One positive side effect of a HRC presidency:

[Deep13]

Have a woman in office will by implication make every other woman professional in the country (and maybe the world) a bit more "respectable." If a woman can be president, then she can be anything. I still get the feeling that women have to work significantly harder and smarter than men to get the same recognition. I get the feeling that there is a lot of implicit and often unintentional condescension toward women in the work place.

Now simply electing HRC will not eliminate all of that, but I think it will help. Plus, if the world knows that a woman has her finger on the nuclear button, it may help raise the status of women all over the world.

[Crazy Dave]

1. Same can be said for an African American president

:crazy:

[Deep13]

6. I know what you mean, but there is a distinction.

First, much has been made of the fact that Obama is litterally an African-American and not the descendant of slaves. Ironically, when I see this point being made, it is usually by Black activists in America. Second, the world doesn't doubt that a Black man can be a leader. They do doubt that women can be tough and decisive. In much of the world, women are essentially born into a kind of domestic slavery. I think that's what really pisses of those on the right. HRC is not a "traditional" woman like Barbara Bush painted herself to be. Instead she's aggressive and smart and is promoting herself and not just men around her.

[NYCGirl]

9. "The world" doubts a woman can be tough and decisive? Hello, Golda Meir,

Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Corazon Aquino, Mary McAleese, etc.

[Deep13]

13. You know what I mean.

None of those were in charge of a superpower. None of those did much to help the plight of women world-wide. Anyway, they could not have done anything to help American women since Americans think nothing outside this country matters.

We all know the horrible situation that a large fraction of the world's women are in. Even in this country, there are towns where a woman can't get her hair cut short without her husband's permission. It is not the law or anything, just the social convention. Jesus, I had to angrily explain to the laundry manager at a ritzy hotel in Boston that they were not allowed to charge my wife extra to launder a shirt than they did me. Boston!

[Crazy Dave]

12. Black men and women...

...also have to work significantly harder and smarter to get the same recognition and salaries as their white peers. Look at the majority of CEO's and board members of the top corporations and banks and you will see a greater percentage of white men than black men or any other ethnic group.
I am actually proud to see this day in America finally arrive. Both with Hillary and Obama. No other time in history have to individuals with all the odds said to be against them are now proving to many that they were wrong for thinking that Americans would never vote for a woman or black president.

[Deep13]

14. All that is true. Just one observation.

Black people are hit by discrimination. Woman are hit by chauvinism. Black woman get both.

[cosmik debris]

2. It's not worth it.

There are better ways to achieve that goal that allowing HRC to be President.

[Lerkfish]

3. well, since the "experience" argument is that she was married to a president

IMHO, that sets women's rights backwards.
She should be running on her own record.

[peacebird]

4. agreed.

[ElizabethDC]

7. That's really not what her experience argument is about,

if you look at the experience she is actually touting, it's the things she did on her own - yes, while her husband happened to be Governor of Arkansas and POTUS, and yes they did have some experience together because of that. But if you really examine her record, you'll see she's achieved quite a lot under her own steam.

[Lerkfish]

16. right.

as I said, THAT should be her experience argument, but its not what people are touting, they're referring to when she was first lady.

[Sparkly]

18. Which people?

Her campaign is going back 35 years.

It's her detractors who say, "What experience? Being first lady for 8 years is all she did!"

[Deep13]

8. He wasn't president when she married him.

This is where charges of sexism come from. She's nobody. Merely his wife. If you think she had no part in the management of the country, then you have not been paying attention. What is more, I cannot blame her for using one of the few means previously available to women to get ahead, namely marrying an upwardly mobile man.

[Lerkfish]

15. oh, I have been paying attention.

and if you think I'm being sexist for saying she should run on her own record instead of her husband's, then you don't understand my point at all.

[Deep13]

22. "...then you don't understand my point at all."

Guess not.:shrug:

Anyway, I did not say YOU were being sexist.

[0007]

26. Damn good speech Deep13. There may be something to what you're saying?

Anyway! You moved BC

[Desertrose]

5. Or it could go the complete opposite way.

Could have people saying...I knew she would be lousy & I am right. Women can't do this job.

:shrug:

Somehow, thinking of Hillary's finger poised on the nuke button, does NOT make me rest any easier.

Just sayin'

[Deep13]

11. She will not be lousy. I think most of us know that.

As always, she would be a professional in all she does. I understand that people have legitimate criticisms about her record, but there is no indication of incompetence there.

On the other hand, Obama may win, but he has had so little experience with the Federal bureaucracy that there is no reason to think he will get anything done. Casting oneself as an outsider invariably alienates those who actually run the cogs of the national government.

[Lerkfish]

17. you can be a professional, competent imperialist

that doesn't mean imperialism is a good thing, simply because it is run efficiently.

[Deep13]

21. True enough. But this is an empire.

A global empire of territory, economic resources like Mid-East oil and Chinese labor, corporate and military power. In the end we will have a choice between a corporate imperialist who is for abortion and against civilian guns vs. a corporate imperialist who is against abortion and for guns. Let's not kid ourselves, this country pursued an imperialist destiny from the beginning. I frankly would rather live in a democracy than an empire, but then I'm not the one who decides these things.

So I see the issue as who will be our most effective imperial Caesar. Bush sucked ass and I would like to avoid a repeat.

[Lerkfish]

25. so you're in full agreement with the PNAC?

sorry, I don't agree with imperialism and "american global leadership" .

but if you are in agreement with the neocons, it explains a great deal about why you like Clinton. same, same.

[Deep13]

29. Don't put words in my mouth. It is dishonest.

"I frankly would rather live in a democracy than an empire, but then I'm not the one who decides these things."

That's what I said. I did not say I agree with it. I only said it is true. And it is. Whether or not this country is the center of a global empire has nothing to do with whether or not I actually like the idea. What we want or even need has no bearing on what is. I find myself repeating that a lot in the religion & theology forum.

[Lerkfish]

34. good point, sorry

I misread your post.

[mtnsnake]

10. This is why there's a well organized effort to make sure a woman is never elected

It's all too apparent everywhere you look. I'm not taking anything away from Obama, he deserves to be where he is, but the forces to be will do everything in their power to stifle a woman like Hillary.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. I don't believe it has anything to do with gender

I will vote for Hillary if she is to be the nominee.

It will be interesting to see the posts later in the year when we know who won the primaries?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. There's an organized effort to keep women out of power everywhere. It's called the patriarchy.

However, in the case of Sen. Clinton there was a concerted effort by the Dem power brokers to shove her down our throats. They figured that we ignorant rubes in flyover land would be so eager to embrace Hillary because of fond memories of Bill (sexist much?) and that progressive women would preference sisterhood over their opposition to the war. Is Hillary Clinton the recipient of unfair sexist attacks? Of course she is, she's a woman. Is there an attempt to stifle her? Of course there is, she's a woman. Does that mean we should overlook her obvious and major flaws and support her to strike a blow against sexism? That decision must be left to the individual. I've made my choice but I won't tell any other woman what to do.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. Had she not voted for the IWR, I may well be a supporter today.

I am a feminist, and all things being equal (very important consideration) I would want to see my gender finally represented in the highest office in the land. However, the war is a dealbreaker for me with her. I'm just not going through another election where a pro-war Democrat faces a pro-war Republican. No way, no how.

[Deep13]

24. Fair enough. nt

[youthere]

27. But Clinton CAN'T be president...

because my daughter insists SHE'S going to be the first female president.LOL! Funny thing is, she never said that BEFORE Hillary declared, so I think that "side effect" has begun. Women and young girls feel empowered just having her in the race. Can you imagine what it would be like if she won (aside from my daughter being pissed-LOL!)?

[Nailzberg]

28. That's why I'm voting Kucinich. Short people are seen as weak or lesser

But if we had a short President, by god, maybe people will realize we are capable of anything.

Well, maybe except getting shit from the top shelf of the cabinet.

[Deep13]

31. I have to think that cost Dukakis a few % point.

I lived in MA then and when I was in NH campaigning, a Bush Sr. supporter told me that he was for Bush because Bush was a tall, commanding presence. We were both on a street corner holding signs and he just would not shut up. I also remember getting flipped off by a Sen. Paul Simon volunteer.

[Nailzberg]

33. I remember SNL had a skit with Dukakis needing a riser during the debates.

Height is a terrible indicator of someone's abilities, unless it is there ability to play power forward. That Bush guy needed a smack.

But the Paul Simon thing you had coming to you. :hi:

[Dawgs]

30. Hillary would never win in the GE (period)!!!

It has nothing to do with her being a woman or good Democrat.

[Deep13]

32. Well, I don't know who will win.

At this point it is HC's negatives vs. O's unproven ability to thwart Rovesque attacks. I really think HC will run a better campaign and in nine months O's negatives may be as high as HC's are now. I was at a delegate selection caucus in Ohio on Jan.3. Unlike the Iowa caucus where the people select which candidate will send delegates to the convension, this caucus chose who will be a candidate's delegates IF that candidate won delegates from Ohio. Anyway, we expected okay turnout for HC, O and JE. We had a few ballots for Biden and Richardson, but no one submitted applications to be delegates for Dodd, Gravel or Kucinich. (NB, DK's house was less than an hour's drive from where I was standing.)

Well, we got a handful of voters for each of Biden and Richardson. We had a substantially better turnout for Obama and Edwards: several dozen each. The Clinton campaign bussed people in. We had more voters there to caucus for her delegates than all the rest put together. And this is an election that most people did not even know about. And her group was diverse. Suburban whites including a good number of men, union guys, Blacks, students and every variety of woman. Remember, this election was not for choosing a candidate, but only who would represent each candidate in the event he or she won delegates from Ohio. If her campaign would do that for what amounts to an inconcequential procedure, it made me wonder what she will do on Feb. 5. (Of course, since then she lost one primary caucus and looks poised to lose a primary election.)