See, it's either her, or Obama, who has shown himself to be too easily influenced by the people behind him. I don't know which is the better candidate, but... between backwards rises to power and lapses in leadership, I tend to shy away from lapses in leadership when we're dealing with the most powerful seat in the world.

That being said, I'm undecided.

Just don't tell Emmy.

(Reply) (Thread)

Obama, who has shown himself to be too easily influenced by the people behind him.

[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead].

I promise not to pick a fight, yet am curious -- can you point to some decisions Obama has made that are influenced by "the people behind him" (advisers? lobbyists? corporations?)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Which other person running is a carpetbagger? And then had the audacity to complain that in kindergarten that Obama wrote he wanted to be president. She is more than ambitious, she is sleazy. She used underhanded tactics to get the one political office she has. That's not just ambition. There's more than ambition to that.

(Reply) (Thread)

I believe Mitt Romney qualifies as a person who has done an awful lot of schlepping around to be in the right place to run for elected office.

Oh, sorry. I guess you were talking about Dems.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I don't know about that. I think we have to look at the political spectrum of the time before judging her actions of decades ago. I think in the time she grew up, no one ever thought a woman COULD be elected president. Geraldine Ferraro was the closest we'd come - and she lost. Thirty years ago, the entire political spectrum was rock-solid sure it would be at least fifty years before we'd have a woman president - the only female presidents were in science-fiction movies. In that scenario, as a socially-liberal woman, it made more sense to become part of a "two-for-one" team than to try for it herself. PAKISTAN had a woman president before us.

I think it shows that she's smart, not just ambitious, willing to sacrifice her own legacy in order to get things done. And even a a two-for-one, she was the focus of Washington's hate, because how dare she do something other than ribbon-cuttings at day-care centers? A First Lady who actually spoke about policy! Horrors! I do think Bill Clinton was elected in part because it was a two-for-one deal, and I personally liked the idea of a First Lady who wasn't a plastic waving queen whose sole contribution to policy was "Just Say No." Personally, I think at the end of Bill's term, with the worldwide humiliation he'd inflicted on her and the imminent rise of Shrub, she figured, "Fuck this, I'm going to do it MYSELF. Whether or not they think a woman can do it." And here the nightly news is STILL debating whether a woman can be president. *headdesk*

That said, I'm still voting for Obama. But Hillary Clinton is far, far from the worst thing that could happen to us.

Edited at 2008-01-28 02:42 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Agreed. A woman president was not seen as an option when Hillary grew up, so I wouldn't fault her for not seeking power herself at first. We in Canada had our first female Prime Minister in 1993. I'm also supporting Obama, but I would be quite okay with Clinton too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't know that that's entirely fair. Even back in the '70s, a woman with political power in the U.S. was extremely rare and they were often specialized cases (usually in areas where there was an overwhelming minority presence) and always the butt of jokes (anybody remember Bella Abzug?) So, really, the best possible position would be to get behind her husband and serve as his advisor. It's like slamming Eleanor Roosevelt for not running for office; how could she?

And by the time the climate had shifted enough that a woman could run on her own, well, it was way too late: her husband was in the White House and frankly needed her advice and support.

I understand the concern, but honestly, I'd rather have somebody who served as a political advisor for thirty years and then ran for office than a guy who just doesn't have the experience. I like Obama as a human being but he makes me think of Jimmy Carter WAY too much, and I'm terrified electing him now guarantees we have another twenty years of Republicans in the executive.

(Reply) (Thread)

Plus, we've had eight years of a charismatic but inexperienced dude and see where that has gotten us!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

See, that assessment is still on the sexist side to me. It assumes that Hillary actively chose Bill as a companion because she wanted to get ahead, not because she genuinely cared for him. And it ignores the interpersonal pitfall that any ambitious woman faces in finding a companion who isn't emasculated by her success. Again, that's the old standard that a woman cannot be soft-hearted and hard and ambitious at the same time.

In addition, its unfair to say that Hillary didn't get where she was by being elected. As a first lady, she did not exactly sit around wearing pearls and promoting reading. She was making policy--or at least trying to. She wasn't afraid to stick her neck out.

It gave her name recognition, sure. But she went to a state in which she did not live, a state like New York that is particular proud of its natives, and still managed to get elected on her own merit.

Granted, Bill was loved in that state and much like now, his popularity helps her. But how is that any different from any other politician toting around a good-looking, well-bred woman to help him get elected?

We have a general discomfort with the blind ambition and power-hungry tactics that define the politics in this country. Seeing those tactics in a woman--whom we expect based on social norms to be honest and pure--make it hard for us to ignore them. When I hear people talking about Hillary's policies as a reason to not vote for her, then I think people are seeing her as a politician. Everything else is just an excuse to keep from facing the lingering bits of misogyny that even the best of us still harbor.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Right on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

'In the end, I think of her as a politician's politician'

That she may be, but as much as politicians are distastful, they also tend to be the best people for the political job.

(Reply) (Thread)

But a successful politician is one who manages to gain, hold, and exercise political power. Being the best at that is only a good thing if they happen to use that power in a "good" way. And regardless of how a given individual may define what "a good way" means, a politician who focuses on being a successful politician more than using their politicking to achieve a particular goal is NOT likely to be consistently "good".

It's not a black-and-white distinction, but there are good reasons for our instinctive distrust of those who seem to be veering too far into the world of politics for the sake of politics.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I accept that there is some truth in that but...

1. She has gotten elected to the Senate twice and everything I've read about her service there suggests she's been a pretty effective and fairly bipartisan senator.

2. When she was younger she was living in a time and place where the idea of a female president may have seemed absurd, so she may have felt she had to do a bit of coat tail riding. Now that the world has changed, she may have simply changed with it.

3. I think it would be hard to know Bill Clinton and not be swept up by his charisma/smarts. It may have been that if she hadn't met him she would have tried to go it on her own, but once in that circle she may have thought "Holy Fuck, this guy is the best liberal politician of his generation. It would be a hell of a lot smarter to work with him than against him." I mean fuck it, you an be a really good guitar player capable of starting up your own band but if Keith Richards asks you to play back up guitar in his new band you take the job because he's Keith Richards.

(Reply) (Thread)

If you look at the larger scale of things, there has been a major candidate who was leading his party's list of candidates nationally. He then went to show people exactly how little desire he had for the job by refusing to do things candidates do, like go out in front of people, or give stump speeches.

And see? Fred's gone now.

So there has to be SOME ambition involved. The question that I see as the driving one is what a candidate is willing to do to advance their ambitions.

(Reply) (Thread)

And it feels vaguely unfair to snark at a woman for being so openly ambitious when she pretty much has to be in order to get where she is today.

Assuming all women were a single, monolithic entity, sure. But if raw, naked ambition is a reasonable cause to dislike a candidate, then their gender is irrelevant. Yes, it means (for the reasons you lay out) that the first serious female candidate will almost certainly be disqualified to those turned off by such ambition. And that's unfair. But that unfairness is not remedied in any way by ignoring a reasonable assessment of a candidate's qualities just because that candidate has a particular set of genitalia. That's just sexist.

(Reply) (Thread)

I don't much care about how she arose to power - I mean, how else was someone who started in the 70s going to get there? On her own? Not likely to happen. Today's young woman stands a chance, but she started in a different time.

I'm not voting for Clinton if I can at all help it because she co-wrote the flag burning amendment, and I don't want to see someone become president who is willing to strip freedoms out of the Constitution. If I have no other choice, then yes, I'll vote for her - but I don't want to.

FWIW I find it disturbing that all the other candidates are referred to by their last names but Clinton isn't. It's not like we could possibly mistake her for her husband, who can't run. Women are often diminished in the professional and political fields through use of their first names in a last-name world.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

FWIW I find it disturbing that all the other candidates are referred to by their last names but Clinton isn't. It's not like we could possibly mistake her for her husband, who can't run. Women are often diminished in the professional and political fields through use of their first names in a last-name world.

From what I hear, she has specifically asked for that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Overall, it's not the amount of ambition, it's what she's willing to do to advance that ambition. Marginalizing Obama as "the black candidate" isn't illegal, the way that the cattle-futures deal was, but it's pretty sleazy, and it's going to cause far more damage than a little crooked financial dealing. Let's also not forget her attacks on the women her husband slept with, or, more recently, her "accidentally" not withdrawing from the Michigan primary, and now trying to get those delegates seated.

Neither Obama nor Edwards has shown Clinton's level of mendacity and sleazy dealing.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

her "accidentally" not withdrawing from the Michigan primary

Or only protesting the decision to allow caucus meetings in the casinos after the unions there endorsed Obama.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I find this entry (not my own) tangentially relates to your position, but more closely represents my own:
http://slit.livejournal.com/358525.html

I was trying to find a part to quote as an example, but you really need to read the whole.

Sorry, but I can't be this eloquent when it comes to this issue.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

That was fantastic.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Explain to someone who knows nothing about Senator Clinton how exactly she is "ambitious" (and how is she moreso than any other candidate)? Being a popularist, ruthless, spineless whore is nothing like being ambitious as far as I can see.

(Reply) (Thread)

You want to, um, explain your rationale here, O Nameless One?

Because I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary, but spineless she ain't. (Unless you're pulling the old "oh, she didn't dump the guy who cheated on her" card of Dr. Phil-based idiocy, as if what goes on in someone else's marriage is *any* of the public's business.) Nor am I sure what the connection to whores is, or, for that matter, why it's a negative thing.

Hillary isn't a prostitute. I'd *vote* for a prostitute, if she had some good ideas and I thought she'd do well. But Hillary isn't.

So it seems like you just have some, ah, Issues with women. Good luck with that.

Asshole.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

What we have, of course, is the first female candidate who nakedly wants the power the same way that Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee wants it.

Or Obama or Edwards or...

Which is, in its own way, a kind of Bushian thinking.

Since her time in the White House pre-dates W's, does that mean he is being positively Clintonian? ;-)

(Reply) (Thread)

Hillary doesn't have too much ambition--Bill has too much ego.

And she does have a communication problem. I have known women who could be strong, assertive, even powerful, without being irritating. Maybe it's just my anti-Yankee prejudice showing, though.

(Reply) (Thread)

Yankee hating's not prejudice. It's common sense.

:)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm nervous about Hillary becoming president because women aren't at the point yet where we can be anything less than the best in traditionally male dominated fields. If she gets elected and screws it up, it will be pointed at as a prime example of why women shouldn't be in office :\

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I fear this as well. I think it will ultimately advance the ability of women getting ahead in male-dominated fields though, despite the inevitable backlash.

Ideas of inequality like this are based on ignorance more often than malice and sometimes breaking through those barriers are just a matter of proving that there are holes in them by walking calmly through them.

By being the most scrutinized president in our nation's history, Hillary could at least begin to show the country that the "image" of president, the very adjective of presidential doesn't have to include being male. Its easy to understand intellectually but I think for most of us, we'll need to see it to really believe it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Just because she married a guy who was successful you assume she married him to ride his coat tails? They started dating in college. When neither of them was particularly successful. It's not like she picked him up when he was a successful governor & getting ready to run for president. I think your assumption is at a minimum sexist.

As to the Iraq war thing, I don't know how much further she can go than "based on the data we were presented, I approved of the war. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for it." Yeah, she got lied to (it's not documented in a study even). Yeah, she voted for the war. Which, at the time, was supported by a very large percentage of the country. Taken in by lies? Good grief, we can't trust her! WTF?

(Reply) (Thread)

When neither of them was particularly successful. It's not like she picked him up when he was a successful governor & getting ready to run for president. I think your assumption is at a minimum sexist.


There are some who argue that her defense of WJC's many indiscretions was motivated by her own political ambitions: It served her better to stay with him than it would to dump that zero and get her a hero. While she may not have ridden his coat tails from the beginning, she gradually moved into that mindset - seeing him as someone who could further her own political agenda.

Or so some would say. I don't know either of them personally, so I don't know what her motivations may have been.

I don't know how much further she can go than "based on the data we were presented, I approved of the war. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for it."

Apparently that isn't sufficient for some on the left. They want her to come out and say that her decision was a mistake. They don't want her legalese responses where she says that her "yea" vote on The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq wasn't really a vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq...no, it was a vote to authorize the threat of military force against Iraq, but only if the President asked nicely. Pretty please with sugar on top!

To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't come out and said it was a mistake (like Edwards has), and that gets under some people's skin. I'm not sure why people are so fixated on that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You, my friend, are wrong. 100% wrong. The worst thing about Hillary _is not_ that she wants power. And if you did a 2 minute google on the dirt on Hillary, you'd know that.

Have a good day.

(Reply) (Thread)

There's so much dirt to choose from. And so I'd be curious to know what you think what her worst feature is.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

She wanted the power without getting elected, and found the most convenient path to get there. She didn't work her way up the ranks politically, she attached herself to a popular guy to cultivate him, and then rode his coattails until she could fly (at least partially) on her own.

You know, even if she could have become a serious contender for the presidency without having an influential man's name, she obviously believed she couldn't.

Am I secretly some sort of misogynist? Or worse, do I buy into the old "It's okay to be scummy if we like you" dumbness?

I gotta tell ya, being more worried about being guilty of blind favoritism than harboring misogynistic feelings doesn't favor a negative answer to your question.

(Reply) (Thread)

I gotta tell ya, being more worried about being guilty of blind favoritism than harboring misogynistic feelings doesn't favor a negative answer to your question.

If you say. But far as I'm concerned, allowing things to slide just 'cause I like someone not only allows misogyny to thrive, but also racism, classism, and any number of other horrible -isms. If I'll excuse a lousy behavior because "Hey, Bill's in town! Isn't he awesome? Let's just forget about his underbelly" means that by God, anyone with a nice smile and a good handshake can make me forget about my most deep-seated morals.

Me? I think that's a little more of concern, because it cuts across everything.

You know, even if she could have become a serious contender for the presidency without having an influential man's name, she obviously believed she couldn't.

And?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I knew there'd be all this "she had no choice! She's a victim of her time!" nonsense if anyone saw what I said, and really, it is nonsense- she had a choice. It was a choice made more difficult by her gender and the era, but it was a choice. There were female doctors, judges, governors, and congressional representatives and senators in the 1970s. Others identified her early as electable material. Her being president someday was by no means a certainty, but it would not have been an impossible or insane dream- merely a very, very, very challenging and unlikely one, as it is for anyone. She has herself said that she knew, marrying Bill, that she was making a choice between her own political potential and his when she married him. And I'm not disputing that they love each other, I just think that it's irrelevent- lots of people have to make tough choices between love and career.

And I don't doubt that supporting Bill's career seemed at the time like a more prudent route to power than pursuing her own political career. It almost certainly was. But the fact is that in choosing to do so, she sacrificed her own opportunities, and (it seems to me, perhaps unfairly) went against the grain of her own personality and beliefs, pretending to be at turns a "good first lady" and acting as policymaker, as it benefitted Bill. That's particularly revolting to me. That someone who was in the best possible position to be the change in the political status quo chose instead to go the safe route, but now expects to be treated as though she DID blaze those trails, while being excused for not having done so, is... augh. Just

I'm sorry that baby boomer women faced more challenges in their professional lives than my generation does, but that doesn't mean that I want one who bootstrapped, coattailed, and generally finagled her way to power through her husband rather than on her own merit to be my president. If it takes 4 or 8 or 12 or 16 more years for there to be a female presidential hopeful who actually got there as a public servant, with a checkable voting history and a consistent public image, fine. I can wait.

I don't think Hilary's ovaries would be a detriment to her presidency, but I also don't think they're such a goddamn asset that I'm willing to overlook her many personal and professional failings and make her the most powerful person in the world.

(Reply) (Thread)

There were female doctors and lawyers. In fact, Hillary Clinton WAS a female lawyer. It's not like she made doilies and never had a career until Bill Clinton swept her into the White House. The woman had a very successful career. Just because her husband's career was more successful, and she was willing to support that, doesn't make her less of a valid career woman.

She did get elected, and reelected, as a Senator. Maybe her name recognition came from having a husband who was successful. But that's not a fault. Do you hold Romney's father against him?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm interpreting your argument as follows:

It's extremely difficult for women to get ahead. Possibly impossible through conventional methods.
Hillary got ahead through unconventional methods.
I don't like her methods.

Is there any way for her to win this?

I'm not for or against Hillary - up here in Canada I'm just delighted to see the diversity of candidates (though I'm a bit inspired by Obama). But as someone who likes to take alternate "faster" paths to the top (or to "win"), I admire that she found a way to do it.

In my mind, the only reason Hillary even has a chance at running, as a woman, is because she was famous for something else beforehand, and it helps tremendously that it was politics with linkes to a popular president. Don't begrudge how someone sneaks in the back door if they're not allowed in through the front.

(Reply) (Thread)

How she got there is really not important to me. And, yes, this is a negatively sexist point that's being made in this post, which is irksome, but, y'know, honest. I wonder, though, if it was reversed and Hillary was president first and Bill was now running, would there be any "coattail" talk then?

Honestly, I'd rather have the First Lady Hillary, the Hillary that fought for health care for everyone, than the one who is now the candidate for president who has taken the second highest amount of money for campaign contributions from the the health care industry. It disgusts me.

My best friend was employed by Hillary on her NY campaign. Hillary is a LOT more conservative than is widely known. I will not vote for her, but it has nothing to do with her husband.

(Reply) (Thread)