [ Parent ]

    "They" is the leadership of the (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    Democratic party. It was already against her before Obama became it's leader. How do you think they will treat her now that he is in charge? Daschle, Brazille, Jackson, etc. are going to do their best to make sure Clinton never gets any kind of power or influence.

    And in 2016, she'll be painted as the over the hill grandma who's too dodering to take on the likes of Warner or whoever else they come up with (if it isn't Biden).

    [ Parent ]

    A contrary theory (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    proposed by someone I know, is that Hillary will have the opportunity to run if she wants it in 2016, because the Democratic Party will owe it to her.  Her cooperation this election year has been extremely remarkable.  They may owe her a favor of that size.

    We will see what happens.  But one thing's for sure, politicians always say they're not going to run before they do.

    [ Parent ]

    The party may owe it to her. But they aren't (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    going pay that debt. They treated her terribly this year and I see no reason to suspect they would treat her better in the future. The Brazilles and Kennedy's of the political world have no reason to change their tune.

    [ Parent ]
    The Kennedys (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    I'm sure will still be around, but I really don't see Donna Brazile being too influential 8 years from now.  She's just one not particularly bright strategist.  Heck, James Carville could be head of the DNC 8 years from now.  We don't know.

    [ Parent ]
    Brazille is part of the Obama team. It's (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    far more likely that she is the head of the DNC then Carville ever is. Her status can only rise from here. Count on her to have some kind of position of power.

    [ Parent ]
    You think Obama owes her a favor? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    He very well may.  He owes Hillary as well though...

    [ Parent ]
    Obama does not believe he will owe (4.60 / 10) (#110)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    Hillary a favor. He acts like he's making her pay for having the audacity to run against him. He's extracting penance. If he was grateful to her for her help, he'd mention her name when he adopts her positions on issues.

    [ Parent ]
    I really dont care... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Thanin on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    what brazille, the dnc, or anyone else says.  Hillary has done so much, throwing everything into Obama getting in, I dont care who else runs in 2016.  The voters owe Hillary and we will pay that debt.  And maybe next time florida and michigan wont be so **ing stupid to risk their votes again.

    [ Parent ]
    I was schocked (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    to hear Michelle O say on Larry King live last week (I think it was that show) that Hillary had been great, and had spoken to Michelle about having kids in the White House, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    these anti-Hillary conspiracy theories (2.25 / 4) (#186)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    are so over the top.  You don't really believe all that do you?

    [ Parent ]
    Come on, the leadership isn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    that powerful.  What happened this year was that the primary was as close to 50/50 as you can get and the leadership got to fiddle with the rules and affect the outcome.    

    Its best not to canonize Hillary and cast Obama in a negative light when he changed his mind to run for President.  They're both politicians.  She hasn't said she's not going to run  and could change her mind even if she did say that.  I agree with another poster that its a response to the classic "when will you run" question but we'll find out her thought process after (hopefully after Obama's re-election) to see where fortune takes her.          

    [ Parent ]

    Leadership Has Plenty (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    of negative power. No other reason to have twisted their own by-laws into a pretzel to block Michigan and Florida votes.

    [ Parent ]
    8 years? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Pepe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    I already had been previously thinking about what I've been starting to read lately and that is Obama is inheriting such a mess that there is no way he can begin to solve it in 4 years. Add in the fact that the Republicans will block him at every turn when possible and his task is worse.

    Recent articles have been predicting that 'Mr. I can solve the problems of the world' will have very poor approval ratings by his second year if people don't see meaningful progress. And if things don't improve enough by the third year it will put the Republicans in a situation where they could win the White House in 2012.

    If all that plays out and Obama is a weak candidate for reelection in 2012 don't be surprised if we see a challenge for the Democratic nomination. And if there is a challenge don't be surprised if one of the names on the Primary Ballot is Hillary Clinton.

    Sure she says she will never run again. Sure she says being Majority Leader is out of the question. Those are things at this point in time that she should be saying. But don't think for a second that is what she believes.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's highly probable that Obama will (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    be a mediocre President and that he will have low approval ratings by 2012. That doesn't matter. Carter was a mediocre President with low approval ratings. And Kennedy lost. She has no chance in 2012. The backlash against her would be enormous. You think she's hated now? See what they say about her if she tries to challenge the Golden One again.

    [ Parent ]
    And if the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    is fractured in 4 years, she would not win against the Republican candidate. I believe her best chance is to hope Obama gets re-elected and then be the second act.

    [ Parent ]
    You are 100% right! (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    No matter how bad things are in 4 years, Obama gets to run again.  Hillary would be a fool to try to upset an incumbent President and we all know that Hillary is definitely NOT a fool!  

    [ Parent ]
    Kennedy had Chappaquiddick (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pepe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    hanging over him and if I recall still came close. Also the Democrats were even denser than they are today if that is possible and literally gave the WH away by not nominating someone without Carter's negative baggage. As I asked elsewhere in the thread, if faced with the same proposition again wold they make the same mistake again? Or in today's times would primary voter make the same mistake DC Democrats mad back then?

    [ Parent ]
    The Dem nomination in '80 (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jb64 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    was never seriously in doubt. All that Ted Kennedy managed to do that year was inflict fatal damage to Jimmy Carter's re-election bid. It was a shameless, egotistical act that helped usher in the last 28 years of Republican dominance. Carter lost that election because the Iranians crawfished him on a deal to get the hostages released by essentially making a deal with Reagan for arms by holding them until after the election. He was winning by a near ten point margin right up until the last couple of weeks before the election. I think if he could have arranged the hostages release prior to that election he would have won a second term.

    But there were plenty of party "leaders" who were disenchanted by Carter's style of governance, and his relations with the legislative branch. Thus the Kennedy run.

    [ Parent ]

    Iran wasn't Carter's only problem (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    Some of us are old enough to remember interest rates at 14% and long gas lines, on the days we were allowed to try to buy gas.  Carter's heart was in the right place, but he was not a good President.

    I see a repeat for Obama.  The economy will be a total mess, even with him poring money into the government.  Our trillion dollar deficit will multiply.  Energy will continue to be an issue, with or without off shore drilling, and we have no clue what Iran might do.  

    Still, Obama gets his shot at a second term.  

    [ Parent ]

    Kennedy lost (none / 0) (#198)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    not because Carter beat him out, but because of Chappaquidick.  

    If Obama is elected President and his polls are really poor, I think anything goes.

    [ Parent ]

    So your message is... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    "don't believe Hillary, what she really means is she's running in 2012."

    As we saw during the primaries, Hillary tells us straight up "what Hillary wants" and the mind-readers are invariably wrong.

    Close to zero chance means she's not running again, but if at some point she decided she needed/wanted to she would not want to look like a liar by saying "absolutely zero" now.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, this is very sad (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    I am surprised.  I thought for sure that she would run again.  I guess she's seeing 8 years of Obama and no place for her after that.  How very sad.  

    [ Parent ]
    i would postulate (none / 0) (#188)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    that she sees running for President again as unnecessary, because the Democratic party is headed for a landslide victory this year, and Obama was a better candidate than she thought.  Why should she run for President given the great outlook for progressive policies that we have now?

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me... (2.60 / 5) (#94)
    by Nevart on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    Sorry, but Hillary also denied that she was running for president when she was running for re-election to the Senate, even as Mark Penn et al were planning her presidential campaign.  It's standard fare for politicians.

    [ Parent ]
    No, she did not deny that she was running (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    in 2008. She just didn't confirm it.

    [ Parent ]
    She did the (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    same thing here.  

    [ Parent ]
    One hundred percent wrong. (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    Clinton was asked whether she would promise to serve out her Senate term in the last election and she stated clearly that she could not promise to do so.

    You're right that making a promise to serve out a full term and breaking it -- as Obama did -- is typical behavior for politicians.  But not for Clinton -- she was forthright and honest in this regard.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't he promise not to run (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    when elected senator?  I know they badgered Hillary in her first term and she promised not to run during 2004.  She did not refuse to run in 2008 and the media speculated  on that  until they were nearly blind.

    [ Parent ]
    Chances for the most qualified woman (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    in this country to reach the top in this country: close to zero.

    We knew that.  And we know what that means for the rest of us . . . and our daughters, 160 years since Seneca Falls.  Like the suffragists, our hope is for change for our "daughters' daughters."  And yours.

    really awful (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    that outlook.  But I am hard pressed to argue it. I hope in 8 years she changes her mind or 4 if things are crappy.....

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't matter how crappy things are, (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    Obama gets a second run.  All Presidents do.  Or at least all democrat Presidents do.

    [ Parent ]
    "Democratic" presidents (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    is the grammatically correct version when the word is used as an adjective.

    "Democrat" presidents would be the Republican version, which they use to make the word sound harsher.

    Just in case you didn't realize.....

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with all of her assessments (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    of her future options.  It was perfectly clear to me at the end of May that any career advancement that depended on help from the Democratic party were closed.

    Just so sooooo stupid on the part of the Dem party.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by blogtopus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    She's talking about things that rely on the Democratic party. I for one could see her becoming U.N. Leader someday.

    Of course, if Obama screws up, the Dem party won't allow anyone else to come in to save the day; they'd rather have a GOP candidate than anyone not named Barack Obama. And that's exactly what they'll get.

    [ Parent ]

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    Before this election I thought there was maybe a possibility I would see a female president in my lifetime.  Now I am almost 100% certain.

    Hillary only lost b/c Obama was running, and he was a chance at another "first".  I honestly think that she would have beaten any other candidate hands down.  And I honestly think that she will either do so again in 2016, or someone else will come along who will.  At the very latest by the time my generation is old enough to run we will see a female president.

    Hillary running this year will only make it easier for the next woman who comes along.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt that. Women need money and (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    a boatload of mentors to make it to the presidential ranks.  I don't see any of those now.  Hillary was unique because she had a husband who was (is) wildly popular with the rank and file Democrats. That was her shoe in, unfortunately, Bill was not popular with the liberal media class and all Axelrod had to do was to destroy Clinton popularity with the AA base.  And we saw how they did that.

    [ Parent ]
    20 years ago no one would've picked (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton as someone to run for president?  We have no idea who will emerge in the future.  For that matter, 2 years ago, who would've mentioned Sarah Palin?

    Again, the only reason I think that Hillary lost this year was the appearance on the scene of another "first" - which won't be true next time around.

    [ Parent ]

    First Latino male president? (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:30:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Annecdotally. . . (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    two elderly relatives of my wife's who we were worried about seem to have come around -- largely because of Palin.

    As long as we're sharing anecdotes (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by echinopsia on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    A lifelong friend in IL who usually swings Republican was all set to vote for Hillary/anyone or Hillary/Obama enthusiastically. Now she's 100% McCain/Palin. She just does not think Obama is ready and she thinks Hillary was treated disgracefully.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about that (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    I went from being a strong Hillary supporter to a person who was going to leave the the top of the ballot blank to being "tepidly" for Obama to probably voting for McCain/Palin based on the Palinpalooza. When I decided to vote for Obama, I did it based on voting for my own self-interests, but I no longer think that the Democrats represent my interests. I don't want to be associated with a party that has so little respect for women. I've become an identity voter for the entire ballot. I no longer care whether a candidate has an R or a D after his or her name. I am so totally disgusted with how female candidates have been treated that I'm only voting for women. I may never vote for a male candidate again. I know I'm not alone.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bluegal on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    So I never want to hear again about why Obama is winning 95% of the black vote since you have become an identity voter.

    Amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    I just wish.... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    I had an identity to associate with and vote for...not many Lebanese-Irish hedonists running for office:(

    [ Parent ]
    If you run... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    ...I'd vote for you.

    Damn, think of the parties.  Irish booze, Lebanese food and hedonism?  Does it get any better?

    Seriously, does it?

    [ Parent ]

    We'd certainly be looking a (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    smaller government or maybe even no government.

    [ Parent ]
    You'd be free as a bird Oc..... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    thats my only campaign promise, can't promise a chicken in your pot:)

    [ Parent ]
    Open door and open bar.... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    at my Inauguration Eddie...I'd put Jackson's to shame.

    Hope you prefer your Kibbie raw:)

    [ Parent ]

    Would That There Were... (n/t) (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How many (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Black Republicans do you know?

    This statistic hardly surprises me.

    [ Parent ]

    I may never vote for a Jewish candidate again (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Gabriel on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    I may never vote for a white candidate again.
    I may never vote for a black candidate again.
    I may never vote for a female candidate again.

    Notice the pattern?

    [ Parent ]

    Amen! n/t (none / 0) (#189)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But what if the female candidate you're voting for (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    wants to take away the rights and respect accorded to women?  

    [ Parent ]
    We have no respect to be taken away from us. (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    This election cycle has proved that beyond all reasonable doubt. And why do women have to be "given rights"? We're 52% of the population. I am suggesting that we begin to act like it. If we want rights, we should just take them. With more women in office that will get easier.

    "If women want any rights more than they's got, why don't they just take them, and not be talking about it." - Sojourner Truth

    I have no quarrel with black people voting for Obama, BTW, and I never have. Even the ones who think his running mate is Sarah Palin have a right to vote for someone who looks like them. My original point is that it is a mistake to think that Sarah Palin's candidacy is bringing women home to Obama. It's something people who like to tear away at Palin might like to believe, but if women vote for Obama in droves, it will be "the economy, stupid", not because of Governor Palin. And I would be happy to vote for white women, black women, Jewish women, etc etc etc. My "women only" votes are not based on bigotry or racism. You could try to call me "sexist", but if racism charges can't apply to the oppressed race, then sexism charges can't apply to the oppressed sex.

    [ Parent ]

    How is it possible (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    for women to gain more rights by allowing a Vice President like Palin into office, someone who wants to restrict our rights?  Our rights definitely need some tweaking (equal pay for equal work - something McCain/Palin is not for) but they are legally there...so I am unsure as to what rights you think we need to go and grab.

    And while you can make an argument that McCain/Palin wouldn't take away Roe v. Wade if you like (IMO, not an argument worth the risk), there's no getting around the actual views Palin holds on equal pay/equal work, abortion, and a woman's right to marry another woman, for instance, and even READ literature about lesbian relationships.  As far as female leaders go, would Margaret Thatcher be worth voting for on the grounds of gender alone?

    You can vote how you want, but voting for identity without taking into account ideology seems an unwise path to me.

    I think this election cycle has in many ways brought us respect from new quarters.  Hillary's popularity and ability to cross the C-in-C threshold were really amazing.  Her enduring popularity and the image she presents continue to inspire women.  People in Scranton chanted her name when she came up to introduce Joe Biden - you wouldn't have known that SHE wasn't the candidate!  She inspires me much, much more than Palin.

    [ Parent ]

    What "new quarters" do you feel (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    respect from? I see women being more openly harassed and humiliated in the press and in public than I have ever seen before. It's been an open season on women in the blogs for months. For a better explanation than I can give you in a blog comment about why electing a woman who we disagree with on policy is still a good idea, check out Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney's book, "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women's Lives Aren't Getting Any Easier--And How We Can Make Real Progress For Ourselves and Our Daughters". It's an interesting read. It was recommended to me by a local woman who wanted my vote but knew we differed on some issues.

    [ Parent ]
    well imo (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    I think Hillary's extended primary battle demonstrated her complete readiness for the Presidency.  So now when I hear that joke about PMS and women as Presidents, I have Hillary's example to dismiss the whole canard with.  I also think that Hillary's massive following from men AND women, her ability to turn a bit into the working-class hero, demonstrate the ability of women to lead mass heterogeneous groups and possess charisma.  Sexism did run rampant, but that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's not like men gave more of a sh*t about women before Hillary ran after all.  

    I guess I think Hillary's run created something that can give women inner strength.  I don't think the primary battle caused a categorical loss of respect in this country for women.  We started out at a place where many people didn't seriously respect women.  But Hillary was able to change minds and challenge assumptions.

    Blogs, eh, I don't really care about blogs.  Their sexism and elitism is again not at all surprising.  But Hillary's impact this year will last a lot longer than Josh Marshall's.

    I will have to take a look at that book you recommended.  I guess I can't comment either way about it at this point.  

    Sarah Palin...I guess I could go on and on about reasons why I will not vote for her.  But most recently, her outright lying about the results of troopergate (cleared of legal and ethical wrongdoing?  No, you weren't.  Just the former) has me angry at her and extremely mistrustful of her.  

    [ Parent ]

    oh and also (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    I am a believer in the importance of witnessing all the ugliness.  We got to see people throw mud and become shameless fools out of their desire to maintain sexism in our society.  That ugliness reflects upon them, not upon women as a whole.  We saw people who were once respected expose the limits of their minds for all to see - I saw it, and we know who those people are now.  

    New quarters of respect?  
    The white male working class.  I'm sure many expected them to be the most boorish.  

    The quarter that didn't respect, and now has lost much of my respect?
    The white male middle class.  Or, ha, the creative class.

    [ Parent ]

    a most bizarre argument... (1.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    Women have no respect to be taken away?  What world are you living in?  

    And how much No Quarter/Confluence/Pumapac do you read per day?  Or are you just another wingnut ratf*$er?

    [ Parent ]

    Stay classy, Iris (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    or course you're not alone (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    A great many people don't vote every year. You may be one of them.

    What mystifies me is the apparent inability of people to differentiate invalid, gender-based criticism of a qualified candidate from legitimate criticism of an unqualified and uninformed candidate of a particular gender. This is not to say that there haven't been sexist criticism of Palin - of course there have! But the so-called "Palin-palooza" that some posters here are referring to has, in the main, focused squarely on the shocking level of her lack of resume and illiberal positions.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't missed voting in an election (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    since 1972. This year will be no different. I will be at the polls casting my "females only" votes. I am perfectly capable of differentiating between attacks on the issues and personal attacks, but the overwhelming theme this election cycle has been on the personal. When a candidate is referred to in terms that both Hillary and Sarah have, the discussion of their positions on issues and qualifications becomes irrelevant. I'm sorry, but referring to Palin as a "fluffy bunny" is not the way to discuss her qualifications to be VP.
    "It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

    Palin is the governor of Alaska, and as such deserves to be "taken seriously".
    And that one was MILD.

    [ Parent ]
    there's taken seriously (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    and "taken seriously."

    She has revealed herself as falling considerably short of being taken seriously as a national political figure over the course of this campaign. The same was true of Dan Quayle, who was also mocked  incessantly and treated as an object of derision.

    [ Parent ]

    If a man said (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    he'd never vote for a female candidate, what would you call him?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, well... (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    We once had a female governer named Dixie Lee Ray. I don't want to tell you how that one worked out.

    [ Parent ]
    I was (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    an Edwards supporter. When he dropped out I came to support Hillary with even more enthusiasm. Now I'm supporting Obama.

    We have two daughters, two grand daughters and two grand sons.  This election, like every other election, is about them not about me.

    I've never believed that ethnicity or gender should play any role in determining my vote.

    The future of the nation is more important than any personal identity matter, that's the type of selfish attitude that accounts, in large measure, for the current state of the nation.

    Identity politics is corrosive and destructive.

    [ Parent ]

    In this country we marginalize (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    the contributions of 52% of the population. If you are thinking about the future of your grandchildren, then including women in every aspect of decision making should be important to you. If we keep letting men tell us that voting for them and letting them make decisions for us is best for us, then we are losing out on the contributions of over half the people.  Identity politics is only corrosive to white men. It only destroys the patriarchy. It empowers the rest of us. Women voting for women is not responsible for the current state of the nation. Our not voting for other women may be, though.

    [ Parent ]
    The females in the US Senate (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    figured that out some time ago.  They made a pact, both Ds and Rs, to never allow themselves to be used in a campaign against a female colleague of the other party.

    And they never have.

    [ Parent ]

    more than 52% (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    add in all men of color.

    [ Parent ]
    Identity (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    politics from any direction is corrosive.  It obscures real issues and needlessly pits group against group based on the accident of birth.

    The good of my children and grandchildren is determined by policy and policy only and I feel that I am a far better judge than you are concerning their future.  I know what they need.  

    Assaulting white men is assaulting the second largest demographic in the country. Talk about exclusion.

    So given the choice between say Franklin Roosevelt and Magda Goebbels who would you support?

    [ Parent ]

    nice point, and I agree (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    simplistic identity politics is a dangerous affair.

    extra kudos for the FDR vs. Goebbels comparison!

    [ Parent ]

    the bitterness vote (3.25 / 4) (#77)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    now there's a tactic McCain hasn't fully explored.

    "Pissed cause your candidate didn't win? Vote for McCain"

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not the least bit bitter. (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    And I'm not "pissed" that my candidate didn't win. I'm just disgusted with how women in general have been treated during this election, and I am working with other women to change it. It's a journey I began in 1969, and I made the mistake of taking some time off. It won't happen again. We're in this for the long haul. One congressional seat, one senator at a time until the surge becomes overwhelming. And I don't want Hillary to run again in 2012 or 16. It's time for a different strategy. With an Obama win, Hillary will be marginalized as a senator. Time for her to join Bill in his foundation work. They'll be great together.

    [ Parent ]
    Silver linings... (5.00 / 11) (#137)
    by marian evans on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    Well, that's the one good thing I think will come from this US election cycle - I think that the blatant sexism aimed at Sen Clinton (& yes, at Sarah Palin also), has been a real wake-up call for a lot of women, both within the US and those watching from without.

    There's quite a few women who have been galvanized by the dismissive, disrespectful and downright hateful attitude and actions of many involved in the political process. And hateful is exactly the right word for it - the quality of it, the pathological tenor of it, was truly shocking.

    In particular, the egregious behaviour of the left was an eye-opener. Hateful behaviour from your opponent, one can almost understand - but being treated like cr*p by your so-called "friends" is a betrayal of trust that will not be forgotten, or forgiven.

    The emancipation of women is the truly radical (radical - to the root) notion developed by our culture and the modern era. It is unique in human history, unimagined by the ancient world. The oppression of women is the most pervasive, and most pernicious, of all - the deepest, and most difficult to eradicate, and the most necessary to our full development as human beings.

    I have a dream too...

    ...of a more just world, where all our daughters will not be ridiculed and punished merely for being female, and daring to ask to be considered equal.

    [ Parent ]

    proof-reading failure! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by marian evans on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    ....i.e should read:

    "most difficult to eradicate, and the most necessary to eradicate, for our full development as human beings."

    OK, where's that coffee...

    [ Parent ]

    Having a biracial man leading the free (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    world is also quite revolutionary.

    [ Parent ]
    My apologies... (3.50 / 2) (#112)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    I should have said "The disgusted vote"

    Vote for McCain against your own interests, cause "that'll show em."

    It's a fine fine line. Too bad the result is the same.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting for Obama is voting (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    against my own interests.  Voting for Sarah Palin is not. McCain just gets to come along for the ride. The problem is that you think you get to decide what my interests are - and you don't. It is in my best interest to get a woman into one of the two top jobs in the US - no matter who she is. Just because I can think of other women on both sides of the aisle that I would rather vote for, it doesn't change things. Voting for Obama does not further my own interests in any way. I get equal pay for what I do, I have fine health insurance, and I'm past child-bearing. I'm looking for a woman to finally have a seat at the grown-up table. That's in my own self-interest.

    [ Parent ]
    what about the rest of us? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    What about our interests, our children's interests?  What about the interests of men who didn't partake in misogyny?

    [ Parent ]
    When women say that they are going to vote (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM EST
    for McCain/Palin, the usual comeback is "How can you vote against your own self-interest?" My point is the real question you are asking is, "How can you vote against MY self-interests?" Abortion is not an issue that I vote on. I have mixed feelings about it so I, like Obama, support the law of the land. I am for equal pay for all women having fought very hard to get it for myself. I am for everyone having health insurance as good as mine is. I am for family leave and all of those things you want me to be for. The difference is that I disagree with you about how to get it. I have equal pay, family leave, and good insurance because I work for a company owned and run by women. Some of them are even Republicans. I want our government to have more women running it because I think that's the way to get not just women, but families, what we need. I want our government to be awash in estrogen, and I'm willing to vote some Republicans in to do it. Men will benefit from having more women in government, too. I'm not a PUMA. I'm disappointed that Hillary won't be on the ballot, but she is not the only woman in this country. I think the DNC showed what great lengths it was willing to go to to keep Hillary off the ballot. I was willing to believe that it wasn't all women, just Hillary, but the reaction to Sarah Palin suggests otherwise. I came to Talkleft after the convention to try to shore up my resolve to vote for Obama, but the opposite happened. It's been awhile since I've contributed much, but this post today struck a deep nerve. I respect, Iris, that you are full steam ahead in support of Obama. I suspect that if we were talking in person the conversation would be lively, constructive, and respectful, and we'd probably go out for coffee after.

    [ Parent ]
    I see. You got yours (2.25 / 4) (#128)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    so screw everyone else.

    Nice.

    Guess you are a Republican.

    I wonder why you ever voted for Hil in the first place.

    I hope for your sake your situation never gets worse.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's not "screw you" (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    You said that voting for McCain/Palin is against my self-interest. Actually, you don't care what my self-interests are, but I'm supposed to vote for what you think yours are. What makes your self-interests more important than mine? I think that when more women are in office, your self-interests will be in much better hands. I want more women making the decisions that affect us. I happen to think that's in your best interests, too. I'm not a Republican, BTW, but I no longer think being called one is an insult.

    [ Parent ]
    I am going by what you said (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    YOU have equal pay
    YOU have child care
    YOU have all these things.

    A true Democrat realizes that A STRONG COMMUNITY strengthens the individual.

    You aren't even considering what things will be like when your kids are grown up.

    Now I am the one that's disgusted.

    Thankfully, it isn't looking good for YOUR side.

    Oh yeah and P.S. As a professional woman I am HORRIFIED by the blatant and cynical tokenism of choosing Sarah Palin. McCain spent less time choosing her than a college spends choosing a professor for a tenure track position. As a woman, I want high-level representatives of my gender to be chosen based on their qualifications for the position (example Condolisa Rice, Hillary Clinton, Justice OConnor). On paper Palin seems (marginally) qualified, but she has since proven she is no more so than GW Bush. Would you want a female GW Bush representing you as a woman? I would not. She would set us back decades.

    And that is saying something.


    [ Parent ]

    PS (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    If you think a Palin Vice-Presidency will be good for women

    then

    you must think the George W Bush presidency was good for Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting all women, any women (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    does have some strategic sense to it. If you really believe that women's interests will only increase if women are elected from any party (from Green to KKK), then that's the way to go about it.

    But let's be clear what those "interests" are. Not abortion rights, or equal pay, or health care, or research into women's health, or domestic violence law, or family leave policy, or welfare policy. The real interest at work is cultural-- women are being mistreated by the media during campaigns. That's a real concern, certainly a real issue. It affects how other issues are dealt with. But a quick glance at the gaggle of women at Fox News is evidence that voting according to that one criterion may not lead to the other interests being met.

    [ Parent ]

    good point. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    that really is the only thing that Hil and Palin share....the treatment via the media.

    I guess if I were willing to give upon all other women's (and others) issues , I would vote Palin too.

    [ Parent ]

    If women were 52% of the senators (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    and held 52% congress, no matter what party they represented, I think that women would have their issues heard, and that things like equal pay, research into women's health, family leave policy, etc. would be no-brainers. Actually, 30-40% would do it. The abortion issue is one that divides women, but wouldn't it be better to have more of us in on the decision-making? Right now the abortion issue is being decided by men and is used to keep us in check. Women are not just being mistreated by the media. We are not being allowed full partnership in governing at any level. We're supposed to vote for the men who will take the best care of us. Time to take charge of ourselves.

    [ Parent ]
    So wrong (2.33 / 3) (#176)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Hillary was "impervious" to the treatment by the media.  She cares about the issues that matter, not whether the media make fun of her.

    What you're suggesting is unilateral disarmament on every single women's issue in favor of an obscure signal that will never be heard or understood.  

    I can see the right-wing/PUMA crowd is taking to trolling liberal blogs and pushing their bogus 30% crap in advance of the election.  This is the same crap that appeared on PUMAPac blog a month ago.

    [ Parent ]

    I wasn't aware that the PUMAs (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    were pushing Congresswoman Maloney's "crap" as you put it, but if they are, good for them. My book club chose it as a selection when it came out in May. We are still talking about it. Each chapter ends with action item suggestions, the 30% solution being just one of many.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw this coming a while back (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    when it was cross-posted on nearly every PUMA blog that I was watching.

    Unfortunately for the people dishonestly trying to push this, Carolyn Maloney, author of the 30% solution, had this to say about the Democratic 2008 platform:

    She added that the platform this year is the most "pro-woman" platform in history.


    [ Parent ]
    Silly! (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    You call Obama's supporters sexist, and yet you obviously are viewing all women as angels and all men as sexist devils.  McCain/Palin would appoint SCOTUS justices that would narrow our rights as women, and Obama would appoint justices that solidify and defend them.  McCain/Palin would limit public funding for contraception, and take no action to ensure equal pay.  No matter what else you believe to be true, these are simply the facts.

    It may be emotionally satisfying for you to imagine yourself as teaching the Democratic party some obscure lesson about how to treat women, but what you're suggesting is the equivalent of leaving a thickheaded husband to shack up with an abusive boyfriend.  Please don't inflict McCain's conservative, anti-women policies on my daughter just because you're angry.

    "[Revenge] is like a poison, it can take you over, and before you know it, turn us into something ugly." - Spiderman 3

    [ Parent ]

    Noo, I don't think all women are (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    angels. I just think that it's time that women get a chance to be a bigger part of the decision making process in our government. Some will succeed and some will fail - just like the men do. But if they're not there, they (and we) will never truly be heard. I've voted for a lot of men while holding my nose so I'm used to not having the perfect candidate to vote for. If a male candidate came along that was a positive vote for me rather than the lesser of two evils, I might vote for him, but since that is seldom the case, I can safely say that I will be voting for women, any women, for awhile. When I go to the polls in my district on November 4th, there is only one race that does not have a female candidate running. We've been working hard here to get women on the ballot, and it's paying off.

    [ Parent ]
    "Bloom where you're planted." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    I never heard that one before.  A bit different than:  you can be anything you want to be.

    Ask Teddy Kennedy about it (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    he might have made a good, or even great, President.

    But he was planted in the Senate and bloomed beautifully.

    I see HRC - if serendipity doesn't wave its caprice to put her in the WH - as winding up wearing Teddy's mantle.  Not a bad place to be, either.

    [ Parent ]

    I had that poster on my wall in college (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    stuck in central Illinois and wanting to get out. Blooming there with a 3.8 GPA did the trick!

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, what a shame.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:46:23 AM EST
    Do we really think she has lost all her power in politics? Or has she exhausted herself in this election?

    I can't stand the thought of not hearing from her on the national stage, although in fact the media don't cover her much.

    Makes me cry.

    I'd say it's probably both. She knows (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    that the leadership isn't going to give her an inch, and she's likely tired of getting kicked around for a year and a half.

    [ Parent ]
    She hasn't lost her power in politics (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by byteb on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    not by a long shot. Based on her run for the nomination, her power has only increased. She's going to be one of the most powerful political players on the scene for decades to come.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama wins the election, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    Hillary will have no power in the senate. Reid and Pelosi will help make sure of it. Anyone who thinks she has any clout anymore hasn't been paying attention lately. She's had to go to the press to get her ideas heard, and only McCain gives her credit for them. If McCain wins, she may become one of his go-to people in the senate, but that doesn't seem likely. Her time has come and gone. She fought hard, but it's someone else's turn to try to break the glass ceiling. It will be easier for the next woman because of her, and sometimes that's the only satisfaction you get.

    [ Parent ]
    What on earth (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    makes you believe that Hillary will "become one of his go-to people in the senate?"

    McCain is at bottom a right-wing Republican.  If he has a go-to Democrat it will be a blue dog.

    Hillary is no blue dog.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain has been giving Hillary (none / 0) (#140)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    credit for some the proposals he has been making of late. It's not too big a leap to suggest that he might ask for help implementing them should he win the election.

    [ Parent ]
    What (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    he wants to implement is very different from Hillary's proposal. On the surface it appears the same.  He made that comment to draw disaffected Hillary supporters.  McCain's plan will relieve banks of their irresponsibility and reward them with handsome profits for doing the wrong thing.  That was NOT a part of Hillary's plan.

    [ Parent ]
    You're underestimating Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by byteb on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    sure, there's a new power base in the Democratic party now but any politician who ignore Clinton does so at their own peril. Plus, political power is always in flux depending on so many variables. Clinton's run has solidified her standing as one of the 'movers and shakers'...plus, her impressive and extensive campaigning for Obama has added to her stature within the party, imo...add to this her close relationship with Biden. Put it all together and, I think, time will only increase