The 'Not Clinton' Excuse

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The 'Not Clinton' Excuse
By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 22, 2008; A25

A woman? Yes. But not that woman.

It is the platitude of the moment, an automatic rejoinder to any suggestion that Hillary Clinton has struggled so desperately -- and so far unsuccessfully -- to grasp the Democratic presidential nomination in some measure because she is female. It isn't the woman part, the rationale goes. It's the Clinton part: that "polarizing" persona and "unlikable" demeanor. The unappetizing thought of President "Billary." The more inspirational quest by Barack Obama to become the country's first black president.

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate. "Maybe a generation from now," says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "My feeling is, I don't see who's coming after Clinton, and I don't feel like it's going to be easy for whoever comes next."

The United States already lags miserably behind the rest of the world in electing a woman as head of state. To look around the globe is to see a stark truth: Americans seem peculiarly averse to female leadership....

***

No woman on the political horizon possesses the portfolio that Clinton brought to this campaign: National name recognition. A record as a prodigious fundraiser -- for herself and scores of other Democrats. Winner of two Senate races in New York, a rough-and-tumble state with a trove of 31 electoral college votes and Democratic donors with deep pockets. And a huge, loyal base of support within her party.

Who can compare? Not Secretary of State Rice. She's never run for elective office, and it's tough to run for president with no experience in those muddy trenches. Not Whitman. The former New Jersey governor has openly broken with conservatives who dominate the Republican Party. Not Sebelius. She heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.

Clinton cleared the hurdles often cited as holding American women back, yet she is unlikely to surmount the final barrier. So you have to wonder.

Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102424_pf.html

[lligrd]

1. I Don't Think That Is True

Women have been running and will continue to. I can think of many women that would make an excellent President. Unfortunately, Hillary is not one of them.

[papau]

6. Sorry - but it is true - like Brad's killing HR811 for better audit bill that never happened, this

is one more case of DUers killing the chance because they know more than the old farts on this board that see no reason to vote for Obama if Hillary is not VP.

[dkf]

2. This can be easily disproven...how many people have never voted for a woman?

If you haven't then maybe we have a problem. If you have, then this is a load of malarky.

Not every woman gives me a headache as she does. Not every woman makes me so mad with her misleading statements that are designed to hoodwink the not so swift among us.

I can't stand her. Neither can I stand him...him as in Bill.

They are both so awful that they are on my "x" list regardless of gender, race or creed.

[grassfed]

3. Hillary is a disastrous role model and a bleak reflection of American society.

While the rest of the world moves on.

The Council of Women World Leaders:
Corazon Aquino President, The Philippines, 1986-92
Michelle Bachelet President, Chile, 2006-present
Gro Harlem Brundtland Prime Minister, Norway, 1981, 1986-89, and 1990-96
Micheline Calmy-Rey President, Switzerland, 2007
Suzanne Camelia-Romer Prime Minister, Netherlands Antilles, 1993, 1998-1999
Kim Campbell Prime Minister, Canada, 1993
Violeta B. de Chamorro President, Nicaragua, 1990-96
Tansu Çiller Prime Minister, Turkey, 1993-96
Helen Clark Prime Minister, New Zealand, 1999-present
Edith Cresson Prime Minister, France, 1991-92
Luísa Dias Diogo Prime Minister, Mozambique, 2004-present
Ruth Dreifuss President, Switzerland, 1999
Vigdís Finnbogadóttir President, Iceland, 1980-96
Pamela Gordon Premier, Bermuda, 1997-98
Tarja Halonen President, Finland, 2000 - present
Sheikh Hasina Prime Minister, Bangladesh, 1996–2001
Janet Jagan President, Guyana, 1997-1999
Emily de Jongh-Elhage Prime Minister, Netherlands Antilles, 2006-present
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf President, Liberia, 2005-present
Chandrika Kumaratunga President, Sri Lanka, 1994-2005
Maria Liberia-Peters Prime Minister, Netherlands Antilles, 1984-86, 1988-94
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo President, The Philippines, 2001-present
Mary McAleese President, Ireland, 1997–present
Beatriz Merino Prime Minister, Peru, 2003
Angela Merkel Chancellor, Germany, 2005-present
Mireya Moscoso President, Panama, 1999-2004
Maria Das Neves Prime Minster, São Tomé and Príncipe, 2002-2004
Kazimira Prunskienė Prime Minister, Lithuania, 1990-91
Mary Robinson President, Ireland, 1990-97
Jenny Shipley Prime Minister, New Zealand, 1997-99
Portia Simpson Miller Prime Minister, Jamaica 2006-2007
Jennifer Meredith Smith Premier, Bermuda, 1998-2003
Hanna Suchocka Prime Minister, Poland, 1992-93
Vaira Vike-Freiberga President, Latvia, 1999-2007
Begum Khaleda Zia Prime Minister, Bangladesh, 1991-96 and 2001-2006
http://www.cwwl.org /

[Ashy Larry]

4. This is just silly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6044442&mesg_id=6045416

P.S. I would vote for Nancy Pelosi.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Our first woman president will be a conservative Republican.

Either a fundie or a hawk in the mold of Margaret Thatcher. I hate to say it, but it is what it is. No woman with the merest hint of "liberal" has a chance, the way our country is right now. Hillary knew that, intuitively, that's why she's tried to present herself in the most hawkish way possible with her war votes. But it wasn't enough. Nor was her cozying up to FOX and Scaife. There's nothing she can do to eradicate that "D" by her name.

[Diane R]

7. I voted for my woman Gov, two women senators, my woman mayor & State senator. Won't vote 4 Hillary.

I refuse to vote for a candidate just BECAUSE she's a woman. Living in Wash. State, I've happily voted for dozens and dozens of women. Hillary is the first Democratic woman I refuse to vote for.

It isn't 'something about us'. The problem is Hillary.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Hillary will be our first female president

Maybe not this time. Maybe the dream of a woman president will be deferred and denied -- for now. But she will be elected, in 21012 or more likely 2016, certainly.

Most DUers think of themselves as being representative of the left half of the American people. That is not true. DUers' opinions are closer to the radical, elite, cosmopolitan, intellectual leftist circles that are the topic of much discussion this week. Whether you drink latte or not, your opinions will be closer to Counterpunch than to Countdown, even though Keith Olbermann aspires to it all the same. And that means that you will likely strive to make yourself a little more radical, a little more informed, a little more distinctive than the people in your social circle. It's liberal social climbing. And we all do it.

It involves loathing all popular leaders of the Democratic Party, too -- in fact, that's one of our shibboleths. It's why so many of us hate the Clintons. There is no real reason for it, no matter what the explanatory strategy is. It's the emotional revulsion of someone who is more successful than we are, who reveal to us that we are not the only ones with good ideas. The moment a progressive leader does something beneficial for the wretched of the Earth, we find or invent reasons to claim they're reactionary rat bastards. Every damn time.

It also means that, yes, there is a very good chance that Barack Obama will be reviled, too. As soon as a way is found to deflect charges of racism (or more likely, to twist it back ironically), the progressive heat will be on.

Hillary, like Al Gore before her, is becoming a populist. Gore was reviled, if you'll recall. And look back to Carter -- hated and ridiculed. In the 1970s, Teddy Kennedy was thoroughly detested by the über-left; today he's "the great liberal lion", a term that took all of four days to turn into a cliché, several weeks before his brain cancer was diagnosed.

The "Obamaniacs" wonder why Hillary is staying in the race if she can't win. It's simple. The longer she stays in, the more people love her. She's even convincing a lot of conservatives who have spent decades hating her. Only we "latte liberals" are still waxing in our hate for her. She's got Tweety tied up in knots, the press corps taking a sudden interest in algebra, and Keith acting like an offended high-school Heather. That's almost as good as having Buddy Jesus give you a wink and a thumbs-up.

It bodes extremely well for her future. Obama has nothing to worry about except for the inevitable Starbucks Thermidor. Yet even now, the re-courting of Hillary has begun. The Democratic mugwumps know that not only has Obama won the shake-out, but something unplanned and unbelievable has happened -- in defeat, Hillary Clinton has become an icon, herself.

It's the greatest political two-fer in American history, and it's happening in OUR party.

Sadly, most of us deep thinkers will overlook it. Many of us will continue our "principled" hatred of the Clintons, and gas about the DLC in the same way that the neo-Cons whine about the Secular Humanists.

If I had advice to give, I'd say that we should make the effort to NOT hate Hillary and to avoid turning against Obama in 2009. But history, DU, and the population of the world usually do just fine without my input. On the other hand, switching to the wide-angle lens from time to time might reveal some interesting scenes playing out. One of them involves the re-invention of Hillary Rodham Clinton; another, the ascension of Barack Obama; still another, the coming era of The Great Liberal Reconstruction.

Believe it or don't, but keep it in mind for future reference -- this year will someday be seen as more fateful than 1968, 1963, or even 1938. The people, the times, the crises, the challenges all will be long remembered. And as a result, we are likely to have 16 years of unbroken progressive Democratic leadership under Barack Obama and then Hillary Clinton.

Whom we'll hate, but history will cherish.

--p!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[susankh4]

10. White Men in the White House forever!

That is the goal with which we are complicit.

After the Dems take down Hillary. The GOP will take down Barack.

The experiment won't be tried again until... who knows when???