NEWS: Why I Love Hillary Clinton

Your argument is self-defeating, you explain why some believe it's sexist to vote for a woman just because she's a woman, then say it's "obviously" false, but give no reason why it's so obvious.

You talk about the candidates' stance on "women's issues" (in and of itself a derogatory term, if 54% of the electorate are women, there shouldn't be a need for a separate section on "women's issues", they should be issues at the forefront of the campaign) and how apparently only Clinton's stance is assured after the election.

Why?

Is there any evidence to back up that Clinton is somehow impervious to change in her stance on the issues? Because I can give you many examples of her being the biggest flip-flopper candidate running. She attacks Republicans for their stance on illegal immigration, and yet herself has a strong stance against illegal immigration and for a national ID card. She voted for the war in Iraq but is now against the war in Iraq. She is an icon in the fight for universal health care, but also received money from Big Pharm lobbyists.

You do not convince me that this woman would not say anything to get elected, even if it goes against her principles, and that includes "women's issues".

The fact that the US is ranked 66th in the world for women in government is embarrassing. The fact that Hillary Clinton is the only viable female presidential candidate is equally embarrassing. I want to see a woman become president, but her name is Nancy Pelosi. Both Pelosi and Clinton have 100% voting records when it comes to women's issues, but only Pelosi has had a consistent voting record on Iraq, civil liberties, and immigration.

I therefore support Kucinich's proposal to invoke articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney and have Pelosi serve the rest of the term. Barring that I'd like to see Nancy Pelosi actually run, so I can in good conscience consider a woman for the highest public office, instead of dismissing her outright as I have with Clinton.

Sadly, I disagree with Bitch_PhD on this one, too. Voting for a woman just because she's a woman in the hopes that she will support liberal woman issues is taking a gamble. By that logic, Anne Coulter would be a good candidate for the presidency... and I certainly wouldn't vote for her.

I don't trust any of the candidates... so I have no idea who I'll vote for.

If we go to her senate page and look at her domestic programs, she has a record most democrats or liberal independents would be happy to support. I guess that includes issues that hit women hardest.

HOWEVER, if we stop to consider her international policy to date, she voted with the Bush/Cheney administration to invade Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 2007 based on questionable & debated intelligence reports. WHen questionned on this, she retorts with arrogant pat answers, sprinkled with her maniacal laugh - and suddenly I see Margaret Thatcher, not a democrat.

I believe that the war, an international crisis, is a woman's issue, and human issue, . Barack Obama spoke out against the war in 2002 and does not support the bill to invade Iran now. I believe the war is an issue all women care about...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Besides, Barack is more of a woman than Hilary will ever be~!

Hillary is my 5th choice, after Kucinich, Obama, Dodd, and Biden.

Voting for a candidate based on only one aspect of her political personality is a terrible idea. A terrible idea. It's like voting for Ron Paul because he's against the war on drugs. Or voting for Bush because he's Christian. Yes, Hillary is a woman, and yes, she'll have better firsthand experience with women's issues. But the sheer fact that Obama is actually competing for women's votes on women's issues - and if you believe Atlantic, competing well - means that those issues will not go ignored, which is what so many feminists fear. And Obama does have a wife, who's already been rather vocal in this campaign and could, in the end, handle women's issues a lot better than he could provided she had enough support and enough of a podium, much like Hillary's stace on health care in the 90s, only with much more of a national backing.

And then, once you realize that Hillary's care for women's issues is not limited to simply her, you can return to being pants-shittingly frightened of her as a politician and a human being. DO NOT VOTE FOR HER. Even if she does have a vagina.

Win the White House with Clinton, probably not. She really is unlikable. Anyone else though has a chance, I think you are unclear on how badly the majority want a shift. If it's Clinton vs any of the Repubs it's like voting for either Kang or Kodos.

Feminist pitch by a candidate named Obama

Think he is faking it for the election? I don't...

That demon's got an Adam's Apple that makes Ric Ocasek jealous, and wacko to boot. I'm not convinced the little incubus is a woman.

-TM

That's exactly it. The problem with Hillary is that, even when she's discussing women's concerns, she is absolutely fake, and manages to deliver every single line in every single speech as if it were an outright lie - and many of them probably are. But Obama speaks truthfully. He hasn't illustrated an early-candidacy tendency to gloss over the truth like Bill Clinton did, but he's just as likeable and can be quite inspiring to those who hear him. He's frank without being blunt, which is far from what anyone can say about Clinton. She's a bitch in every sense of the word. If she's the nominee, Republicans will absolutely salivate. But if Obama's the nominee, the only holes they'll be able to punch in his politics would be that he's inexperienced, and that he has the potential to start unwanted military controntations.

Nothing I've seen about Clinton has given me any indication that she gives a damn about women's issues. I agree that a woman probably understands and cares more about those issues than a man would. I just don't see it here.

And I think the US (and Canada too, by the way) is still too sexist to elect a strong, bitchy woman as president.

I'm voting for Hillary, but as I couldn't even make it through this "article". I can't help but ask, why the hell are you still even an editor/writing articles?

Seriously, every time I see a Bitch_PhD article go up I know not to read it, cause it'll be more skewed than Bill O'Reilly.

Do you only write to incite??

That's an absolute load of shit. Obama's the most "electable" candidate, in a head-to-head fight with an opposing party, since Reagan. Edwards would depend on his opponent, and given the right push, Bill Richardson could really become a star. But you're absolutely right about Clinton - if she's the candidate, she's all but dead in the water; her survival would essentially depend entirely on her running mate. But to say that there are no electable Democrats - with this Republican field - is absolutely absurd in every regard.

um..well dug into this did a lot of research...Bill Clinton 8 years....Hillary Clinton 0 to four years...Bushes 12 years...0 more I hope....Clintons- country doing well...Bush years, well, look around...I don't support hillary much but comparing them to the Bush camp, is well, insulting to them, as well as insulting to any reptiles or amphibians evolving now....

WILD BILL CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

Yes, but to a democracy, it's the absolute worst that could happen to have only two families control the highest office for decades at a time. It's the shadow of a dynasty, which is itself the shadow of tyranny.

Is water wet?

Seriously, though, I like B_PhD threads when nobody comments. I picture her bouncing off the walls screaming "Somebody flame me, damn it! You're supposed to flame me!"

i wonder if hillary can cook?

This was actually a huge issue in the '92 election when a picture of her family eating cereal or something came out. And people got outraged that she wasn't making breakfast for them. I think that's what it was.

Heathen Dave is correct. Hillary is only concerned with herself and sitting in the big chair.
How concerned was Hillary for the numerous WOMEN her husband used, abused, and threw away?

Was Hillary concerned for Vince Foster's wife, whom Hillary dis-respected and treated as garbage, by banging her husband Vince for years. Then Vince "commits suicide" is a D.C. park which everyone knows was a sham.

Is this the feminist you want setting policy and doctrine for our society? Is that the feminist example you want to uphold for your daughter or any other woman in the United States or the world? Where is Hillary when the obvious rampant abuses of Muslim, and most other third world cultures are exposed? You say Hillary is a feminist and I laugh....... or sigh. The progress of the last 200 years that has been again lost for women. Silence.

Of course a male can fight just as courageously for respect and equality of women, after all Obama is married to a very intelligent one. You don't think Slick Willy was influenced or even steamrolled by Hillary into advancing causes and issues? Let's not be naive.

Here's the deal, bottom line they're all POLITICIANS! Hillary may be a woman, speaking gender specifically, but I guarantee she and George W. aren't far from each other. Behind closed doors they all laugh at our ernest determination for truth and justice.

Really, what sort of political system do you think this is, a democracy? Far from it.

Grande

Very interesting article. Hillary scares me because she seems to be more interested in making it into the Good Ol' Boys Club than in doing anything for any Americans, regardless of their politics.

Didn't read the article, and yet still feel the need to pop in and comment...

If she writes only to incite, she seems to have succeeded with you, wouldn't you say? When all you have to read is her name to post?

OMG, nutrition filled cereal? What a horrible mother.

Guess I better not get into politics; I'd hate to see what they could do with my culinary prowess

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you... the voter: