"Being First Lady isn't experience" is perfect example of how institutional sexism continues

to hold women back, even to this day.

Regardless how intelligent, talented, or hard-working they have been over the centuries, women were blocked from holding positions of objective political power. Had Hillary Clinton, an enormously gifted and industrious woman, been a man, she would have had the option of embarking on a political career that took her on a path to the White House. But she was a woman, and such options were not available to her. Yes, she could have gone into electoral politics, but her options and trajectory would have been strictly limited. She could have tried to run for the Senate back then - but, unlike just about any white man with her qualifications (and plenty who couldn't hold a candle to her), she hardly would have had a chance. And let's not even think about her ever running for vice president or president.

So, she made other choices. She married a politician, worked her ass off alongside him WHILE also building her own successful career. When he became president, she used her tremendous skills to help him, and in addition to traditional First Lady duties (hosting dinners, Easter Egg Rolls, etc.) engaged in policy work (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) and traveled the world as his top - and most sought after - diplomat.

Meanwhile, Al Gore (and George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle and . . . ), born into a political/financial dynasty with a silver spoon in his mouth, made all the right moves and, because of his gender, those moves ensured that he had all of the options he wanted, including options that Hillary Clinton DIDN'T have. He moved up the ladder and became vice president - a position no woman could ever hoped to have had. As VP, Al Gore stood alongside Clinton, used his enormous skills to help him, engaged in policy work (sometimes sucessfully, sometimes not) and traveled the world as his second most sought after diplomat (after Hillary). When Gore decided to run for president, no one questioned HIS qualifications. And they shouldn't have - because he held a position of great trust and responsibility - but it was a position that ONLY men have been allowed to hold, a position that Hillary Clinton was virtually barred from holding.

And now Clinton has decided to try to break the glass ceiling and go for the brass ring - and she's being told that HER experience doesn't count. That only CERTAIN kinds of experience qualifies someone to be president. But funny thing, it just so happens that this CERTAIN kind of experience is experience that until very recently, ONLY MEN WERE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN!

This is how institutional sexism - and institutional racism - work to perpetuate discrimination and maintain a status quo that benefits white men - without white men ever having to do anything affirmatively to keep it going. EXPERIENCE is the excuse given for holding people back, but EXPERIENCE is usually defined by those who benefit by those people being held back. And, funny thing, EXPERIENCE is almost always defined in terms of the roles that white men have always dominated and women and minorities could not obtain.

It's interesting that the positions that are deemed to be appropriate experience for the presidency are positions that have been almost exclusively reserved for white men - Vice President (all white men), Senator (99% white men), Governor (99% white men), etc. Yet Hillary Clinton, whose opportunities to hold such positions were drastically curtailed by her gender, is not EXPERIENCED enough because she was just the right hand of the leader of the free world.

I call bullshit.

makes you no more of an experienced mother unless you raise the kid. :boring:

but totally inane and irrelevant response.

and thank you for yet another piece of shit thread saying Hillary is only being targeted because of the patriarchal establishment, blah, blah.

i look forward to such lively discussions in the future.

me.

i guess our budding friendship will never blossom. :cry:

oh, what a world, what a world. :cry:

.... there is no substance to your allegation in the first place.

Do you think Laura Bush is a foreign policy expert? Really?

You're really full of it, and it's not just because you are female.

That's not sniffa!

for future sniffa-badgering...:P

I agree 100%. You have empowered me. I want to stand up and cheer. And in support, I am throwing my bra out the window.

well written and substantive. I believe her experience in the WH was valuable and does count. Having said that, I don't think she should overly stress that facet of her experience and I do wish she'd release her papers.

Shirley Chisolm

Barabara Jordon

Pat Schroeder

Diane Feinstein

Nancy Pelosi

Geraldine Ferraro

That's off the top of my head. At best, Hillary CLinton sidestepped the fight and now is swooping in to take a grab at the brass ring.

Those options were available to her. To suggest that she married in order to attain political clout is even more sexist and offensive.

Maybe my point is too subtle and too complicated for you to grasp. It seems to have flown right over your head.

Yes - she could have run for Congress. And stayed there, just as all of the women you listed who ran for office around the time that Hillary made her choice to marry Bill Clinton rather than go into electoral politics.

As I said, her options were limited as was the likely trajectory.

But if it makes you feel better to pretend that institutional sexism is not at play here, be my guest. But pointing to Shirley Chisholm and Pat Schroeder as your proof only bolsters my argument.

And btw, I did NOT suggest that she married to obtain political clout.

If so, I assure you that nothing went over my head. I am also able to grasp many complexities. Drop the snark dude.

I responded to what you posted and you DID suggest she married to obtain political clout.

There's nothing wrong with doing that but don't try to paint it as anything different.

person in the country, 3rd in line for the president? Nancy Pelosi didn't rely on her HUSBAND to get that far. I would rather see a woman rise to the highest office on their own merits, instead of trying to ride their husband's coattails. Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher did it on their own. Yes, they are conservatives, but I consider their example to be a path to the presidency far more honorable AND feminist.

She was the daughter and sister of extremely powerful and popular politicians. She married an enormously wealthy and politically connected man whose money and connections made it possible for her to be active in California politics and become one of the top fundraisers in the state and, eventually, Northern California party chairwoman. Thanks to his contacts and her efforts, she eventually won a seat in Congress in 1988. Since then, she has benefitted greatly from his money, contacts and political acumen as she rose through the ranks of the House to become Speaker.

I do not say any of this to suggest that she did not work hard or earn and deserve everything she has gotten. But she is yet another example of a woman who did not have the full range of options available to her when she was making her career and life choices - given her political skill, tenacity and ambition, I have no doubt that had she been a man, she may have become the Mayor of Baltimore instead of her brother, or run for political office long before her 47th birthday (after her children were all out of the house).

So, it's rather ironic that you raised Nancy Pelosi up as an example that supposedly debunked my point - but instead, helped to prove it.

Thanks.

I didn't say that women couldn't run for Congress. I said that their trajectory was very limited - as evidenced by the women you listed in your post.

yes, there were execeptions, but women really didn't start to break through into national politics until the eighties. And she didn't sidestep the fight. There's nothing wrong with the choices she made. Like it or not, she and Bill worked as a team politically. She's put in 7 years as a U.S. Senator. That's more than John Edwards put in.

how is that "sidestepping the fight"?

Always the calculator, HRC hitched her wagon to Bill knowing he had the smarts and the magic (that charisma and way of speaking she can only hope to feign).

Remember, the campaign story when a friend drove her to Arkansas and asked (beseeched) if she knew what she was doing, if she'd lost her mind for giving up a promising career OF HER OWN to go to AK after Bill.

HRC had options!

but it was certainly possible.

If she wants to tout her experience in the WH, she's simply going to have to be quite explicit about what that experience was comprised of -- and open all the public records about exactly what she *did* do there. She'll have to get into the day to day of her relationship with her husband -- because she's trying to use that relationship to sell herself as experienced.

My problem is she seems to want to say that's all private and not for public consumption, but then use the same as evidence that she's experienced. I want facts, not her opinion.

But being a United States Senator is.

Given the opportunity I sure the hell would have voted for Eleanor Roosevelt based on her experience as First Lady.

It is what people do with their time in those roles that bring experience.

I'd put Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady up against Dan Quayle's experience as Vice President any day. Laura Bush's work in the White House, in my view, doesn't come close to providing her sufficient experience to run for president. On the other hand, Eleanor Roosevelt experience as First Lady made her more qualified for the presidency than many of the men who actually sat in the Oval Office in the 20th Century.

It's all about what you do with the role you're in.

Unfortunately, traditional so-called "women's roles" have ALWAYS been denigrated as far less worthy or meaningful than roles that have been reserved for men.

That's how institutional sexism works.

Or would it be institutional sexism to denigrate Nancy's experience? She also did a lot more than pick out china.I may not like what she did but she did it.

had more fight, guts, intelligence, compassion than all of the male senators in office right now.

And she was cruelly ridiculed. And the white leftie boys (with a few wonderful exceptions such as Thom Hartmann) march on with their smug little smirks which are so similar to those of Bush.

Thx for the OP!!!

and lived in a moment when,for all that talent packed into one woman, there was very little she could do with it without snide little whispers about her "unfeminine ways and shameless raw ambition". Thank God we've all moved beyond that.:eyes: .

You mean the senate seat she won based on her being the wife of Bill Clinton? In the state that she had never lived in before deciding to become a senator?

But the hit on her experience is as wrong as the hit on Obama's. We have another candidate whose entire adult life, but for a few recent years, was spent as a trial lawyer - yet that passes muster on DU as sufficient political experience. Hillary and Obama have been in political life since they were kids and both have achieved a great deal in a system that never favored women or blacks. I join you in calling bullshit.

That was all hers? Or how about a succussful diplomatic relationship she helped to forge out of US security or economic interests. I think she is smart and much more qualified than many, but to count on her experience as First Lady is a shot in the dark without you actually anwering these simple questions.

yes, she has been very close to the presidency; has been involved in the stress, the tactics, the strategy, the decision making. Before that, very close to a governorship.
And I think she can handle the job. I don't care for her particular approach to a lot of things, but that is immaterial.

And she has more experience than some of the candidates - more time in Senate that Obama or Edwards.

BUT, the "experience" she keeps touting is not as the decision-maker. If I am correct, only Kucinich (mayor) and Richardson (governor) have hands-on executive experience. She never really defines WHAT hers is, but unless she was calling the shots like Mrs. Wilson, while I don't discount it as better than nothing, I think she oversells it.

I would put Biden's experience of 30 years in the senate, working with presidents of both parties and foreign leaders up against her experience any day.

Given that she only thinks she is running against Obama and maybe Edwards, she has a point. Slightly more time in the Senate, plus living in the WH and being close to the action. When Biden emerges as the real challenger, though, her house of cards will fall.

and their cards will fall.

Seriously.

If Clinton and Obama want to argue about "experience", Joe is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Diplomatic, executive, legislative, and cabinet? I mean 30 years in one position is great, but give me someone who's seen more than one aspect of the whole enchilada any day.

You are absolutely right that Richardson is the ONLY one with a comparable 'resume'. But you get this guy up there on stage next to Biden and he becomes like a toddler. No joke. He does it to himself, he hasn't come out with a good solution to any of our current foreign policy problems. Pull out in 6 onths, now 8 now 12..etc. etc., no political solution and continues to make these claims back onto his resume while Biden is the one setting policy and dealing with the real leaders and issues.
There was a chance at first, and I was open to him, but leadership and expertise ultimately fell to Biden. Clearly.

And if you believe it's not as good, so be it. But her experience as First Lady should not be dismissed just because she gained it as First Lady and not as a governor or a Vice President or as a Senator or any other role that is somehow deemed to be "valid" (which just also happen to be roles that have been dominated by men).

If women want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't fall back on tiresome excuse-making. It is perfectly legitimate to question her credentials, when she is touted as the "experienced" candidate? Would she have been singled out as the annointed candidate if her last name were Rodham?

If, say, Barbara Boxer were to run, there would be no questions as to whether or not she earned the right to run and claim valid experience.

Why is Hillary so much more "experienced" than Biden or Dodd who have long Senate careers and repeated elections? Why is she so much more qualified than Dennis Kucinich, a multi-term Congressman who actually read the Patriot Act and who fought the good fight against the Iraq War and many otehr issues? Why does she know so much more about foreign policy than Richardson? How is her corporate law career more of a qualifier than Edwards, who made millions while challenging corporations, and who has a Senate record as long as Hillary's (not counting her her presidential Senate term)? How are her personal accomplishments more relevant than Obama's as a community organizer and gress-roots defender of minorities?

If being First Lady is a valid criteria, why shouldn't the GOP convince Laura Bush to run on that basis? Despite her husband, Laura remains popular with Americans. And Gosh, she's been First Lady too. And she's worked hard on issues of literacy and education...Ridiculous? Right. Simply residing in the White House is not a measure of experience.

And you're right about Barbara Boxer. But there's a problem with your analogy. You are assuming that there is only ONE way for women politicians to have gained experience sufficient to qualify them for the presidency. Not true. But my point was that those options have been very limited.

The second problem with your analogy is that it assumes that Hillary Clinton should have done what Barbara Boxer did. Yes, Barbara Boxer is now a Senator. But she was previously a Congresswoman who first went to Congress in 1983, ten years after Hillary graduated from law school and began to make her career choices. Yes, of course, Hillary could have not chosen the path she did but instead, waited out it out hoping that in 10 or 15 or 20 years, she COULD have a chance to run for office and move up the ladder. But she didn't. She chose a path that would enable her to make a difference.

Oh, wait a minute - she DID run for office when she got the chance. And she won. And she's been there for the past 7 years.

Men make choices all of the time about their career paths - the difference is that just about any path of service that a man makes is seen as a valid jumping off point for high political office. Mayor, Governor, Senator, Vice President, business, doctor, lawyer. With the exception of the last two, all of these jobs are overwhelmingly dominated by men. But when women chose to serve in the areas available to them, they are told that they just don't have the "right" experience.

I am not faulting Hillary for her life and career choices. If she chose this path, then that's fine with me.

However, what bothers me is the assumption that she's automatically been declared the "front runner" since 2000 (and even before that) simply because of her marriage. And her claim to be the candidate who has the most "experience" and is the only one who could "hit the ground running." That IS the basic message of her campaign.

She was not in the Senate long enough to be called the candidate of experience. And she has not really done anything as a Senator to distinguish herself as a true leader or even a seasoned veteran. The only reason she has gotten more attention is because of her last name.
Regardless of what one thinks about their position on issues, Biden and Dodd and Kucinich are head and shoulders above her in terms of actual legislative or executive experience, and Richardson is a governor and has been directly involved in both foreign and energy policy in official capacities. That's not sexist. That's based on reality.

If Barbara Boxer were to run, the question of her experience would be moot. And, as much as I often dislike Dianne Feinstein's positions, if she were running for president, I'd have no question about her qualifications. Likewise for many women of independent accomplishment.

So I have a hard time with the concept that criticizing her for using her position as a spouse is automatically unfair or sexist.

First of all, nowadays Senators and Governors are NOT 99% white men, but I respect your right to use hyperbole.

Look, I understand how tough women in politics have had it--things didn't start going their way until the last 15-20 years, and even now there's no shortage of holdover chauvinism , BUT...

BUT you sidestepped the title of your own thread. The fact is, if the sexes were reversed--if it had been Hillary who became governor, then President, and it was Bill who took on the First Gentleman role and only become Senator years later...and if Bill were running for president NOW....

People would still be rightfully questioning Bill's right to say things like "My experience in politics dates back to 1992, when I assumed the role of First Gentleman." I'm sorry, but those 8 years simply don't count on a political resume. First <Blank> is not an appointed or elected role, and it essentially requires the person to do nothing but act symbolically--if they choose to use that time productively or not, that's their own affair, but they're under no obligations to anyone, not to voters or other elected officials, to produce any results. And THAT is a necessary part of the political process--with no contract, written or unwritten, to serve at anyone's discretion, the person is merely a figurehead.

That's why I think Hillary's political career officially begins when she ran for and won the office of Senator from New York in 2002, even though her LIFE experience certainly started much earlier than that. And obviously, by that yardstick, Barack Obama doesn't have an overwhelming amount of experience either.

K&R

slings and arrows when you speak the truth that too many people don't want to hear.

I really appreciate that.

:hug:

how being First Lady qualifies someone for anything beyond charity work is beyond me . . . in Hillary's case she can, of course, point to her work in the Senate -- although since last November she's been largely absent as she barnstorms the country for presidential votes . . .

I voted for Hillary as my senator to represent me, not to run for president beginning virtually the day after she was sworn in . . . she won't get my primary vote, that's for certain . . . and if she's the Democratic candidate, whether she gets my vote in the general is still a very open question . . .

really?






really?

the time that Clinton was eligible, as opposed to the % in the current Senate.

I work as his secretary and have for the last 9 of my 17 years working in the legal field. I have not earned a college degree or gone to law school.

But, since I've worked along side a lawyer for nine years does that qualify me to practice law?

(Aren't I more experienced than brand new lawyers fresh out of school who have never been in a courtroom or tried a case?)

In the past only men could be lawyers and Judges, but obviously women have done both (and very well I might add).

Seems If I want to be a lawyer I need to earn that just like a man. Go to college, get a law degree and a license.

Then, when I've actually practiced law, I'll be experienced.

+++++

Truly, when I hear the 'on the job training' bs coming from any of the candidates I cringe. NONE of them have been President before so NONE of them are experienced at being President. ALL of them have had political and community politics/service experience and ALL of them are qualified to serve as the leader of our country.

sheesh :eyes:

Especially that "on the job training" crap. I mean god forbid we end up with someone that hasnt lived in the white house before. Someone like JFK or any of the many others.

This is the argument that was used against our current Governor in the primary (the person running against him was older and had served in Congress - and was supported by the Governor who was vacating his seat to run for President). The argument failed miserably and Chet Culver defeated Mike Blouin in the primary (making Tom Vilsack look silly)then beat Jim Nussle in the general. Now Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Tom Vilsack here in Iowa) is using the same argument against...who? Obama/Edwards/Biden/Dodd/Richardson/Kucinich/Gravel? All of whom have just as much experience as President as she does.

You'd think the 'on the job training' comments that failed in Iowa in 2006 would not be used in Iowa in 2008 :eyes:

Its such an absurd argument that I cant for-the-life-of-me comprehend why the Clinton camp continues to repeat it. But what I also dont understand is why none of the other candidates have *really* pointed out how absurd the argument really is.

She says shes the only one qualified to do the job from day one. Someone should ask her how long it took before Bill he became a capable President. :eyes:

NO! Just because you were along-side a lawyer for 9 years does not make you better. (Duh- against the 1st year grads arguments). The precise reason our society sets up these parameters is to establish accountability. Lawyers, doctors, architects, etc. When you make a mistake in your husbands practice, your husband is at fault. She has not yet been vetted to make decisions that suffer the results. (this goes for the other 2 front runners) This is just as Bill tried to explain away that the Healthcare failures were his fault!
Maam, YOU are not qualified to be a lawyer. Problems start this way. Just as they did with GWB being 'near' his father does not make him qualified.
Think about that...GWB got in mostly because his father was president, and now look where that got us!
Ugh! THAT's your argument!

*sigh* another reason why I'll never be a lawyer, I don't understand other's reasoning...

The white male lefty boys have changed not a bit from the '70's. If only they would emulate Thom Hartmann of Air America. Now that is a true Gentleman.

Hillary running for Prez can really help raise the consciousness of people regarding sexism. It's a great opportunity for discussion. It's unfortunate that entities like 'sniffa' are so willfully ignorant. He holds on to his perceived power as if it were that little teddy bear he clung to as a child.

Of real change ever happening. I read the posts claiming reverse sexism and other ludicrous charges and cringe.

The addict will never change without first admitting the problem.

Without the free labor of women, capitalism could not survive. Without the free labor of women, men have to wipe their own asses and raise their own children.

I think nothing will ever change but then I look at Saudi society and while I feel for our sisters around the world, I *can* see the progress in our own society. Not all of it good, but women at least have their own agency in the west - if they can ignore the cultural bullshit that tries to sell them shit they don't need so they can attract, lordy, lordy ::sarcasm:: a man and have their fairytale ending.

Maybe in another half-millenium things will change, but I won't be here to see it. Soldiering on with what we have, making our mark in any little way we can is going to have to be enough.

Even though I hate that fact of life, just reading all the Clinton threads reinforces how far we have yet to go.

Bill Clinton is adored here on DU - she is to the LEFT of her husband - less of a corporatist, more of a humanist and yet he isn't continually criticized the way she is, is he?

Edited to add - I'm voting Dennis in the primary (not that it matters in my state) and dem in the general.

I can't read the hateful threads about Hillary. And my 'Ignore List' grows daily. I am so sick and tired of willfully ignorant males. It sure is one hell of a Backlash, isn't it? And it all started w/ Reagan in 1980. I never realized how much men truly HATE women.

And don't get me started on 'unpaid labor.' I'd have to double my meds...lol!

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I have put in my reservation to go to the Unisex Galaxy...I'm very curious to see how that works out!

One good thing that is going on now....all of these young women in law school, med school, etc. Will they accept the Glass Ceiling? Will the schools train them to be like men? Should be interesting to see what these young women will endure with regard to the Corporate, Greedy workplace.

And I'm voting as you are.

My Dad was a repo man for 38 years, and my Mom, while very capable, did not follow in his footsteps to repo cars. I'm a DJ, I was married for almost 11 years, and in that time, my wife did not learn every aspect of my job. I never understood putting First Lady on your resume to be President of the United States.

K&R

K&R

and the nicest thing about it is that these are all your own thoughts and not just some article you posted. Thank you.

:toast:

And she didn't follow her husband into politics, either.

I call bullshit on your OP, since you obviously know nothing about women in American electoral politics.

that she knows nothing about women in American politics just because she might not have mentioned Ella Grasso? The omittal of Ella Grasso's example shouldn't diminish the fine message of the OP.

The OP was implying sexism made it impossible for Hillary to be a politician except in the shadow of her husband.

Ella Grasso, not to mention many other elected women before and since her, have proven that you don't need a political husband to get involved in politics yourself.

Hillary didn't need Bill to get ahead because of sexism. She chose to get ahead in the wake of his presidency, and thus will be associated with his presidency, fairly or unfairly.

And First Lady still equals no experience in my book.

As far how much "experience" one gets by being First Lady, I always thought that it did count for some, although I think it would make a good topic of discussion in a thread sometime.

I judge Hillary on her own merits, not what her husband did.

Since we are seeing the line blurred between her husband's presidency and her own contributions, I just count everything she's done from 2001-present. So I don't fault her for NAFTA or Monica, but I also don't credit her for peace in Northern Ireland or stopping the genocide in Kosovo.

Ella Grasso's election as governor of Connecticut in 1975 no more proves that political options were open for all, most or even a significant number of women 30 years ago than Hiram Revels' tenure as a U.S. Senator from Mississippi or PBS Pinchback's term as Governor of Louisiana proves that all, most, or even a significant number of blacks could write their own political tickets in the 1870s.

In fact, your pointing to Ella Grasso as a supposed refutation of my point says comsiderably more about your grasp of this subject than mine.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are rural sections of NYS that fell in love with her for who she is, not for who her husband is. I live in one of those sections and I can tell you that lots of people who didn't love Bill fell in love with Hillary. And you know what else? She has backed all her campaign promises she made. How many of them can say that?

What rural sections could THOSE BE??? I live between Ogdensburg and Messina. Everybody I have spoken to all the way over to friggin' Rochester HATES HER. EVERYBODY. She's only poular in NYC, as far as I can tell. If she had to run for the Senate again, I think that she might just be shit out of luck.

Kept her Campaign Promises? You are out of your MIND!!!

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions - DID NOT VOTE
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion - DID NOT VOTE
10/26/2005 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment - N
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) - DID NOT VOTE
09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding - DID NOT VOTE
08/03/2006 Death/EstateTax and Minimum Wage Bill of 2006 - N
05/26/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 - N
11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 - DID NOT VOTE
10/30/2007 Amtrak Reauthorization - DID NOT VOTE
09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants - DID NOT VOTE
03/07/2005 Minimum Wage Amendment - N
06/06/2007 Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes - N
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - DID NOT VOTE
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - DID NOT VOTE
12/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act - Y
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia - DID NOT VOTE
04/25/2002 Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 - N
09/07/2006 Media in the Middle East Amendment - N
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Y
05/07/2007 FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment - N
09/06/2006 Cluster Munitions Amendment - N
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Y
03/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization - Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Y
06/07/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution - N
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation - Y
07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Y
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Y


Obviously, she's a regular fucking HERO! Pass the canapes, please.

I'll bet you do. You're the first person I've ever heard in Northern NY, including Franklin, St Lawrence, Clinton, and Jefferson Counties who doesn't know how to spell Massena. You didn't even come close to the correct spelling. Any second grader within 100 miles of Massena can spell it better than you. Sure you live up there. Not only can't you spell but you're the one who's out of their mind if you think "everybody" up there hates her. You could give George Bush a run for his money in the lack of any brains department, and here you are telling me that I'm out of MY mind! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm saving it. I have relatives in NY who feel as you do and say that had she had decent opposition in 2006, she just might have LOST!

No one had a real choice after he dropped out...and I think that after Moynahan (I think I may have spelled it wrong, again - LOOK OUT!), NY wanted another Democrat in his place...

Cuz it was so damn cute! x(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3744974#3745181

That's the REAL FUNNY!!!

I think I have used the canape passing comment FOUR times today, actually.

do it

I'll wait

!!!!

Maybe Reagan is more to your liking?

Oh, wait, he saw UFOs too. He must be a bad leader, just because of that. :eyes:

Get a grip on reality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

their own right and other women have run for president.Hillary was not denied anything as a result of her gender.She made a "choice". to travel on Bill's coat tails. It is really too bad that we have so many much more qualified women who could be running for office but they are not because they can't compete with the money machine that was put together by the roledex of an ex-president.

Hillary was presented with many choices along her path to where ever it is she wants to go and she rarely stuck to her guns on a difficult or feminist path. When push came to shove she always "buckled". From "following her "man" to Arkansas instead of pursuing her career in DC to taking her hubby name in order to get him elected because her retaining her own didn't "fly' in Arkansas to backing down on her non cookie baking image and "pretending"to submit "cookie recipes", she has never stood as a beacon of respect and independence for women. If she had really been a domestic goddess and interested in those aspects of life , it would have been understandable but she made every effort to prove the opposite and thus is a hypocrite.

She has always made the pragmatic choice for the most expeditious advancement of Hillary by whatever the means.She has proven time and time again that she will say whatever it takes to get what she wants and she stands for nothing.

Mrs.Clinton is an insult to all those women who have struggled to make it on their own on their own merits in a man's world.She took and continues to take the "easy" way out. She is having her qualifications questioned because she does not stand on her own qualifications.You do not get to use the record of another in politics. She should be judged as are all the candidates, on what they have themselves accomplished as individuals in their own right.

The comparison of Mrs.Clinton to Al Gore is ludicrous.In making your argument could you then imply that Tipper was equally deserving to be President, VP or get the Nobel Prize? After all, she was married to Al!

And the silver spoon argument is just ridiculous.If anyone had a silver spoon it was Hillary.She had the Ivy league education handed to her by her well to do Chicago Republican family.She was given many opportunities including her Ivy League education and the connections she took advantage of. She was no different except in the choices she made.
She came of age in the generation of social liberation and feminism and yet for all her outspokenness at Wellesley and her Yale law career, she chose the easy way when challenged.

Sandra Day O'Connor, Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm were of an earlier generation of women and managed to be successful in their own right without riding the coattails of their husbands. I salute those pioneers, and call bullshit on this OP.

Only if they want to read bullshit.

I noticed you didn't, and quite probably couldn't, refute any of the facts stated in saracat's post.

:eyes:

Thanks for the warm welcome, by the way.

Maybe if you provided some examples or evidence supporting your case (as saracat and I both have), I wouldn't be so harsh in calling bullshit on you.

Welcome to DU, but if you think you can get away with unsubstantiated claims here, you'll be disappointed.

"but if you think you can get away with unsubstantiated claims here, you'll be disappointed." Right.

He/She doesn't need you adding more meaningless snark and fact-free ranting.

think I've done something wrong.

we're not all paranoid,and it's supposed to be against DU rules to point out low post counts as proof of trolldom.
:hi:

It's going to be a bumpy ride, but well worth it.

"it's supposed to be against DU rules to point out low post counts as proof of trolldom."

What was that about getting away with unsubstantiated claims here?

when calling attention to someone's low point count? Also, pointing out lack of gender identification is a bit bizarre.

you've had your low post count pointed out and even a reference to a lack of gender identification.

That's DU-ese for "Welcome!"

I have way more posts than you, so be sure to grovel appropriately when I enter a thread that you're reading!

;-) :hi:

That institutional sexism is trotted out as a Hillary defense/virtue, and I'm not minimizing the issue, just pointing to the obvious- Barack Obama's campaign makes little mention if any at all of institutional racism.

Because he's running on his own merits with no apology.

I think Hillary's deft use of this issue is tenuous at best. There are better avatars for the feminist movement.

implicitly indicts around 50% of the population, whereas for Obama to do so would indict around 80% of the population.

by people who insist that his three years in the U.S. Senate is not sufficient. The same people who claim that his years as a law professor and community organizer just don't count. Those who argue that his suggestion that his years living overseas gave him an important and helpful perspective is just a lot of hogwash.

Obama is dealing with the same thing that Hillary is - arguments that only certain kinds of experience, i.e., the kind of experience that white men still corner the market on, count in the big leagues.

I have not held up Hillary as an "avatar" for the feminist movement nor have held up Barack as an avatar of the civil rights movement. I have merely stated a fact of history.

FYI - I haven't heard Hillary's campaign mention institutional sexism, either. *I* mentioned it because it's a fact of life that some people obviously are ill-equipped to deal with. I have also previously pointed out that Obama is beign subjected to institutional racism. That, too, is a fact. And, interestingly, every time he or anyone on his campaign even MENTIONS race in this context, they are attacked for "playing the race card."

My pointing a plain and undeniable fact of history does nothing to undermine her or Obama's accomplishments nor does it obviate the very real obstacles that both of them face.

endured the "real" discrimination of the Sandra Day O 'Connor generation. She was a lawyer in the generation of women when even attending law school was an impossibility. Hillary was one of many women and doors were opened to her.Her choices were her own and not societys. I remember Ella Grasso and how proud my mother was of her. We had a home in Conn then.I have been castigated on this board for saying my mother would never have supported Hillary.She would not have.

you perfectly expressed many of my own thoughts on the subject.

I just can't believe the number of people here and elsewhere who do not seem to understand, or do not want to acknowledge, for whatever reason, how much Hillary is riding on Bill's coattails. It's as if they close their mind on purpose and refuse to see the obvious. At best, and for the sake of the argument, one could say that it is Hillary's bad luck that she is married to an ex-president, a popular one, and whose term is being seen by many through rose-colored glasses because of the disaster that followed (ignoring the fact that, to some extent, that disaster can be attributed to the Clintons). "Bad luck" in the sense that she IS a very capable woman in her own right, no doubt about that, and without the Clinton name she would be evaluated more fairly by some/many. But then, I am not sure she would want that...

that like many, many powerful and successful men, he could never have gotten where he is without the help and sacrifice of his wife. If ANYONE is riding on anyone else's coattails, he is riding on hers.

And this same thing applies to Obama and Edwards and Biden and McCain and Huckabee and Giuliani (several times over) and all of the other men in the race - with the possible exception of Kucinich, whose wife is new to the game and was not instrumental in his career. But all of these other men have said over and over how critical their mates have been to their success, how many sacrifices they've made, and how their wives make it possible for them to do what they do. But we never hear anyone claim that the men are riding on their wives coattails. It only seems to be the woman whose accused of "coattail riding" when they obtain any benefit as a result of who they married.

at least not in my understanding of the term. All the others you mention may have intelligent and helpful spouses, but none of them were presidents, so the comparison does not really apply.

Just like she "chose" to be the primary bread winner until he was Prez.It is all about choices.She just didn't make very liberated one. Whatever. She certainly buckled to convention unlike many who preceded her like Bella Abzug and Ella Grasso. She had a choice. Much easier to let the charasmatic husband pave the way.

She hasn't even responded to your first one and you attack her a second time. Gheesh.

Otherwise quit whining and grandstanding.

so who is the one doing the grandstanding now?

So it seems you are still grandstanding and making bullshit claims.

There's an easy way out, though - hit Alert and see what happens, or concede that I'm right and the "personal attacks" you are referring to are nothing of the kind.

but there's no need for you to continue telling me to use the alert button myself just for sake of proving some debate point. You don't think they were personal, fine, you're entitled to your opinion and same goes for me.

:donut:

by white guys. Self-satisfied multi-millionaire white guys.

Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President before Al Gore did, by 8 years.

There are plenty of very capable men, I am sure, who never even came that close to the vice presidency. In fact, there still has not been a black man on a national ticket. Look at 1988. If Jesse Jackson was white and did just as well in the primaries, tell me the ticket would not have been Dukakis/Jackson.

The Jesse Jackson thing.

In the 1984 campaign Jackson referred to New York as "Hymietown" which was considered a slur against Jews.

Given that Dukakis's own wife is Jewish, I don't think he was prepared to have a running mate who made such comments.

And her ticket got wiped out in a landslide. Even in 1984, the vice-presidency was far beyond a woman's reach.

FYI - This isn't about black men on the ticket - that's a whole nother issue.

But that has not closed them to their husbands (the whining of freepers notwithstanding). So it's not Hillary's fault her husband got the job, that made her First Lady whether she wanted to be or not, but she still has her own abilities. It just doesn't foreclose the husband's abilities.

I would think the First Lady experience would be very valuable. Sort of unique. Like a four year apprenticeship - she should spin it like that. No one else has that.

that protects the powerful elite?

When does CITIZENSHIP and OPEN GOVERNMENT matter more than gender?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

After Bush3? Another 9-11? Another Iraq war? Iran war?

But to claim that experience as a First Lady is, per se, invalid is ridiculous.

Just saying. It's not "sexism," it's just that marrying someone who becomes president doesn't make YOU automatically qualified to be president.

Is it "sexism" to say a doctor's spouse isn't automatically qualified to perform surgery?

Is it "sexism" to say a reporter's spouse isn't automatically qualified to work at a newspaper?

I'm sick of Hillary supporters cowering and hiding behind her lack of a Y-chromosome every time someone questions her.

If not, does that mean that NO Senator is qualified because Senate experience doesn't matter?

Of course not.

It goes the same for First Ladies. Hillary Clinton's status as a former first lady does not make her qualified to be president. What she DID as first lady COULD. What some other first ladies, like Laura Bush, did in their role may NOT qualify them. But it is wrong to dismiss out of hand anything a woman did in her career as irrelevant to whether she is qualified to be president because she did those things as first lady.

see the difference between Clinton's tenure as First Lady and Pickles, you're either ignorant or willfully obtuse. Are all first ladies the same? Are they all merely ceremonial? No. Eleanor Roosevelt certainly wasn't and neither was Clinton.

experience...

I'm not an HRC fan by any means, but this post is definitely some much needed truth.

Especially in light of the vile misogyny flying out of the mouths of some of the folks around here. If I have to read one more post about how HRC's experience was just "screwing the President"... :argh:

I hope plenty of people are reading this thread. It demonstrates just how prevalent sexism still is, even amongst so-called liberals. I don't know what is worse, the crowing, misogynystic men or the Uncle Thomassinas who sound almost more vile.

second of all: she IS on a path that is leading her to the White House, despite being a woman. The tragic existence of sexism doesn't render being a first lady "experience" and certainly not experience that allows her to condemn Obama as having "no experience."

also no one would hire me to be a doctor if my resume said "boyfriend of doctor."

Hillary is trying to conflate her and Bill's experience to her advantage, and not only that but then criticizing Obama for being "inexperienced."

she was her husband's chief advisor, she acted as a diplomat for his admin, she was instrumental in women's, health and children's issues. She was hardly just the little hostess in the White Houlse- anymore than was Eleanor Roosevelt.

but that's not governing experience like even state senate experience is.

I mean if Obama can claim that living in Indonesia from 6-10 is experience that makes him stronger in foreign policy- and I believe it does give him an added perspective- no one should object to Clinton claiming that her experience and duties as First Lady add to her foreign and domestic policy expertise.

but only HER experience, not Bill's experience. She can't conflate or muddle the two.

You hit the nail on the head!

This is a nice little argument. Too bad the circular reasoning that supports it makes it self-defeating. Her criticism is that her position as an elite (first lady) gives her more experience over the other candidates. As opposed to what? A former community organizer, diplomat, mayor, current governer, former and current senators, etc. So now it is sexist to criticize her elite position and her claim to monopolize the "only type of experience" that matters (which is always undefined and meaningless in any real sense, because the experience argument is an empty talking point). Should we bring Bush back because he's a former president? Well he's got the experience right? YeeHaw I loves me sum experience!!!

Sorry, I'll take a pass on this one. It feels warm and fuzzy but it's just flat out wrong. It sounds like this to me "I've been on the top you haven't. Your experience is meaningless compared to my lofty acheivements. Bow in my presence. Don't you criticize me. Of course my experience as first lady is more profound than yours. Oh really, well if you don't think so then I'll call you a sexist pig (by proxy of course). See where that gets you." Why doesn't the arrogance strike you as odd? What gives a former first lady any more right to speak on our behalf than these other candidates on any matter of policy? It smacks of the entitlement claimed by the elite to be the only voice that matters to me. "What, you think living a few months in foreign country gives you a right to speak? How about you lowly governer. You always bask in the glory that is my feet. I can't believe they even let you in Dennis. Ha Ha Ha!!"

maybe being first lady qualifies her as having some degree of political experience, but I'm not the one insisting that experience is necessary. It's not the sexist legions insisting that experience is necessary. Granted there might be some outside pressure her to declare her experience, but ultimately it is SHE that is casting experience as the most important thing this election cycle.