- ‹ previous
- 3921 of 8816
- next ›
Hillary Rising: Experience and Conventional Politics Triumph in NH
NASHUA, NH — The empire strikes back.
Throughout the morning, afternoon, and early evening of Election Day in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton aides looked grim and gloomily moaned about a campaign that appeared to have been derailed, if not defeated. Expecting to lose by as much as 10 points, they wondered aloud what could be done to stop Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed "hope-monger," who only days earlier had seemingly rewritten modern American politics. Then the actual results started coming in, and Clinton was reborn. After being trounced in Iowa, the wife of the "comeback kid" of 1992 had managed a resurrection far more impressive than her spouse had achieved sixteen years earlier. He had merely overcome news of an extramarital affair; she had beaten back a new brand of politics.
Her surprising win—based partly on a strong performance among women and working-class voters—came after she had spent days decrying Obama's lack of experience (a legitimate point) and denouncing him as a hypocrite (not a legitimate point). With Clinton's victory, the main question of the Democratic race returns to what it had been prior to Iowa: can he beat her? But the small 3-percent margin in her favor suggested that the battle between her conventional politics and his unconventional politics has not been definitively resolved.
Throughout the campaign, Obama and Clinton have been operating on two different levels. Her playbook has been by-the-numbers: bash the Bush administration, offer red-meat policy proposals, sell her experience, talents, and strength—and, of course, raise tons of money and assemble a powerhouse organization. Obama has done all of that but within a different context. At the start, he and his advisers took one big step back and tried to envision what the electorate would be yearning for in 2008—not just the Democrats but also independents and those Republicans who did not fancy the taste of the Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid.
Clinton was practicing standard supply-side politics: push the candidate. Obama was looking at the demand side. He and his aides believed there was a desire for a break from politics as usual. After all, there had been a decade and a half of bitter politics, as well as several years of governmental incompetence (and worse), care of the Bush administration. Opinion polls suggested deep popular dissatisfaction with the state and future of the country. The Iraq War—and its unending fallout—had soured many independents and some Republicans. And the current regime was not doing much for anyone worried about economic security, health care, or global warming. So for many Americans, the government wasn't working, and the political system was broken. They wanted change. For a potential national candidate, what was the answer? A candidacy that offered solutions and leadership that would transcend the same-old/same-old. That was Obama's theory: give 'em both a platform and, yes, hope.
In Iowa, it worked. Obama attracted newcomers to politics. He persuaded people that he had character, root principles, and the desire (if not the ability) to rise above the bickering of Washington to accomplish grand goals—that by electing him the voters themselves could be implementers of profound change. (A President Obama certainly would represent more change than a second President Clinton.) He offered them not merely a choice but the chance to be part of a cause.
In New Hampshire, his crusade crashed into prosaic political reality. Though the state—with its high percentage of upscale and well-educated voters—seemed ready-made for another Obama triumph, the Clintons had deep roots there (which was not the case in Iowa). And after being upset in Iowa, the Clinton campaign focused on its core supporters. "At Clinton headquarters, it was all women all the time," said one Democratic official. And exit polls showed that women made up 57 percent of the Democratic vote and broke dramatically for Clinton.
At campaign stops, Obama audaciously compared his campaign to great periods in U.S. history: the fight for independence, the abolition of slavery, the defeat of fascism in World War II, the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement. "There's a moment in the life of every generation," Obama told the New Hampshire voters who flooded his events, "if it is to make a mark on history, when that spirit of hopefulness must come through.... This is our moment."
Clinton aides and supporters dismissed and derided all his talk of hope and change as hokey. The day before the election, Bill Clinton called Obama's pitch "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Again and again—in New Hampshire bars, restaurants and hotel lobbies, at campaign events—the Clintonistas voiced the mantra: Obama's a fine young man, but she has the experience, she has been vetted. Their frustration was palpable: why don't those damn voters get it. In the back room of an Irish pub in Manchester, retired General Wesley Clark said to me that he wished Democratic voters "would show some guts," that he believed they were scared to vote for Clinton because they feared Republicans would mount a vicious anti-Hillary campaign should she be nominated. Democratic voters, he said, needed to suck it up and get behind Hillary Clinton, because she was the only candidate with deep experience. "Democrats," he complained, "fall in love. Republicans fall in line."
Working to get those Democrats into line behind her, Clinton asked voters to hire her as their champion, noting that due to her work in the White House, 7,000 kids in New Hampshire had health insurance and that New Hampshire National Guard members had health care thanks to her toils in the Senate. She held campaign events—not always so well attended—where she answered long series of questions to show her command of policy details. She cried—or nearly cried—at one campaign stop when discussing why she was driven to run for president. (Tons of analysis—before and after her win—focused on whether this had helped her.) And as Election Day neared, Clinton and her campaign ops went further than questioning Obama's readiness; they denigrated him as a talker, not a doer, and, worse, as a disingenuous hypocrite. Their evidence for the second half of this argument was weak—more spin than substance. (For one example, see here.)
Reporters laughed off the Clinton oppo attacks, some telling me that the campaign had been peddling (unsuccessfully) the same thin stuff to reporters for months. There's no telling—at this time—whether those cheap shots helped her. But they certainly didn't hurt. And the hypocrisy of Clinton's blasts never backfired against her. The Clinton campaign hammered Obama for slamming lobbyists but naming a (state) lobbyist for a drug company as co-chair his New Hampshire campaign. A fair point—but her campaign's chief strategist is Mark Penn, a corporate consultant who has worked for drug companies and other favorite Democratic targets. The Clintonites did not allow themselves to be inconvenienced by such contradictions. And virtually no one called them on it.
In the meantime, the Clinton campaign's get-out-the-gals ground game plodded ahead—even though on Election Day, Clinton people did not appear to have much faith in it. "This is not working," Elizabeth Bagley, a Clinton adviser and fundraiser, said at mid-day. "There obviously has to be a retooling of the campaign." And talk swirled that the Clinton campaign was about to undergo a dramatic shakeup. ("We're always adding new people to the team," a not-so-cheerful-looking Terry McAuliffe, the campaign chairman, told me.) The politerati pondered whether or not Clinton would pull out of Nevada, which holds a first-time caucus on January 19, and South Carolina, which has a primary election on January 26, and make her final stand on Super-Duper Tuesday, February 5, when 24 states will hold primaries or caucuses. "We need a time-out," said a Clinton adviser, "something to stop the momentum, so we can have a reality check." Clinton got much more than a stop-in-play.
With his lofty calls for change and his invitation to voters to join him in a grand political experiment, Obama, in Iowa, flipped the script. "We shook up every political assumption," he said while campaigning in New Hampshire. But now Clinton—even though she won by only a few thousand votes—has flipped it back. And the new narrative is again the old narrative. Their Election Night speeches reflected the fundamental divide of the race. Obama declared, "The reason our campaign has always been different...is because it's not just about what I will do as president.... It's about what you can do to change" the nation. Clinton proclaimed, "It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you." He was still selling a movement; she was still selling herself. The primaries ahead will show who has a better sense of the market—and, just as important (as New Hampshire reminded all), who has a better delivery system.
Hillary Clinton Makes History..
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style ? or Bill Clinton's either ? without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That's why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I'm not opposing Mr. Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old ? for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy ? while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women's Media Center.
Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin
by Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States Of America
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach Us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy.Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin.
"Madame President of the United States...it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," said Streisand. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us?and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
Hillary Clinton Makes History..
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style ? or Bill Clinton's either ? without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That's why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I'm not opposing Mr. Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old ? for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy ? while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women's Media Center.
Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin
by Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States Of America
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach Us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy.Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin.
"Madame President of the United States...it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," said Streisand. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us?and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
I think you need to pay more attention to the huge support Clinton won among NH women. Democratic women's desire to see a woman in the White House trumps their worries about Clinton's marketing strategy v. Obama's.
Clinton's narrow win represents a sad this is a sad day for America and the world. The world watched and wondered if the American voter was smart enough and brave enough to break from 20 years of American rule by 2 families the Bushes and the. Clintons and elect an excellent candidate who happens to be black? Iowa gave the world and the country hope. New Hampshire brought back despare. The American voter has gotten it wrong forces past 8 years. Destracted by the illusion of gay marriage and blinded by irrational fear we made the critical mistake shot ourselves in the proverbial foot and elected the disasteroud Bush again. This time Hillary distracted the simple
minded voter again with half truths and distirtions on obama record. The lies unfortunately were effective and she eeked out a 2 point victory. Will we repeat the errors. If the past? Clinton wind we lose. I'm a democrat but if Hillary wind the nomination I will obstain from voting in the general.
The "GREAT MOMENTS" on Everest were meeting the mountain's challenges, such as negotiating the labyrinth-like Khumbu Icefall, climbing the Lhotse Face, hacking steps into the ice, going up the South Col, and upwards on to the Hillary Steps.
"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves."
Sir Edmund HILLARY after his Hillarious Victory Beating Up The Everest.
I have to agree with Wayne, it's very disappointing to see "the machine" overwhelm "the wave". As a woman, I also hate the sterotype presented. Things get tough and the woman sheds a few tears and immediately gets her way.
I've always voted for the Clintons, but I'm done with them. It is time to put these ruling families and the rancor they foster behind us and deal the the issues ahead of us. There is still time and I still have hope.
Irony. She cried and got the Oprah vote.
I would like to personally thank the State of N.H. for their vote for moderation. Hillary Clinton is a candidate who is both mainstream and has an understanding of the importance of keeping a focus on the common good. I trust her wisdom and experience to help our nation in these especially difficult times.
The vote tally was close, but the number of delegates won in New Hampshire appears to be identical: 9 delegates for Clinton, 9 delegates for Obama.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/09/final-the-new-hampshire-...
Does anyone know if there is an official delegate count?
Your ability to frame the context and pose the issues contrasting Iowa and New Hampshire is excellent. The Democrats have given us two able candidates who can complement each other and truly start something special if they can both step out of their own skin and the win-lose paradigm and present a novel era of leadership. Instead of focusing on gender and age the way media pundits and political gurus seek to handle and spin, they both could have called each other last night at 11:00 as the vote was tallied, agreed to show up at a neutral site, agreed to call each other winner and partner in this new populist tidewave and turned a completely new page in the making of democracy. Instead, like John Edwards, with slightly better retooled script and less monotonous delivery, both Senators chose to continue to talk about victory and basically repeated their Iowa stump speeches. Here's to hoping their learning curve will sharpen the days ahead and this scenario will become a reality in Denver.
If not, it will be the lack of imagination our leaders continue to bemoan and we will have to look somewhere else in the world to see a new beacon for democracy.
I agree with Gloria Steinem's comment paraphrased as "If a woman had the lack of experience that Obama has, she would not even been considered as a presidential candidate." Obama is an idealist, but with insubstantial experience on which to ground his ideals. He could learn from Hilliary and Bill Clinton, and be much more than a potential. Hillary for prez, Barack for vp, and Bill for Secretary of State.
Gender, race, creed,religion..forget about it.
We the voters are all wanting a President with the skills,intellegence, working for us not against us.
The corporate communication media needs to shape-up and just report instead of feeding on sound bites and silly analysis of meaningless move of the candidates to increase their own corporation needs.
We have many very serious problems as a country to deal with and deal with fast!
This is not a sporting match, this election is real life and serious business.
Hillary is NOT what America needs!!!
Wake up people. If you care about this country and our collective future, look no further for the answer:
http://tinyurl.com/33bq4k
Hillary Clinton Makes History..
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style or Bill Clinton's either without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That's why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I'm not opposing Mr. Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women's Media Center.
HILLARY CLINTON IS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICA NEEDS ASAP.
We do nto have time to play with oprahbama and his race issues. We need action now and he has no substance..Just allot of empty preaching...
Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin
by Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States Of America
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach Us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy.Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin.
"Madame President of the United States...it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," said Streisand. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
I think the Democrats need to be thinging about who has the ability to beat the Republicans. Obama is a great speaker with wonderful ideas but he would be as ineffective as Jimmy Carter in Washington and don't you think the Republicans won't use that? Clinton knows how to get things done.
Good riddance.
I thought MOJO was a good unbiased source for news . . . David Corn's hit after grousing hit against the Clinton campaign is neither good nor unbiased, especially since I can't find an official endorsement of Obama (or any other candidate) on MOJO. Very disappointing.
Hillary has a great grasp of detailed information, is obviously highly intelligent and thoughtful. What she lacks is leadership. Without leadership, her worthy goals can't be achieved. Obama empowers people to get involved in making change. People can learn facts and information -- they can't learn how to lead and motivate people - that's why Hillary always seems so contrived and artificial. She is a great person, just not presidential. I wish women would get over being so obsessed with wanting to vote for her because she is a woman.
I can understand David is in a bit of a tiss. His continued and deeply unprofessional behavior over the past few weeks when he has largely overlooked Obama's shortcomings and poured scorn on Clinton have brought their own reward. I used to have quite a bit of respect for Mr Corn but I'm afraid he now belongs in the same category as his doppelganger on the right that ass Fred Barnes. Clinton won by never losing her nerve and because she is basically the candidate of the mainstream Democratic party and not the Naderite left or those right wing crossovers anxious to lodge a tactical vote against their favorite demon figure. Mr Corn and Mr Barnes have a few more unhappy days in store because strategically she is now in a commanding position as she heads into the mainly closed primaries where her support is strongest.
Yes, Hillary is a woman. A cold, calculating one at that. How can anyone forget her vote authorizing Bush to go to war without even reading the NIE? Her vote was cast for political reasons to prove she was tough on terror. I would hope our next president would be more thoughtful.
To give the traditional democrats an idea of what a Hillary nomination would mean: I am 28 yrs old, and while I have been involved heavily in Dem. politics for quite some time, most of my peers are not polticos. They, like myself, are very excited about Obama. Also, like myself, they have vowed to vote Republican if Hillary is nominated. The biggest problems most of us have with her is that we do not trust her and that she takes more lobbyist money than any of the republican candidates. Whether one is concerned with issues of sex or race, the issue of lobbyists' control of public policy is far more serious than the aforementioned. None of the major issues that concern myself or my peer group will ever be resolved with a candidate as beholden to special interest as Hillary.
I dislike Hillary for being the George Bush of the left in terms of her nasty view of all who oppose her. I want a leader. Hillary is running for Manager in Chief, and that's not what a broken country needs. She'll just give us another four years of division.
If either McCain or Obama makes it to the general election, that's who I'll vote for. My dream election is having to choose between them.
A very sour piece of writing. I am not an American but I am following this race with huge interest and I find it hard to understand why people on the left hate Ms. Clinton in this way. A genuine question. Ms. Clinton seems to me to be a good genuine left person. Why do so many left people seem to hate her mroe than thay do Bush?
Mr Corn, I like you, I really do. Your opening line, however, "the empire strikes back," is cute and invidious. I know you aren't a Clinton fan, but now you're comparing (albeit subtly) Hillary Clinton to Emperor Palpatine? I suppose that makes Obama Luke Skywalker? I imagine you were trying to dramatize the Establishment candidate vanquishing the upstart but your lead-in goes rather farther than that with its implicitly negative characterization. If, as your presumed favorite Obama says, words matter then let's pay a bit more attention to them.
As to some of the comments here, I'm all for hope but hope is not a plan. Somehow people seem to be hoping that Obama will bring about miraculous change should he become president and he will end the rancor in Washington. That's not hope; it's a pipe dream. My fellow black Americans may rally to him in South Carolina but I don't believe they will abandon Clinton. Why? The black experience in America has always been to hope while putting one's trust in experience over words. Unless and until Obama shows he can turn his hopefulness and inspirational message into a action coalition, I think many black Americans, the most practical-minded and reality-oriented of people, will remain skeptical.
When it comes to Obama, "where's the beef?" applies. He TALKS about making change, but she's DONE IT. Edwards said she was for status quo. She said she had been working for change for 35 years. She could have added this: They are like a family that has guests over for the Superbowl. The lady cleans the house and cooks the dinner, and the guys swoop in at the last minute and try to steal all the credit. Obama has criticized Hillary for: 1) she's overly ambitious - but she has 8 years of first lady and 8 as Senator, but Obama was only in the Senate for 2 years before running for pres, 2) her service as first lady was meaningless (he said, it's not like she was treasury secretary), Obama made the analogy that he discusses things with his wife (Michelle), but it's not like that means she's experienced. And, maybe that's so. Maybe Michelle would be a more traditional first lady. But, that's not the role that Hillary played for Bill, not by a long shot, 3) Obama gives Hillary no respect for her accomplishments, 4) She's accused of changing the way she speaks. Hillary lived in Ark. for 20 years! It's natural for someone who had some drawl to pick it up when they go back. But, when Obama speaks he suddenly has a drawl and preacher like intonation! Well, Obama never lived in the South! He grew up in Hawaii and lived in Chicago. Now, he has a soft, southern genteel accent. Get real! Obama's camp has excelled at the Karl Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of everything that you are guilty of yourself!
GIT R DONE Hillary !
I think you'd better do your homework, pal. You're confusing Hillary with George Bush. Hillary is always well prepared. Also, you'd better go back and read the issue that was voted on. And, C. Rice assured the Senate that this vote did not authorize the pres to go to war, without the approval of congress.
Hillary is only viable as long as Edwards stays in the race and splits the Obama vote. If Edwards drops out Obama cleans Hillary's clock.
Fools! Here is how it was/is going to be done:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
Hillary, I'm sure, would be a competent president. But, as corny as some people find the idea, this country needs hope, healing and a big dose of "us" instead of "us vs. them".
I doubt very seriously that the swirl of mud that usually follows the Clintons can do that for the country. Do you think these people (Clinton-haters) are going to stop trying to "get" the Clintons just because she's president. The very idea will put them on a 24/7 "Get Hillary" campaign. We went through 8 years of viciousness. An all out personal attack war. Enough already!! And just because nothing's stuck to the Clintons so far doesn't mean that they'll remain teflon.
Also, I take great exception to her patronizing and insulting comments about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s relevance to the civil rights movement - he didn't do it alone but he was its face and conscious, which every great movement needs.
Thankfully, this country is coming to its senses and supporting the one candidate that speaks to the hearts AND minds of America, the one who can talk but has also acted for 35 years. You go Hillary!
What exactly is Sen. Clinton's experience that I should be so impressed with?
Her failure to lead any principled opposition to right-wing war mongering?
How about her craven political pandering on 'important' issues flag-burning or video games instead?
Or perhaps her insider status and connections with those same corporate DLC phonies who opened the door for a right-wing rise to power in the first place.
So... if you love the role the Democratic Party has played in Washington in the last eight years... Vote Clinton!
"We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The *only* valid basis for voting for someone is whether they will do the job for all of us. What you advocate is sexism; if you want to end sexism, stop being sexist yourself.
Let's see. The voters are tired of the partisan, militaristic status quo, so a plurality of New Hampshire Democrats vote for a candidate who is at least as hawkish and divisive as George W. Bush--a fortiori, at the same point in her career, far more. I'm sure her new personality du jour, cooked up from the menu proposed by consultants, has helped. No one cares that she hasn't shed a tear for the 4000 Americans and million Iraqis who have died in a war, founded on a patently fraudulent casus belli, that she has always gleefully supported; it's enough that she choked up about the difficulties of campaigning, riding on her husband's frayed and semen-stained coattails while portaying herself as a feminist, a strong and self-sufficient women while Bill talks as if he were running for reelection. At least she seems to have discovered the first person plural.
Visionary leaders come along only once in a lifetime. Obama is an idealist with the education and intelligence to forsee a better world combined with the ability and education to make it happen. He has the oratory skills and genius to inspire everyone who listens. Is it possible that Obama's talk of Hope and Unity is not an empty
"fairytale" as Bill Clinton so pessimistically (and wrath-fully) stated when he came to his wife's rescue. (Whose presidency run is this anyway?) This country is in serious trouble - on the brink of a depression and becoming more hated and despisd by the rest of the civilized world everyday, leaving us more open to nuclear bombing and terrorist attacks than any country in the world. How is fixating on gender or race going to fix that? Let's vote in someone who is genuinely sincere about fixing the country and uniting the world, not in shoring up her own deflated ego after some debilitating public humiliation of years ago. I'm sure Hillary is a well qualified person with lots of experience (though I find it hard to see why being a first lady counts as experience)and being one of the first women libbers I would have gladly voted for her if she were more left, if she wasn't so fixated on herself, if she was less hypocritical, or less willing to smear with half truths and lies, if she could make up her mind to be tough or a crybaby, if she didn't call in hubby to fix things, if she wasn't so obviously snide to someone who is not needling or disrespecting her and if I thought she could unite people. The last in my opinion is the one thing she cannot do and is in my opinion, the most important of all. I think we should all be gratful someone like Obama came along when he was so desparately needed. Let's not waste his huge talent - it could be a matter of death or life as we know it.
The intoxication the groupies have had with Obama may eventually turn into a hangover. As he becomes more cocky and full of himself, he is starting to lapse more and more into the cadences and chants, characteristic of black speakers. There are more and more reports about his "changing" dialects out on the campaign trail. Some do not see this as particularly presidential. Obama's own self-comparisons to JFK, RFK, and MLK in his speeches have left many to silently wonder if he REALLY believes this? His loss made him once again just a human being. Too, still many others are put off with the emphasis put on his Kenyan roots, CNN even talking to his relatives. In broken english they state, "maybe he can do the same over here" (if he wins), an unsettling prospect for the average American citizen. Although the general public has empathy for Africa's plight, not many Americans are ready to share the leader of the free world equally with another continent. Sorry, Oprah. Most feel that their ties to TUCC-Chicago contains serious implications as well, far too much emphasis on blackness and African agendas. Racism and double standard comes to mind. Somehow, those priorities do not resonate with the single mother who is struggling to buy her son's baseball uniforms, gas to get him to the games, and pay the bills. That's why, at the end of the day, Hillary is the one who represents Mom and apple pie for the masses.
I agree, Tom. And I am a woman who joined the fight for women's rights in the very early '70s.
I cringed when Hillary said "I'm your girl" and when she made stereotypical jokes at the expense of men ("won't it be nice to have a president not afraid to stop and ask for directions"). I cringed even more when she got choked up about how difficult things were for her (not for us, mind you, but for her). And I am beyond cringing when women in NH said they voted for her because the men 'ganged up' on her in the last debate. None of these actions are representative of what I was fighting for in the '70s.
What do we call a woman who uses her gender to get what she wants? We don't call her a feminist.
I'll admit I'm a Republican but I like this comment. It is sad that any woman would vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I know my wife would only make a decision based on issues (as would I). I'm wondering if maybe people like the poster above and my wife are unusual and that Hillary will be the next president mainly because she is a woman who happened to be married to a guy who used to be President. If so, it will be a looong four years!
MSNBC commentator claims that press developed a bad man crush on Obama and his poetry left them dreaming. What a bunch of jerks!
The idea that gender is a greater barrier to the presidency than race is a fantasy white women seem eager to entertain. Let's see how BLACK women vote in South Carolina. I predict they will pull the lever for Obama. Why? Because race is obviously a far greater barrier to the presidency.
Please do not abstain from voting. Whatever the distaste for HRC, her policies (and SUPREME COURT picks) surely make her preferable to ANY Republican.
Thanks.
Dear Andrew,
Please do not forget the SUPREME COURT. You may have good reason to dislike/distrust HRC, but she will surely NOT nominate another Scalia/Roberts, who will take away so many of our rights.
I hope that those women in New Hampshire who were filled with righteous anger re: how Hillary is treated when she gets emotional remember whose hands they are playing into..the GOP..there is NOBODY that will unite their party like Hillary..Obama scares them because he's tapped into a deep hunger in America for integrity and reason back in our government.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
David Corn,
You are wonderful - and a perfect example of what I love about Mother Jones: thoughtful, intelligent, logical analysis - based on facts rather than spin. What a joy and a relief to read this piece which, to my mind, really hits the nail on the head. Hillary's selling the Clinton brand. Obama's giving a new world view - what a relief!
y .... poor mr or mrs next president
Uh oh more tax dollars going to RACISTS
Hillary Picks La Raza Leader As Campaign Co Chair
Thu, 04/12/2007
The former president of an extremist group that organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches and advocates the return of the American Southwest to Mexico will co-chair Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Best known for his radical pro Chicano work during 30 years as president of the National Council of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre is being promoted by the Clinton campaign as a prominent Hispanic activist who will lead the New York senator's outreach to Hispanic voters.
The reality is that Yzaguirre alienates many American citizens of Hispanic descent (in other words, those qualified to vote) with his so-called La Raza rhetoric, which has been repeatedly labeled racist.
The National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, but it caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan.
The takeover plan is referred to as the "reconquista" of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan.
While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful (thanks to Hillary's new campaign co-chair) and annually receives millions of dollars in federal grants. Its leaders also managed to get included in congressional hearings regarding immigration. Last year alone, the National Council of La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grants and one senator gave the group an extra $4 million in earmarked American taxpayer dollars.
The organization uses the money to support projects like a Southern California elementary school with a curriculum that specializes in bashing America and promoting the Chicano movement. The school's founder and principal, a Calexico-educated activist named Marcos Aguilar, opposes racial integration and says Mexicans in the U.S. don't want to go to white schools or drink from white water fountains.