Chelsea: But until jeering men insulted her mother in NH & the msm made light of it, “I confess I

[rodeodance]

didn’t entirely get ‘it.’


***Note it is not Chelsea who said "jeering men"


BTW—very nice photo at link of Chelsea and students.


I was reading full article from this DU post. Lots of rude comments expressed in this thread toward Chelsea and mother—and her family.{Also a DU thread saying only an Obama vote can get ‘family values’ back in the WH this morning}

But as I read this article I came across a few sentences that I think are wonderful in that whatever one says about the Clinton’s, a healthy strong mother-bond exits between Chelsea and her mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16chelsea.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203185869-o/vVvwks9DJKUO2nu7icRw

Chelsea Clinton Talks Policy in Obama Territory
By JODI KANTOR
Published: February 16, 2008

…..There is no asking Ms. Clinton, who does not give interviews, exactly why she threw herself into her mother’s bid — which, if successful, will rob her of some of the privacy she is said to cherish.

But a furious, provocative essay that Ms. Clinton mass-blasted to her friends and acquaintances on Feb. 4 provides clues. She wrote that she did not agree with everything the essay’s author, Robin Morgan, a former editor of Ms. Magazine, said. (Ms. Morgan argues that Mrs. Clinton has faced not only a sexist double standard but also “sociopathic woman-hating.”)

But until jeering men insulted her mother in New Hampshire and the news media made light of it, Ms. Clinton wrote, “I confess I didn’t entirely get ‘it.’ ”

[niyad]

1. k # r thank you for sharing this

[rodeodance]

2. you are welcome---I think it gives pause.

[dkf]

3. "sociopathic woman-hating"?

Oh jeez.

[MADem]

6. That was Morgan talking, not CC. NT

[rodeodance]

9. so typical of so many to toss out those words then not comment on them!

[dkf]

17. Sometimes the words speak for themselves.

[rodeodance]

20. Just remember that those are NOT words from Chelsea!!

[dkf]

74. No just the words in the email that she is sending out...presumably as an endorsement.

[rodeodance]

85. I think the people that read the article are mature to make their own judgements. I do not

presume either Chelsea endorse anything.

[motocicleta]

201. Sometimes they do. In this case, they do not.

Perhaps you could explain your analysis?

[rodeodance]

7. Please note--Chelsea said she does not agree with all from the article that is

brought up in this article.

[calimary]

161. That was probably in reference to the hyenas (yes, MALE hyenas)

who hollered out tastelessly - "Hillary! Iron my shirt!"

That does fit the description of "sociopathic woman-hating" pretty damned well, to me.

[Libby2]

4. K&R

[NastyRiffraff]

5. I feel for Chelsea

It must be horrible to hear insults (not disagreement; nasty vile insults) about her mother. She's handling it with grace and charm. If she occasionally shoots out comments about clairvoyance, I can't blame her, especially when the comment intimated that her mother is a mass murderer.

[rodeodance]

8. I am not into violence--but I think that rude student should have

been smacked down good. Chelsea did it with words.

I can't blame her, especially when the comment intimated that her mother is a mass murderer.

[JimGinPA]

28. That Rude Student Should Have Been Smacked Down ?

The smarmy retort about "clairvoyance" is a slap in the face to every person, American or otherwise, that has been injured or killed because of that vote to authorize. You should be ashamed of yourself as well, as your exuberance for a politician has truly brought out the worst in you.

[rodeodance]

31. No, Chelsea did the verbal smackdown. And good for her.

[dansolo]

63. She could have responded in a much better manner

Her response was dismissive and insulting. It was a loaded question, but Chelsea could have handled it better.

[rodeodance]

78. oh maybe. We can all say things differently at different moments.

[JimGinPA]

69. You Obviously Post Without Benifit Of Having Read Anything You're Responding To...

You're no longer worth the time.

[BlackVelvet04]

42. dramatize much? n/t

[JimGinPA]

50. No...

But it seems this is how real voters, as opposed to the Clinton plants, are treated by the Clintons. Tough question, be glib.

[DemBones DemBones]

59. You've got less than 300 posts & you're calling others "plants"???

:rofl:

[Alexander]

188. Why not? Hillary got caught planting questions.

Did you magically start out with over 1000 posts?

[BlackVelvet04]

64. Oh please....

Obama gets a tough question and accuses the questioner of attacks.

[JimGinPA]

70. And You Have Examples? nt

[BlackVelvet04]

83. you need to pay attention n/t

[arewenotdemo]

162. Well, she is her mother's daughter. That explains the glibness.

I never saw glib like I did a few years ago when Hillary was on Letterman and he asked her about Iraq. You would never have guessed that people were actually dying over there by the tone of her answers.

It's also nice to see that Chelsea took time off from her hedge fund career to campaign for her mom.

And as for valuing anything that Chelsea Clinton has to say about Iraq...I haven't heard the first peep out of her until now with this defense of her mother's indefensible, politically expedient support for the invasion and occupation.

[JimGinPA]

164. Well Said! nt

[rodeodance]

167. You need to educate yourself---go find her speeches before you spout off!

And as for valuing anything that Chelsea Clinton has to say about Iraq...I haven't heard the first peep out of her until now with this defense of her mother's indefensible, politically expedient support for the invasion and occupation.

[arewenotdemo]

186. You mean to tell me that Chelsea demonstrated against the war or the occupation?

Or otherwise publicly stated her opposition to them?

Before, of course, her mother's belated recognition of how her own position was damaging her candidacy?

I call MAJOR BULLSHIT.

[rodeodance]

200. I said no such thing.

[juajen]

205. Oh, how stupid of me. By glib, you mean intelligent, don't you?

I'm beginning to get it. It's not just that she's a woman, it's that she's damn intelligent as well, isn't it? Looks like those smarts were passed right on down. Go ahead, make yourselves look stupid and sexist.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Oh, those "jeering" men! Such victims, the Clinton females!

Chelsea, hope you enjoyed the shark jump.

[rodeodance]

12. Take your POOP elsewhere.

[BlackVelvet04]

44. .......

[DemBones DemBones]

84. Get along, little doggie. nt

[rodeodance]

89. well said. thank you for your support.

[DemBones DemBones]

112. You're welcome.

It's a shame this thread is going to the dogs. :evilgrin:

[emilyg]

113. Stop it.

[rodeodance]

116. do you have a Reading Comprehension problem??--ck the OP before you spout off!

Oh, those "jeering" men! Such victims, the Clinton females!
Posted by wienerdoggie


Chelsea, hope you enjoyed the shark jump.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

127. How about some (Wisconsin) Cheese with that Whine

Time for Hillary to start crying, see if that appeals to voters in Wisconsin.

Sob Sob sob, we are strong women!


Sheesh, the Clinton Crying will set the women's movement back a decade!

[TwilightGardener]

134. How anyone can paint Hillary Clinton as a victim is 100% beyond me.

[juajen]

204. Have you totally forgotten in your zeal that HRC is a hard working

democratic Senator of the United States. How dare you use this board to try to destroy another democrat. State your candidate's positions that are different from hers, but this is so sickening and we are really tired of it.

[Maribelle]

11. Chelsea Campaigning In Hawaii

First stop was the grand opening of Kalihi Palama Health Center's new downtown clinic. Clinton told the crowd the clinic is offering just the kind of community outreach her mother supports

"This is so much of what my mom hopes will be able to have across the country, why she is so committed to universal health care," Clinton said.

http://www.kitv.com/politics/15316543/detail.html

[rodeodance]

13. Thanks--what a beautiful shile she has.

[MADem]

14. That video to the left is EXCELLENT. She's quite compelling on stage.

She's got the 'gift' of genuine communication talent.

[rodeodance]

19. She unassuming and connects with people from what I read.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I think she's a shoo-in for 2016, hey?

[MADem]

30. Someone on the video asked her if she was headed for Capitol Hill.

She answered with an unambigous NO.

She doesn't come off like a politician. Hell, she's had more than enough years in the public eye--I can't say as I blame her for being uninterested in the process.

She's smart as a whip, though--that's plainly apparent. She got some GOOD brains from her parents.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Maybe we can coax her into "yes"! We can't possibly let a Clinton slip away!

There is no family that will ever be as fit to rule us. I only wish they had more children.

[MADem]

86. I realize that you are desperately trying to be snarky and sarcastic, and I am sorry to tell you

that your attempt is falling a bit flat.

Her 'NO' was unequivocal, not that facts seem to matter, eh?

[TwilightGardener]

108. Oh no! Well, there's plenty of time to convince her otherwise! We won't have a leader then!

The Clinton succession to the throne must not be allowed to end!

[MADem]

114. Wow, you really don't have a filter, do you?

The first time was lame, the second, pathetic, the third...well, you're like the lumpy, zitfaced girl at the dance who gets way too stinking drunk and tries to entice the lads behind the dumpster...it's just heartbreakingly sad, more than anything else.

[TwilightGardener]

122. I think YOU were the one who didn't get it, with your repeated assertion that

she said "no", as if it would be perfectly acceptable for Chelsea to run in 2016, but sadly, 'tis not to be. The Clintons have a real maniac fan base, I'm seeing.

[MADem]

142. I didn't repeat the assertion, though. I said she said no, and you kept prodding,

as though your repeated and rather childish insistence would somehow change the answer that she gave on the tape.

That's the behavior of someone lacking both maturity and intellectual rigor. I suppose you yell at the television during horror movies in an effort to affect the outcome, as well?

[jackson_dem]

92. The Obamas. They are fit to run two countries at the same time!

[calimary]

163. Well, at least you're using sarcasm instead of calling for an all-out murder.

An ass named john derbyshire advocated EXACTLY that - against Chelsea Clinton years ago in the national review online.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Here was a thread I found while googling for that link above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1409080#1409152

Hilariously enough, this vile pusbag actually ate crow about a year ago about Iraq (although I'm not sure how far he's gone back on that now that some people cling to the so-called "surge" - ESCALATION, really - by saying it's working and everything is all happy-happy-joy-joy over there now:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmYxNjgzMjFkMTQ3MDE1ZTIyYzFlNDc3ZWFlZjY4NzI=

And I DO love this line from that link:

"I am spared major embarrassment not only by the slightness of my own reputation..." Yep, derbyshire. You're one of the smallest gnats in the jungle. The best revenge for you is being mired in relative obscurity, asshole.

[JackORoses]

15. of course, it's the usual ploy for sympathy,this time starring Chelsea

and people said her parents weren't using her...

[rodeodance]

16. Do you have something to say other than slime? If not -drop your poop some other place!

5. of course, it's the usual ploy for sympathy,this time starring Chelsea

Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 01:47 PM by JackORoses
and people said her parents weren't using her...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

33. You didn't watch the video. No pleas--just facts, details, reasons.

How can her parents possibly "use" a twenty seven year old adult?

How old are you? Thirty and still taking orders from Mom to clean your room?

Why would you say such a bitter and childish thing?

[JackORoses]

55. they use her as a mouthpiece for whatever message they want to spread

In this case, it is that Hillary is under attack by the misogynists of the world, and all women must unite at her defense.

It's very obvious what they are attempting with this bit.

[MADem]

81. Hey, little Jackie. Pssst--if you don't LIKE her, don't VOTE for her.

And don't listen to Chelsea when she talks. Put those fingers in your ears, change the channel, do what you have to do so you don't get so pissily upset!

Either that, or let's stop all surrogates from helping their favorites....we'll keep Oprah from campaigning too--candidates shouldn't have ANY help from friends or relatives...oh, and McCain's MOTHER...how dare she support her son!!!

You're just lame, griping because an adult daughter is supporting her own damn mother--that takes the 'pathetic' cake!

[JackORoses]

111. there is a difference between having your child support you with their own words,

and having your child spout talking points which have been honed by a team of advisers to appeal to women.
Specifically to cast Hillary as a victim so that she will receive sympathetic supporters.

You know this is all this is. To ignore it, is to approve of it.

[MADem]

129. Ah, so no one speaking for ANY of the other candidates has any campaign help, eh?

What a lame point to be angry over! You actually seem to BELIEVE that campaigns don't tailor presentations to suit their audiences? And they don't prep their surrogates accordingly???

:rofl:

Of COURSE all candidates have their surrogates "prepped." What are you, NAIVE??? How else will they get the candidate's take on every issue? How else will they be certain to be representing the CANDIDATE, and not talking out their ass?

You're not too sharp on how things actually work.

[JackORoses]

160. you act like Chelsea is out there speaking independently, she isn't

so this supposed outrage at the misogynists of NH is not her opinion, but instead a well crafted pitch

[MADem]

170. Oooh, Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are speaking INDEPENDENTLY, aren't they?

How stupid are you with regard to these matters?

Don't you understand that all campaigns prep their surrogates?

No, you probably don't.

That doesn't mean a surrogate can't have an opinion, though. Certainly, she ran that past the campaign. Just like Michelle Obama ran her talking points for her interviews past Obama's campaign.

WTF is WRONG with you? You're behaving like an ignorant ass.

[BlackVelvet04]

51. ...............

[MADem]

171. That's a brilliant graphic!!! nt

[grantcart]

18. No remorse only sarcasm

quote
“Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?” a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Ms. Clinton replied: “She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that’s extraordinary
unquote

This is not about Chelsea its about the position that Hillary puts her supporters in. She made an obvious mistake on the IWR and refuses to acknowledge it so her supporters and in this case her daughter is put in the ackward position of having to justify a mistake and all that is left is sarcasm. No mistake no correction if you were against it from day one you had magical powers.

If Hillary had made a simple statement that it was a mistake and that she is going in a new direction it would have been over and she would have gotten the same pass that Edwards and others got. It was a mistake we understand and move on. But Hillary's obstinance and complete inability to make a simple statement that we all know is true, that the IWR was a mistake leaves her daughter with nothing but a sarcastic answer. If Hillary is president that is the same position we will all be in - back to the same old partisan blood letting. We are never wrong and they are never right.

[TwilightGardener]

23. That was really snotty.

[rodeodance]

25. You and others did enough smearing on that thread--This is not the place to

inject it again. Go back to your vile thread.

[TwilightGardener]

27. WAHH! They're infiltrating my thread with their differing opinions! Unclean!

[bigtree]

29. sick

[TwilightGardener]

40. I agree, the obsession with poop IS sick.

[rodeodance]

34. no, more like infecting this thread with a dreaded disease--like you did just now. scram!

[TwilightGardener]

45. I iz in ur thread, giving u my cootiez....

[grantcart]

49. You introduced the article and I simply quoted from it

It is typical that you want to cherry pick a few pleasant quotes from the article and skip the bombshell.

I have spent 10 years in refugee camps working with people whose lives have been ripped apart by war. For some of us war is a serious serious business. If you post an article that contains some half assed sarcastic comment about it, it will be discussed. This war is the equivalent of watching Hiroshima in slow motion and I can assure you if you ever had the opportunity to spend a month in a camp of people whose life is reduced to complete dispair waiting while their children are sick and their husbands are suicidal because they have nothing productive to add then you would understand that putting a ridiculus statement about needing "clairvoyance" to see this was a disaster was going to get a reaction.

But I will give Hillary a pass on IWR, I did for Edwards. The point I made and will make again is that it is her stubornnes, pure stubornness that is at play with her. Chelsea is in a terrible position because her mother simply will not say "It was a mistake and I was wrong". That stubbornnes which is clearly shown in the article that you posted is not the quality of a president.

You can go back to your tea party and the fluff pieces the 2 million Iraqi refugees cannot.

[rodeodance]

56. as I said there is another devoted to that topic. Please go there for discussion.

[grantcart]

91. So now certain states don't count and when you post an article

certain statements don't count. And apparently when you have a thread only certain posts count.

Hillary could have avoided the problem that continues by simply saying, it was a mistake.


You could have avoided having me point out the outrageous statement by giving the subject "Clinton supporters only". But you didn't

You want to have a serious discussion about your article you better be prepared for people to click on it read it and give a reaction to the whole article. You don't get to set the rules. Now if you had indicated that it wasn't a serious subject and that you simply wanted to share kind comments with all of the people who already share your opinion then you could have given it the right subject title. You can admit your mistake and change the subject title and most well mannered folks like me will stay out and not bother. I never read threads that are for only one candidate. You could admit your error.

Just like Hillary can.


Oh and by the way the Iraqi war is vile 100,000 dead is vile. Millions of refugees is vile.

This is just a discussion and while you may not be able to handle it, it is not vile.

[rodeodance]

110. Discussion should focus on the theme of the OP. Start your own thread if you want another topic.

[grantcart]

136. if you want to limit the people who are going to make a comment

make that known in your subject matter a simple "For Clinton Supporters Only" will work

If you want to limit the theme of the OP then cherry pick the article you were quoting from take the sentence or sentences you agree with in your post and don't provide a link

If you provide an article as part of the OP be prepared to take comments on everything in the article. You don't get to make the rules. You make a post with a link you should assume that people will actually read the article.

You simply keep repeating yourself without engaging any point. I do find it interesting that you do not feel that the only way to respond is to ask people to go away - well that is the position Chelsea is in when your in the position of defending a person who refuses to ever ever ever admit a mistake. That is the position you are in.

[rodeodance]

145. I had no intention of the OP for Clinton people only. But snark attacks are

not productive.


My focus of the OP was on the mother-daughter bond.

[grantcart]

151. but that was not the focus of the article

you post the article and then refuse to discuss the lead lol

[rodeodance]

173. I used the article as a lauching piece--to demonstate the strong-mother-daughter

bond that exists.

[juajen]

206. Of course, you're right. Everything about the war is vile.

On another thread, I gave some thoughts on why I felt her position was slightly different from other dems. I will try again.

I remember quite clearly wanting someone to pay when I realized that none of those marvelous firefighters and policemen just weren't coming out. The horror of the people jumping out of the building to their death, the buildings falling. I am as pacifist as they come, but I wanted someone to pay.

Hillary Clinton was and still is NYC's Senator. She is also a mother and Chelsea was in NY and unaccounted for, and IIRC, was supposed to be in the vicinty of the towers. So, the Clintons had a lot on their plate. Senator Clinton had to give a response for New York as their Senator. She represented her people very well. They were much more angry and devestated than I was. It was their people, their firefighters, their EMTs, their policemen, their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. So, you think she should have come out and said "Now, ya'll calm down. We'll get to the bottom of this, and they'll pay, etc.."

I live in an oil rich state, and Mary Landrieu has to serve this state as its Senator. I have to accept that she will represent oil interests as well as my interests and my next door neighbors. Senators have to think for their state and represent their state.

Hillary has done that well, and sometimes she has done it at her own expense. That's all right. This is still Bush's war, and he is the one who decided to shit on all of America when he lied, lied, lied. Not Hillary. Remember, not Hillary. He told her he would let the inspections go forward, and he didn't. When her husband was President he bombed Iraq because he thought they were hiding weapons of mass destruction, and he believed Sadaam when he fooled his neighbors into thinking that he had them.

I personally didn't believe he had them, but I was not a Senator and my state had not just been horribly traumatized, and, even then, I wanted someone to pay.

It's so easy to say this now when it's news of yesterday. In the heat of the moment, given her circumstances, you might have done the same thing. She should not apologize. If she did, all of you would attack her even harder. No use telling me any different. Respect her, my royal ass. You lie!

It is my opinion that she should not have to apologize for something she did because she believed the man who had been President for less than a year. Sad to have to realize that you cannot trust the man who has his hand on the button at all times. Sad and dangerous.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I can't believe that you'd sink this low? Poor 12 y.o. Chelsea!

:thumbsdown: :eyes:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KAZ]

37. You start a thread, and then tell everyone you disagree

with to get lost, and they're dropping "poop"? I don't think you understand the nature of a forum.

[rodeodance]

43. I did not see that response as contributing to a productive thread.

[TwilightGardener]

48. About as productive as calling all Obama supporters "Obamababies"

and other assorted names.

[rodeodance]

53. I do it when the shoe fits. End of discussion.

[TwilightGardener]

61. Name-calling and calling other's opinions "poop" = productive, opinions

expressed in a thread that may not be in agreement but do not personally insult the other posters UNproductive. That's some consistent logic, right there.

[rodeodance]

72. you still here?

[TwilightGardener]

73. ...

:evilgrin:

[tabatha]

22. I think Chelsea Clinton is a wonderful woman,

well raised by her parents.

However, both the Clintons (sanctions) and the Bushes have blood on their hands with respect to Iraq.

And to form her opinion on Iraq, Hillary did not read the report - but relied on the opinion of two other senators for information. That is not responsible, and for that she has to take some blame.

There were senators who did vote against the war, because they did their homework.

[DemBones DemBones]

80. What Senators voted against IWR?

Russ Feingold, maybe, but I'm not sure about him.

[noamnety]

140. Here's the list of clairvoyant senators

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[greeneyedboy]

168. and what do they have in common? they're all in extremely blue states or have decades of seniority.

[noamnety]

190. Are you implying that Clinton voted for the IWR for political gain? (n/t)

[grantcart]

193. and Hillary is from an extremely blue state and she did not vote for it why?

Your arguement actually makes it worse for Hillary. But lets give that a pass. Why when everyone knows it was a terrible mistake does she not simply say so. That is what has put her supporters, and her daughter in such a terrible position.

[BlackVelvet04]

35. Lots of young women don't get it....

they haven't had to fight to be taken seriously. They haven't had to experience the level of sexual harassment on the job as many of us have. They haven't lived in a time when there was no good birth control and abortion was illegal. They just don't have a clue.

Thanks for the post, rodeodance.

[ShortnFiery]

47. Lots of us middle aged women who fought for our rights know when we're being punked ...

HRC is not "all women." Chelsea, now being an ADULT woman must fact the cold, hard, cruel, sexist, racist etc., WORLD without the rest of us saying "Mean old world, be nice to Chelsea."

The whole premise is inane. This world is tough and all forms of prejudice exist. However, many of us women who carved out careers did so without constantly COMPLAINING about how unfair life is.

It must be a sad life when you are *constantly* playing "the victim" instead of sucking it up and making the best of what you have been dealt in life? :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

52. Is this the nicer you that you promised in that other thread?

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

58. I am not being rude, but I am stating that "playing the victim" serves no cause.

If that is what you consider rude, then IMO you're way too sensitive. :shrug:

[rodeodance]

67. You have bought into the msm and others here on DU who toss out that card repeatedly. I am emphazing

with Chelsea at the this moment.

You play with card and have fun.

[Maddy McCall]

75. She's of the same ilk as Ann Coulter. It goes something like this.

"Feminists be damned. I did what I did on my own power. I am superior to 'those women' who appreciate the inroads that feminists made for us. I did it on my own, and if other women can't, it's because they 'play victim'."

This is the new antifeminist-feminist mantra. It's nothing new.

[Beausoir]

107. Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and the rest of that ilk. The above poster is in no way shape or form a

feminist. Screed after poisonous screed filled with gender baiting, smears and slurs against women.


And you are correct, it is nothing new. This has been going on forever. Women who loathe other women simply for being women.

[Maddy McCall]

120. Reminds me of the stuff that the "new feminists" like...

Christina Hoff Sommers and Elizabeth Genovese write.

[ShortnFiery]

77. I'm fiercely independent. I don't "buy-into" anything and I'm very Pro-Women's advancement.

However, this is NOT the way to promote a woman candidate. This is just SAD. :(

[Maddy McCall]

82. Ha! I pegged her before she even posted.

LOL.

[ShortnFiery]

87. It's tragic that, as you are cornered, you must attack "the person"... that's not helping your cause

:thumbsdown:

[Maddy McCall]

101. Not at all. What was it that you said above, about being "too sensitive?"

You're not being "too sensitive" are you?

I simply explained that there are women out there, you included, who are anti-feminist "feminists."

You see your accomplishments as being merely because of your own "rugged individualism," and not because of the advantages that feminists before you handed you.

THAT is deluded, and, in your own words, tragic.

[ShortnFiery]

172. You WRONGLY compared my views to Ann Coulter - a lie. That's just plain RUDE.

Not me being hypersensitive.

I don't believe in rugged individualism and you know it. I believe in working together as "a team."

When I was in the third week (FINAL - Jump Week) of Airborne School, I almost dropped-out of formation due to being almost at a point of EXHAUSTION: 1) "the accordion effect" - being at the end of a long line; 2) Enduring Black Flag heat conditions - but not for Jump Week Students who ran to every formation; and 3) carrying 30 pound parachutes on our backs. However, I'll never forget that as I started to falter, two MEN (fellow soldiers) grabbed me by each arm and one said, "You've been though TOO MUCH to quit on "us" now. Come on! Keep going!"

THOSE TWO men who helped me keep up in formation made up for the *dozens of men* who would sneer in my face their resentments when I dare ran a mile under 7 minutes (in boots).

Don't you see, we are ALL part of the "Civil Rights Movement?!?"

Most people are not inherently EVIL and some people can change and emerge as "good people" despite their early upbringing.

WE, as DEMOCRATS have forgiven Robert Byrd for his horrible choices as a young man, yet you are so damn quick to blame everyone who doesn't support HRC as a closet sexist.

I'm sorry that you feel so angry that you must lash out at your fellow DUers with insults, but the above rationale doesn't pass the smell test. :thumbsdown:

[rodeodance]

174. My focus in the OP was on the strong mother-daughter relationship that exists. I certainly

see that a grand way to promote a woman candidate.

However, this is NOT the way to promote a woman candidate. This is just SAD. :(

[juajen]

207. Sez you! We only know you by what you post and our

opinion is that you are "sad". You are jealous of her success and putting her down somehow makes you taller. Sick.

[UALRBSofL]

103. Maddy, your gonna always have those bitter women

That must have had such a terrible life that they think they have to fight for everything by themselves and turn a blind eye when another woman is attacked. It's sad really. When I read posts like that I think of a bitter woman full of hate. :(

[Maddy McCall]

106. Yes. I do, too.

And I assume that there is something traumatic buried deep in their psyche that makes them be jealous of and suspicious of other women achievers.

It is sad. :(

[Beausoir]

123. But...but...she says she is a feminist!! It MUST be true!

Post after post filled with seething hatred toward her own gender but she claims she's a feminist.

Isn't that a hoot!

[ShortnFiery]

183. And you feel that you are moral for talking SMACK about another woman you do not know in

an open message board?

Oh yeah, you're proving to be a true role model for "all women." :crazy:

[Beausoir]

100. In post after post you denigrate women. You view all women as victims.

You are no feminist. No matter how many times you try and justify your poisonous smears and slurs, you are the very antithesis of a true feminist.

Your posting style is eerily reminscent of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

Just wanted to set you straight on that. You are absolutely not a feminist in any way shape or form. End of story.

[Maddy McCall]

109. Glad you noticed the Coulter-Malkin "rugged independence" thing, too.

:thumbsup:

[Beausoir]

118. Oh yeah. Pretty hard not to miss that whole connection.

It's just so...tiresome. To realize that there are still so many who have not evolved in their thinking.

[ShortnFiery]

180. You know nothing about my background ergo, you have no right disrespect me - take the blinders off.

:thumbsdown:

[YankmeCrankme]

192. Your responses are interesting.

You complain about Chelsea needing to act like a grown-up, not be sensitive to gender slander, quit complaining and to suck it up.

Yet, when your feminine identity is likewise targeted, you complain about how you are wronged. Are you playing the victim by complaining about the attack on your character?

Your posts appear hypocritical.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice, or better yet, how about understanding the methods used to try and demean women and join in the fight against using such language instead of just telling women to "toughen up" because from word to deed isn't always that far.

[maximusveritas]

39. So she "got it" because some idiots pulled a prank for a radio station?

These guys later tried to proudly take credit for helping Hillary win in New Hampshire.
I'm sure they'll take credit if she ends up winning too. This kind of stuff makes me weep for America's future, that our President could be decided by a couple of idiots like that.

[BlackVelvet04]

57. As opposed to the idiots who vote for a guy because he talks good? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

65. . . .

:toast:

[BlackVelvet04]

76. ,,,,,

[maximusveritas]

98. I think you might be missing a few steps of logic there

Might want to go back and try again.

[Lucinda]

41. Thanks for posting this.

:hi: Sounds like shes doing a great job.

[rodeodance]

60. yes, she is a great assest to the campaign.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. weren't the 'iron my shirt' guys some dudes from a radio show playing a prank?

I thought that's what I remember about that.

[Maddy McCall]

54. Does it matter?

[ShortnFiery]

62. Yes, if you are going to USE that to play "women are all victims" card over and over again.

It's just not sound, nor believable. :shrug:

[maximusveritas]

66. Yes, because if it was some guys who truly meant it

it would be much more outrageous and shocking. I'm sure that's what many of the Hillary supporters outraged by this still think.

But these were some shock jock lackeys who were sent there to pull a stupid stunt in order to generate publicity for their radio show. For people to use that as their rallying cry seems quite silly.

[Maddy McCall]

68. Would it be funny or excusable if they held "Pick my cotton" signs...

at Obama rallies?

Would you consider that just a "stupid stunt?"

[maximusveritas]

93. Yes, I would

I'd be angry at first, but then when I found out it was just a shock jock pulling a stupid stunt, I'd just laugh it off. Unless of course, Obama was down in the polls, in which case I might try to make a big deal about it and make it into something bigger.

[dailykoff]

97. What's stupid is Hilly's reliance on ridiculous stunts.

Fortunately Obama is way, WAY above crap like that.

[DemBones DemBones]

102. Excellent point. They can dish it out but they can't take it.

If anybody "played a prank" like that, we would hear loud protests from the cult.

[dailykoff]

105. I didn't hear Obama crying about the handshake stunt.

I'm sorry but you're wrong.

[DemBones DemBones]

125. Sorry, I'm not one of you so don't know the secret handshake. nt

[dailykoff]

137. That's okay, it's easy to lose track of the stunts

especially when there's a new one every news cycle.

[Maddy McCall]

124. Indeed. There would be a thousand threads here on it.

With much wailing and gnashing.

[dailykoff]

128. No, thanks to you guys lobbying DU, there would be thirty per day

from the Hil squad. :rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

71. But they were JEERING! And maybe even LEERING! Oh my heavens!

I do declare, what is this society coming to anymore, that ladies can't even go out without their gentlemen escorts and expect courteous treatment? Where's my bonnet and parasol? I'm getting the vapors, I need some fresh air!

[Maddy McCall]

79. Again, if they had appeared at an Obama rally with "Pick my cotton" signs...

how would you see this?

[TwilightGardener]

95. LOL! I'd be very interested to see if the person who yells that at

a crowded Obama event walks out uninjured. I don't think it's possible. "Iron my shirts"? As a female, that just makes me laugh, it's so ridiculous--I wouldn't take it seriously at all. Sorry. I think it was a gift to Hillary, but Chelsea is under orders to milk it for maximum benefit, apparently--must not let us forget the victimhood of one of the most powerful women in the country!

[Maddy McCall]

104. So you think that someone doing that to Obama would deserve physical retaliation?

But it's funny when sexism is the basis of the insult to a woman candidate?

[TwilightGardener]

115. Not "deserve", just that I'd like to see someone try it. I don't think it would

be taken very seriously by the Obama campaign, in all honesty. I'm sure Barack and Michelle have been through shit that we do not see in public, and yet they go on. As do we all.

[Maddy McCall]

121. Really? You don't think that it'd make news if someone did something so stupid?

And you don't think that there's be a thousand threads on DU denouncing it?

[TwilightGardener]

130. Sure. But Obama is not a victim, and neither is Hillary. Not in any sense of the word.

They are both powerful, wealthy people. It's ridiculous for Chelsea to even bring that stupid joke up as evidence of "jeering men" trying to oppress her poor powerless mother. Totally silly, but, hey--they're not going to put away that little gift if it's politically valuable.

[Maddy McCall]

135. So criticisms based on sex or race are fair to you because they are rich and powerful?

Nice.

[TwilightGardener]

139. Everyone gets unfair "criticism", nothing in life is totally fair.

No sense whining and throwing your own pity party over what was clearly an over-the-top obvious joke.

[Maddy McCall]

143. So you don't mind criticisms based on sex and gender because the targets are wealthy and powerful.

No whining here. No pity party here. I'm just trying to understand why you think that, as long as the target is wealthy or powerful, it's acceptable to attack them on a sexist or racist basis.

Intriguing.

[TwilightGardener]

155. I expect them. I'm a realist. I also figure that neither Hillary or Obama

made it as far as they have without being able to effectively overcome such silliness and move on--I don't think they need to rely on milking public outrage and sympathy. That's why the whining about the joke, weeks later, is so unbecoming.

[ShortnFiery]

178. Well put wienerdoggie. It's not the insult but this constant "milking of outrage and sympathy"

that is just ... well, over the top. Yes, we know that such prejudices exist, but it's what we do to prove them wrong is what truly counts.

Hang in there wienerdoggie, I've got your back. ;) :hi:

[TwilightGardener]

189. ...

:hi:

[rodeodance]

132. CAN YOU READ===the word jeering is the author's --NOT chelcea'.

[dailykoff]

88. A "prank" tha Hilly just happened to have a snappy comeback ready for.

Yeah real spontaneous, just like Chelsea's bogus come-to-Jesus moment based on it.

[rodeodance]

99. more doggie poo

89. A "prank" tha Hilly just happened to have a snappy comeback ready for.

Yeah real spontaneous, just like Chelsea's bogus come-to-Jesus moment based on it.

[Maddy McCall]

138. She's got a quick wit. Does spontaneity offend you?

Spontaneity is a hallmark of a talented politician. Shouldn't offend you at all.

[dailykoff]

141. Right, then why did she get busted in Iowa for planting questioners

before she stopped taking questions? :rofl:

[rodeodance]

166. using RW crap again. Can't you be a bit creative???

[NJSecularist]

90. Chelsea is an unfortunate victim in her family enemy's crosshairs.

[grantcart]

94. I think you meant Chelsea

[NJSecularist]

96. Yup, I just edited it.

[dailykoff]

117. Righteous anger at phony campaign stunt = psychosis or

more stale baloney.

[rodeodance]

126. You ASSume it was phony. Now you are an expert at determining how she

felt?

you are waiting me time.

[dailykoff]

131. Let's just say I'm not an idiot.

Nothing personal.

[rodeodance]

I seldom use that word. Instead I tend to

think your posts--and other obamafolks as dangerously misinformed-
and not wanting to look around for other points of view. That is the HORROR that has rained down on this thread and many other threads.

Let's just say I'm not an idiot.
Posted by dailykoff


Nothing personal.

[Debi]

119. She had nothing to do with her mother's campaign and was happy in New York at her hedge fund job

right up until the Clinton ship was taking on water in Iowa:

"Just before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, she began appearing in the tableau of flags and signs behind her mother at speeches. But when it became clear that Mr. Obama was making off with many people her age, Ms. Clinton decided to speak out."

+++++++++++++++++++++++

I can just see the kitchen cabinet conversation: "where can we get a young person?" "wait, I know!" ....:eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

133. She dusts off Chelsea whenever she needs "humanizing". LOL!

[Beausoir]

144. I am just starting to really grasp the level of hatred you have toward Hillary Clinton.

Astounding and frankly, a little scary. Good luck with that. Keep hope alive.

[Maddy McCall]

146. A particularly disgusting one, huh?

Says that racism and sexism are acceptable as long as the targets are rich and powerful.

Obama must be proud to have supporters like that.

[Beausoir]

148. It's just amazing to me...the level of abject hatred that is pouring out of some people.

Makes you kinda wonder what the homelife situation is. Gotta be pretty anger filled and bleak.

[TwilightGardener]

147. Don't hate her. Just tired of her, her family, and her tricks, and don't want her as our nominee.

I have defended her, and paid her compliments, on many occasions on DU, but I am rapidly reaching my limits of goodwill the longer this campaign goes on.

[Beausoir]

150. Your posts speak otherwise.

You gotta a major league case of the hates going on. That's not going to work out very well. You just can't go through life like that.

[TwilightGardener]

156. Dr. Frist? That you?

[Maddy McCall]

158. LOL. You present much more evidence of what's wrong with you...

than Terri Schiavo ever was able to.

[Maddy McCall]

154. Pull your skirt down, sugar. Your sexism's showing.

[rodeodance]

149. That poster has had snarky hateful posts to many comments. Hate does consume

all intellect at times and it shows with that poster loud and clear.

[Maddy McCall]

153. Assuming that there was any intellect there to begin with.

:)

[TwilightGardener]

157. Are you...are you JEERING at me??

:cry:

[Maddy McCall]

159. No. Just stating the facts as you present them.

[DemBones DemBones]

152. The first part of the article shows how insane people have become:

The question was one she had heard before, but this time it was asked in downright hostile terms.

“Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?” a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

:wtf:

Hello, the entire Congress, with few exceptions voted for the IWR, so the responsibility has to be divided among them all, and most of the responsibility goes to the administration which used fake information to convince so many in Congress to support the IWR.

Bush was supposed to give the inspectors time to inspect in Iraq and he was not supposed to invade without consulting Congress again. We know how all that worked out.

This relates to another article in the Times about how Americans are getting dumber. 23% of college students can't find Iraq on a map. I wonder if the guy who asked the snarky question can? I also notice he didn't mention American lives that have been lost; I guess they're unimportant, just poor people who had to join the military because they had no money for college, couldn't find decent jobs. Maybe if he realized how many in the military are black or Latino, he could spare them some sympathy.:wtf:

[rodeodance]

165. That same question is thrown out here on DU almost verbatim!! and

nicely put about the rest of your comments.

This relates to another article in the Times about how Americans are getting dumber. 23% of college students can't find Iraq on a map. I wonder if the guy who asked the snarky question can? I also notice he didn't mention American lives that have been lost; I guess they're unimportant, just poor people who had to join the military because they had no money for college, couldn't find decent jobs. Maybe if he realized how many in the military are black or Latino, he could spare them some sympathy. :wtf:

[Straight Shooter]

169. It wasn't the IWR vote, it was the incompetence of bush that cost the lives.

If the war had been properly prosecuted, if Shisenski had had his way, the war would have been over in no time, Saddam would have been removed from power, a proper governing authority would have been instituted. If the proper people had been placed in charge, instead of the idiot Bremer, the people of Iraq would be in a far, far better position and would not have built up their resentment against the U.S. troops. Remember that it was Bremer who totally disenfranchised a large segment of the population instead of working for conciliation.

Shall we also start blaming those who voted for the war on Afghanistan, since that has turned into an increasingly FUBAR situtation due to the incompetence of the bush adminstration? With Pakistan right next door, could bush at least not have prosecuted that war properly?

Chelsea is right about the clairvoyance remark. Those of us against the Iraq War were quite convinced Saddam had no WMD, but there's no way on God's green earth anyone could have foreseen the devastation (despite Cheney's warning from Gulf War I) that bush would inflict on Iraq. His unmitigated gall and stupidity in handling a centuries-old rivalry amongst the religious factions of Iraq is what is to blame for all this loss of life and treasure and goodwill amongst other nations. This is not Hillary's fault, nor is it Kerry's fault, nor Edwards' fault, nor is it the fault of anyone who voted for the IWR at the urging of Hans Blix.

It is the fault of the bush administration for being given the keys to the car and, having been admonished to drive responsibly, he has instead ignored all the rules and created ungodly mayhem, death, and destruction.

And the Republican Congress is at fault for allowing bush to escape accountability for his every single malicious deed from the time he took office. No checks, no balances. No wonder he viewed the IWR as a green light. No one had stopped him for anything else.

[ShortnFiery]

175. No! The IWR gave Bush "the power" to invade Iraq. Those who voted "Aye" owe the American People

a sincere apology, because YES, they should have known better. :nuke:

[Straight Shooter]

176. Kneejerk reaction to my post.

Some people are never satisfied.

[ShortnFiery]

177. The truth hurts? Many other legislators were mature enough to admit this MISTAKE.

Yet, the Clintons (nor the Bushes) never ADMIT, much less truly TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their mistakes. :( Why should the American People wish for another 8 years of The Executive Branch NOT EVER taking responsibility when things go wrong under their watch?

[rodeodance]

179. If she was down on her knees begging for forgiveness, i imagine that even

that action would lead to 100 threads about how it was staged and related snarkiness and rudeness and downright hate.

[ShortnFiery]

181. What is it with this "hyperbole"? HRC was wrong and she won't admit it. That's not LEADERSHIP.

:shrug:

[Iceburg]

182. >75% of Americans supported the invasion and now the hypocrits are pandering for their vote/nt

[ShortnFiery]

184. However, many Average Americans as well as "the whole world" saw it was BUNK.

We had the largest protests EVER in *world history* against the invasion of Iraq.

Yet, our legislators voted for the IWR because they were afraid ... mostly for the health of THEIR CAREERS.

The honorable legislators have come forward to admit that it was The WRONG Decision, others did not. :thumbsdown:

[misanthrope]

185. Re: Her comments about the IWR...

...If seeing through BushCo.'s "evidence" leading up to the IWR constitutes "clairvoyance" as Chelsea Clinton so sarcastically phrased it, then she is wrong in deeming it "extraordinary." I knew lots of people who saw that charade for what it was and the sheer numbers of them would therefore preclude any designation of "extraordinary." In fact, it's pretty damn commonplace.

You didn't need special powers to know what was happening. All it took was a familiarity with the POTUS, his inner circle, PNAC, the cultural and socio-political dynamics of the region and a belief in the inspectors and others who had actually been over there.

Oh, and until you sincerely admit mistakes, you can't really learn from them.

[KoKo]

187. When our Dems split the Vote between Women Haters and African-Amercan Haters

I guess it's the "Luck of the Draw" as to whose "Ox get's Gored" in this. :-(

So sad our Dem Party has come down to this.

A Primary where a Black Man can accuse a Female Opponent of having "Menopause Problems with weeping" and a Female Democrat who can say that the "true" African -American Candidate is "stealing Caucuses" because "folks who have to work for a living," can't always get to the caucuses."

And then throw in BOTH their Campaign Ops and the "Mud Slinging Amplifies!"

A "Pox on BOTH HOUSES!" This "sports stuff" and the Media are sickening the Process. Just "Games"...and "Sport's Bowls" ....Bread and Circuses for the Masses.

Great way to run a country ....isn't it...or is it.

[acmavm]

191. Freaking totally amazing. The absolute hypocrisy of this board has reached

a new high, or maybe the correct term is a record setting low. You can't say one fucking thing that Obamites disapprove of, not about him or his Walmart wife. Nope, personal remarks are off limits, especially if its about family. The Obama family that is. Now if it's someone else's family, they're fair game apparently. And the hypocrites and phonies on the board will jump in with all the justifications in the world as to why you can berate and denigrate Hillary's kid.

I do not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I dislike Barack Obama a hell of a lot more. We have the two worst damn candidates ever to run for the nomination since the founding of the party. We are stuck with 'em unless Eleanor Clift is right and we can dump their sorry asses at a brokered convention when Al Gore runs just to save the party. But I'm not holding my breath. But if I were the Goracle, I wouldn't want to do anything to save a sorry bunch of shits like Hillary or Barack supporters no matter what the incentive was. The party is now nothing more than a tussle in the mud. Or a slap-fest in a cesspool.

[berni_mccoy]

194. The sword has two edges... both sides cut each other.

[cloud75]

195. Unlike most other family members who hit the campaign trail,

she does not offer an intimate portrait of the candidate, and she recounts old family stories only when her audiences clamor for one. (Memory lane can be a dangerous place: waxing about White House Christmases might remind voters of just how many her family has already had.)

Instead, she upholds another Clinton tradition: blitzing her targets with policy details. In a single hour of responding to questions at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire on Tuesday, Ms. Clinton talked about Medicare Part D, the distinction between the chronically and occasionally uninsured, health care premium caps, Pell grant allowance maximums, income contingency repayment programs for financial aid, sugar-based ethanol and carbon sequestration. That is not counting her detours into Romanian reproductive policy and the design of the internal combustion engine.

Like this is a bad thing shouldn't we all know what the hell is going on with our country like Chelsea.

[rodeodance]

203. I wanted to include the quote from chelsea for the OP--unfortuately, the author

of this piece includes her bias in her story. I think I have seen other pieces by her also--she does not impress me (JODI)

[adapa]

196. If someone shouted at Obama "shine my shoes" instead of "Iron my shirts" at Hillary

we would still be a self flogging state of introspection. Instead since someone degraded a strong woman we(the media) can laugh it off as a silly comment.


Goodbye To All That (#2)
by Robin Morgan

February 2, 2008“

Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago /).

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .

The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com ). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”

So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?

And goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”

She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”

And for decades, she’s been learning how.

So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?

“Our President, Ourselves!”

Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

[bjobotts]

199. Outstanding comment. I hope everyone takes the time to read it. THANKS.

[bjobotts]

197. What if instead of "Iron my shirts" at Clinton, It was "shine my shoes"to Obama.

Or how about pick my cotton. Different light shines huh?

[bjobotts]

198. Whoops, double posted thought . Didn't see you already said that

[ErnestoG]

202. Hillarbots would scream "He's playing the race card!"

bleh.