Is Sen. Clinton being so viciously attacked simply because the men's club in Washington and

Corporate America simply do not want to have to really respect a woman or take orders from her?

I have no horse in this race. Frankly, I have problems with all the candidates, but I have been listening and reading for months now vicious and hateful attacks on Senator Clinton. The Republicans have even taken up the slogan- "The Stop Hillary Express". I have not seen any other time in a primary election when one person is so maligned, ridiculed and viciously attacked. And, most of the attacks have nothing to do with her ideas or proposals for this country. They are all personal attacks. Honestly, it makes me feel sorry for her. What does it matter if she is ambitious? This trait is admired in a man. She does have a record of wanting to improve the situations of those less fortunate then herself. Her health care plan was soundly defeated, but she put herself on the line to try to do some good. And she learned from this experience.
Senator Clinton I think would see things from the perspective of a woman. She would understand what it is like to be a woman trying to raise children on your own and making less than a man- in many cases simply because you are a woman. She would understand how difficult it is to juggle working and caring for children. The guilt and worry felt when you have to leave your babies in the care of others in order to make a living. In times of war she would have the unique perspective of knowing how important each and every soldier's lives are. What pain a mother feels when the child she has given birth dies while defending this country. And, as a woman she would bring a unique perspective to diplomacy and negotiation.

Just think about it.

Hmmm? Hmmm?

that stands out for me.
welfare 'reform' transferred to welfare Kings of commerce, NAFTA, Kosovo, east Timor, years of bombing/sanctioning/killing Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

the fact that most of washingtons elite are stacked up behind her, kind of puts that BS to rest.

the intent is to detract from people criticising their positions. If their points suck, its fine to disagree. But to say it is because of gender is sad. I hate that argument.

Someone put an article on here about the way women in power are characterized in the media. Pretty much every nasty description of Margaret Thatcher has been used on Hillary.

It's perception. Nothing to do with reality at all.

contimplating what they are doing.

These are smart, successful women in their own spheres...but not one of them had the guts to go for what Hillary is reaching for.

And there's that dog, Bill Clinton, sticking by her, even though he's out of office, rich, and could run for the hills if he felt like it. We got gossip here saying he was still fooling around...so if he isn't staying to get laid...WHAT'S SHE GOT?

The ability to forgive, we know that. The ability not to crumble in a crisis, we know that. And the things we see only glimpses of, because she's attacked whenever she shows her real self (like an Afghan woman daring to go without her veil): her sharp wit, her merry humor, her kindness and warmth.

But she has to be a monster or she wouldn't be doing what she's doing. A wonderful woman (a real soccer mom) whom I respect so much told me today she worries about Hillary's ambition and ego. But why is Hillary not allowed to have the same ambition and ego other candidates have? Because it makes men AND women uncomfortable?

I have never seen the monster that appears to Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington or so many posters on DU. My own sister said "This country isn't ready for a woman president."

I am.

thank you

:shrug:

the more they often criticize other successful women.
Benazir Bhutto said those were her worst critics in
an interview before she returned to Pakistan. Oddly,
the reporter was asking her advice for Hillary Clinton.

weasel and I don't care if she's a woman, man, pink, purple..she doesn't deserve to be in our White HOuse.

You can't attack her - she wears a skirt!

No one is saying she should be treated differently- just equally.

Disliked by many.

And when someone is disliked, people will use anything they can to attack them.

It is unfair, but then it was unfair when Barack Obama's cocaine use of decades ago got brought up by a Clinton staffer (Of course, not by the Great Triangulator herself)

All is far in love and war, and politics is definitely war.

Ever examine that about yourself?

shit...Hillary knows nothing about being a single mom..she never was one..do not tell me she has special experience because she is a woman...I am a woman...Edwards does more to promote for single moms than does Hillary!

at the secretaries in her office with kids and wonder how they did it, having to go pick their kids up after school and such. Does that count??

is still mostly taken on by women.

Senator Clinton would just bring a new perspective and dynamic to the White House. Now that is real change.

as well. I mean, where were all the people here screaming about racism and sexism, then? Because she was both a woman and black and EVERYONE ignored her.

people currently claim to have for Hilary Clinton "because she is a woman". The "because she is a woman" argument is bullshit. She's not being attacked because she is a woman and she isn't being supported because "it's time to have a woman president".

She's being attacked because she is married to a man that is hated with a passion by the Republicans. And if all her support is because "it's time for a woman to be president", then those same people would have supported Carol Mosley Braun in 2004 with the same passion. And it just wasn't there. I loved what that woman had to say and if she had lasted until Florida's primary, I would have cheerfully voted for her, but no one thought she had a chance in hell (including those people who now claim to support Hilary Clinton's "womanhood" and make any attack against her a sexist comment, even legitimate criticisms.

But as near as I can tell, in your book all women are interchangeable and indistinguishable if we consider them to be women?

Let's see: Carol had a good message you would vote for but no one supported her although they should have because she's a woman. Okay. Got that part. Hillary is hated by primary-voting Democrats because Republicans hate the man she married.. Got that. Don't get it, but got it.

Is there any chance in your cavernous mind that Hillary learned from watching what happened to Carol?

You want Hillary to have Carol's message which nobody supported. But nobody supported it so you think that would be the right way to go?

Nope. It's too much even for me to figure out.

Um... one isn't usually "considered" to be a woman or a man. Most of the time, it's pretty fucking apparent.

You know, aquart, I used to have a lot of respect for you. I don't get your sudden aggression toward anyone and everyone that says anything against Clinton. My point was that hatred of Hilary Clinton IS NOT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. It is because of her policies and I think it does the Women's Rights Movement a horrible injustice to start acting like it's all about her gender.

This sort of reaction is the same thing that Republicans use. If you don't support their policies on "Terror" then you are unpatriotic and "support Osama bin Laden". The reaction to both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama is the same. If you don't wholeheartedly support their campaigns, then you are either sexist (in Clinton's case) or racist (in Obama's case).

In 2004, there was NONE of this outcry when people didn't support Carol Mosley Braun or Al Sharpton. So, I don't understand why we've all decided to use this argument this time. It does little credit to the candidates themselves when we simplify them to their gender or their race.

THAT was my point.

Some of us simply don't like her actions since she became the junior senator from NY.

If you want a female President, nominate Barbara Boxer. I'll not only donate (as I have to her senate re-election campaigns) but I'll volunteer to do whatever.

myself..a Congresswoman from Illinois who was totally against the bogus War ON Iraq.

Only the nostalgia for the fradulent rosy promises of Unrestrained Corporatism & Privatization remains.

Just say "NO MORE" to the DLC!



I could not care less about Hillary's gender.
THIS is about POLICY!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

recognition like running for a higher office or something. Governor or US Senate or something.

anecdote.. Jan Schakowsky was at the White House before the 2004 elections and she had an Obama for Senator pin on her blouse and bush said, "who's that, I've never heard of him?" and Jan said, "You will."

Please post a link to some news articles about her.

But I like her already.

Bring on barbara and ill drob obama like a hot potato.

Although I wouldn't drop Obama at this point, but if Boxer had gotten into the race earlier I probably would've backed her over Obama.

In another election (say 2000) she would be a perfectly good candidate for president, but considering the stakes this time 'round and her record she's the wrong person at the wrong time.

Obama's not the one either but he's much closer. Unfortunately, Al's not running so I'll settle for Obama but on Feb 5 in MA I'm voting Edwards.

"If you oppose Hillary, you're a SEXIST PIG"

or

"If you support Obama, you're a Donnie McClurkin & Fred Phelps loving HOMOPHOBE"

it's the "I'm the candidate for change... and I have 35 years of change experience! That's why I'm the candidate for change!"

The irony of that statement is lost on her followers.

There is real change in her history.

If she was the "change person" for 35 years, either she wasn't very good at it, or she DID change things to what they are now... in which case she wants us to think that she will change them again because the first change (or is it the second one) wasn't all that good either.

I'm picking that she wasn't all that good at it. She harps about her experience (OK, fine), but failed to do something... so now we are supposed to give her another opportunity? And if the rebuttal is "but she wasn't President then!" my response is that she has been trying like the devil to make everyone think she played a big role in the last Clinton administration, not the "Laura Bush" role. So which is it? Does she have the experience because she was nearly a co-President with Bill... and she couldn't get anything done? Or is it she wanted to change things but didn't really have any power to do so... and hence no experience in the White House other than that of First Lady?

It is very difficult for women to be taken seriously and to gain the respect they deserve.

or Edwards' supporters?

But you're right about the overuse of sexism.

you'll know why I viciously attack her candidacy.

(I am a woman, btw. A childless woman, who, as a woman, doesn't feel there is any special "woman's" perspective - a single dad understands how difficult it is to juggle working and raising children a hell of a lot better than I do. Shit, a married dad understands better than I do.)

And, I mean no offense, but giving birth provides one with a unique perspective. If you think things are on par between men and women good for you. You obviously have had the good fortune to have not every been the victim of discrimination. I unfortunately have seen and experienced too many instances where equality is still a dream for many women.

'nuff said.

'nuff said' seems to be enough.

...that "the only reason anyone wouldn't support Hillary is that they're members of the white male club."

By that standard, those Iowans who turned out in force in favor of Obama voted for an African-American because they're bigots. Right.

:eyes:

Like Obama on gay issues.

nothing tangible. It is all based on perception, not facts.

Senator Clinton may not be perfect, but her sex alone represents real change.

You are repeating that idiotic statement that she made during the debate. That one almost had me throwing a shoe at the TV.
That's like saying "Wouldn't it be nice to have a redhead in the White House>.

-wise.

Many of them have internalized the right's hatred of the Clintons, by virtue of sheer repetition. They are striking for their combination of nastiness and self-righteousness, as evidenced in this very thread. They remind us that brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed.

world leaders, who are nearly all men? Think!:eyes:

taken the abuse she has and still stands strong.

Or made fun of the endless minutes she spends primping her hair?
Or spread rumors she was a Muslim?

Because those were personal attacks against other candidates -- including some by her campaign.

As Harold Washington said about politics "We don't play this game in short pants." It's a tough game. She does not get a pass because she is a woman.

And, if this were the only attack Clinton had to deflect I would see your point more clearly.

:thumbsup:

There are certainly other women as well in the House and Senate who hold their own without a political machine to have to proclaim their "validity".

unfairly. She has had to back down on occassion. She however, is not in the same position as Senator Clinton is. Sen. Boxer on the other hand, as with most female senators, is not the recipient of vicious attacks on an on going basis. Actually, I can recall no real nasty attacks directed towards Sen. Boxer.

When Pelosi and Boxer are in the same position as Senator Clinton then you can come back and suggest they can hold their own. Besides, Clinton has been holding her own. You miss my point. She can hold her own, but she has been singled out for extremely unfair and harsh treatment, unfounded and undocumented, that has nothing to do with her ideas. She is one tough lady to have had to endure what she has.

The Clinton camp is really overreaching with this victim card nonsense, and that's why they are losing badly.

But I know that much of DU doesn't like the DLC and the Clinton establishment. That is the real reason people don't want Senator Clinton to win.

Give me Barbara Boxer any day.

And I was a Clinton delegate in 1992! :hi:

that is the case. However, it would incorrect to say that all opposition to Senator Clinton is based upon sexism. That would be like saying all opposition to Senator Obama is based upon race, or all opposition to John Edwards is based on opposition to white men.

Likewise, it is difficult to make a serious case that one's sex gives them greater insight into the economic burdens of a single mother. Would someone who was raised in wealth have more insight into this than someone who was raised in poor single parent family, based solely on sex? I think that Senator Clinton's strength in this area is based on her intelligence and compassion, qualities that are not defined by sex.

I fully agree that Senator Clinton is facing a significant amount of the entrenched good ole boy system in Washington, DC. It's good that she does not allow those things to define her. The more she presents as intelligent and compassionate, rather than reacting to the divisive "us vs them" mentality that is being sown within the democratic party, the better.

What a joke. It's not like anyone has accused her of dealing drugs like her side did to Obama.

I swear the Hillbots on this site has their controls stuck in "You must be a sexist" mode. It is possible to oppose Hillary, her policies, and her 35 years of groveling for corporate money, without giving a damn about her sex. Shouldn't the sexist days of throwing our support behind someone because of their genitals, and making ridiculous blanket statements like "...as a woman she would bring a unique perspective to diplomacy and negotiation." be long behind us?

Then yes, calling another Democrat the "status quo" candidate is viscious.

What kind of attack would that count as?

You have to admit there are similarities. Go back to the campaign of 2000. Bush ran on being the candidate of change. A Washington outsider and a uniter not a divider. Bush's inexperience did not help this country and the changes he ran on never can about. and, as for him being a uniter instead of a divider- well we all know how that turned out.
Of course, Obama is not the crazy zealot Bush is, but his inexperience took this country in the wrong direction.

Pro-Globalist
Pro-Lobbyist
Pro-Military Intervention
Pro-Big Money Donors
Little access to the political system for the average American.

That sums up *'s wet dream, and ain't too far off the mark for Hillary.

Senator Clinton.

And, you insult her firther by even suggestng that this is all she has had to endure.

Obama dealing drugs was right. However, I heard very little about that from the MSM. They choose not to run with it.

As I said, I am not a Hilbot. I have no horse in this race. I am simply pointing out what I consider to be unfounded and relentless attacks on Senator Clinton. Most unfounded and unproven.
Now, I understand that Obama has admitted to doing certain drugs. So it could be suggested that his candor opens him up to questioning on this matter.

leveled at one candidate is something that everyone should take notice of. That she is the first woman with a good chance of actually making it into the White House should also make people take notice.
If you reasons for disliking her are grounded in good reasoning than that is fine. But don't for a minute think that sexism no longer exists in this country and that some men still find it hard to be subordinate to woman in positions of power. And yes, I do believe as a woman she would be a unique perspective to the role of President. She is after all a woman and has experienced life in a different manner than a man.

Wisteria, you are absolutely correct. I have been shocked by the immature people on this board who think they know SO much about politics, yet have to resort to school yard insults because it makes them feel better about themselves. There are valid reasons not to vote for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards... but we never get those reasons pointed out. We get smears like "she's a liar". They've all lied. "She supported the war" and Edwards did too (and his apology is just as similar to her saying she would never have voted for it if she knew then what she does now. They both admit that they made wrong choices) and it was easy for Obama to stand against the war as he did not have to have the vote on his record. I was against the war back then as I am a pacifist and am against war period, and it was not nearly as "hard" to be against it as people make it out... especially if, like Obama, your fan base is already progressive.

The personal attacks on Hillary show proof positive that hating her has nothing to do with her policies, it has to do with the human condition and our need to have something that we hate. Having something abstract that we cannot stand allows us to define who we are. It is sad for Clinton, she is a good person and has a good history, but weaker people do not want to be unbiased and look at those things.

Obama is a good person

Hillary is a good person

Edwards is a good person

They all want to lead this country and will take it a POSITIVE direction. Their ideas are pretty much the same, and YES they all represent a drastic change to what has been the status quo for the last 8 years. To claim that a woman in the white house is not change would be desperate and childish.

I hope that the supporters of all these candidates will grow up and stop calling Obama a homophobe, stop calling Hillary a warmonger, and stop calling Edwards a slimy trial lawyer. None of these things are true. They are all good people who have, at some point, done bad things ... just like everyone else on these boards.

Edwards and Obama have risen above that crap and are debating the issues.

I am not speaking about the Candidates but about the supporters on here.

misogyny is playing a role here -
but - I think partly it is Clinton herself and the machine she has behind her and the votes she has made

I want so badly to support her campaign - but I cannot
I want to see a woman become President soon but Hilary has way to much baggage following her and with her hawkishness is coming home to roost.

but I do not like the Clinton's triangulating or their comfort in accepting questionable money in their campaigns. They are not owed another term in the White House, it was an incredible honor to have two. I think that they damaged the party while heading it by not doing any party building worth speaking of.

I was very upset to read the Garth's article in the NYT Magaazine. "Hillary's War" that described the behind the scenes story of the Democrats' positions in 2006. The Clintons determined that making a concerted effort to change the policy could lead to a Republican advantage if Bush started to pull troops out before November. I preferred a Senator, who was willing to risk being vilified by his own party, who said that as a Senator in good standing he could not stay silent when he knew the policy was wrong. Now, HRC acts as if the Kerry/Feingold plan was hers. She led that effort and back in 2006, she was one of the most adament against filibustering Alito - though she ended up voting for it.

I am a woman near HRC's age, who saw some of the glass ceiling lifted.

your tirade depicts. It's 2008, and using the woman/man bias is too far off mark for me! I remember what it was like BEFORE Gloria Steinam... now, many women are highly respected for their achievements. Powerful women are now accepted as a reality, as opposed to what it was like when my mother actually DID "stay home and bake cookies!" When I was very young and before I ventured into the political ring, I recall names of women like Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm... oh, and THEY were black! And THEY had a higher mountain to climb because they had MORE strikes against them than Hillary Clinton even had to consider.

Do I think women are still at a disadvantage? Yes I do, but not women in POWERFUL positions like Hillary Clinton. Think about women who have become leaders in other countries, say for instance Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir? There are many more. I don't recall hearing about how "they" were picked on because they were women. But I also think about the fact that Hillary Clinton was a former First Lady, so she HAD to be aware of a "few" problems if she ran for the Presidency. Did she have any problems like this when she ran for Senator?? I don't think the fact that she was a woman hindered her at all. Since I was younger I've seen more and more women rising in politics, and yet I hardly hear that the fact that they are women keep them from getting elected.

Hillary Clinton often states that she has THIRTY-FIVE years of experience which she uses as a plus for her as a reason to elect her. And let's not FORGET that she's been the beneficiary of some tremendous media coverage that up until lately has been VERY positive. An advantage that many MEN running against her could only dream of. I'm sure Joe Biden and Chris Dodd would have LOVED all that attention, and all the others, besides Obama. But then, speaking of Obama, and he's not my NUMBER ONE... I dare say he started out with more strikes against him than Hillary did. What do you attribute HIS status and what he's achieved in his bid to become president. There WAS a time when I felt Clinton was the "cat's meow" and looked forward to her becoming president. But somewhere from then and now, she COMPLETELY LOST ME!

I'm a white woman, but I think Hillary Clinton's problem isn't that she's a woman, her problem is that she's Hillary Clinton, the person and how she's conducted herself. If anything, she began with several advantages that the other candidates would gladly have welcomed.

JMHO!

that the daycare their children are placed in is safe. Try making ends meet on two jobs that pay $7.50 an hour. Sure things have gotten better, but they have also gotten worse. The pregnancy rate among young girls is up. The role models for women now a days are models and movie actresses. The idea is to be so slim that you put your life in jeopardy. Woman feel a need to have plastic surgery just to feel good about themselves. Women are the victims of rape and incest more often then men, husbands still think it is ok to beat their wives. Sorry, but we still have a long way to go.
You can dislike Senator Clinton for good reasons, but you can not deny that a woman in the White House would signal change.

Please do not allow your support of another candidate to cloud your view.

Really you won't.

Just because I have grave doubts about Obama's leadership and his ability to keep this country safe does not mean I respect him less because of the color of his skin.
I think you owe me an apology.

"Just because I have grave doubts about Obama's leadership and his ability to keep this country safe does not mean I respect him less because of the color of his skin."

Might that also apply to persons in regards to Hillary Clinton?

"Just because I have grave doubts about Hillary's leadership and her ability to keep this country safe does not mean I respect her less because of what's between her legs."


Obama seems to be doing just fine when it comes to leadership. I don't understand what you mean about 'keeping this country safe' and you doubting his abilities to do so.

Please explain?

that she is a woman. I accuse no one of anything. I merely suggest that the attacks seem awful one sided.

And, I think accusing someone of being racist when no such racist comments were ever made is just plain wrong. Standing up for what I believe is right and just does not make me a racist. And, if you compare the terms of racist and sexism side by side, I beleive one carries more weight with the general public.
Besides, I am not a racist, never was and never will be and for someone that knows nothing about me to accuse me of such a thing maakes me want to cry. What a hurtful thing to say to anyone.

Wisteria implied no such thing. I don't get it.

based on several years of comments here and there. That's all I'll say about it.

I would think you'd wait to post your comments at an appropriate time rather than making an accusation of racism in a public forum of which she's a long-time member. Instead, you've made a public attack without providing her any way to defend her comments. Is that fair?

prove what you have accused me of. My concerns about Obama have absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin. I am trying to be reasonable and honest. No ones abilities should be judged by the color of their skin or by their gender. Is this how some of Obama's supporters are going to react whenever someone questions his abilities- accuse them of racism?
I really do not think Obama would support your methods of defending him.

Oh, and I do not have a horse in this race. I am trying to present a balance.

You owe me an apology, but I don't expect that I will get one. I suppose I am just to deep a thinker for you to comprehend.

If what is starting here, horribly, is a messiah cult, then it's very likely people will get killed. Messiah cults seem to bring that out in people.

Already people just on DU are telling us it doesn't matter what he stands for, just that you believe.

It won't be because he's black, though. It will be because his followers decided a divine king is better than a mere elected executive.

you get knocked. It's called peaking too early.

and the slander made against her.

They don't want her getting back up.

Sure, politics is about attacking your opponent. The difference is when the attacks come from many different directions, are not even based on truth and come from all different directions all united in the purpose of slandering and inflicting mortal wounds. Seems to me Sen. Clinton has been the victim of overkill and why is that?

because she is a woman. And I'm moving her up in my sig line. She impressed me in the most recent debate, and I have always stated that I believe she would make an EXCELLENT president.

There's one problem. I believe that she'll be defeated by the Republican nominee. Fair or not, I want a Democratic president.

Not exclusively, anyway. I will concede that that may be a factor for some, but not all. Not even a majority. In truth, it's a confluence of things. What you are probably seeing are a lot of Dems who didn't like Bill all that much to begin with, but supported him because he was better than Bush or Dole. They resented having to "settle" for Bill, and Hillary actually seems to acknowledge that many of them were settling when she uses the words "false hope" to describe the Edwards and Obama insurgency.

Re-elect President Clinton isn't a persuasive argument if you didn't like President Clinton that much to begin with.

For myself, I'm the type who doesn't like to try to return to the "good old days", since as Billy Joel put it, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems." True words.