Letters to the Editor
-
Not Just Any Candidate
I'm so tired of being offered up candidates who can't find their own moral path with both hands. Just because Hillary lacks a penis doesn't make me any more inclined to vote for her; she's proven to be duplicitous, scandal-ridden, and apparently willing to pander to any group who will offer her a smidgen more power. In one sense, women are now equal to men -- we can offer up a candidate as bad as any of the men who serve. Does that make me want to vote for her, though? Hell no.
-M
-
Dukakis in Drag
Hillary has the personality of a bowl of room temperature day old oatmeal. She's Dukakis in a dress, with less experience and less personality. her nomination would be a trainwreck.
-
My nose is getting quite sore
From holding it when I vote. I'm getting a little tired of this whole attitude of "well, Politician X sucks, but at least he isn't Politician Y." If the John Kerrys and HRCs of the world know they can kowtow and pander to corporate interests, bigotry, the decimation of basic constitutional rights such as the First Amendment, etc., etc., etc., and we will still vote for them anyway, then how can we hope to make them change? A vote for a pro-war candidate is a vote for war, regardless of what genitalia the candidate sports. A vote for an anti-First Amendment candidate is a vote against the First Amendment, again, regardless of genitalia.
I wouldn't want someone to offer me a job solely based on the fact that I have ovaries, and I'm damn sure not voting for someone just for that reason. She wants my vote? She can EARN it, by claiming the liberal, progressive values this party USED to stand for. She can EARN it, by framing the debate herself, rather than scurrying after the GOP.
If she wants to pander, and try to make herself look as right wing as possible in a pathetic attempt to garner votes from a sector of society who would NEVER vote for her, well, then she can enjoy her time in the dustbin of history with other foolish politicians who went that route: John Kerry, I'm talking to you.
-
Let Me Get This Straight
If leftist women don't like Hillary Clinton's principle-free brand of centrist politics, it's because we neurotically can't accept a female candidate who doesn't precisely reflect our views? You talk like women are some esoteric special interest group that must learn to compromise. No thanks. We are fully 50% of the party and if we don't care for Hillary's politics, it's not because of displaced self-hatred. Women are grown ups with grown up political ideologies, and it's beyond condescending to suggest that we're treating the presidential nomination process like some kind of mean girl cat fight. Do I have to take Joe Liebermann in a skirt just because of the skirt? When rightist Republicans punish a candidate for swinging left, do you rationalize that as a neurotic reaction to some personal characteristic? Are you for real? Hillary most certainly is not me, and if I have to vote for her because she's the Democratic candidate, I'll do it while holding my nose. I've heard about enough from Rebecca Traister lately.
-
Real Deal
"With expectations so high, can the potential presidential candidate do anything but let women down?"
Good grief. Who would EVER as that question of men who seek higher office? Will John Edwards (Mitt Romney, et al) let MEN down?
-
silly speculation
Hillary will not be the Dem nominee in 08. you can take that to the bank.
Front runners for the D nomination don't get the job. At this point in the trail name recognition drives the relatively high poll numbers. But come NH and IA and Hillary's cold fish persona will play poorly in the retail politics of those states.
I recall Hillary giving a speech at UM law school in the summer of 91, ( I was older than my classmates and had spent a year as a congressional Fellow in Dc and knew how things really worked. Hillary comes in and gives this incredibly arrogant speech about how she knows everything. I all I could think was wait till you get there, you have no idea how things work. Well she not dumb and has figured out how to do things on the hill. but she'll still need a mega dose from the charisma-tron.
Put money on it. Hillary is going nowhere
-
Beautifully written...
...Rebecca. Why don't YOU run for president?
-
feminists?
did i miss something? why are calling jane fonda and nora ephron feminists and/or indicative of feminist thinking? and even if they are, why on earth do we care what they think? let's ask helene cixous, susan estrich, germaine greer, julia kristeva - you know, people who are informed and thoughtful on women and politics.
i don't want to be cruel but rebecca traister needs to take a women's studies class before she's allowed to write any more article on women's issues. seriously, i've seen this lack of understanding before in her writing.
-
re: concerned
concerned, I agree 100 percent with the point you're making, but I feel compelled to point out that neither Cixous nor Kristeva self-identify as feminists.
-
Senator Clinton would make a fine chief executive
There can be no question in anyone's mind that Hillary Clinton is not only perfectly well qualified to be president, but we would be on very safe ground to use superlatives in that category when speculating on her candidacy.
Now wouldn't that be a treat in any political season? The most qualified candidates seeking the job from any party? Dare to dream, from all parties?
Also on my wishlist, short of another talent of the magnitude of Bill Clinton to teach people, speak to people, about complicated issues in a manner that is both accessible and not condescending (and even inspiring), is a generation of office seekers who care less about achieving the office than having an honest airing of the issues of the day, pro and con. As ironic as it may be, GWB's appeal is folks identify him as a plain speaker, speaking his mind. Would it be possible for the Democrats to put up a plain speaker?
Character is an issue, but not the only issue. Who out there on the campaign trail is speaking their truth on an issue they care about deeply and speaking it plainly? Last I clearly remember was Howard Dean--and I'm loving the current incarnation of impassioned Gore on the environment and the Bush disaster. Yet, too many people were quick to accept a characterization of those guys as unbalanced. Kerry had the gravitas, the experience, the service record--and people wrote Gore or Kerry off as unelectable? There are plenty of us who are quite sure Gore actually won, never mind just the popular vote majority. And there's a fair number of us who suspect that but for out of control gerrymandering and voter registration irregularities, vote suppression, Kerry may have won also. The point is, Democrats have been nominating and voting for electable candidates.
Let's focus on what's important people. Qualified? HRC is. Plain speaking, she seems to have learned her trade and developed some bad habits. Maybe it isn't her time. Maybe she needs some more seasoning in the Senate to have the confidence to let it rip once again! And she doesn't have to agree with everyone on every issue to be the right person for the job... I'll vote for her when I am again convinced I'm hearing what she thinks and not what she thinks she needs to say to raise money.
BTW I totally disagree on the health care business. She may have lost that battle, but her testimony in front of Congress won her a lot of admirers left, right and center. She moved the debate on healthcare front and center. Her radical proposals of 14 years ago are a pretty moderate agenda these days.