Politics at the nail salon, or on why Clinton's impeachment matters in '08

Your lady in the nail salon is right. It's not about whether she is a woman. It's about what sort of person she is.

Personally, I didn't mind her standing by her man who was being accused of getting a blow job outside of marriage. It wasn't the first time for either of them.

What I objected to, and still do, is her standing by her man as part of the process of getting herself where she is today. And being willing to say anything to make this happen.

That's the way she strikes me -- as a long-term seeker after power for its own sake, just another pol, and it does not matter what her gender is.

And, no, I would not like to have a mangotini with her.

Nance

A girlfriend I've had for 50+ and a liberal feminist is still livid she didn't leave Bill. We talk about it, and both agree we won't support or vote for her but for different reasons.

I'm incensed over her vote but even moreso because she refuses to admit her mistake and the whining tone her campaign has taken because they are 'sick and tired of being asked about it at every campaign stop.' Give me a fucking break, buck up and answer the damned questions.

So let me ponder this a moment, she stands behind her vote to go to war because she wants to appear strong on national defense and she acts like a weenie and pouts because she doesn't want to talk about the circumstances of the impeachment.

I'm equally pissed off at her for her statements recently about unitary executive power as if it's her goddamned privilege to step into that power when she should be saying no president has the right to such wide sweeping power.

AND, her constant pandering to the rightwing of BOTH parties about abortion. Standing next to the reverend stating it's tragic and horrible and should be rare when it's already so fucking rare it's only accessible in 13% of the counties in this country with no funding except by groups whose sole work it is to raise funds to pay for as many as they can for women and young girls who wouldn't be able to get one any other way.

I'm disgusted by the whole leadership of the Democratic Party. I drew my line in the sand last January when they didn't feel the fucking need to prepare for the Alito confirmation hearings but at least I have Boxer on the side of women.

It's not easy being a woman in this day and age in this country. It would have been really nice if a woman was running and stood side by side with women, who made our rights and issues the cornerstone of their campaign, who showed everyone else that the elephant in the room is the care crisis that has been going on for forty years.

Imagine, a woman standing proud to be a woman, one that inspired and empowered women, who spoke to us and let us know that our time had come, that women who had been shushed and cast aside for decades matter, and who would be a beacon to our daughters and granddaughters that anything is indeed possible.

Instead we have a woman who believes showing strength comes with a refusal to say she made a mistake, a woman who believes the terrorists are over there when the real terrorists for women are all too often sitting across from us at the dinner table or lying next to us in bed, that terrorists rape us in our dorm rooms and wait for us in parks and subway stations.

Why is it so difficult to get it, that the people we fear most are those that walk the same streets as we do. Why is it so hard to say they will stop this war against us here now?

Why couldn't a woman running for president say those things? WHY?

I think part of the problem with Hillary, as evidenced by the above posts, is that she is so associated with her husband that some assume she owes her whole career to him. She does not. She had been an attorney on the House Watergate Investigation commitee. There was a time later in Arkansas, when she was the young radical feminist lawyer who made waves in the conservative community by setting up a legal aid clinic for poor and indigent, primarily black, people who couldn't afford lawyers otherwise. When she heard some of the horror stories from abused and raped women she was representing pro-bono at the clinic, it caused her and a fellow female lawyer to set up Arkansas' first rape crisis hotline. She was appointed by the Carter Administration as a result of her pro-bono work to the Legal Services Corporation, and later confirmed by the Senate to run it.

And do you know what she did once while chairing a board meeting in D.C. of the Legal Services Committee? (this is in Gail Sheehy's book), she took time out to breast feed her child. Doesn't sound remarkable, except that women didn't do that in public that much then. Just being seen breast feeding at that time was enough to get you portrayed as a radical. Hillary was an advocate for women being able to breast feed in public. She was first lady of Arkansas and a federal official and she was breast feeding. Radical right?

Hillary was well known in Arkansas as a feminist radical. It is part of why she kept her own last name when she got married. Bill's political career in this conservative state could have been hurt by too much association with this radical feminist lawyer doing all this pro-bono work, rape hotlines .etc They were both well known in Arkansas, but people didn't know they were married because she kept her name. Until Bill became governor. Then it became this huge issue when Bill lost his re-election bid in part (according to Sheehy's book and Hillary's book) because his gop opponent blasted hillary for not taking her husband's name, and said she was disrespecting her husband. She wanted to be respected as her own person by reputation and not be her husband's wife. But she was pressured into taking his name when he ran for governor again, because she was told that he wouldn't win if arkansas voters think you are a radical feminist and not a homemaker.

The point is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is/was a deeply committed progressive feminist. She was before she ever met Bill Clinton and she doesn't owe her career to him. Which is why it puzzles me that feminists on this board and elsewhere want to turn away from her candidacy and support a male candidate, Edwards, whose campaign manager (former congressman david bonior whose positions are well known) is staunchly pro-life. And why? Because she decided to stay married to a philandering husband. Why is his philandering often seen as more HER fault than his? Bill Clinton could get re-elected president if he was constitutionally allowed to run again. People love him even if he did commit adultery. But Hillary, the jilted woman who took her man back, oh they HATE her. I think it is a double standard.

This is the first time in our nation's history, and who knows when it will happen again, that a woman, a progressive feminist woman, has a real chance to be president. Yet it is progressives and feminists who don't want to look at her own past, her determination to keep her name and be her own person, and see her as one of their own. They want instead to villify her as her husband's power-hungry wife. It is really not fair. I can honestly say that if you met Hillary in person in a non-controlled setting, as I have, you would see that she is a really intelligent, engaging personality, a person of deep thought. But most people unfortunately won't get that chance, because Hillary exists in a bubble, she can't step out the door unless she's surrounded by a dozen secret service agents. Do you know many death threats she's had, in particular since she's started her new campaign? Here's a woman trying to be a leader and she's as villified on the left as she is on the right. I think people just are not comfortable with women having power, seeking power. I think it is going to take a strong woman to ever get elected president for all the villification she is going to be put through. Hillary is that person. Here's a woman whose family life has been torn apart by the media, who hasn't had any privacy in a long time, who has had perfect strangers analyzing her marriage as if it were their business. And all those death threats. Yet she is running for President. She wants to go back to the white house and have her personal life targeted for another eight years. I don't think she could or would do that, put herself and her family through that again, unless she loved her country and saw herself as the first woman with a profile high enough, and experience and stature, to be its leader.

An awful lot of assumptions. My distaste for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. I also am well aware of what she has done in the past, I know about her history as a feminist, I know about Arkansas and her work as an attorney. I also remember, quite well as many people have, the enormity of the VRWC against her and her husband.

That is all more reason to be disillusioned by her now. It's especially heartbreaking because of who she has been in the past, what she has gone through, why she is wrong to be pandering to the rightwing of BOTH parties.

It's also because she's the first woman to run, because she doesn't stand up for women's rights, she refuses to say how much ground we've lost in the past six years, she refuses to even acknowledge that the gains over the past forty plus years have been nominal at best, that women's equality is still very sorely lacking.

That's why I won't support or vote for her, it has nothing to do with her being the wife of anyone, it's because instead of standing up for a woman's right to choose she stands shoulder to shoulder with organizations like Democrats for Life, she stands on a pulpit with preachers preaching to their flock about how horrible and tragic abortion is and she joins right in.

You obviously have great admiration for Hillary Clinton, I too have been in a room with her, she is bright and witty and intelligent but she does not have women's backs now, she may have in the past but the past is no longer relevant, she doesn't have our backs NOW and that's why I will not support or vote for her.

I think there are still a lot of people in this country afraid of the idea of women in positions of great power. This is a traditionally white male dominated society, and some people just won't react well to those who attempt to change traditions. Hillary wants the power and she is villified for it, more so than any man who tries for power. She is not playing the traditional role for women and people hate her for it. Just as she was villified when Bill fooled around, because she was traveling around the world meeting heads of state instead of being at home in the White House servicing her man. Face it, that is what some people thought.

I think the only way we overcome these fears is to face them head on. The time has come in this country to fully get past america's long racist and sexist history. People in this country would be comfortable with John Edwards as President, because he is the traditional wasp male politician. He can be president and people can be safe with their fears, their phobias about sex and race, in the closet. But elect Hillary, a woman, or Barack Obama, a black man, and that changes everything. If either of them is nominated, things are going to get really ugly in the general. Because people won't be able to contain their fears. Those fears, those prejudices will be ripped out into the open. Which is good. Which NEEDS to happen before those fears and prejudices can be dealt with.

Electing Hillary or Obama not only enfranchises so many people in this country who have never seen one of their own be our President, but it eliminates the comfort level that racists and sexists have. Hillary is the favorite right now to get nominated, and so those who fear a woman in power the most are coming out of the closet. So she gets all these death threats while the other candidates do not. These death threats are from people desperate to not be forced to confront their fears. I want them to face their fears! I don't want to give them another white male leader so they can feel safe in their closet. The time has come to get past such fears and prejudices in this country.

So I think nominating Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, one of the two, is the most important thing the Democratic Party can do. It is more important even than winning the election. I think Walter Mondale accomplished as much just by the act of making a woman his runningmate in 1984 than he could have if he had actually gotten in office. It was a bold act of enfranchisement. But this time it would be a hundred times greater because it would be the top of the ticket! I remember Jesse Jackson running in 1984 and how it enfranchised african american voters just seeing him up there on stage debating with the big guns. Jesse too accomplished more just by the act of running than any of those candidates could have done by winning.

If we can confront racism and sexism in this society,and help drag it out of the closet and into the open, by having a fine female candidate and a fine black candidate, and nominating one of them to be President, it would be a great thing. Something I'd be proud to say I saw in my lifetime. I want it to happen and I think it is more important than one vote a few years ago or the fact that age fifty nine, Hillary might not be quite so militant on feminist issues as she was as a young woman. Certain things are more important.

To you-m?
Or to all those "some people" you invariably offer as the reason why the rest of us need to do it your way? (are you a white male, btw?)

Here's an online link on Hillary and death threats and her secret service detail being dramatically increased. The exact story I read is offline but this one is close enough:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/12/94931.shtml

Also since the sentence I typed, "I think there are still a lot of people in this country afraid of the idea of women in positions of great power.", I believe it is clear I am expressing my opinion and only my opinion. Do you disagree with it?

Here's an excellent article by chris bowers, linked by ben smith on his blog at politico.com, about the anti-hillary deal:

[b]"Anti-Hillary" Concept Deeply Flawed
by Chris Bowers, Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:18:09 PM EST

The concept of an "anti-Hillary," the emergence of a single candidate to emerge as Clinton's main opposition in the Democratic primaries, is deeply flawed. In fact, when it comes to people are themselves "anti-Hillary," and thus more interested in seeing anyone but Clinton win the Democratic nomination, the concept / strategy is ultimately self-defeating. This is for two primary reasons:
Hillary Clinton is the clear second choice for supporters of every single candidate in the field right now. The removal of any candidate from the field thus strengthens Clinton's position in the Democratic primaries.
Hillary Clinton is extremely popular among the Democratic rank and file. The only way to defeat her is to have someone who is a more preferable choice, not someone who is merely an acceptable alternative. Democrats overwhelmingly like Clinton, and as such are only going to turn to other candidates they like even more, not other candidates they dislike less.
These two principles combine together quite nicely to explain why the "anti-Hillary" concept is actually not harmful to Hillary Clinton at all. If Clinton is weakest when more candidates in the race, and if the only way to get Democrats to turn away from her is for the rank and file to like other candidates more, then it stands to reason that the more candidates who are in the race, the more possible ways there are for Democrats to find a preferable alternative to Clinton. It is in this way that Clinton's biggest threat comes not from a single "anti-Hillary," but rather from an expanding top-tier that includes as many strong candidates as possible.

The many idiots in the netroots who engage in Obama-Edwards flame wars need to realize this. If either Edwards or Obama is severely weakened, Clinton's position becomes all the stronger. It is in this way that both Edwards and Obama need the other candidate to remain strong in order to have any realistic chance to win the nomination. As long as Edwards and Obama supporters attack each other online, they are doing nothing but weakening themselves. In fact, both candidates would be strengthened by the emergence of Richardson, or any other non-top tier candidate for that matter. The more alternatives Clinton has to fight off, the more difficult it will be for her to secure the nomination.

Some of you are probably quite skeptical about this, so let me offer what I believe to be conclusive proof. Consider, for example, the CNN poll from mid-January that conducted a national Democratic trial heat, and allowed people to give their second place choices. This allowed them to show the national picture should any single candidate leave the field. Check it out:
With all candidates in the picture, Clinton led Obama and Edwards 34-18-15.
Without Gore, Clinton's lead increased to 37-18-16
Without Kerry, Clinton's lead increased to 36-18-16
Without Obama, Clinton's lead increased to 41-18 over Edwards.
Without Edwards, Clinton's lead increased to 39-21 over Obama
Clinton took the lion's share of second place votes from every other top-tier candidate in the poll. We saw exactly the same result in the much more recent Cook / RT Strategies poll, where once again Clinton's lead increased when either Edwards or Obama was removed from the equation. And, once again, we saw this last night in the recent ABC-WaPo national survey when Clinton's lead went from 12 points with Gore, to 16 points without Gore. Every single shred of evidence points to Clinton being the leading second choice candidate among supporters of every single other candidate in the entire field. Thus, removing any candidate from the field, or even weakening any other candidate in the field, strengthens her hand, because those supporters who move to Clinton before they move anywhere else. If you can't see that, then you are just blind to the existing data.

Hotline on Call is just flat-wrong when they surmise that Clinton's camp would be pushing a Gore run in order to strengthen Clinton. Clinton's camp isn't stupid, and they wouldn't be doing something that would hurt their chances. Pushing Gore into the race would do just that. Removing Gore from the equation has helped Clinton in all polls over the past couple of weeks, just as removing Kerry from polls has helped Clinton everywhere over the past five weeks. Not many Democrats dislike Clinton. According to Pew, only 15% would not consider voting for her in a primary, and according to Gallup her favorables among Democrats are a whopping 87-10. There is no way to beat Clinton just by trying to lower her favorables among the rank and file and then having all the anti-Clinton voters fall into line behind a single candidate. In fact, and I write this as someone who does not want to see Clinton win the nomination, that is about the worst strategy I can think of to try and defeat her in the primaries.

Clinton is only going to be defeated when Democrats turn to different options they prefer, not to a different option as the lesser of two evils. The vast majority of Democrats may like Hillary Clinton, but there is a sizable percentage who are starting to like Obama more (apparently concentrated within young people, African-Americans, progressives, and the netroots). The vast majority of Democrats may like Hillary Clinton, but there is a sizable percentage who like Edwards more (apparently concentrated within southerners, rural voters, conservatives and the netroots). The vast majority of Democrats like Hillary Clinton, but there could be lots of Democrats who might like Bill Richardson better if they got to know him (possibly concentrated among westerners, Latinos, libertarians, and those who crave experience). It is only when there are numerous candidates picking off numerous potential locations of support from Clinton will she become truly vulnerable, and no longer viewed as something close to the presumptive nominee. And then, when the other candidates are given just as much face time and taken just as seriously, everything will change in the race.

The entire concept of the "anti-Hillary" in another example of lazy, inaccurate thinking cooked up inside the beltway (an all-too common flaw for Hotline). The idea that Clinton's camp would be pushing Gore to join the race is just as preposterous as the notion that the media focus on a supposed two-way race between Clinton and Obama actually helps Obama. The race was far more competitive, both nationally and in early states, back in January when the media saw a three-way competition between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Remember back when Obama was leading in New Hampshire, Edwards was up double digits in Iowa, and some national polls showed a race within the MoE? I do, because it was only six weeks ago, but that time sure has faded fast. I hope that the many anti-Clinton people in the netroots will wake up, and stop swallowing the stupendously inept D.C. conventional wisdom on the "anti-Hillary." And I certainly hope that the supporters of Edwards and Obama online can learn that tearing each other down will only lead to weakening yourself. If anything, you should be building each other up, because it is the only chance you have to win this thing. [/b]

Wallner, as I mentioned to HillaryBot Francis, you people have a disconcerting habit of making your "arguments" with right-wing sources, in your case, newsmax.com. I've personally gotten them to retract stories in the past, and anyone who uses them to make an argument should be shunned by real Progressives.

But as far as Obama-Edwards flame wars are concerned, yes, absolutely: a waste of time. Which is one reason why your constant unsourced attacks on Edwards are so grating. You HillaryBots just spew filth at real Democrats, hoping some of it will stick or at least confuse; that's a tactic your spiritual godfather Karl Rove would like, but its use by so-called Democrats is deplorable.