Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President

Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President

By Gerald Collins
May 24, 2006 | Issue 42•21

I think it's about time we had a female president of the United States. I don't care what anyone says: Women can be just as smart and qualified as men—especially the clowns we've had in Washington lately. But Hillary Clinton? She's just a little too ambitious to do what no woman before her has ever done.

Hillary seems to think she knows what our country needs better than anyone else, and believes that she, among the hundreds or thousands of qualified politicians, is the only one who can do it. Is that really the sort of person we want at the helm of our federal government?

Not to mention that she's extremely self-promoting. She spends almost all her time these days going to fundraising events dedicated to raising money for—you guessed it—Hillary Clinton. She's always popping up in the news with a new initiative she's spearheading or some kind of complaint against the president. I don't want to use the B word, but she seems awfully bossy to head an executive branch that employs 450,000 people.

Sen. Clinton always wants to be throwing her opinion around about this bill or that law. I saw her on Meet The Press just last week. Every time Tim Russert would take her to task on one issue or another, she'd come right back at him with some sort of smart answer. She needs to learn that sometimes you need to just accept your place; it's not polite to always act like you know things. Not to mention the fact that, as a working woman, she should take those precious Sundays to spend some time with her family, not to meet with the press on national television.

I'd rather see a female presidential candidate who wasn't so focused on herself and her political aspirations. It seems like she puts a lot of thought into every decision that she makes, as if every little move were planned ahead of time down to the smallest little detail. It's hard to pin down exactly why, but it just wouldn't feel right to see someone who is so politically calculating win those precious 270 electoral votes in the next election.

Full article

Nobody would dare pick the same points on a man, woman can't be pushy, only men can.. ha!

She's a fucking politician, of course she's self promoting. She's a presidential contender,
no shit she's ambitious. I don't accept that lack of ambition is an issue, rather more
focus and intensity in that ambition. When men tell a woman "not" to do something for their
own good, especially when they wouldn't dish the same advice on a man, says its faux advise,
and is actually helpful contrarianism. Hillary is a woman with a chance, and this is
just part of the barrage of crap they've been ammunitioning up with for years now to pound
her if she runs.

God bless her, don't listen to them Mrs. Clinton, eat them for lunch.

Though the most subtle satire I have seen on it in a while.

:blush:

Yes, well done... ha!

But - I agree - there is just something about her that doesn't seem sincere. (on the other hand, Bill really seemed to me to want to make the world a better place.) She is just too self-promoting. Plus - I hope to hell the Democratic Candidate didn't vote for the Iraq war. That was my one beef with Kerry.

first Catholic president.

It's ok with me if this writer wants to vote for somebody else in the primary as winter of 2008 comes on. That's her decision. It's my decision, your decision, everyone's independent decision.

And she can decide if she likes one or another candidate best, then cast her vote. That's how most of us will probably go about it.

But why is a prominent FEMALE candidate held to be "too ambitious" when many of her male competitors for that job are no less "ambitious"? Bill Frist has been pandering to every right-wing group in the universe, sometimes via videotape. Newt Gingrich, near as I can tell, is motivated only by ambition, self-promotional ambition, and ego-stroking ambition.

"Ambition" is one definition of "goal-oriented." I don't see the fair play in singling Senator Clinton out for being "ambitious."

Lou Brock stole a lot of bases in his day. Was he "too ambitious"?

the onion: satire

I didn't draw attention to the source because I think it's so spot-on. People are really saying this stuff.

One neighbor woman, not the most political of personalities, said this about Hillary Clinton:

"Oh I heard she was a lesbian."

Who the hell knows WHO she heard it from, but that's what Senator Clinton is up against.

In my house, she's simply up against a lot of other Democrats I would support in a caucus or primary before her, but if she winds up as our nominee, she has my vote.

And she can be as ambitious as she likes.

you done good!

But I am disappointed in the appearance of nepotism. I tire of the Bush and Clinton familys. I'm sure Hillary would make a fine president, but I would like to see less insider crap. After all, fresh faces keep the lobbyists at bay because no one is so entrenched. I think thats the real reason we dont see term limits.

"It seems like she puts a lot of thought into every decision that she makes, as if every little move were planned ahead of time down to the smallest little detail"

OK, even if the rest was too subtle, at that point the big red flashing "SATIRE" light should come on.:rofl:I wonder how many Bushbots and Hillary-bashers will read the whole thing through, nodding in agreement, and at the end say something like, "He really hits the nail right on the head!":evilgrin:

I have my problems with Hillary (her votes), but I won't be voting gender.
In fact, every time I read trash like this, Hillary's actions with me increase exponentially. I may vote for her yet!

On edit - I din't realize it was the Onion - and that's not so much aboiut me, but about the stuff I do read for real.

"Hillary doesn't shy away from tough situations, as she proved with her health- care proposal during her husband's first term. She likes to tackle the hard problems, no matter how entrenched the current failing system seems to be. Is it just me, or should the woman who overturns a 230-year-old tradition not have such a tendency to rock the boat?"

:)

....chill and cool satire, just going on and on and on with all that "polite" "conventional wisdom" misogyny. I love it.

It makes a very very good point. Wanting to run for President and actually making it happen requires such a 99.999999th percentile level of almost INSANE ambition. I can't imagine myself ever wanting the job, and I'm not particularly UNambitious, I push pretty hard in my career.

This is admired in a man, but in a woman it's seen as a flaw, an abnormality, an unnaturalness and all that crap. Even some lefties have a low-grade sort of prejudice that women should be nurturing and self-sacrificing and content to be the power behind the throne, or shaping the next generation through their kids or whatever. (No diss to women who are like that -- it's the idea that ALL women SHOULD be that is the problem).

It's why I think gender is a bigger obstacle to the Presidency than race, frankly. A black man is a MAN first of all, and it's more "OK" for him to want power and glory and openly work for it. (I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, that's OK.) There will be plenty of racists who can't accept that he might be qualified, or won't accept the idea of a black man as the country's #1 Alpha Dog, but it's not seen as "unnatural" or some kind of terrible moral flaw for him to even want to get there.

(edited to fix a grammatical atrocity.)

Because she doesn't know her place? Last time I checked no one was calling John McCain too ambitious. And he does a shitload of fundraising too.

I guess this is satire. Brilliant. But it is a little too close to what they actually are saying about her.

:D

if Janeway had been the original executive officer who has to react to the captain being killed.

What's wrong with her earning her spot in the Big Chair on merit and, yes, ambition?

Same here. Who runs for president who ISN't ambitious?