Hillary: "I’ve Been Waiting All My Life For This"

[SaveElmer]

Some are losing sight of the historic nature of Hillary's candidacy...I think this captures some of what I think will be a wave of support for Hillary in the general among women...

I’ve Been Waiting All My Life For This

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Norwegian Chef has been putting together updated lists of Hillary’s endorsements lately, and someone left a comment in the thread that’s really stayed with me. Campskunk mentioned his 80-something year old mother – and how she’s excited about the idea of finally getting the chance to cast her vote for a woman president.

my mom is 82.
she was the first woman to graduate from her college, fought all the battles from the ERA on through. she still marches. my father and i kid her by telling her if they break out the tear gas and fire hoses she's on her own :)

she says she's been waiting all her life for this.



Another poster mentioned her 81 y/o mom, and how Hillary’s campaign has given her a whole new lease on life. Since last night’s discussion, I’ve been thinking about what Hillary’s historic run for the White House means to the various generations of women & girls in this country.

I’m in my mid-40s and like many women in this nation, have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary. This election is huge for me – I can’t wait to cast my vote in the primary and then (hopefully) in the general election for her!

Women of my dearly-departed Grandmother’s generation have waited twice as long and from what I’m hearing, they’re the ones who’ll help deliver this election to Hillary.

http://hillarysbloggers.com/2007/09/ive-been-waiting-all-my-life-for-this.html

[wyldwolf]

1. I was at an assisted living home two nights ago where they've set up a Democrats club...

... and had former Senator / Ambassador Wyche Fowler as their speaker. They'd called me and asked me to attend to better network with more established Democratic organizations in the area.

Well, one woman who lived there expressed the exact same sentiments - in almost the exact same words. "I want to see a woman president before I die and I believe with Hillary, it's out time."

[earthlover]

47. I agree--it is OUT TIME!

[rudy23]

2. Is this why Nancy won't impeach--so Hillary can be the first female president?

I think it's worth asking.

[PATRICK]

3. In defense of the women

who back Hillary, this is the best snapshot of what effect the MSM and political presentation has on the general population and why surface things must always give a boost to cnadidates even as dangerous or incompetent as Reagan. The seasoned group with the most awareness because most things hit them hard personally right between the eyes with as history are Black Americans. Even there some surface things, as over enthusiasm for Bill and the woman's precedent enthusiasm cause them to lean toward Hillary.

The cost of Dems in general doing nothing against the unfairness of MSM presentation and enforced ignorance is gambling on attracting the shallows under which dangerous shoals and obstructions lurk. Unfortunately many have become so professional on TRYING to game the rigged shallows to attract such doubtful allies as "swing" voters they have simply given up even trying to do ordinary politics well. Why bother when the media decides what is presented and how? When they get dumped by a large wave they attempted to surf with a shoddy board, they just whoop and swim back out for another try.

[emilyg]

4. I'm one generation below Granny. My vote is a solid one for Hillary.

[Savannahmann]

5. I just don't think that the first woman thing is going to win the election

It's going to come down to Issues. Running on the Issues. Bush creamed us in 2004 because he ran an issue oriented campaign, granted it was full of lies, but aside from that what did we run? Any Body But Bush. That was it. We had a decorated Veteran from a war that Bush avoided, during a time of war and we were left with Any Body But Bush. We lost, and why? Because we were anybody instead of the right somebody. We ran against Bush believing his negatives were enough, and that was all we had to do, be the other choice on the ticket. It wasn't.

Any Body But Bush was the worst slogan since "Oklahoma is OK". The runner up for that one was "Oklahoma doesn't really suck."

[flpoljunkie]

9. No, Bush "won" because he promised to "restore honesty and dignity" to the White House. One could

argue that for Bill Clinton and his dalliance with Monica--along with the shameful lies about the relationship--we would have had Gore in the White House and not had to have suffered all these years with the "worst president ever."

Why do you think Gore picked the sanctimonious Lieberman as his running mate--to try and rid himself of Bill Clinton's disgraceful behavior.

We nominate Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton, at our peril. Hillary would unite the Republicans like no other Democrat. We would not only lose the White House, but perhaps, both houses of Congress, as well.

Let's hope Iowans, as they usually do, understand the importance of their choice and do not pick Hillary hoping she would become the first woman president. Remember it was Hillary who brought Dick Morris into the White House.

No more Bushes, no more Clintons! It is time to turn the page!

[earthlover]

49. As much as I liked Clinton, he is partly responsible for the election of Bush....

Gore SHOULD have been a shoo-in. The economy was great. Peace. Prosperity. Remember that? But because of Bill's zipper problems Gore felt he had to distance himself from the Big Dog. Without Monica, Gore would have won by a landslide. Sighs or no sighs.

He will also be one of the reasons why Hillary may not be the first woman president. Not that he was a bad president. But it is going to get real ugly.

Why can't the Democratic Party find a woman to nominate who would actually be a Democrat and who could actually defeat Republicans? If HIllary gets blown out, she will set back the cause of electing a woman president 50 more years.

[skyblue]

97. Gore won Florida. Votes were thrown out.

He also won the popular vote. Guess Clinton could not have hurt him there.

I support Hillary only as a second choice.

Biden is my first choice because he has less baggage and is a MWM amongst other things.

[cd3dem]

102. don't blame Clinton

Clinton was not resposible for Florida....

Gore did not ask Clinton to campaign for him...

most democrats don't find the Monica effect relevant...

look at the cheaters in the republican party... too many to recount...

actually dems should be more concerned with cheating... repressing the vote... and the latest changing the electorial process in California... 2008 will be determined by the dirty tactics of the republicans and how we respond or prepare...

[Maribelle]

106. I believe the inner beauty of Hillary will far outshine the "real ugly" republicans.

Her inner beauty becomes more visible with the coverage of each campaign stop, clearly complimenting her solid strengths, political dedication, and love of this country.

A Hillary administration is a promise of healing this nation, bringing a brighter legacy for our children, high hopes for easing the pain our senior citizens endure under Bush, both physically and financially. Hillary has promised to end the war in Iraq, help our vets, and promote stem cell research that many experts believe will eventually lead to the cure of terminal and crippling diseases.

Yes, we can look forward to republicans spitting and throwing "real ugly". Hillary will wipe it off with her beautiful smile.

[durrrty libby]

6. I do in home nursing visits once a week. The very senior ladies

are praying they live long enough to cast their ballots for our first woman president


I told them I would hire a limo to get them to the precinct. So far I have more than a dozen

on the list. I can't wait to deliver my promise

[BigDDem]

7. Good for you! That's great.

[CTyankee]

8. Wow, that's cool. Well, I have a granddaughter that is organizing her 3rd grade

for Hillary. Why not both ends of the spectrum?

[durrrty libby]

11. Aww that is so cute. I hope that when the time comes, I need

a fleet of limos, and a case of Champagne.:toast:

[ProudDad]

110. There will be no one to stop them

they can get their ya-ya's out and vote for her in the Primary...

And then they'll get an opportunity to vote for someone better in the General... :evilgrin:

[jgraz]

114. Nice

:thumbsup:

[ronnykmarshall]

10. Well it HAS to be said ..

and I'll say it.

"Unhip", "old" and "uneducated".

There. It's been said. I'll save someone a post.

:silly:

[durrrty libby]

12. Thank You Mr Obvious

( you forgot ugly) :toast:

[sandnsea]

13. Same can be said of Obama

rather arrogant of a bunch of privileged white women to think their historic moment is more important than that of African Americans and minorities of color.

[wyldwolf]

14. but has it been? The OP documented actual events.

[SaveElmer]

16. Point to where any of them said anything of the kind...

Your bitterness grows daily...

So I guess Susan B. Anthony, Elizabth Cady Stanton, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem aren't high on your list of people to admire then eh?

[Tellurian]

17. Why? Theres no African American women anywhere?

That is about the dumbest think I've even seen you post. Women helping women everywhere. It's a universal issue not a race issue. Even though you may think your lame attempt at making it one carries sway. It doesn't..

[ronnykmarshall]

18. YEAH!

To hell with them old bitches!

:sarcasm:

[durrrty libby]

20. Three of my patients are African-American and two are

Hispanic. None of these elderly women are "bunch of privileged white women"

They were all hard working women who bore the burden of their families

trials and tribulations for decades

You have a lot of fucking nerve making ignorant assumptions about people

you do not know.

[jefferson_dem]

103. Practice...

what you preach, friend.

[mentalsolstice]

24. Wondered how long it would take for someone to stoop so low

As to suggest that support for Hillary is racist. Wow!

[rinsd]

26. Perhaps because a woman has not run for President before while an African American has.

[TwilightZone]

31. A woman has run for president before.

Carol Moseley-Braun, for one.

[rinsd]

32. Doh!

Huge apologies to Ms. Braun as I am rightfully hoisted on my own petard.

[earthlover]

51. There have been women who ran for president...but not on the two major parties....

not that it matters, but Hillary is certainly NOT the first female candidate for President.

But don't let facts stop the myths of a first woman candidate....

[calimary]

63. Perhaps the operative word here should be "first VIABLE woman candidate."

Look, I'm old enough to remember when Shirley Chisholm ran for president. African-American Congresswoman. But NOBODY took her seriously, as intelligent, experienced, and capable as she was. I remember my dad, at dinner (and he was quite broadminded) asking me my preference for president, and I said Shirley Chisholm. And he gaped at me over his roast beef and said "SHIRLEY CHISHOLM??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!??" Chisholm simply wasn't taken seriously as a viable candidate.

There are other women who ran in other parties, but those other parties themselves were treated with the same incredulity simply because they were outside the mainstream, and not regarded as realistically viable.

Carole Mosley Braun was in it as recently as the last presidential election, but even though she went some distance, I think most people did not regard her as a viable candidate. No realistic chance of winning.

Even when Geraldine Ferraro ran as Mondale's VP partner, it was similar, I think, because she was teamed with Mondale against ronald reagan, and reagan was widely regarded as being poised to clean Mondale's clock. Neither of them had a realistic chance, for that reason. She was a viable candidate, alright, but she wasn't the top of the ticket. There's a difference. It's a huge difference when the woman is the lead rather than the costar.

According to this particular set of parameters, I'd say Hillary Clinton MORE than qualifies as the first viable female candidate. She's also the front runner in many parts of the country, many polls, many demographics, and she does bring a HELLUVA lot to the table in terms of smarts, ability, and unique and uniquely valuable experience. Even people who hate her, don't agree with her, don't trust her, don't believe in her, even they still have to acknowledge that she's an extremely viable candidate who, as a matter of fact, has a good chance of winning it all.

I can fully understand and appreciate the "I've been waiting all my life for this" attitude. Even though I'm not as old as some of the women quoted there, I share those feelings. Hillary's candidacy, unlike those of other women before her, doesn't automatically turn a vote cast into a vote thrown away - because the candidate had no hope, no chance at all. That's not the case here.

[fujiyama]

134. A few interesting facts about Chisolm:

Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm (November 30, 1924 – January 1, 2005) was an American politician, educator and author. She was a Congresswoman, representing New York's 12th District for seven terms from 1968 to 1983. In 1968, she became the first African American woman elected to Congress. On January 23, 1972, she became the first African American candidate for President of the United States. She won 162 delegates. To date she is the closest any woman has ever come to winning the nomination for president by a major party. Other women who ran for President of the United States in 1972 include Linda Jenness and Evelyn Reed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

I didn't know she got more delegates than any other woman before or since then. Impressive.

[earthlover]

50. Very good point!

It is really easy to not even think about the historic value of electing the first African American president. African Americans are used to not being thought about.

And there is another angle to this, equally insidious. While the Hillary folk think NOTHING about taunting sex as a reason to support her (don't vote for a male, vote for a female because she would be the 1st female....) and by and large most people give this sort of total and absolute sexism a pass, because most of us white privileged classes think it would be cute to have a woman president, and we can pat ourselves on the back as being forward-thinking and oh-so-hip.

But if supporters of an African-American candidate....hello...we have one running for pres.....if they said openly that they support him because they want to see an African American pres.....well, come to think of it, when is the last time someone said that? I can't remember. If someone did say that, it would go over with a dead thud. Cries of "reverse discrimination" would resound throughout the land.

So, what happens is that the African AMerican candidate can't promote the historicality of being the 1st African America pres....but the Hillaryistas can openly say we need the 1st woman pres.

Too bad we didn't elect Barbara Jordan President!

[dflprincess]

15. Voting for or against someone because of their race, gender, religion, sexual preference

or what state they're from is a damn stupid way to pick a candidate.

Geez, If Elizabeth Dole was the Republican nominee and the Democrats were running a white male would we think it was wonderful that woman were voting for her because of her gender?

[ronnykmarshall]

19. Stupid old cows!

The old hags shouldn't be able to vote anyway.

:sarcasm:

[dflprincess]

21. Did I say that?

I doubt if voting for Hillary just because she's a woman or for Obama just because he's Black is limited to the elderly. In fact, I'm inclined to think the older the voter the more apt they may be to look at where the candidates are on the issues.

My mom and her sisters are all in their 80s and feeling bad that there is finally a viable woman candidate that they just can't support because they don't agree with her.

[abq e streeter]

30. thanks

I was about to post a very similar message...guess I just did. And to a further extension of the finally time for a woman logic; how about Ann Coulter or Malkin...

[juajen]

90. Well, with some trepidation, welcome to DU

Haven't you noticed, this is the Democratic Underground? Comparing either of the two to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. I assume you weren't serious. If you were, happy landings!

[abq e streeter]

93. Thanks for the welcome

and yes the idea was to be preposterous, but with a serious point being made about people choosing who to support based solely on gender. My choices are based solely on who I believe will implement the best policies, period, and I couldn't care less if they're white, black, brown ,yellow, red, purple, gay, straight... or male, female or some indeterminate point in between. And so yes, I was taking the idea of supporting someone based on what category they fit into to its most ridiculous extreme. And yes, I'm a Democrat; and have found myself somewhat to my surprise, supporting a southern White man, John Edwards,because I believe he's the best candidate we have to successfully stand up to the right wing madness that's poisoned our country along with having the best understanding of how rigged the whole system is right now. If I thought Hillary was the right person, I'd support her in a second, but I can't agree with those who support her just because she's a woman. And again, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

[SaveElmer]

35. I know reading the whole thing is inconvenient for the "argument" you make here...

From the post...

"I’m in my mid-40s and like many women in this nation, have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary."

You see, she is not just supporting any women...but a woman like Hillary...a category Elizabeth Dole does not fall into

[skyblue]

98. lksdljdflkjldjldjdl deleting my comment here...

[Bucky]

22. I've waited my whole life to see a woman to run for president, too.

Now I'm just waiting for a woman who I can support enthusiastically.

[IndianaGreen]

92. When I was a little girl, I remember Margaret Chase Smith running for President

I was too young to know anything about politics, but I thought she was very refined and intelligent, and I loved those floral arrangements she wore all the time.

When I was older, I learned about Eleanor Roosevelt and what a powerful and wonderful woman she was. I would have voted for her for President had fate been different.

Hillary lacks the grace of a Margaret Chase Smith or the humanitarian and progressive qualities of an Eleanor Roosevelt. She is not a role model!

[DURHAM D]

113. Hillary is a role model.

Ok - its even.

[bhumikag]

23. its time

women have contributed so much to this country..its time US has a female president..look around even india, pakistan, sri lanka have had a woman prime minister or a president.

my only problem is with hillary's image..she seems so structured, planned and rehearsed

bhumika
politics desk,the newsroom

[DURHAM D]

115. The article you posted doesn't support your

opinion...

As for your problem with her - keep watching. Everyone is discovering that what they thought they knew about her is incorrect. As someone said a couple of months ago - she is the most recognized least known person in this country.

[gulliver]

25. Hillary as president would be a counter-Paris

I'm thinking what it would say to my daughter to see a female president. I really like that a lot.

I was four square against her, but I'm changing. I don't like the fact that Hillary will energize some of the demented cannibals masquerading as human beings on the Republican side. I don't like the fact that should we be nowhere but for having been Bill Clinton's wife. But I think a lot of GOP women will vote for Hillary after they watch her eviscerate Romney. And I don't know that a "legitimate path" to the presidency via a governorship or mere Senate service gets a woman past the political glass ceiling. Maybe Hillary's path, aided by Bill, is the only way to get the first woman president.

[ulysses]

27. so, the 2008 campaign is reduced to Hillary's gender?

No thanks.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

29. why, thank you!

How am I wrong?

[jgraz]

42. Here's where you're wrong: it's her gender AND the fact that she's ahead in the polls

And I think she was married to some president once.

[ulysses]

44. it annoys the shit out of me.

If you want me to vote for HRC, then make the case on her achievements, not on the history-making chance at having a female president. Maggie Thatcher was no great shakes as I recall, in spite of her gender.

[jgraz]

45. The cynicism of this pitch is pretty sickening

All those poor women with no jobs or healthcare sure will feel good knowing the president doesn't have a penis.

[SaveElmer]

53. It's true...

She isn't a dick like some...

Why don't you go back and read the OP and tell me where it says she would just vote for anyone because they are a woman...

[jgraz]

55. It's called subtext. Look it up

This is part of the cynical message of the Clinton campaign. Of course, she never comes right out and says it -- she never comes right out and says ANYTHING. She just plays to it at every opportunity.

[SaveElmer]

56. Once again...

Show me where the OP is saying she would vote for someone simply because she is a woman...

[jgraz]

57. sub·text

–noun
the underlying or implicit meaning, as of a literary work.


Post back if you need me to break it down further.

[SaveElmer]

58. What I would like you to tell me is...

Where in the OP does she say she would vote for someone only because of their gender...

[jgraz]

59. Does this crap actually work on anyone?

Cuz it's boring the shit out of me. :boring:

[SaveElmer]

62. You can end the boredom anytime..

By simply answering the question...but since the OP did not say either explcitly or through "sub-text" that she would vote for someone on that basis...I imagine and answer won't be forthcoming...

But since you like dictionary games how about a couple especially for you

Obtuse

-adj.

a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity

or perhaps more charitably

disingenuous

-adj.

Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:

[jgraz]

64. Clintonian to the end

The "I did not have sex with that woman" approach. Gotta love it. Since the OP never actually said the words "I will vote for someone strictly on the basis of gender" you think you can pretend that this story and others like it are not part of a cynical ploy to get voters to do exactly that.

Since you seem to be a bit slow in catching on here, I'll lend you a clue: that schtick ain't gonna fly on this board. The credulous public may be fooled for the moment, but the folks on DU usually demand a bit more substance and a bit less dissembling.

Make sure to post something if you ever come up with a real reason to vote for Hillary. We'll be here, waiting. But not holding our breath.

[SaveElmer]

65. Typically "progressive"

Everyone but true believers are liars, an ulterior motive for whatever they say...typical arrogant certitude about your own correctness with precious little to back it up...fortunately this kind of balderdash is not flying with the public...

What keeps the left wing in this country on the margins of influence...

Not only did the OP not say "I will vote for someone strictly on the basis of gender," she specifically qualified her support with "have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary"...but hey, why let her speak for herself...we know you know better right...

Make sure to post something honest if you can ever screw up the will...we'll be here. But not holding our breath...

[Clintonista2]

67. Sounds to me like Jgraz is the one who's making this about gender

The OP was putting Hillary's candidacy in a historical context, it wasn't implying you should vote for Hillary because of her gender.

In high school we had a girl run for student body president, at my school a female had never won that position. I remember there was a Q&A session, and in her opening statement she spent a good 10 minutes discussing her campaign pledges, and she also threw in a brief mention about how a female had never been elected as our schools student body president before. The very first question asked was "what do you have to offer other than your gender?" People like Jgraz see an article like this, and they suddenly assume that the whole campaign must be based on her gender. People like that are simply lacking basic comprehension skills.

[jgraz]

70. You guys just talk to each other

After all, you're the only ones who think your BS is even marginally believable.


"greasy" :rofl:

[SaveElmer]

71. The natural tendency of certain people....

To disregard nuance, or to try and discern the actual meaning of what someone says...instead preferring to superimpose their own idealogical rigidness on everyone else...always a black and white, right and wrong discussion...

It's why they never get anywhere...

[jgraz]

76. The tendency of certain people to use elipses...

To keep talking once they've lost the argument...to continue to peddle their crap even though it's been soundly rejected...shows a certain lack of self-awareness...an inability to perceive the level of contempt with which others view them...

It's why they're called out as greasy... :rofl:

[Clintonista2]

80. Simply believing you have won, does not make it a reality

Your posts seem reduced to "LALALALALA I'm right you're wrong"

[SaveElmer]

81. Sorry...

Did you say something?

[Forkboy]

87. Oh I don't know, it's pretty damn funny watching this.

Apparently the subtext concept is too deep.

Keep it to "See Spot Run". :)

[SaveElmer]

105. Not deep...

Misapplied by the responder...

[PurityOfEssence]

66. Straw Man! This is a greasy, deceptive bit of hyperbole

Never has this poster said that the original poster said she'd vote for someone simply because she's a woman. This poster is saying that the pitch of voting for someone because she's a woman is a flimsy justification for voting for someone. THAT'S pretty clear from the original post; the very title is "I've been waiting my whole life for this". "This" in this case presumably means a woman who has a chance or a woman who's tolerable; nowhere does this poster claim that the original poster would vote for "ANY" organism just because it happened to be a female.

This is shoddy, greasy fifth-rate arguing, and is a classic example of the "Straw Man" tactic: you put words in someone's mouth that OBVIOUSLY aren't what he/she said, then demand with arrogant and righteous dudgeon for that person to prove what he/she never contended in the first place.

It only shows an inability to reason or a will to deceive.

Since I'll presume innocent confusion on your part rather than outright, deliberate distortion, allow me to explain: this original poster is saying that it's a HUGE personal ambition to vote for someone on the basis of gender. Nowhere is the claim made that the original poster would do this solely due to gender; the point is that she would give this such weight that an analysis of the candidate's policies or strength of character or morality ISN'T EVEN BROUGHT UP. The issue of finally having a woman president is SO IMPORTANT that it overrides every other consideration. Presumably, the woman in question would have to be above some threshold of political acceptability, but that issue isn't even raised because the gender issue blinds this original poster.

Is that clear enough? Nowhere is it said that "any" woman would do, but the very heart of the issue is the gender and it's such a burning need that mere policy, decency and the interests of society at large are to be put aside for this historic achievement.

That's bad enough, isn't it?

[SaveElmer]

68. Ridiculous...

The OP makes very clear her criteria...

have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary.

Perfectly legitimate reason to support someone...

[PurityOfEssence]

86. This reading problem really needs to stop

Here's the point I made: that the candidate's policies or strength of character or morality ISN'T EVEN BROUGHT UP, and that the prime issue for this original poster is gender.

To rebut this, you quote the original poster's desire to vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary.

That says NOTHING ABOUT POLICIES, it says NOTHING ABOUT STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and it says NOTHING ABOUT MORALITY. Really, this inability to focus on simple contentions and not just run willy-nilly with vague gainsaying and accusations is most unseemly. You're under no obligation to rebut my points, but don't sling unrelated gushy adjectives and claim you've answered me. You've dodged, avoided and played to the cheap seats of emotion.

Richard Viguerie is CAPABLE; hell, he's really good at what he does: he's focused, sets clear goals, pursues them with remorseless energy and gets results. He's an evil theocratic primitive, but damn, is he ever competent.

Richard Nixon was BRILLIANT, but he was bitter, vengeful, obsessive and a thoroughgoing rotter.

G. Gordon Liddy is STRONG. So what?

Look at the very structure of this person's dream candidate: adjective, adjective, adjective, NOUN and then PROPER NOUN. What does this person want to vote for? Is it a strong person? What is the most thrilling fulfillment she can imagine, voting for a brilliant person? No, it's voting for a WOMAN. Fine, just don't deny it. For this person, gender is the overriding issue, to such a degree that policy, strength of character and morality aren't even MENTIONED. There's nothing in there about the value of her proposed policies. Presumably some threshold was met, but how low is that for this person? The only thing really mentioned is that she's a woman with some good mental circuitry who's tough and can accomplish things. The "things" aren't even mentioned, which leads one to believe that they're secondary at best to the most important thing: having a woman president.

A president is a human being who's hired to do what's best for us. The definition of that "us" is most revealing: conservatives would say "me", liberals would say "all of us" and others would say "those of my particular group". I'm a liberal.

The point of this original poster's missive is to convey the euphoria of finally getting a president who's a female, not a person with decent policies or a person with a trustworthy and solid character (that's not the same as just plain "strong") or a person with an ethical underpinning. Morality, feh. Policy, schmolicy.

Gender is the very subject of this person's gleeful support to such a degree that plans or initiatives aren't even mentioned. Apparently, that's somehow just fine with you. (Yum, straw...mmm) It's so fine with you that you have no problem using highly-charged accusations to attempt to vilify anyone who dares to point out this pesky little fact.

The very spirit of this is gender. It's such a big deal that nothing else even gets mentioned by this person. You know what's ridiculous? You countering this argument by saying that she says Hillary's a smart, tough, able female. No policy. No ethics. They don't even bear mentioning. Not an issue.

Flail all you want and sling whatever muck you feel deserved, but just 'cuz you say you've responded to a challenge doesn't mean you have.

[Clintonista2]

89. Hint: The article is about historical context, not policy

[PurityOfEssence]

94. Nope. It's about partisan obsession at the expense of everything and everyone else

Besides that, my sub-thread with your ally is about putting words in other people's mouths and understanding the difference between contradiction and contrariness.

[SaveElmer]

101. This comprehension problem has to stop...

You say...

That says NOTHING ABOUT POLICIES, it says NOTHING ABOUT STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and it says NOTHING ABOUT MORALITY.

Let's analyze shall we...or better yet, see what we can draw from the sub-text of the OP's comments...since that's what seems most important to everyone

She says...

have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary.

So that the person is brilliant is important to her...

That the person is capable is important to her

That she is strong is important to her...

And most importantly...that the person like Hillary Clinton is important to her...

And she is very excited that this package is contained in the person of Hillary CLinton...a woman...certainly something to be excited about

Now lets see...how would one gather information on Hillary Clinton and her policies...

I'm thinking here perhaps www.hillaryclinton.org

Or here senate.clinton.gov

Or maybe here www.hillarybloggers.com

Or maybe one of the hundreds of other sites around...

Now, the OP is posting this at DailyKos...which means..yes...she is a Democrat...I'm sure of it

So I think it is safe to say she is looking for a strong, capable, brilliant person who takes the positions on issues Hillary Clinton does and is a Democrat...and to top it all off, she is a woman...finally...a woman worth voting for...

See, so I was wrong...you can get alot from the sub-text of a post...I'm sure the OP figured those reading he comments would be able to make these relatively easy deductions...but apparently she didn't count on it being posted at DU...

[abq e streeter]

108. great points

I said something similar in my post on this thread, but you just expressed it infinitely better than I did. I don't understand what's so hard about just admitting that gender IS the issue to a lot of people. A case can even be made that that's legitimate, although not to me . Reminds me of the naming of Ferraro as VP candidate. I remember very clearly in the weeks before Mondale named her as running mate, women's groups were pounding home the message that they wanted a woman on the ticket. OK , fair enough. But when Ferraro was named, and there was some criticism that it was only because she was a woman, the same groups who had insisted on a woman on the ticket piously insisted that she was there solely because of being the best qualified person. It was transparent enough to be laughable to anyone objectively viewing the whole process, in my probably-not-humble-enough opinion, and the denials here and elsewhere that gender isn't the obvious subtext are similarly silly to me. That said, however, at some point we'll probably all need to stop slinging arrows at each other and close ranks to defeat republiklan candidates from dog catcher to president. I personally can't stand HRC , but I'll sure as hell vote for her if she's our nominee even if in my mind it'll be no more than voting AGAINST the repub candidate. Then we can all start slugging it out again.

[earthlover]

95. during her lifetime there have been capable, brilliant and strong CANDIDATES!!!!!

Unless she has been living in a vaccuum, she would know that there have been capable, brilliant and strong candidates, so it is OBVIOUS that the operative word in her longing is for a capable, brilliant and strong WOMAN.

You can't have it both ways. You can't support hillary based on being the 1st woman president and try to say you didn't really mean that. Well, maybe it depends on what the definition of woman is....

[SaveElmer]

100. "Like Hillary Clinton"

I believe she said...

Now lets see, where might one find information on Hillary Clinton...

Perhaps here: www.hillaryclinton.org

Or here, www.senate.gov...

Gosh, and the fact that the OP is posting on DailyKos is a darn good indication that perhaps...yes...she is a Democrat...I'm sure of it...

I guess she thought people were intelligent enough to read the "sub-text" of her comments without her having to go into minute detail for the "skeptics"...

but she probably didn't know they would be posted here at DU...or she might not have made that assumption

[earthlover]

111. she said "woman" not "candidate"

"a capable, brilliant and strong WOMAN like Hillary". She could have said "for a capable, brilliant and strong candidate like Hillary", and that would indicate that her longing was not based partly on waiting for woman. After all, why single out woman if what she really meant was candidate.

If I said I have been waiting all my life to vote for "a capable, brilliant and strong man like Obama" I am afraid I would be cited,and rightly so, for sexism.

I think it is obvious that many of Hillary's supporters are supporting her because she would be a woman president, regardless of the intentions of this one woman, who you claim is uninfluenced by Hillary being a woman. I doubt very much if John Doe was running for president, had supported the Iraq War, refused to admit it was a mistake, supported the 1st Bankruptcy bill, played footsie with Robert Murdoch, and pretty much talked out of both sides of his mouth he would be described as a "capable, brilliant and strong candidate".

I am really perplexed by this support for Hillary. If Hillary gets the nomination, and in a year such as 08 where the Democrats by any measure have a GIGANTIC advantage to sweep the elections, gets defeated....as some of the polls indicate is likely.....this would set back the chance for a woman president at least 50 years!!!! So, wouldn't it be better for the cause to nominate a woman who could win?

[jgraz]

112. See, here's where you're going wrong:

You're trying to have a good-faith, intellectually honest conversation with someone who is an expert in avoiding them. I'm not sure why there seems to be so much of this in the Hillary camp, but I my guess is that people who actually can recognize intellectual honesty when it bites them in the ass are far less likely to put up with Hillary's BS.

I know, I know, I just tried to do the same thing. I guess my faith in humanity overcomes the learning curve here. I keep hoping I'll see the light go on in one of these responses but so far, nothing. :banghead:

[earthlover]

116. I haven't selected a candidate yet, since the one I wanted may not run....

However, it is increasingly hard to support Hillary....largely because of her supporters. Of course I would vote for any Democrat over a Republican, and usually work hard too. My nightmare is Hillary getting the nom and me having to work alongside arrogant know it all condescending Hillary supporters. That would be downright painful. I guess you gotta hold your nose sometimes and take the medicine....

[jgraz]

117. Arrogant I can handle...know-it-all I can handle

I'd be a self-hating arrogant know-it-all if I said anything else ;)

What I can't stand is the dissembling, the semantic games and the outright lies in order to gin up support for an unsupportable candidate. I don't understand that motivation. It's like talking to a used car salesman or the worst evangelical minister. What exactly are they trying to sell us, and why is it necessary to bend the facts so far in order to sell it?

That, more than anything, is what makes me fight against this "inevitable" nominee. We've had almost 28 years of liars and cheats in the oval office, and look where it's got us. We can't afford another, no matter what party she belongs to.

[jgraz]

69. ha! beautiful.

:applause:

I especially like the "greasy" part. It just fits so well. :rofl:

[SaveElmer]

73. That you view it as "beautiful"

Simply confirms its inanity...

[jgraz]

74. There you go, bring in the second-grade insults

You are so out of gas.

Purity just handed you your ass. Why don't you go fling your poo at her for a while.

[SaveElmer]

75. Simply trying to keep up with you in the insult department...

I appear to be failing...

[jgraz]

77. And now we get the "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

[SaveElmer]

79. It's sub-text...nt

[Forkboy]

88. Sure...NOW you get it.

[Clintonista2]

78. You don't seem to understand the point

Jgraz claimed that the reason for the OP was to encourage people to vote for hillay soley on the basis of gender. The OP does not tell you who you should or should not vote for, it simply puts into a historical context the strong feelings held by those who see America's first female president as a very real reality.

[jgraz]

82. Heh...show me where I said that

And make sure you point to where I used those exact words -- including the misspelling of "solely". :rofl:

[Clintonista2]

83. It's called subtext- Look it up.

[jgraz]

84. You guys should take your act on the road

It's comedy gold, really.

[Maribelle]

118. capable, brilliant and strong

Please tell us all which part of capable, brilliant and strong you're failing to grasp, because these qualities are the key elements in the OP.

And Hillary is a capable, brilliant and strong woman.

[PurityOfEssence]

123. Repeat: this says NOTHING about policy, morality or strength of character

These are good qualities, but by themselves aren't enough to justify voting for someone, as I think I demonstrated above. You can be capable, brilliant and strong and still be an absolute skunk. (I don't think she's a horrible person, but I'm definitely not a fan.) The important things about a candidate as far as I'm concerned should be the policies he/she proposes, the strength of character (which is different than mere toughness) and morality.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about hero worship for oooh, how competent, smart and resilient a person is. That's crap. That's hollow and endemic to a slave mentality of self-sentenced inferiority unless backed up with bigger things like concrete plans and a sense of right-and-wrong.

This emotional little puff-piece is nothing but swooning hero-worship that doesn't address what I consider the fundamentals of candidacy. Margaret Thatcher was undeniably a capable, brilliant and strong woman and she was a certified, top-shelf SKUNK. What part about that doesn't register?

[Maribelle]

125. Most women leave the hero worship to kids and immature men.

Aside from your being incorrect on your hero worship pomp, what's wrong with a little puff-piece gently falling among the cold icy hate-Hillary hits? Objectivity should direct your logic in this direction. But, by responding on this thread you appear to want to merely debunk truth.

Most women do not care about "toughness" when they talk about another women being strong. They, in fact, regard strength of character and all the elements that comprise it as the fundamental gauge of a strong women. People have often referred to me as a strong woman, mostly through the eyes of the care and support I provided to my husband through his long dark days battling Cancer. And my strength required me to put aside myself, abandon anger to allow the correct path to illuminate through the pain and anguish of the moment, sometimes placing my entire hopes into the hands of the mere mortals that would slice and dice my husbands fragile organs, weary from the battle. It took all the inner strength I could muster to pretend outwardly I was a big tuffy when I needed to chastise some lackeys that simply did not do their jobs, when I just wanted to collapse in tears. And when I was exhausted, and when I thought I was totally worn from the ordeal, I had to find the inner strength to give hope and encouragement to our huge extended family that felt hopeless.

Sometimes we win the battle, sometimes we lose. It seems for the moment we have won the war. But through all their wars most women are more than happy to leave the "toughness" to those not as strong. And it seems Hillary is more than willing to do this.

Puff piece, so? As for me, I am strong enough to enjoy a little flattering expression of praise towards Hillary, especially in publicizing her strength. We all need this from time to time.

[PurityOfEssence]

126. So immature women would somehow be superior to "immature men", yet it's not about gender

Even with the careful qualifier of "immature", this still reeks of sexism. The word is misandry.

One of the contentions I and others have about her campaign is that it steadfastly denies that a lot of it's about gender. People don't ache to vote for her because she's a woman, far from it. How dare you even say such a thing. She's the best, and she's the best for us all. Somehow, even though the resounding proclamation is repeatedly made that significant support isn't coming specifically due to her gender, calls to state or defend her policies are met with either silence or deflection.

It simply doesn't pass the smell test. Yes, it's long past time for a woman president, and I think the country's ready to elect one. I just don't think she's electable, and I have major policy and character issues with her. I think she's "tough" beyond any degree of usefulness (to the point of being a blockhead) and I think she's a calculated maneuverer to such a degree that she'd do almost anything for self-survival. Some policies I out and out detest: her policy toward workers and foreign trade stand out.

Your post was rather thoughtful, but the title is despicable. It lumps certain men with children, presumably because they don't have as much control over their emotions. Even women who aren't up to snuff wouldn't stoop to such tactics, would they? If immature women aren't ga-ga over fame and power, then just what ARE their failings?

Seething under the surface are all sorts of old societal demons here, and the denial of them is not only hardly cricket, but dangerous. America doesn't like victims, and the tactic of "playing the victim" has been used by the Hillary camp a few times. It's especially unseemly from someone who's stock in trade is toughness.

Whatever you do, if you truly have the best wishes for her candidacy at heart, be VERY careful about insinuating that males are somehow emotionally inferior. Women are 51% of the population, but you're going to need some crossover.

[Maribelle]

127. I never mentioned "immature women". You made that up.

And your "how dare you" and "sexism" and "misandry", while probably quite heartfelt on your part, are not applicable and neglect the fact that I was merely responding to your pomp on "hero worship" (wherever that came from?), not reasons for voting or not voting for Hillary. Please do try to keep up with your own words.

My post was about Hillary's strength, and that I think a puff piece was quite refreshing whithout being "hero worship" to those of us constantly reviewing the bashing of Hillary.

I'm truly sorry if you do not care for the solid support Hillary is receiving. You sound so angry.

[PurityOfEssence]

129. I never said you did. This is a cheap shot.

You were contrasting women to children and "immature men". Obviously, this isn't a snipe at ALL men; presumably they aren't ALL to be tarred as angry and primitive, merely the "immature" ones. (Why, some of my best friends are males...) I wonder what your estimation of the percentage of immature to mature ones is...

To make things parallel, I brought up the concept of "immature women"--which was never attributed to you--since the only two groups who have this egregious failing are children and immature men. By this logic, immature women aren't guilty of this failing, and as such are superior to immature men. By this logic, women who are up to your standards of adulthood and even women who aren't are all emotionally superior to the immature males. That's sexism.

In an environment where the denials are CONSTANT that gender is a significant source of her support, you prove the opposite. Gender is a BIG issue to a LOT of people.

To use the tiresome tactic of dismissing opponents as "angry" and somehow inferior is nauseating enough, but to beautify your personal altar with the higher consciousness of understanding such loathsome creatures is self-aggrandizement of the first order. The cloying, backhanded stance of emotional tolerance is old, simpering and transparent.

Let's be serious about the genesis of this mini-thread: I protested to others that there was a complete absence of policy and morality in what was cited as her appeal, and this, to me, is facile. This did not start off with a statement by you that I took to task, it came from a statement by me that you took to task, and the core of it as it stands now is this: you didn't refute my point, but merely reinforced it. Where's the policy? Where is her morality brought up or defended? It isn't. She's competent, tough and smart, and somehow that's enough. By that metric, any number of women qualify, and I wouldn't want them as president.

Sorry I ruined the serenity of your day, but when you refuse to address a simple issue and sling bigoted mud in response, it's just natural reciprocation.

Be strong; this too shall pass.

[Maribelle]

132. I asked a question: "Please tell us all which part of capable, brilliant and strong ..."

Not only did you not answer my straightforward question, sweetie, you went into an angry speech, full of criticism and denunciation, which some would call a tirade. "This emotional little puff-piece is nothing but swooning hero-worship" is what you said. You didn't like the fact that I refuted your "hero worship" pomp? Sorry. And instead, you cleverly drilled a downward extension of the hole you're in, twisting even further away from the simple question I originally asked. You might have a disillusionment that you can throw out false accusations and expect the good folks like me to cave under your pomp, however, I don't ever see that happening here on DU.

And when I said you sounded angry, that was not meant to dismiss an opponent. Why on earth would I ever want to dismiss an opponent that shows off the depths to which Hillary haters are willing to go in an effort to control the debate? I want the world to see the bashing Hillary is up against. You might think this is the heat of the battle, sugar, but those of us that know better are extremely well prepared to understand that what we witness here today are merely trumpet calls rallying the troops for the battle ahead, as this emotional little puff-piece shows.

You ask "where's the policy". You will find the substance and quality of Hillary's policy permeated within her record: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

You ask "where is her morality brought up or defended". You will find that here: http://www.hillaryhub.com/

You ranted "when you refuse to address a simple issue and sling bigoted mud in response". My response:
:grouphug: (you really do need lots of hugs)

Please let me know if you have additional questions, or need further clarification.

[PurityOfEssence]

133. Fine, I'll answer you AGAIN: it's not enough

As I've said, those are fine qualities, but they're not enough.

Those qualities define Leni Riefenstahl, too.

You don't hire a singer because she has nice lips.

Once again, those are fine qualities, but they're simply not enough. You've got that, now, right? You don't need it repeated yet again, do you? Call it insufficient grounds for support.

Oh, and since you pride yourself so on having such insight about emotions, it's odd that you characterize as anger what's actually disgust.

Continue to enjoy your stoic pain; it must give you great comfort.

[SaveElmer]

52. Why do you ignore what the poster said...

Because it would not allow you to rant as you are. is the answer I think..

Here are her words...verbatim...

"like many women in this nation, have been waiting my whole life for the chance to cast a vote for a capable, brilliant and strong woman like Hillary."

Doesn't say she would vote for just any woman, doesn't say she is voting for Hillary ONLY because she is a woman...says she has been waiting for a woman like Hillary to come along for her to vote for...

[ulysses]

109. I didn't.

The point here is still her gender, and again, Thatcher was capable, brilliant for a conservative, and strong.

[Maribelle]

119. There is not one point, gender. There are four points.

capable, brilliant, strong and a woman.

Count them.

[ulysses]

120. three adjectives, one noun.

The poster hasn't spent her life waiting for a capable, brilliant, strong *man*, or even *candidate*. She's been waiting for a *woman* with those characteristics.

Frankly, for what it's worth, I think having a capable, brilliant, strong woman as a candidate is a hell of an idea. Give me one who's a wee bit more progressive than HRC and I'll vote for her in a heartbeat.

[Maribelle]

121. Four points, nonetheless. And this is extremely impotant for other women have run in the past.

Capableness
Brilliantness
Strength
Plus a woman

Some of the other women that have already run for President:

Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927) - was the first woman to run for President.
Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (ME) was the first republican woman.
Rep. Shirley Chisholm, (NY) was the first democratic woman.
Charlene Mitchell was the first African-American to run for President, at the head of the 1968 Communist Party ticket.
Ellen McCormack ran as a Decmoratic in 1976.
Pat Schroeder in 1988.
Isabell Masters in 1988, 1992, and 1996.
Mary Jane Rachner in 1988 and 1992.
Carol Mosely Braun in 2004.


http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez.htm

[earthlover]

54. aren't you forgetting something, duuuuuurty? we are all democrats here....

I guess you are sorta like Bush. Either for us or against us, all or nothing, my way or the highway. Hey, can't you just accept Democrats who disagree with your choice of candidate, or do you have to call them simpletons? That is the sort of stuff that turns me off about the Bushistas.

I think it would be a lot more productive to have some respect for those democrats who back another candidate. After all, if your candidate wins, you will need their votes in november. What you seem to do best is piss off fellow democrats by calling them names, like simpletons above. The Bushistas might be proud of your drivvel, but it weakens the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[earthlover]

96. So more name calling.....

Good luck in winning over fellow Democrats whom you called simpletons and jackasses in October 08.

I am sure the Reps are proud of your efforts to divide the Democratic Party against itself.

[superkia]

33. Would we vote Michael Vick in as first black president?

I don't think Americans would because they wouldn't put so much weight into his PHYSICAL being, they would probably look into who he is, what he stands for and what he is standing up and speaking out for. I understand in the past it would have meant more to get a women in office but now more than ever, its all about money. I hope more people will look into what their candidate will do for the common people and find out if they are one of the normal, controlled by money candidates. What means more our freedom or a woman as president at what ever costs?

[bobbolink]

34. Absolutely! Just look at how well Sandra Day O'Connor has worked out.

:crazy:

[eridani]

36. I suppose as long as the cheap labor corporate elite-

--living in the gated communites with the barbed wire fences and barriers with broken glass on top is half female (and 2-10% gay, and appropriate percentages of every other minority), then everything will be just peachy keen for the rest of us on the outside. :sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

37. I have had numerous women

tell me that, if she's the nominee, when they get into that booth, it will be a moment of historical import for them.

And these are mostly moderate, swing voter types, one of them a liberal democrat who despises her.

[jgraz]

38. For those who really want a woman president

May I suggest we run a better woman next time? There are plenty out there.

[illinoisprogressive]

39. Voting for someone based on gender is as irresponsible as the want to have a beer with.

You vote based on the character, policies, ect. To vote for just anyone based on gender is a very irresponsible thing to do. Espeically when that female is so very wrong for the job, makes a disaster of it and sets women back 50 years.

[SaveElmer]

40. Read the post..nt

[illinoisprogressive]

41. I did. I can express what I want. someone else said the same - read the posts

[SaveElmer]

43. Your answer then...

Clearly indicates you did not understand it...or are willfully representing what it says...

[jgraz]

72. wow, it just seems that nobody is buying your schtick tonight.

How sad for you. :nopity:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Myrina]

46. Yes, we're well aware she's been "waiting for" it::

"Power Hungry" is Hillary's middle name.


:puke:

[Colobo]

48. It's time an African-American is given the chance to serve the nation as president.

[killbotfactory]

60. It will be a pyrrhic victory

Thanks to her support of the Iraq invasion.

The IWR resolution is far too important, and has proven far too devastating to this nation, to ignore or dismiss.

[BenDavid]

85. Hang tough these next 6 months and

you and your Mom and many others will get to see a first. A woman winning the Democratic nomination. Hold on a little longer until November 4th and we all can vote and later on that evening we can all celebrate having won the election.....I'm looking forward to it all.....

I do thank you
Ben David

[IndianaGreen]

91. What a twisted version of The Vagina Monologues!

Waiting for a woman leader? Why not Maggie Thatcher? We already seen what a dud Nancy Pelosi turned out to be!

One should vote for the candidate that best represents our views and our vision for America, regardless of that candidate's gender, race, height, weight, religion or lack thereof, or sexual orientation.

[wyldwolf]

99. things a little boring at deanunderground this week?

[ieoeja]

128. Are you accusing IndianaGreen of being a Deaniac?

IG has been one of the loudest claiming Dean is at fault for the Florida fiasco brought about by Floridian Democrats choosing to ingore a Democratic Party rule change initiated by McAuliffe.

And what exactly is it that Hillary supporters have against Dean anyway? I know the Clintons believe the idea of marketing the Democratic agenda nationwide is futile. But I don't get why it seems to piss off their supporters so much.

[bread_and_roses]

107. Yeah, well this 55+ woman has been waiting all her life for a Democrat she could actually support

instead of some corporate shill who will throw a few more scraps under the table for the lower 80% to quiet the serfs when they start to get too uppity. And I see no sign that Hillary is that D.

[Visigoth1]

122. Impeach Bush, Install Pelosi :)

[oasis]

124. It's a twofer. Hillary is also the most qualified candidate of either party or gender. (eom)

[Ron Green]

131. It's a different kind of twofer.

1) The Dem most Republicans want their candidate to face in the General Election, because of her negative numbers.
2) The Dem most Republicans could live with if their candidate loses.

[Imagevision]

130. Would it surprise anyone if Hillary didn't end the Iraq war as she stated she would?

I mean things do happen, Iran can be an obstacle.