Letters to the Editor
-
Imagine
Let's imagine Hillary was a man, Harold Clinton. Forget the powerful spouse, just focus on the issues. Harold Clinton is a New York Senator who is a moderate Democrat and believes everything that Hillary believes. Has the exact same voting record. Makes the exact same speeches (except, of course, instead of speaking as a woman, he speaks on behalf of his female constituents).
Would you like him? Would you think he was part of the problem, or the solution? And if he ran for president, what would you think about that?
-
Politics is always a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I read with dismay this article whose writer seems to assert the premise that a woman politician should be held to a higher standard than a male politician. When is the last time you were enthusiastic about a male policitician and expected him to fulfill all your fantasies? I have never felt that way. It is naive to think that any person running for office who is going to be successful will not appeal to all people of a certain category. All men do not support any one male candidate. Why shoulc a female be expected to appeal to all women. I learned this lessen in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro ran. I expected my Republic sisters to vote for her because I would have voted for a Republic woman candidate. The Republics that I knew then were all moderate by today's standards as was Ms.Ferraro. I suppose we should be happy that now feminists do not feel obligated to support a woman, but I am disappointed that we are not mature enough politically than to expect that the woman we support will be better than a man we would support. I,too, would support a feminist man over a right wing woman. I will support Hillary Clinton because I believe she represents my interest as a feminist Democrat better than any male candidate that I have seen. I heard James Baker quote Ronald Regan recently. Ronnie said he would rather get 80% of what he wanted than to go over the cliff flying his flag at full staff. Finally one thing Ronald Regan and I agree on. I would rather get 80% of what I want with candidate Hillary Clinton than jump off the cliff of pure feminism however that is defined.
-
WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE
I think your good article is naive in one, most important aspect: giving much cover or credence to deep leftwing feminists who feel she's betrayed them ie. Susan Sarandon, Nora Ephron. As a woman, Hillary Clinton is trying to invade the inner circles of government by taking a broad middle tack. You think she's smart? That is smart. What comes later, if she's elected, is to be revealed. Besides, George tried masquerade successfully. Why shouldn't Hillary?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
You know what, Rebecca?
Feminists will never get away from that "hirsute spector" until writiers like YOU stop waving it in people's faces. Every time a journalist of any stripe brings back that tired old cliche, folks who might have been content to relegate it to the dustbin of history are once again reminded of the Horrid Crone Demon Of Feminism. Thanks so much for the favor!
And that particular stereotype (how charming that a writer so "against prejudice" is still happy to box feminists in this way!) is actually apropos of nothing, since physical appearance has nothing to do with one's thoughts, beliefs or aspirations. Or at least, that's what Salon would have us believe, isn't it? After all, how often do we see articles on this website that decry the use of stereotypes, and that point the finger at people who JUDGE OTHERS ON THEIR LOOKS?
And yet here is a frequent contributor to Broadsheet making exactly the same kind of stereotypical judgment on people just because of their looks. And don't tell me, "Oh, I'm just saying that because it's what they think!" Bullshit. The way to put a bad image to rest is to STOP USING IT, not to bring it up every time there's an opportunity.
You're not doing anybody any favors here, Rebecca, so just cut it out.
-
Great article
Great piece, Rebecca, very balanced. A much better read than a nitpick of the Sunday NY Times.
Personally, I like Hillary, but my view is muted by her flaws, which are really apparent. I've never understood why she provokes such strong reactions.
-
...and as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned...
...when she stops her pandering to the right on the subject of Iraq, I'll consider voting for her. I may be a feminist, but I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone based on the shape of the genetalia involved. I'm one of those (see above) that believe a candidate's stand on the issues is what counts, not gender or race or anything else of that nature. I'd much rather vote for a man who I believe will run things in a way I agree with, rather than for a woman who I suspect will bend with whatever direction the prevailing political wind is heading towards.
-
PR
One of the things I keep wondering about... is it that so many people (myself included, although in a really minor way) are lukewarm on Hillary due to real thoughts, or due to the MSM's love of doing that for us? Maybe it's some kind of odd feedback loop. If you think about it, the best thing the right can do, if they are seriously worried about Hillary, is to make us think less of her.
Sort of like W's "he's a nice/friendly/upfront guy" thing. The MSM mentions it, says Gore/Kerry isn't, people believe & repeat it, the MSM sees that & reports it, more people believe it, etc. The Faux News effect would likely be a major contributor to this effect. It's hardly an unknown phenomenon. Just get someone like Rove et al to start the ball rolling, a big enough megaphone & it's perceived as true.
I admit that with Bill I wasn't too crazy at first, but more or less warmed up to him. I was more happy that a Dem was in the WH when he got in than anything else - I'm sure I'd feel the same way. Otoh, I still generally liked the guy.
The big diff for me is that now I'm 40, and then I was 26. A good portion of it is due to W & the neocons, but I'm definitely more cynical than I was then. I can't/won't let that get in the way, but then again I was also not as active politically either (and aware of the skullduggery & nastiness that happens even under the watches of the best).
I wonder if my evil twin on the right goes through the same thought processes? "Bush seems ok, but when's he going to do something about the gay/liberal/feminist/FSM menace? Ah well, better him than some lefty".
S/he'll say that when surrounded by other righties, but when s/he meets me, s/he'll be all smiles & totally supportive of W.
And so will I for Hillary, when she gets there.