Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Who," not "whom."
Sorry, can't help myself.
I know, I know, up with whom I am difficult to put.
Or something.
To be fair to the former President and Senator Clinton, I think some of us merely want to step away from the anger that generation has for each other. I don't blame them, Vietnam is a great scar on our nation and it scarred that generation horribly. The hatred that seeped throughout the 1990's seethed through both camps. Republicans were particularly vile, even towards Chelsea Clinton who was a young child. But it all came down to the origin of their generational disagreement, which was Vietnam. Republicans supported the war, Democrats did not. We all know what happened, rioting, Kent State, Woodstock, etc. The animosity created at that time reared it's ugly head when Bill Clinton was elected. Why? Because he opposed Vietnam. Those folks on the right decided that was unacceptable in a president. From that point they could not let it drop and did everything they could to personally destroy the President. I don't remember people trying to personally destroy Ronald Reagan. They deliberately tried to split the country in two, so everyone could be on opposing sides and we could all get in on the fighting. Anyone see the Frontline documentary about Lee Atwater? It certainly hurt us as a nation. We are merely moving on from that era. Hopefully, we will leave the animosity for each other behind. We do need to concentrate on our economic and other international problems, but we won't respond well if we aren't all working together. Hillary Clinton is going to be a great SoS if that is what she wants. It will help us all. If we can't get along with each other, how can we expect the world to get along.
Barack is doing just fine. I am looking forward to seeing his other picks.
I didn't read a certain poster's post before I wrote to you; actually, did read, didn't connect.
Emily Latela (sp?) moment...never mind.
what if obama considers selecting her and then she and her team start to selectively leak information out in order to pressure him to give her the spot because otherwise it would create a huge crack in the newly energized democratic party and make his actual first choice look like an also-ran?
i was actually behind the idea of h. clinton as the secretary of state until it became obvious no decision had been made and that the clintons were using power moves by utilizing the suckers in the media to push their agenda. very similar to the way they tried to twist her arm to pick her for VP.
i should point out that i'm a new yorker and voted for her for senate twice and would happily vote for her again for senate. but i am getting very very tired of the drama the clintons carry with them and their underhanded moves.
Right 'Nancianne' -- because a woman is only her husband's baggage. To see a woman as having separate achievements must surely pale to the sheer glee of continuing to punish Bill Clinton.
I was hoping for Bill Richardson or Susan Rice would be the one to fill that spot or maybe even John Kerry, I'll wait and see. I will trust him to be right as he has proved to be so far.
But it's hard to tip toe around such an ancient as Hill.
Dynasties DO exist in America
Just ask Alexis Carrington.
If you will look at Nancianne's previous posts here at Salon, you will see that almost every single one of them is an anti-Hillary rant that connects Hillary inexorably to her husband as if a woman as accomplished as Clinton simply cannot have an identity or achievements of her own.
Moreover, these are short, hit and run attacks with no analysis. Just rants.
I consider women who consider other women to be mostly connected to their husbands rather than looking at them individually to be a particularly anti-feminist sort of women. Now, of course, these women will tell you that they would be oh-so-thrilled to see women in power who have gotten somewhere without that connection -- ignoring the fact that women my age often had little choice to achieve entirely on our own given sexist barriers -- however, strangely, they never actually support those women who might have a chance of achieving power anyway.
Women must always be senators and not Secretary of State. They must always be Secretary of HHS rather than president. They must always work on some sort of "feminine" role like health care but not foreign policy. Then if they do have true foreign policy achievements in areas that relate to issue concerning women and children -- those achievements are denigrated as not true foreign policy achievements since they didn't involve moving armies.
Work with women and children is denigrated as less important -- ignoring the fact that women are over half the population of the world.
With the Nanciannes women who actually stand a chance of realizing the dreams of true female empowerment will always be subject to some nitpicking criticism.
If black people had treated Barack the way that women (the Nanciannes) have treated Clinton, he wouldn't be president.
To paraphrase a certain feminist writer, I'll bet many people voted for Barack Obama not because he was black but because they were. In other words, they thought of their own best interest. There's not a damned thing wrong with that. Even I had tears in my eyes at the election of our first black president. It is of great historical significance.
However, let us not overlook how many votes that Hillary Clinton got from women because they voted for the interests of women as being important to them.
Have you ever heard Condi Rice tout her feminism? No. And you won't either. Because the welfare of women world wide means nothing to her. Where is her leadership on the situation in the Congo, where women, after being raped as an act of war have hot stones put in their vaginas to cause pain and fistulas?
You will never hear a serious outrage from Condi Rice on this.
Our Secretary of State should consider the role that she has to play in the way women are treated world wide.
"Women's rights are human rights."
Hillary Clinton said that.
I think she would be a great SoS. I think she and Obama are quite close on foreign policy. Moreover, with his backing, hers is a voice the world would listen to.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
