“One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.”
– Andrew Sullivan. His observations on the contrast between Senator Clinton, and Margaret Thatcher, are spot-on.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayFebruary 5th, 2008 |
 119 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Well, my attitude is Obama is not fit, and McCain is a big government type. His general policies will be no different to those of any randomly selected Democrat, and if they are different, I am unlikely to approve anyway
If McCain wins there is no chance that a small gvt. type will get back into the Whitehouse for a generation, however, if a Democrat wins the possibly exists that the next POTUS but one could be small gvt.
On this basis, I actually think that Hilary is the best bet.
CountingCats, what a horrible bit of analysis.
Sadly I have to agree. McCain is the worst long term choice.
From Andrew’s article, about Hillary:
“She is an extremely intelligent woman, with a strong work ethic, an attention to detail, a passion for helping children, and a fascination with politics.”
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
She’s a shrewed, scheming, corrupt, ruthless and a-ideological lawyer, with a passion for power. She’s also a phony, lacking Bill’s (and Obama’s) natural charisma.
I find it curious when a liberal (in the true sense) has such prophetic visions of the future course of politics. If only society were so predictable, then perhaps statism would function more efficiently.
If we are going to have a Democrat Prez then having Hilary would confer one benefit –
NewLab/Democrat types have this habit of regarding themselves as nicer people than, and moraly superior to, those horrible non socialist people who don’t vote as they do, and who fail to support whatever the latest Polly promoted idiocy is doing the rounds.
With HRC in the White House, when these types of statement are made all we have to do is say “Hillary?” in a questioning tone, and stare in an incredulous manner until the speaker goes red and looks away.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
There are plenty of women worth electing today, it’s just none of them happen to have ex-president husbands. (Probably because men worth electing rarely are)
I wonder how effective Hitlery would be?
I suspect she’s a machivellean enough moo well aquainted with the levers of power to get a lot of stuff through Congress*.
I suspect Obama isn’t and there’ll be lots of real pretty speeches and bugger-all will get done.
That’s why I think the little chap (he looks so young, like he wants a wollipop) would be a better bet.
I confess I have an ulterior motive here. I have a visceral hatred of Mrs Clinton and I don’t want her defacing my new telly for the next, maybe nine(!) years.
That’s what I’d be saying to my friends if I was a US dem right now. “Do you want to see that hellion on TV day-in, day-out for the best part of the next decade?”
Bill should’ve slapped his bitch around more. Then we wouldn’t have this problem.
*One might argue she’s only got where she is today through congress.
That wouldn’t be congress with Bill would it Nick? As I understand, the one thing she has in common with Slick Willy is they both have an eye for the ladies. Apart from that, what Jacob said. Obama would most likely be an ineffective President (which is a Good Thing imho), who at least does not inspire me to a murderous rage every time I hear his name.
I am not worried about Hillary being timid or isolationist on defense. If anything, she will go the other way, to prove that ‘a woman can be tough’. Never mind that Conde Rice, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Kirkpatrick, etc etc etc already have demonstrated that quite clearly.
At this point, I agree completely with countingcats and am keeping a barf bag within easy reach.
John K. That ‘murderous rage’ is ‘a good thing™’. It is what keeps the frog from slowly cooking. I fear Obama’s innocuous blandishments more than her offensive bile.
I would argue that it does not matter that much whether Hillary is a “a shrewed, scheming, corrupt, ruthless and a-ideological lawyer, with a passion for power” or not. There are few who succeed in politics who are not, and yet some still do good when in office, because the incentives were such that self-interest coincided with the right policies. I suspect that many of the greatest reformers, shining lights of liberty, would have turned despotic if they were faced with different incentives. If not, then they would be replaced by someone else who would.
The businessman can do an incredible amount of good for society, without being a well-intentioned and good man, looking out for nothing but the health of his own wallet. The same applies to the politician, assuming the traditions and institutions provide the correct incentives.
The difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama is at least a pretty decent man. Clinton on the other hand, is a bitch on wheels with enough skeletons in her closet to fill up a graveyard. It’s much easier for me to see Clinton giving us a return to the political attacks by federal agencies, such as IRS audits of entire church congregations that strongly criticized her husband.
That’s a wrong comparison. A businessman doesn’t have to be a “well intentioned and good man”, he doesn’t have to be anything, he owes nothing to society, his reason for being isn’t to do good for society. A businessman has to be honest and successful (or he isn’t a businessman), for his own good, and society could care less about him.
A politician, on the other hand, is elected by people to perform a certain well (?) defined job for society. If he is a “scheming corrupt and ruthless” operator he cannot be trusted not to abuse his temporary power, and to perform as promised.
Jacob,
The point is that a politician does not have to be intelligent, well-intentioned and moral to be a politician who promotes and implements good policies, because what policies look good from the politicians perspective depend on the institutions and incentives they are facing. If we presume that most politicians are career politicians, who first and foremost, want to keep their jobs and fill their wallets, then their personal motivations do not matter half as much as the institutions that they reside in.
If the politician does not adapt to these circumstances, then they will lose their job, whether they enter the occupation as an intelligent, well-intentioned good guy, or “a shrewed, scheming, corrupt, ruthless and a-ideological lawyer, with a passion for power”. This is betrayed by the fact that almost every incumbant is scarcely distinguishable from their predecessor, even if the rhetoric changes from time to time.
I’ve a hunch that Romney will do better than expected today, if only because the media have anointed McCain and some supporters of his won’t bother to vote (if this does happen the MSM will blame Limbaugh and Coulter). Talking of Coulter… she also favours Clinton over McCain, didn’t think I’d see the day where the Samizdata commentariat agreed with her!
Hillary being preferable to John does make warped sense. I too have faith that when middle America see the real cost of socialist healthcare they’ll balk and there’ll be a small-government Republican presidency in 2013.
Even if Clinton did win a second term I don’t see this as the end of the world. The statist healthcare policy is likely to be toned down and the protectionist rhetoric is unlikely to amount to much. Clinton has a far better grasp of economics than McCain (or Huckabee), a big plus.
Politicians, especially Presidents, do shape those “institutuions and incentives” acording to their ideology, and their self interest. I don’t think politicians are like robots, who perform in a pre-determinated way. The personality of a President matters a lot.
I don’t know what makes you think so. It’s true that Bill was intelligent enough not to mess arround with the economy too much, and leave this to others. I doubt Hillary would be equally wise in this respect, judging from Hillarycare, she is more likely to intervene and mess things up.
On the other hand, they say McCain is a pal of Phil Gramm, which is his economics advisor. Phil Gramm is a good conservative economist.
That she’s a malign gun grabbing Socialist is, however, a big minus.
Hillary wins of McCain is the nominee, hands down. A fake Republican cannot beat a real Democrat.
Rice would be better than Clinton Rice cut and run from investigating the 18 memo’s warning of 911.
deleted: comments in ALL CAPS always get deleted here… very bad netiquette
It’s alwasys been this way “I’m for women…. just
not “this” one.” What clap trap.
You don’t have to support Hilliary Clinton but
for Gods sakes hide your bias with more creativity.
I’ve seen Bill Clinton cry by the way, but we’ve all
just walked by the discussion of the meaning of
that…oh, that’s right, he’s a man, so he’s allowed.
deleted: comments in ALL CAPS always get deleted here… very bad netiquette
I am a forty something professional female and am NOT on the Hillary bandwagon.
By voting for Hillary, we are essentially going backwards politically. You would think that we have learned a hard lesson on the second generation Bush factor that keeping dynastic political figures alive and well in major political roles doesn’t equate to real (and unrealized) progress of nations. It only tells me we fear moving forward and prefer a known mediocrity, at best.
Those in the political field know all too well how nasty the Clinton reign truly was in spite of the public opinion. I can only take heart in knowing that the delegates surely do know this and will vote accordingly. Ms. Clinton is a very calculating individual-and I do not mean that in a good light. I worry that her outward campaign rhetoric is concealing her very rigid and divisive way of doing business. We don’t need another carbon copy of what will be soon walking out of the White House doors come 1/09..
I have never wanted to see any race reduced to gender or racial make-up, but unfortunately this has already happened due to Barrack Obama making statements during his campaign trail at all black colleges telling the crowd, “we have always been told we can’t do this, we can’t do that” “I’m here to show you we can”. If you’re not running on race, Mr. Obama, who is the “we” you refer to over and over again? I have long respected Hillary Clinton as the smartest, strongest female of my time and I will support her just as I supposrted her husband, digging in even harder when reading biased blogs/stories such as this one.
As a woman who grew up through the 18 years of the Thatcher regime I would have say that she did very little for feminism in the UK. Adopting a very ruthless and tenacious, male oriented style of governing.
Also Margaret Thatcher did not come from humble beginnings, her father owned a grocery store which back in the 40’s and 50’s would have been considered more middle class (in UK terminology) as opposed to working class, where the opportunity of a university education was slim to say the least.
I do however agree that however capable she may be Hillary has made a fatal mistake in using her husband to bolster her attempt at the Whitehouse, this has definitely been detrimental to her credibility, however politicians in this country need to think more of themselves as team players. The Democrats appear to be ahead in this respect and I hope that whoever gets the nomination will be magnanimous enough to follow it through.
Mr Sullivan’s piece assumes 1 fact not in evidence, to wit, that Hillary Clinton is indeed, a human female.
Mr Timmons,
Keep taking the pills and get your caps lock fixed.
Most of the posters are male so they have not had the benefit of living in women’s residences. If they had had they would recognize Hillary as the kind of toxic unattractive female who is at perpetual war against her sex – or rather that part of the female species that happens to be better looking more intelligent and agreeable. This notion that Hillary is intelligent is idiotic. She is not in the least what the French describe as cultive. Furthermore, she’s never accomplished anything on her own. She is a construct of the media just like Cherie Blair. So she has a law degree from Yale. Big deal as the PBS car guys’ joke goes – what do you call a lawyer who graduates at the bottom of the class. Answer – Your honour.
Why must Senator Clinton be a “Bitch on Wheels”? It’s statements like that that are setting feminism back. ONLY if she did something to your face can you REALLY have reason to call her that. You may disagree with her politics…but are you calling all of the male politicians who are self serving jerks with personal agendas similar names? It doesn’t appear to be so. The Clintons were divisive during the 90’s…but they were being pushed HARD from the right to be so. Our country was still in a much better place than it is now. The question is really what was already mentioned…do we want to go backwards…or move into the future?
Incorrect; being a grocer’s daughter, as she was dubbed by the aristocratic nobs who ran the Tory Party at the time, was definitely humble on a relative scale; actually, she came from the least fashionable part of British society: the lower-middle class. Her father was a salesman (my, the horror!); she went to a grammar school (oh, the vulgarity); married a businessman (it gets just worse, doesn’t it?).
I agree she was not your soft-focus type of feminist. Defeating the Argentinians, destroying militant unionism, taming inflation, reigniting enterprise; halting, if not reversing, Big government: these called for ruthlessness and tenacity.
Thank god.
WILLIAM TIMMONS: IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO WRITE IN BLOCK CAPITALS AS IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE A TINFOIL-HATTER OF DUBIOUS MENTAL STABILITY PLEASE TAKE YOUR MEDICASHUN…..
Here we have another man telling women what women should do! Deciding the definition of feminism and what criteria a woman in America should meet to attain a position of power in this country. Comparing her to a British woman who apparently he has decided is a model of feminism for America. How typical. Lets get the women riled up so they self destruct and decide that the one woman fit and available to run this country is not a good enough woman. She’s not a good enough candidate. The idea of women being free to choose is exactly that. If men have their wives and families as part of their campaigns, why shouldn’t she. If she chose to be a partner with her husband, why is that a problem. Does feminism mean that she is not allowed to have a life partner that shares her dreams? One that helps her attain her goals? I’ve been around all long time. Since the beginning of this feminist crap! It has always been about other people telling women how they should act. I don’t take kindly to a group of women telling me what makes me a liberated woman any more than I appreciate a group of men doing so. I’ll know when I am liberated. I see plenty who think they are. Women fighting amongst themselves about whose better, stay at home moms or working moms. Using the same backstabbing techniques in the corporate world. Selling out just like everybody else. Sounds like they’ve been liberated. Just enough to try and hold other women down. Being liberated is about making choices and I have found that most often, women are their own worst enemy. Throw in a group with a title of feminists and they become as invasive as every other group that thinks they know best and should control the dice. Hillary Clinton is not Margaret Thatcher and if she were, then I’m sure plenty of people would have something to say about how she behaved then as well. She is her own woman and perhaps that is what is really bothering Andrew Sullivan. So she had some tears. What is the problem there? Oh wait, is it that old misconception that tears are girly? Well maybe they are. Wake up folks, she’s not a machine! I’ve seen plenty of tears in those male eyes over the years for many reasons. Sometimes when they got caught doing something horrid that they had to apologize for, other times when something awful such as hurricane Katrina. Although I saw no tears in the eyes of our current president. How curious. Hillary has paid her dues. She has worked hard for many years. She won’t be bullied and she won’t hold back. She is insightful, dedicated and a diplomat. I don’t care what she wears. I don’t care that she keeps her family close, in fact I applaud her for not leaving them behind while thinking only of herself. When did that become a bad thing? I care that I watched her at the Town Hall Across America, last night and she shot straight. She answered every question without hesitation. Not just by saying yes or waffling all around. She addressed who, what, when, where and most importantly, HOW! Compare that to other candidates. If you don’t like her politics, then don’t vote for her. Don’t withhold a vote that could positively change the future for women, men, children, minorities, education, healthcare, partner’s rights and world positioning for generations to come, out of pettiness or some misplaced notion of what makes a liberated woman. Don’t be swayed by others who try to tell you as a woman, what makes you liberated. Stand up and think for yourself!
Rather depends what you mean by ‘backwards’. Voting for a Big Government statist of either party (and that is indeed all that’s going to be on offer this time) would be a vote for more of the same… and no candidates who want to roll back the state in any meaningful way are a realistic prospect for President. That means ‘forward’ is simply not an option. The next President (either party) will differ from GWB in style and possibly body shape/colour, but not in any substance.
I agree. I think people should despise Hillary because she wants to do evil things, not because of her feminine qualities, which frankly are irrelevant.
I agree that there are many traits that Margaret Thatcher possessed that are certainly worth admiration and respect. I would however, like to remind our blogger that meritocracy is a theoretical system that is highly suspect. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that meritocracy works overall as a systematic way for all people to achieve success. Additionally there are many differences between the sort of obstacles that people face in a culture such as ours and the culture of Great Britain. Deducting feminism points from someone based solely on the fact that she was married to a former president and you have thus inferred that her popularity is due to that (which may indeed prove a faulty inference) is not a reflection on her potential ability as a presidential hopeful. In short, your conclusions rest on contrived comparisons, faulty inferences, and character aspersions dressed up as a fair assessment of character meant to benefit feminists who may be erroneously considering voting for Clinton. Thanks for the advice, however, one of the more attractive aspects of feminist theory and practice is the freedom it gets you to make up your own mind. I’ve already made up mine and I think a fair number of others would agree with me…Clinton gets my vote.
Judging by the fact that this critic obviously has no moral standing or research himself, I think we need to start off by getting some insight into “Hillary’s tears”. If you actually watch the video of her supposed crying, you would notice that at no point in time do her eyes water, or that she actually cries. The only thing that the media even had to jump on was the fact that her voice became a little more emotionally charged as the subject seemed to touch a more personal note for herself. In no way did she cry. Secondly, Hillary Clinton has used all of her resources legally and ethically, unlike Obama and his connection to the notorious “slum lord” Hillary mentioned in one of the previous debates. For more information, one should look at the public records or maybe the NBC news story on the purchace of Obama’s house. Also the fact of the matter is in no way do the trials of Hillary Clinton seem trivial to those of Margaret Thatcher, both faced the same amount of opposition and criticism. The proof is this article, a secret anti-feminist who is so terrified of a woman in the white house that he is willing to make an appeal to women in general attempting to convince them that she is the wrong candidate. Welcome to Super Tuesday Mr. Sullivan, I hope Hillary makes history and shuts your mouth simultaneously.
Hillary’s transformation has shown leadership qualities from the very beginning. She ran for the Senate seat in New York that was held by, RFK. She faced groundless, extremely well funded attacks from the far right and the challenge of prevailing in traditionally Republican upstate New York. The United States of America and many other countries have watched admiringly as she persuasively articulated an inspiring and unifying vision entrenched in American values and history. Hillary’s, patience, hard work, leadership and political good judgment, has transformed many of those solid conservative counties into solid Democratic alliances.
Hillary will take everything she has learned to the Presidency just as she has fought for children’s health and other issues which affect the underprivileged and the middle class.
She is met with resistance by big corporation lobbyist and the media, as always what they want is their ratings!
We as citizens of the United States of America must be able to Trust Hillary. She will bring this country around to once again be the first to press for democracy in other countries; set goals to attain the prosperity, respect and leadership it once had in the world.
Obama has cannibalized several proposed issues and their words from the other candidates. During the debate (CALIF) last night, Obama was asked a few questions and he proceeded to repeat a statement either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards previously made. It is startling as to how many times he uses other candidates statements.
Andrew Sullivan’s poll tells all!
Whoever said that it did, Sarah? I have no problem whatsoever with people inheriting oodles of money from their parents, for example. We are all, to an extent, the product of our background and environment (although we also have free will). I do, however agree with Sullivan, that it is odious for Hillary Clinton to somehow try to liken herself to Margaret Thatcher; in the former case, she benefited from having an incredibly famous spouse; her career was closely tied to his. To deny that is pointless.
As to whether her popularity is tied to her surname or not, I am not sure; I get the impression that a lot of people associate the Clinton era with the relatively tranquil 1990s and would quite like a return, however naive that hope is.
She comes across as fairly hard, but no doubt has her positive side. But as Perry says, it is all besides the point; there’s a choice between different brands of Big Government.
Hilarious. Keep em coming!
“I don’t know what makes you think so.”
Listening to McCain in the Reagan debate and Clinton the following night. McCain had no coherent fiscal or monetary policy. Even Mike Huckabee, who advocates mercantilistic nonsense, has a better grasp of economics.
I’m not particularly reassured that McCain’s answer to any economic question is to “leave policy up to my advisers” (presumably including Gramm as Treasury Secretary). The churn rate on economic advisers in the White House is very high!
McCain is strongly in favour of wealth destroying “climate change” policies, he voted against the Bush tax-cuts because it helped the “rich” and he has lambasted big oil and pharma for “making too much” money. This is the kind of warped, populist, narrow-minded, thinking worthy of any Democrat.
My biggest worry with McCain is military spending. it is inconceivable that McCain is going to favour the Treasury Department’s want for more fiscal responsibility over military requests for more funds. Clinton is unlikely to fall into this trap and has placed far more emphasis on reducing the fiscal deficit.
Of course Clinton’s healthcare plans are bad and her protectionist rhetoric worrying but I believe Clinton will be more conservative in her economic policy than McCain. Admittedly her voting record as a senator is atrocious but she has no real responsibility in that position.
Biased? Of course we are! Everyone is. I am and so are you. What you call ‘bias’, I call ‘an opinion’. I loath Hillary Clinton for the same reasons I loath all statists of any party (which is to say I loath 99% of all politicians everywhere in the world). Why? Because I regard them as people who use force mostly to do evil. When you go to a classical liberal/libertarian site, what did you expect?
Not to say invisible.
Gabrielle: your post is unreadable. Ever hear of paragraphs?
That will be the vast right wing conspiracy will it?
I suppose she might be as successful as Jimmy Carter, but frankly I doubt it.
As a feminist how do I vote for a women whose husbands disrespectful behavior towards many,many women throughout his life(illicit affairs,sexual harassment,inapproiate touching,and there is even a women claiming rape). I would love to vote for a woman,but not one with this baggage. Hillary has decided she will put up with this, which is her business. But I cannot,and certainly don’t want it anywhere near the White House again!
She ran for the Senate seat in New York that was held by, RFK.
She ran for the seat that was held by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A significant number of the people who elected to the Senate RFK, HRC’s predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor, are dead. She’s less connected to RFK than she is to Kevin Bacon.
Good job – Susan, Judy, Gabrielle & Sarah (and any other free thinking women). I have yet to figure out why these “men” are so angry about Hillary. I have been married 45 years to a “red blooded, blue collar, construction worker guy who beat 4th stage throat cancer” and he says it is because they are “scared” of her brains and that no matter what they throw at her, she keeps going – is he right? By the way, I have not decided who I am voting for – but he is for Hillary. Not a total loss for the male world, maybe? So thankful I have him!
Take note Andrew….you’re not a woman speaking of feminist issues…..it’s like men telling women what they should think about abortions. You don’t have the right to discuss “feminisim”. Sorry.
Also, as to your discussion of Margaret Thatcher vs. Hillary Clinton, in case you haven’t noticed, this is not England. There’s no way the “mindset” of people in the U. S. is the same as those in England. “Apples to Oranges”.
so there are people who like Hitlery. I didn’t think they had the internet in secure hospital wards.
Well, you live and learn!
rc,
Legally and ethically?! Like Whitewater? Be still my splitting sides… I hope Obama trounces her today and his supporters party with a rousing chorus of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.
I carry no torch for Obama but I hate Clinton.
Denise,
For Gawd’s sake. It’s got nothing to do with her chromosomes. It’s because she’s a vindictive, bossy, manipulative, evil, socialist bitch.
All of those could be applied to a man (except I would’ve terminated with “bastard” instead).
Nick M,
WHITEWATER! Thats the best that you have to offer as an argument against Hillary? You honestly would believe a testimony from the only accuser David Hale who was a professional con artist? There was insufficient evidence to even SLIGHTLY support the theory that the Clintons were involved. I think you also need to research more on your subject matter, rather than listening to what the biased media projects as the truth.
So what if Hilary has her husband plugging for her. That is her “HUSBAND.” And yes he was a president that should make it even clearer they “BOTH” have the experience. She is the one to clean up the mess and truly the only one that understands the “REALITY” of it. Which I don’t feel anybody is capable “FIXING.” She really deserves a lot more respect then she gets.
If Obama wins I sure hope it’s not because “OPRAH” is plugging for him. He makes a better “Preacher” then anything. Brain washing and copycatting Hilary are a few things that come to my mind.
So let’s see who wins the celebrity, popularity contest. Next best thing to American Idol. Oh but then I guess you don’t have to be American either.
The term “bitch” is an offensive and derogatory term when used to describe any woman, and “bastard” is no better, there is a physiological difference between men and women, but they are just as capable of acomplishing anything we can do. Although Hillary is not Mrs. Sunshine and Giggles, she can surely get the job done, what we need now is someone who can get things done immediately, not someone who needs some time to figure out what they need to do.
Hillary figured more tears may help her. God help us if she is elected. Imagine how world foreign leaders would handle a President who crys.
JD, I entirely agree, it would be very disconcerting if Obama wins just with the fact that Oprah may be able to control our political system…lol
Midget, again this is showing how ignorant some voters are, Hillary did not cry, go watch the video, and if she were to ever cry, it would not be the first time in American history, many presidents have cried in office or before, it is unrealistic to think that someone should never show emotion. Everyone cries, get over it.
Do women really have to behave like men to be promotable? Years ago maybe but are women shallow enough today that a man tells us what to think and how to judge a woman. Thatcher had no choice but to be cold in front of men. Today I thought we wanted women to be able to be an executive, a mother, and a wife. Why can’t Hillary be able to be what she chooses at a given time. Years ago career women had to forgo husbands and/or children to maintain professionalism… I thought we passed that stage. This article and many of the responses belittle such choices. She has her family campaigning on her behalf like other candidates and he belittles this too! Seeing her family support her, like other candidates’ families, is healthy and speaks well of her character. Seeing someone who took her marriage vows seriously also speaks magnitudes about her inner-strength. I was hoping to live in an era where women can grow to be what they want without having to behave like a stereo-typed businessman. Shedding a tear means she is human, being a mother means she will care about our sons on the battle grounds, having a child means she will care about the future of the planet. It’s leaders who fail to show these qualities I am concerned about. Judging someone on such trite issues speaks poorly on our ability to prioritize real concerns Americans are facing today. This article belongs in a tabloid.
Nick M – You just described our present “leader” – just change the last 2 words to “ignorant ——“!!! There is no bigger idiot than HIM – no one running for president now in either party is as stupid as he is. And Hillary DID NOT cry (thanks rc) – but Romney “teared up” on TV recently and bragged about it. Tough Guy???
“I would love to vote for a woman,but not one with this baggage. Hillary has decided she will put up with this, which is her business”
I’ve yet to meet anyone without baggage of some type or another, male and female alike. Just a reminder, claims are just that and the term “affair” would imply two willing participants. I would imagine it is up to the consenting adults to decide if it is indeed degrading. If Hillary Clinton can move beyond this, than so should everyone else. Your comments are no better than a cheap tabloid. Bill Clinton as President was the only man that belonged to the people. Bill Clinton the husband is Hillary’s business and further demonstrates her strength and commitment. Another note, that type of behavior you mention, has been and will continue to be a part of the White House. Read your history. Not the dribble fed in public schools. Catch the real drama in legitimate history books. I would also say that a man or woman who is able to heal the rifts within their family has plenty of experience to begin healing the rifts within our nation and the globe.
I really do not see what difference her character or gender makes, just as the fact McCain is a mercurial half-deaf twit & GWB seems to speak some language other than English, these things are also irrelevant. Since when has a good character and common sense even been a prerequisite for political office? In fact I would say political office is prima facie evidence of bad character.
She is an evil power crazed thug like all significant politicians, so who cares if she cries or used her husband to make it in politics? How is that important? Can she be trusted? In a way, yes. I trust her to act like any Big State tax-and-spend politician and use the force of law to impose her will on others. The only difference is she will invoke different bullshit excuses to justify her actions than a Big State Republican would.
Sure, because understanding world trade, mass murderous dictatorial regimes and religious inspired terrorism is pretty much like forgiving one’s husband for getting a blow job from an intern.
Either hilliary or obama will open the gates of every terrorist prison around the world and these people will be walking every village, town and city in our Great Country. DO YOU REALLY WHAT THAT?
“Sure, because understanding world trade, mass murderous dictatorial regimes and religious inspired terrorism is pretty much like forgiving one’s husband for getting a blow job from an intern.”
Oh get over yourself. I was referring to a statement made. Perhaps looking up through that muck, you missed the quotation marks. They are those little things wrapped around that trash of yours above, that I’m sure you consider profound. I was not speaking to her entire background or qualifications. Of course down in that gutter of your’s, I can understand how that would have swooped right over your empty little head. Hillary’s qualifications speak for themselves. You might try having someone else speak for you. I’m sure they couldn’t do any worse.
Depends what you mean. It means they have to able to lead, to have principles that people can understand, be cool in a crisis, have a sense of humour, understand the limits of human action.
In short, I don’t care whether a leader is a woman or a man; what bothers me is what their governing philosophy is.
I am sure some people dislike Hillary out of anti-female prejudice, which is obviously wrong. But remember, HC played the victim card at times, and she also invited coimparisons with Thatcher during a speech a few weeks ago. That was what riled Andrew Sullivan, who is, after all, a guy who grew up supporting Maggie in the 1980s, as I did.
Heh, I was about to reply to the same paragraph, Albion!
But what if ‘your nation’ does not need ‘healing’? What if a whole lot of people do not want to be ‘brought together’? What if they would just rather be left alone with their disagreements and ideally just left the hell alone completely to make their own social commitments and relationships? As for healing the rifts around the globe, oh please, we are talking about who gets to be US President, not the second coming of some Messiah.
I had a not unrelated discussion with a member of the Democratic party in the USA who said he hoped “Republicans will try to put country before party and work with us if we take the White House”. My reply was that if they believe they are right, opposing policies they disagreed with was their duty, and collaborating with what they think is wring was actually a (very common) perversion of the political process. The value of unity is vastly over-rated
A winner in an election acquires the ability to control the collective means of coercion, that is all. It does not ‘heal rifts’, it just allows the political top dogs to use laws to compel people to do what they want them to do. Politics is a nasty business by design and describing it in flowery language is just an attempt to disguise what it is really about: force.
O.K. – Back to work! No need expect anyone who still backs this worthless administration of possessing any logical thinking ability. If you still believe the WORST possible president would be Hillary – you are the other idiot missing from a Texas village. Do any of you guys have a “real job” – lots of time to BS – (I am 66 – still work as Bookkeeper – at home) – REAL Men don’t spend their lives “Bitc—“!!!!
Denise, are you really under the impression many folks here like GWB? The fact the next crop will be more of the same is the really alarming thing.
The comparison between Hillary and Margaret Thatcher is ridiculous. Great Britain has had a female Head of State for the past 55 years and while as one in the 16th century so I doubt the gender bias toward Margaret was the same. The election process is also much different.
As far as Obama not being as much of a politician, please search Harpers November 2006 for the article, “Barack Obama Inc: The Making of a Washington Machine” before you make that judgement.
And keep in mind, that while he was doing all that, it took him 5 months after announcing his Presidency to finally figure out a Health plan.
I am so disappointed that women are holding Hillary to a standard higher than ANY previous candidate for any office in our country. Shrewd?…this is a liability? Cunning?..again, I’d like her in my corner. And, as for Obama being so farsighted as to be the “only” one that voted against the war…why, with all his “charisma” could he not move one other member of his party to vote with him? When and if he faces the leaders in the middle east, he will surely need the strength to move them off their steadfast and holding position.
I think he has the charisma of an “American Idol”, spending zillions of money that really could be used for a more practical purpose…so HE is not driven??? Ladies and Gentlemen…I think we’re watching the next AMERICAN IDOL PRESIDENT.
She’s not a saint, I don’t need a saint to move intelligently and work effectively in our country’s interest. I’m afraid the prejudice of our country runs strong and deep. They gave the vote to the Black man before they gave it to women.
What if….Hillary were a man? Ponder that!
I don’t think the fact that she stood by her sexual predator of a husband so as to further her political ambitions makes her much of a feminist role model. The fact that she wants power that much means that by definition she is unfit to have it.
For the record, I hate Hillary Clinton for who she is, what she stands for, what she has done in the past and will try to do in the future if elected. It has nothing to do with her gender or sexual preferences.
It still amazes me how so many “experts in all matters” can bad mouth those who chose to TRY and make a difference in this “man run” world, (which is by the way, already ship wrecked). One thing I know for sure, “That opinions are the cheapest commodities on earth”- Napoleon Hill. You have the right to express your feelings, but you don’t have the right to judge anyone. Those running for office are doing more than everyone writing these comments, they have the guts to TRY…
Hillary, evil, obviously you haven’t really looked at Obama… Hillary is a politican, thank God, someone who makes it their life work to do the job 99.99% of us wouldn’t touch with 100 foot pole.
When did the work politican and terrible become so aligned, Kennedy who Obama looks to was the ultimate politician, groomed in a die hard democratic machine, his years in the Senate were the “inwaitting time”.
Hillary, has learned the ropes of the Senate well and will forge alliances, how much will she get passed, hard to say, but I would bet my house it would be more than Obama, who speak with great poise and manages to say NOTHING!
If you don’t want another republican come 09 in the White House, you must vote for Hillary, Hollywood and the Press may adore Obama, but the Republicans will tear him up and spit him out.
Also, crying, I worked for Reagan and actors make the best presidents, Reagan would have used tears if the scene called for it, every person uses what they need to appeal to the idiot public that run like sheep after the flavor of the month.
Wake up America, and to you bloggers that advocate violence again women, I hope you get slapped or worse hard.
In that case she’d be something like Bill Clinton, and I hate that bastard too.
Hillary, evil, obviously you haven’t really looked at Obama… Hillary is a politican, thank God, someone who makes it their life work to do the job 99.99% of us wouldn’t touch with 100 foot pole.
When did the work politican and terrible become so aligned, Kennedy who Obama looks to was the ultimate politician, groomed in a die hard democratic machine, his years in the Senate were the “inwaitting time”.
Hillary, has learned the ropes of the Senate well and will forge alliances, how much will she get passed, hard to say, but I would bet my house it would be more than Obama, who speak with great poise and manages to say NOTHING!
If you don’t want another republican come 09 in the White House, you must vote for Hillary, Hollywood and the Press may adore Obama, but the Republicans will tear him up and spit him out.
Also, crying, I worked for Reagan and actors make the best presidents, Reagan would have used tears if the scene called for it, every person uses what they need to appeal to the idiot public that run like sheep after the flavor of the month.
Wake up America, and to you bloggers that advocate violence again women, I hope you get slapped or worse hard.
Are you some sort of cretin?
Perry, I think most of the pro-Hillary posters here are not regulars and given the timing and style of some of the postings, I think some of them may even be the same person.
Rich
Linda, having lived through the Thatcher administration, I can attest that the gender bias was as much if not moreso than Hillary is facing. It’s quite a different world now, female head of state or no.
Arent we all american men chuvinist pigs?? I feel that we should deport them to West Virginia where they keep women bare foot and pregnant all the time with no rights. Shame on this country for calling ourselves liberal and equal rights. We cant even digest a woman trying to become president where as the so called backward third world countries had women presidents and prime ministers for years. SHAME macho republicans and conservatives.
Wow. What’s brought out all the fanatical Hillary supporters?
There is a whole host of reasons why HRC is unfit for office; none of them have anything to do with her having a clitoris.
Firing the White House travel office staff so she could employ her cronies, and then trumping up charges against them, is one that hasn’t been mentioned yet.
Nor has the sudden finding of Rose Law Firm billing documents in the White House.
However, the policy question I’d like to ask her is if she would be be willing to work as a lawyer in a legal system structured the same way as “Hillarycare”. I can just imagine it now; “legal care alliances” with earnings caps and government quotas on how many people may practice what sorts of law….
My God!
the monstrous regiment of half-wits is doing some emoting over the Hildebeast. “Heal the World”. Perry, that’s not Messiah territory, it’s more Michael Jackson.
Don’t you lot get it? This is a libertarian site. We don’t want government to “try”. We want them to do less and less. and let people run their own lives.
That insoutherncal is why I’m warming to Obama. Precisely because the Republicans will have him for breakfast and then stack the bones in the shower.
And why do I detect mimophancy from the wimmin here? Oh they get all on their high horse when someone calls their Saviour Goddess “a bitch on wheels” but it’s OK to carp about the “ship-wrecked man-run” world. Jesus H Christ on biodiesel Segway… It’s not the 70s ya know and the time for shrill feminist hectoring is long gone. What you gonna do if the Wicked Witch doesn’t win, burn your bras?
insoutherncal,
Verging on incomprehensible more like. All very passionate and all that and then… you call the electorate “sheep”. Charming.
Singh, I have visited West Virginia and enjoyed the company of some of the very nice people there. You are a bigotted arse.
Rich
Interesting aside. Men advocate violence against other men all of the time, but when they do the same to women it’s sexist? That puzzles me somewhat.
The main qualification for a politician it seems, is to be a lawyer. Don’t we ALL have a certain disdain for lawyers? And yet we vote them into countless governmental offices as though they were fit for the job.
That’s what bothers me about Hillary Clinton is she’s a lawyer, that and the fact, she’s had eyes on this position of running the world since Bill got into office. IMHO it’s about power for her and may even be the reason she stayed with Bill after all the disrespect he demonstrated for their marriage. She wants the power…and probably had doubts of her ability to attain it without her hubby with her. Afterall, he is Bill Clinton. My guess is she would have disappeared into the etheral world of the unmemorable 1st ladies like the rest of them. My guess is that was the last thing she wanted.
If she gets the power, I just hope she knows what to do with it. She says the words, like all the candidates. How she performs is to be seen, just like the rest of them.
I’m not voting for her because I don’t trust her motivations for seeking this position of President. That she is or is not a symbol of feminism is so minor to me. But then again, I’m a woman and have a personal view of what feminism is and who does/doesn’t represent it.
If being a feminist is getting what you want and Hillary becomes President, then I guess we’re all gonna have to admit she’s a symbol of feminism…right, wrong or indifferent.
What a truly strange notion! Of course I (and everyone else) have the right to judge people based on their actions and statements (i.e. form theories about them: are they trustworthy? Are they vile? are they sexy? Are they dangerous? Are they stupid? These are all judgements). Everyone does that on a daily basis. And to be perfectly qualified to judge a politician, you do not have to be a politician, you just have to have lived under the rules made by politicians.
Well Perry, you and the others who want to be left alone and stay to your island are certainly welcome to try. The fact of the matter is, this planet is getting smaller everyday and your island is going to get absorbed whether you like it or not. The only distinction will be in the degree of comfort, dignity and our ability to maintain some semblance of personal autonomy. Resources are needlessly dwindling and we can try and take whatever we want right along with all the other shortsighted countries. That won’t replenish what there is. Obviously, because I’m not seeing a big increase or affordability in the oil or water.
In addition, power comes in many forms and is demonstrated in just as many. There are other ways of demonstrating strength besides whacking someone on the head. I am not comparing her to a messiah,don’t be ridiculous. The President of the United States has and can continue to make a significant impact through relationships with other nations. Do you think that’s just for money grubbing business’s that take jobs from our citizens and allow China to poison our children and pets?(just to mention a few) Many of us would prefer that the influence while strong, avoids the nastiness and animosity that you seem to revel in.
There is no “just leave me alone” option. Those days are long gone and all your wishing and hoping won’t change that. Too many feet stepped on all over the place for that now. Perhaps someone should have thought of that a long time ago. Now its open season for everyone at this rate. For as many people as there are that want to be left alone, there are just as many that realize there is more to it than that. My suggestion would be to go and seek that island cave and rejoice in your solitude for as long as it might last. As you can see, I’m trying to work on the flowery aspect of my tone. I also took in to consideration that really pertinent concern of paragraphs that I noticed in someone’s post. Apparently someone feels that makes what I have to say unreadable. And(yes, I started a sentence with the word and) just in case later down the road it reflects on a blog resume or something significant as that.
With regard to Mr. Sullivan’s poorly thought out comments on nepotism… We’ve had 2 Roosevelts, 2 Adams, and 2 Bushes in the White house. We almost had 2 Kennedys. I see nothing wrong with having a 2nd Clinton, especially one who can, and will, get our Nation back on track. Senator Clinton is definitely the one to clean up after Bush, including mending the fences with other nations that he so foolishly destroyed.
This article was a dreadful mishmash of (mostly) irrational thoughts… but at least Mr. Sullivan managed to put in a few worthwhile comments…
“She is an extremely intelligent woman, with a strong work ethic, an attention to detail, a passion for helping children, and a fascination with politics. She remains one of the leading lights in her generation.
A skilled, cautious, pragmatic and constituent-focused legislator, she began to build a Senate career admired by many.”
(Note: It would have been more accurate to say that “she BUILT a Senate career admired by many.”)
At a time when our country is in dire straits, and needs a leader with all of the above traits, Senator Clinton is ready, willing, and – most importantly – able! Her experiences gleaned from her career in the Senate, along with the experiences she acquired during President Clinton’s term in office, make her well prepared for the position.
Senator Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the position of President of the United States of America.
BTW – I am a 60 year old woman. I have no quarrel with “feminism”, however I believe all people should be judged on their merits, and only on their merits.
As for Obama… I was one of the many who believed his lie when he said he wanted to serve Illinois as our Senator. I took a chance and voted for him. Oops.
The Junior Senator had not gotten half way through his term before making it clear that his real goal was – and had been – the White House all along. I can not in good conscience trust anything he says.
“You have the right to express your feelings, but you don’t have the right to judge anyone.” BFL
Wrong. I have the absolute right to judge anyone’s actions, and by virtue of them to judge the person himself. Such judgment is nothing more than the culmination of formulating an opinion. What I don’t have is the right to force anyone to accept my opinions, or to force anyone to respect my feeling. Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten to the point that feelings are all that matter, and everyone’s feelings must be respected and coddled, no matter how silly. What abject nonsense.
Once again we feminists are suppose to allow a
man to define what a feminist is or isn’t!
I don’t buy Sullivan’s argument one bit! I
admire Hillary for the strong woman that she
is. She has lots of experience and tenacity! Obama
is an unknown and in tough times I choose a
known! My choice in candidates is not based on
gender or race!
Where are all these new readers coming from? This isn’t the usual commentariat!
With regard to Mr. Sullivan’s poorly thought out comments on nepotism… We’ve had 2 Roosevelts, 2 Adams, and 2 Bushes in the White house. We almost had 2 Kennedys. I see nothing wrong with having a 2nd Clinton, especially one who can, and will, get our Nation back on track. Senator Clinton is definitely the one to clean up after Bush, including mending the fences with other nations that he so foolishly destroyed.
This article was a dreadful mishmash of (mostly) irrational thoughts… but at least Mr. Sullivan managed to put in a few worthwhile comments…
“She is an extremely intelligent woman, with a strong work ethic, an attention to detail, a passion for helping children, and a fascination with politics. She remains one of the leading lights in her generation.
A skilled, cautious, pragmatic and constituent-focused legislator, she began to build a Senate career admired by many.”
(Note: It would have been more accurate to say that “she BUILT a Senate career admired by many.”)
At a time when our country is in dire straits, and needs a leader with all of the above traits, Senator Clinton is ready, willing, and – most importantly – able! Her experiences gleaned from her career in the Senate, along with the experiences she acquired during President Clinton’s term in office, make her well prepared for the position.
Senator Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the position of President of the United States of America.
BTW – I am a 60 year old woman. I have no quarrel with “feminism”, however I believe all people should be judged on their merits, and only on their merits.
As for Obama… I was one of the many who believed his lie when he said he wanted to serve Illinois as our Senator. I took a chance and voted for him. Oops.
The Junior Senator had not gotten half way through his term before making it clear that his real goal was – and had been – the White House all along. I can not in good conscience trust anything he says.
Finally,I am adding an additional comment about many of the posts on here that utilize such impressive justification for their presidential choices as “I hate” “that Bitch” and other such colorful, while definitely not flowery, phrases. I have not been pleased with our current administration and certainly aspects of every other one since the age of 14. Which has been a very long time. I can’t say that I hate or love any of them. I have not met with them personally and doubt very many if any of these posters have either. That is a lot of misplaced emotion to be using as a divining rod for voting. Perhaps more than anything, that is the reason why very little changes. If only prejudices and personal feelings are used to determine the worth of a candidate, this is nothing more than a personality contest based on perceptions. Let’s just slap a Miss America ribbon across them(no offense meant to beauty and talent contestants). I am considering both Republican and Democratic candidates. I’m doing so by their various contributions, histories in office, qualifications and philosophies presented. Combined with their ability to answer a straight forward question with a full answer, not a sound bite. I’m not naive enough to think that any of them can miraculously clean up the mess, but I believe enough in our system and our country to want to choose someone who will try their best. In addition to keeping all of the American people a priority.
I am disappointed to realize that this area is in a large part, no different from the trashy hatefilled AOL comment sections or the other comment areas on the web that do the same. I suppose it is just another reflection of our country. Hmmm..maybe I’ll take you up on that island concept. A safe quiet and secluded haven of joy, peace and tranquility. HAH..Not!!! I’m as Hard headed and stubborn as my girl Hillary. I will always fight the good fight! I’m off to a caucus. Peace Out!!
Gabrielle,
Libertarians aren’t hermits. Tell ya what. Why don’t you and all your interfering watermelon chums go off to a remote island and set-up a commune.
The rest of your comment is equally… er shite. I can’t be arsed. I really can’t. I’m off to consume some of those needlessly dwindling resources.
This comment thread is very strange, at least for Samizdata. I thought it was odd when Mr. Capslock started posting, but then Mrs. Blocktext paid a visit, too!
In my naivete, I had considered Samizdata a safe haven from this kind of thing. Oh well…
Gabrielle: please use paragraphs as your comments are almost unreadable, which is a shame as you have taken the time to write them.
Actually I am a cosmopolitan social individualist, profoundly anti-nationalist and very pro-globalisation.
Absorbed into what, exactly?
Oh that bit is really easy. Just stop voting for statist and collectivist politicians. Get them out of the way and it will do wonders for your personal autonomy.
So then commodity prices must be going up across the board long term then, eh? No? That’s right, they’re not because resources are not running out and when a given resource becomes in short supply, we find a substitution. I am a former commodity broker but anyone can understand that very long standing economic process (and how it drives technological progress) with just a little painless pondering of the world as it is today.
Oil is still in fairly abundant supply and there are already a great many alternatives to fossil fuel if the price gets high enough to warrant using them. Likewise there is NO shortage of ‘water’ (most of the planet’s surface is covered in it), just a shortage of energy… that is because you can use energy to turn just about any water into potable water. The solution to water shortages are purely technological, no need for a Socialist People’s Republic.
But that is not what YOU are talking about. YOU are taking about pure naked force when you say…
… what you are saying is that if I want to do business with someone, form a relationship with them without someone else deciding if I am allowed to or what form that relationship might take, you do not want me to be allowed to. You want to regulate what people do with violence backed politics. You want to replace ever more social interactions (such as me saying “will you give me a job under the following terms?”) with a regulatory political process, backed up by cops with guns enforcing laws, to decide what I am actually allowed to do with consenting others.
Force. People with guns enforcing laws. That is ALL you are about. The way you want to ‘heals rifts’ is to pass laws that make people do things in ways you approve of. When I say people “want to be left alone”, that does not mean people want to be alone or on their very own island, it just means that they do not want third parties such as Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Gordon Brown or Vladimir Putin or, well, you and your vote, interfering.
You say what I want is not an option. But you are very much mistaken, not least because of information technology and globalisation and the economic consequences of both.
Editors note: we always delete comments in all caps regardless of content as that is appalling netiquette.
60-year old Jen (or maybe 15 year old William) described Mrs. Rodham-Clinton as:
” … ready, willing, and – most importantly – able!”
William, dear, if you are going to impersonate a mature lady, please don’t use an expression which brings to mind Monica on her knees rather than Hillary on a podium.
I suppose writing this means the Clinton machine will send the IRS after me once Her Majesty has been crowned? Well, Gitmo should be available as a re-education camp for people like me once Mrs. Rodham-Clinton has set those people free.
Gabrielle,after thoughtfully reading your multiple posts. I sense your intolerence for any opinion other than your own. It makes one think you may have drank way to much of the coolade or you may be working for the Clinton campaign.
I will vote for Hillary because she is the best candidate. You cannot penalize her for being married to Bill…unless you penalize all the other candidates for the characteristics of their spouses. And if you did that, what a show that would be……
The road to the whitehouse has been traveled by many princely knights who promise new visions. And many political women, including myself, have had to pick up after them.
As for the tears, I would hope more male candidates would show some emotion. Maybe then they would stop using political power as an alternative therapy.
Joking right? All politicians are on a power trip. Every damn one of them. Some power trippers join the mafia, some join the government.
Yes indeed, hasn’t there been a shitstorm of unfamiliar voices tonight.
I put it down to what them yanks call
Stormy Monday!
Er Wet Wednesday?
No, I got it,
It’s Super Tuesday!
Well, is that an attack of the feminist monsters from space! Is it over yet?
Or not having one, as the case may be.
Mr. Sullivan is a great example of male chauvinism at its best! Did he really have to make it so obvious?? I should think that a man of your questionable intelligence might at least have used a bit more subtlety. Really, Mr. Sullivan … a member of a patriarchal society that once again tries to inhibit and condemn feminine emotions … (after instances too numerous to count … one of which includes the use of dispensing antidepressants like candy to women and children [who, by the way, also freely express their feelings until taught or forced to do otherwise!]) Perhaps you ought to examine your own need to suppress yours, Mr. Sullivan! Or perhaps you should tell us what purpose it has served to put your own right brain to a Rip Van Winkle sleep! You have insinuated that world leaders should withhold emotion and compassion … you mean … like the anger that George Bush displayed immediately following 911?? Or were you trying to say that anger is justifiable but crying is not?? What exactly were you trying to say, Mr. Sullivan??
And as for Hillary riding her husband’s coattails to power and position … for eons of time, men have ridden on the coattails of women who have serviced and supported them to positions of power … both in the business and political worlds and if nothing else, in their own little cave they call home. Feminists are for equality. Hillary is a prime example of equality then, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Sullivan?? You have failed to take into consideration that females may use different means than males but they can still get to the goal if you guys are not staunchly fortifying it with your arms! (No, not those attached to your hands!) So why would feminists (or any woman) even consider not supporting her … unless, of course, they want to be a man and invalidate and negate all emotion and service in favor of a pompous, hot air ego?? (not mentioning any names here … fill in the blanks on your own!)
As a Brit, who obviously doesn’t have a vote, nor gets the subtleties of American politics, three thoughts occur to me.
Christopher Hitchens in his book about Bill Clinton “No one left to lie to: The triangulation of William Jefferson Clinton” devotes an entire chapter to accusing Bill Clinton of being a serial rapist. Presumably, even in the States, despite your constitutional amendment protecting the freedom of the press, it would not be difficult to prevent such a libellous book being published, have the copies pulped if it did get published, and sue successfully for massive damages, unless, of course, the allegation has a kernal of truth, or at the very least he has something very dirty to hide. The conclusions that flow from that about Bill’s character and also about Hilary’s character, as she is after all still his wife, are pretty damning.
[Incidentally, if a major republican politician, or for that matter a major British conservative figure, was openly accused of rape, I could not imagine it being quietly dropped or forgotten about.]
Given that all the candidates are big government types and that the Zeitgeist has not changed against them, what does it matter which one gets elected? For me as a foreigner the most important role of the president is as de facto commander-in-chief of the West. Which candidate would most likely fulfill that role best? McCain, at least, fought in a war and spent years as a POW after being shot down. I suspect that would tend to make him treat making war with the full seriousness it requires, and where America was fighting to ensure that it did not resort to half measures.
The logic that better to lose this time, as then probably next time we’ll get a small government republican seems to me to be flawed, because it ignores the risks of intervening events, which can give opportunities to the incumbent or undermine the alternatives. Both the 1982 Falklands war for Margaret Thatcher and 9/11 for George W. Bush are examples of events unexpectedly strengthening the position of incumbent leaders. Of course, a war is not the only unexpected event that can have such an effect.
I despise emotional incontinence from anyone.
Because some women might find her nauseating and generally dislike people who advocate socialistic policies?
But he’ll keep us in Iraq for 100 years! Isn’t that going to be a wonderful century? I’ll bet that Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, or Romney would wimp out and only keep us in Iraq for 75 or 80 years.
Candice,
What are you on?
So women should always vote for a woman no matter what. How egalitarian of you.
Love the double “??”. BTW. Sweet.
Has this post been circulated to the DailyKos or something? It’s like the entire collection of batshit GROLIES who used hang around RAF Greenham Common have now decamped to Samizdata.
Christ, I thought some of Ron Paul’s supporters were beyond the fucking pale.
I stand corrected.
What have I got against Senator Clinton.
Her voting record.
The same thing I have got against Senator Obama.
O.K. Hillary Clinton may, or may not, have ordered various people killed and stuff – and Senator Obama was not high enough in the Chicago Democrat machine to be involved in stuff like that.
But I would be lieing if I said it was X, Y, Z tactics that have against Senator Clinton.
It is her voting record that I really object to – the rest of the stuff is just to use to turn voters against her.
After all what is Vince Foster, and a load of other mostly leftist people, to me?
Christopher Hitchens in his book about Bill Clinton “No one left to lie to: The triangulation of William Jefferson Clinton” devotes an entire chapter to accusing Bill Clinton of being a serial rapist. Presumably, even in the States, despite your constitutional amendment protecting the freedom of the press, it would not be difficult to prevent such a libellous book being published, have the copies pulped if it did get published, and sue successfully for massive damages, […]
-Otto
You are mistaken. In the US, public figures have less protection from defamation than ‘normal’ private citizens. It is not enough to show that the allegations are false, you have to show that the person spreading them knows them to be false, and is spreading them with malicious intent- a very, very difficult thing to prove. All Hitchens would have to do is give testimony to the effect that he believed the allegations to be true, and he’d be off the hook.
The usual approach public figures take to dealing with this kind of thing is ignoring it.
Nick M,
Johnathan used the trackback facility with his post and Samizdata is the first link after the Andrew Sullivan piece. This thread has seen the full, and misguided, affect of the Clinton Machine.
lAll the female cheerleaders for Hillary posting here are ugly and have thick ankles. I know because I’m psychic.
Jill wrote:
Except that back in 1992, we got a bunch of nonsense about how we should be thrilled to be getting “two for the price of one”. I didn’t like Bill Clinton back then, I don’t like Hillary now, and I don’t want either of them anywhere near the White House.
If I hate Hillary for the same reasons I hate Bill, do I hate Hillary because she’s a woman? Or maybe it’s because she’s black; after all, Bill Clinton was the first black president….
Come to think of it, this gets me into another of the things I can’t stand about the Clintons: perhaps even more than other politicians, they’re completely phony about the little things; things that are so obviously demonstrably untrue. (Remember Hillary’s idiotic claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite the fact that she was born six years before he conquered Mount Everest?) If they’re so phony and putting on a show about the little things, why on earth should we trust them to be honest about actual policy?
(By the way: is there a problem with the comments? This is the fifth time I’ve had to enter the security code; the site keeps claiming erroneously that I’m entering the wrong code.)
Jill wrote:
Except that back in 1992, we got a bunch of nonsense about how we should be thrilled to be getting “two for the price of one”. I didn’t like Bill Clinton back then, I don’t like Hillary now, and I don’t want either of them anywhere near the White House.
If I hate Hillary for the same reasons I hate Bill, do I hate Hillary because she’s a woman? Or maybe it’s because she’s black; after all, Bill Clinton was the first black president….
Come to think of it, this gets me into another of the things I can’t stand about the Clintons: perhaps even more than other politicians, they’re completely phony about the little things; things that are so obviously demonstrably untrue. (Remember Hillary’s idiotic claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite the fact that she was born six years before he conquered Mount Everest?) If they’re so phony and putting on a show about the little things, why on earth should we trust them to be honest about actual policy?
(By the way: is there a problem with the comments? This is about the tenth time I’ve had to enter the security code; the site keeps claiming erroneously that I’m entering the wrong code.)
Three gazillion sites on teh internets, and my ex-wife has to find this one.
Wow. Imagine the odds.
Alisa
Oh no you di-int! And you thought I was gross for bring up cannibalism!
Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you!
Bet you cant pee as high as me!
No man is an island.
He is a peninsula !
Y’know, the most amusing thing reading all these comments is how the usual commentariat at samizdata tends to fulfill both the feminist and MLKjr ideal of disliking Clinton and Obama on merit more than anything else. That and how much baggage the Clintonistas bring with them.
The “feminist” reaction to Sullivan reminds of something I read once, unfortunately I can’t remember where. Basically, it questioned the soundness of the “fellow traveler” relation between feminism and the male end of the homosexual movement. Mainly, if gay men reject women for sex, why not reject women period? Really, it was an amazingly chauvinistic piece, claiming that straight men only interact with women for sex and that gay men are blessed with both a sex partner and someone they can take seriously in conversation and ideas. I only bring this up because Sullivan is gay and being blasted by feminists for daring to have an opinion and expressing it in a forum read by people who are interested in what Andrew Sullivan has to say.
This has to be one of the funniest comment threads I have ever read in Samizdata! Having feminists dropping in is like releasing a baby seal in a tank full of sharks? Lots of foam and movement followed by a red cloud of entrails.
All this raw statism is driving me to tears …
“The fact of the matter is, this planet is getting smaller everyday and your island is going to get absorbed whether you like it or not.”
“Absorbed into what, exactly?”
The Collective of course. That dipchick is obviously an agent of the Borg.
Millie:
All of them? ISTR that Natalie Portman is a Hillary supporter too.
Actually, come to think of it, my ex-wife is a Hillary backer also. That fact alone almost makes me want to vote for McCain come November.
This is a pretty poisonous blog. The Hillary haters have done so much harm to our country that I might reconsider my support for Obama, out of sympathy for her.
Obama can reach voters Hillary can’t, including, of all people, and to my surprise, my 85 year old (Caucasian) Mom. That’s enough to tell me that Obama is strategiclly the best vote for Dems.
BruceM / Vancouver, BC / Canada (a better country!)
Sure, a place where exercising free speech gets you dragged up in front of a tribunal with a 100% conviction rate. I do not plan to be moving to Canada any time soon.