You Can Be Female, NOT Want Clinton for President, But Want a Female President
You Can Be Female, NOT Want Clinton for President, But Want a Female President
20 August 2007 at 9:52:26 PM
Just not her. I saw a post by South Texas Chisme (which I really LOVE to read, incidentally) that quotes some goofy articles about why some might be against Clinton. One female DEMOCRAT said she didn't want a woman to be president! Huh? She probably would have been against women voting if she'd been alive at the beginning of the last century. And the other reason "She's too ambitious"-how sexist is THAT? Every dang one of the people running for president is ambitious... or they wouldn't frigging be RUNNING. I guess it would be better if women were sitting home, having babies, or if they MUST work, be happy that they get something, even if it's less pay than a male for the same work.
That said, the argument just can't be framed "Well, if you're female and you don't like Clinton, then you must be misogynist". At least for me, I look at what the candidates say and at least try to base my opinions on that. And I don't like what Clinton says. I feel so strongly about how wrong it was for us to invade Iraq, feel so strongly that we shouldn't be occupying countries around the world (not just Iraq but the scores of others through our military bases) that I object to her comments about leaving a military presence. It isn't honest, to me, or fair to those of us that voted for Democrats to end the war AND to LEAVE Iraq. She didn't even READ the NIE! before she voted to give Bush the power to invade. It isn't, also, whether Bush executed the war correctly.. but whether he should have done it at all. Even yesterday, John Edwards was asked if he had any regrets about anything he hadn't been open with to the public and he said he had had doubts about the Iraq War and he wishes he had voiced them more. Then it was Clinton's turn and she completely redirected the question and avoided the answer. She said she was with Edwards but then proceeded to nothing about having had second thoughts, etc. Maybe if I get the energy, I'll clip that, because it was so fatuous, disingenuous and did NOT answer the question as it was asked, nor was it at all what Edwards said.
Second, she sure doesn't want to give up that corporate lobbyist money, now, does she? I think that argument is a little artificial and designed to try to show some daylight between her and the other moneyed candidates, but still and all.
Third and this is a personal bugaboo with me. I remember when she moved to New York to run for the Senate. That was calculated in the same way that Van Taylor moved to West, Texas to run against Chet Edwards. Call me old-fashioned but I like to think that people that actually LIVE in the district are the ones that run, not people who move there for an opportunity. I didn't like it when Cheney, who lived at the time in Highland Park, changed his address to Wyoming because you can't have 2 people from the same state run for Prez and VP, and on a different level, I didn't like it when football went to free agency and all of sudden your hometown team isn't really made of people who are really homies.
I adore Elizabeth Edwards. She's the type of person I would love to be president. I'd vote for someone like her in a heartbeat. Now maybe, arguably, she is speaking out so forcefully now due to her illness-if you are, sadly, going to pass away, then why not make sure that every moment of your last time on earth is spent speaking honestly and openly?
But she's not going to run. Instead, we have someone who, if it weren't for her own husband being president, would be much more of a nobody and not taken near as seriously as she is from the halo effect. And I really don't want more of the 2 dynasties that have littered American politics for too long.
I just want the best person. And so far, the person who speaks to me on ideas that I agree with is Dennis Kucinich. I know some don't like him or have personal animosity in the same way some have personal animosity against.... oh, say, Clinton. But when I hear what he has to say, he's the type of president I want and I don't give a hoot what he looks like. Or that he's not a woman. heh.
Thanks for the plug! I agree with your points - there are non-sexist reasons to argue against Hillary as a candidate. I think MYDD warned early on that there would be sexist attacks against Hillary and urged us to stay above that temptation. My post wasn't meant to be a premptive attack on anti-Hillary comments. My post was in the spirit of MYDD. Argue based on Hillary's positions and actions, not on the pre-made Republican misogyny. Your arguments are clearly based on positions and actions.
For the record, Hillary isn't my first choice at this time. Though ANY of the Democrats is better than any of the Republicans. By far!!
Completely with you and I wasn't writing to really slam your original post so much as to play off it in a new direction. What troubles me most, I think, is that so many Democrats are going to vote for people just because they have a D in front of their name, without examining the positions. I'm anti-war, and anti-militarism. Therefore, there are only 3 potential Democrts I can possibly vote for-Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel (and much as I like what Gravel SAYS, his way of speaking is just wacky sounding-if you could just READ him ,it would be fine).
I'm also deeply disturbed over Nancy Pelosi taking impeachment off the table. As far as I'm concerned, the Dems had/have a mandate to uphold the constitution and they're doing, on the whole, a lousy job of it. I also would take a Democrat any day of the week over a Republican, but I also will NOT play into the game of voting for a Democrat just because. If Clinton or Obama get the nomination, I will vote for other races but not president, because it looks to me like they both are gaming the system and believe they can count on people voting for their horrendous positioins Just Because.
And, again, I love your site, I read it every day and most of the time I think y'all are on the same wavelength as me.
I see more good than bad in voting for Clinton or Obama if either is the nominee. Neither package is perfect, but a Republican would be so unacceptable after what Bush has setup for presidential power.
As for Pelosi and impeachment, I don't know why they haven't done it already. The democratic margin in the house is small and some Democrats are reluctant. The Democratic margin in the senate is nowhere near enough to get a conviction. But, still. Impeachment is more than called for at this point.
Thanks for the plug and I gave you some linky love back!
4 - salon
21 Aug 2007 @ 2:27:29 PM
My personal theory on the lack of impeachment is that there aren't enough *Democrats* to do it. I am pretty certain Chet Edwards, my rep, would be one of those, since he voted to gut habeus corpus, for Bush's surveillance bill, for DOMA, for the bankruptcy billl, to take the piece about Bush having to come back to Congress to invade Iran, etc. I don't think it's cowardice at all, but they just don't want to admit that they have enough Repub-Lites in there to keep it from going through. Latest Blog Post by salon -Most Popular Posts by Year on Somervell County Salon
5 - salon
21 Aug 2007 @ 2:30:40 PM
One more comment. Even if a Republican president again somehow go into power, the constitution STILL provides remedies for stopping him. Right now Bush can be stopped. But it's not happening. I'm saying that I also don't want to see anyone even CLOSE to Bush in the White House again but if there was a Republican president with a TRUE Democratic majority, he could be kept in check. ... IF Congress does their job. Latest Blog Post by salon -Most Popular Posts by Year on Somervell County Salon
You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To! You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not
a spammer bot
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting