You could do a hell of a lot worse for a president.
I’m a Barack supporter but for Christ’s sake, some people need to get some perspective. She isn’t evil incarnate. Every breath she takes isn’t calculated for political effect. If it was, she wouldn’t be so bad on the stump. My take on the “moment,” was that she was exhausted and got a little verklempt for second. She got past it. It wasn’t very pronounced. She never actually cried and it was obviously not staged. I don’t believe she became an Acadamy Award caliber actress overnight (to stop just short of tears, and then get control…that takes chops. Bill could probably do it. Hilldog, no way). She kind of had me and then lost me when she went back to rolling for hit points against Obama. I don’t think that was calculated, though, I think she tried to go back “on script” as a defense mechanism and it just came off as spoiling the moment. She’s not a natural politician. She steps on her own dick a lot. She’s not charismatic or electrifying, but she’s also pretty smart and pretty prepared and pretty competent and she would be a gigantic improvement over the last 8 years.
I think she gets bashed for crap that male politicos don’t. Male politicians never get called “calculating.” They get called “politically savvy,” or “shrewd.” They use “strategy,” Hillary uses “tactics” and “angles.”
Hillary is “nasty” and “mean” and “cold.” What is Giuliani, Captain Kangaroo? Is Bush warm and cuddly? Is McCain? Is Fred Thompson?
Hillary is [shudder] “ambitious.” This one is particulary stupid. People have been snotting behind their hands that Hillary wants to President for almost 20 years now. So what? Doesn’t everyone who runs for Presidenbt want to be President? Aren’t they all “ambitious?” What’s wrong with being ambitious? What’s wrong with wanting to be President and working towards that goal? Isn’t that one of the greatest things about America, that anybody can be President? Why is it so sinister if a woman wants it?
Assholes are going to Hillary rallies and yelling shit like “iron my shirt.” What the fuck is up with that? I believe there is an underlying misogyny to the Hillary hatred that makes me want to see her get elected just to stick in the faces of assholes like that.
I think I’m rambling, but my underlying point is that her little moment the other day was not staged and calculated, she’s not soulless she-demon and she would restore some basic competence and ethos (or at least a normal state of tolerable incompetence and corruption) to the white House regardless of her personality flaws. She’s not that bad.
And just think of how great it would be to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly the day after HRC got elected. The anguish it would cause to the righties would make her election worth it, even if she turns out to suck at the job.
Everything you say about misogyny is absolutely right, and it affects all women politicians. More than one politician has been called a shrill, domineering harpy for behaviour which, if she were male, would be called leadership and forcefulness.
Look. I will not vote for the woman under any circumstances. You can write that up to my own personal bias if you like, but once you get past the knee-jerk revulsion there is one simple fact that you have to come to grips with: the Republicans will not deal with her. Obama hasn’t had the chance to accumulate the baggage that Hillary Clinton has with the public, and more importantly the opposition party. Without their cooperation she hasn’t a chance in hell of accomplishing anything. Obama is a bit of a wild card and is far more charismatic, and thus is more likely to get stuff accomplished.
Electing Hillary is inviting 4 to 8 years of gridlock and bitter, bitter partisanship, far more so than what we have now. That may appeal to some, but not me. Add to that my disgust with the idea of Imperial Presidencies, where it’s the same families over and over again running the show, and she will never get my vote. We need, nay, we deserve some fresh, unencumbered people. Obama is that guy. Elect the man.
Like I said, I’m an Obama supporter but it isn’t entirely true that she can’t work with Republicans. She actually has been able to do that in the Senate.
Sure, but she’s one of a hundred. If you can’t get her you get around her. As President she doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting her major initiatives enacted without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, unless she wants to play parliamentary games that you might remember the Democrats not being too keen over when they were the minority party.
I don’t see the Senate in particular dealing with her in any way resembling cooperation on any of her initiatives.
Though to be fair to myself “brutish” is probably not the best male anology to “shrill” that matt_mcl said. Maybe “bellicose”? And to be fair to you, maybe you only meant American politicians.
Well said Airman Doors. (correct me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t you say you got promoted to Tech Sergeant recently? Shouldn’t you maybe update your handle?:)) .
If we’re going to just have “more of the same” in Washington, whats the point? I’m sick of it, and my confidence in the government has never been lower. I guess I’m a pessimist though, but I’m almost certain we’ll elect the worst person for the job anyway. Heck, we did it in 2004.
Yeah, but they’re accusing him of war crimes. A woman politician can get called “shrill” for refusing to allow a cabinet minister to call her “baby” on the floor of the House of Commons.
My point wasn’t that male politicians never get insulted, obviously. It was that female politicians get insulted for behaviour that would be lauded in a male politician.
I don’t think it’s a question of men needing to be called something similar, it’s that something that would be seen as normal advocacy for an issue in males gets demeaned as “strident” and “shrill” in women.
Men (and I’m talking about US politics here) can get called “dictatorial,” (a word I’ve heard for Rudy) maybe or perhaps even “bullying,” but more often than not, they just get called “tough,” “hardnosed,” and the like. Even if they get called assholes (which obviously does happen), I still don’t think that’s demeaning or dismissive in the way that the pejoratives for women are. I think words like “shrill” demean the actual issues by treating them as if they are symptoms of a woman’s personality and that the woman herself is a problem, not the issue she’s advocating for.
You know, you can be opposed to Hillary Clinton and not be sexist. In fact, a feminist activist has just posted a column at Salon on why she still doesn’t support Clinton. Her reasons are similar to my own: Clinton is a world class panderer who never seems to be willing to take risks for what she believes in. Clinton supports an amendment to the constitution to ban flag burning, and she voted for the Iraq war. I think she made those votes because she was carefully trying to bolster her image as a moderate. I don’t want my president to proposed gutting the first amendment so she can appear patriotic enough. I don’t want my president to support war to appear tough enough. If one doesn’t have convictions when it is inconvenient, then one doesn’t have convictions.
Most imortantly, Clinton is the establishment. She is a legacy candidate just as surely as Bush II was.
I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t. Even the OP makes it clear in the 4th sentence of his post that he’s supporting someone else. But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the opposition to Hillary (like the “iron my shirt” taunts and accusations of shrillness) are rooted in sexism.