Tips are nice, too.

Flames?

It's winter. Today seems more like spring in NYC than winter, but what the hell...all heat will be appreciated as well.

Fire away if you so desire.

Later...

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

Well this is one woman unwilling to be her subject.

She and her "Bill's bitten bottom lip" moment is driving her perilously close to the $3 bill fakery that is Mitt Romney.

But I'm ready on day one. Please. If living in the WH is preparation, then let's just forget having elections and institute a rule stating that all first families have right of first refusal for the crown office.

I don't attack her as a woman. I attack Clintonism. I attack the fact that she acts entitled. I attack her patronizing manner.

She's already shown me exactly who she is with her MLK/LBJ comment, and I believe her.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

well...the fact she is a woman is one of the very few plusses in Hillary's column.  I'll take a package deal...a female president for all the bile that comes with it.  It's a bargain.  

But this particular woman is the head of political movement within the Democratic Party.  On a bad day, that movement doesn't extend much beyond Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, and a few of their best friends.  On better days, it represents the aspirations within the party to be the party of big business and aggressive international interventionism.  They hold most of us in contempt and will go to great lengths to make sure our values are not represented within the Democratic Party.  They are the leaders of the Blue Dog/New Democratic coalition.  That explains 90% of my opposition.  The other 10% is that she has shorter coattails than Obama.  

You've never heard me say horrible things about her personally.  About the worst I've said is that I don't like her voice.  And I've always insisted both that she is qualified and electable.  

But I get the feeling people take my hostility the wrong way and draw these same conclusions that you're drawing, Arthur.  And I don't like it.

And then...EUREKA!!!

I got it.

They resented her success.

Seriously?

Seriously????

I love the success she's had, although I wonder how much of it she would have gotten on her own had she not been riding Bill's coattails. That's not to denigrate her at all. It's just an unknown. She's had more opportunities than most women, because of that, and has done a lot with those opportunities.

But when I hear her talk about all her experience - I think yeah, but....

But seriously???????

I just don't like her policies. I think she's too centrist for my tastes. Too cozy with lobbyists, and the DLC, the old guard I never liked in the Democratic party.

THAT is why I don't like her.

Please, please. Don't make such broad generalizations.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

But AG, I thought we lived (or pretended to live) in a representative democracy - a queen?!

I enjoy your analysis and the challenges you often pose to your readers (even when your style was YELLING), so I had to think about this.

I wonder if H. Clinton was NOT a woman if you would defend her so. It seems to me you see her as the chosen one. And that you have hopes that once in office she is going to shrug off her current "protective covering" and morph into Hillary Roosevelt. Perhaps more realistically you seem to consider her the best of the lot available.

AG, you have described your relationship to music and to other players, recognizing if you were to maintain your integrity you could NOT play with bands-R-us. It would have corrupted you. I'm not sure H. Clinton has changed that much from the young Republican she was, so I don't know how she defines integrity, but I wonder about the company she keeps. Permagov indeed.

I had hopes at one time that women wending their way along different career paths, moving out of the 60's, would make deep changes in the way that business was done - major cultural changes. That both men and women could set aside the cultural delineations and limitations to pursue work that would bring out the best in them. I had hopes that the first woman president would be not only bright, savvy, and hard-working, but would have a large heart and a grand vision.

Yet here we are in corporatized America with Wal-Mart the largest employer. Maybe Hillary Clinton as the first woman president is actually an accurate reflection of the state of the nation. I find her a disappointment.


Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. (George Carlin)

   There does seem to be something primal going on here. She really has a lot of people absolutely hating her on the left and right. The wingnut I work with thinks she is pure evil. Grandma M had a comment about her aunts feeling Clinton is running on Bill's credentials. That pisses them off. But like you said Arthur people who are not political seem to be put off. Seems to be a lot of reasons from a lot of different people. Some folks are just tired of defending the Clintons. Its kind of like hearing a song too many times. People say I used to like it but I'm sick of it.
   On a different note. We are breaking new ground here with our two front runners. A woman and a black man leading the race is new for everyone. Maybe asking them for ideological purity is too much too soon. I'm kind of high off the whole deal and proud of the Democratic party's primary voters. This is pretty cool.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics;" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I've always been troubled by the many, many women who have said to me, "I'll never work for another female boss."

But I thought about that again after reading this post and I came up with a possible explanation. Maybe it's because they know women in power have to be twice the asshole men do just to get into the game, and three times the asshole to rise to the top.

And in some sense, that's the feeling I get about Hillary. She has to be three times the war-mongering, corporatist asshole to get there - and I don't want any part of it.

For all those who think she has never done much except to be a first lady planning parties check out wikipedia, here is just a tiny bit of her extensive and impressive resume.

From wikipedia

Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[31] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[32] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[33][34] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[33] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.[32] In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;[35][36] Edelman would become a significant mentor to her.[36]

In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases[37] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[38][39] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[39] two of its four partners were current or former communist party members.[39][40][41] Clinton canceled his summer plans to live with her in an apartment in Berkeley, California,[42] later writing, "I told her I'd have the rest of my life for my work and my ambition, but I loved her and I wanted to see if it could work out for us."[42] The romance did develop, and the couple continued living together in New Haven when they returned to law school.[40] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[43][44] She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[9] having spent an extra year there in order to be with Clinton.[45] Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation, but she declined at the time.[45] She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[46] Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973[47] and became frequently cited in the field.

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

Than the typical male, "Oh you're just jealous she's a woman" crap.  

Up until about maybe a month ago, I was willing to hold my nose and give The Clinton's a 3rd term in office.  Then I realized that Sen. Clinton's "35 years of experience" bullshit was exactly that.  Yes, she was Congressional legal counsel and worked for--dammit, I'm blanking on the name--Rose something law firm, but if you think about it...all her political experience she's touting is because Bill slipped it to her.  As I mentioned on BlogHer yesterday:

This all to say that, not only did I come to age with a Clinton in the WH, but I remember clearly the promises and the compromises. The fact is, that Sen. Clinton is using her time in the WH as part of her "experience". By that token, I'm a graphics guru because I work for my husband. It doesn't translate and considering her actual Not-Sleeping-With-Bill accomplishments, it's really pathetic to hear her tout '35 years of experince" when it's really more like 12 (and no, she has NOT distinguished herself in the Senate, regardless of what fairytale Bill Clinton wants to live in today). That is unless she's willing to release her WH papers, then we'll learn more. Who knows?

And that 12, was me being facetious...I really think it's closer to like 6.  Or 8.  

But, you think it's because she stepped out of a box...right?  That's insulting and laughable.

I can no longer get behind a Clinton candidacy because she decided to get girly on me.  Here is a woman I thought was a pretty strong (privileged, white) woman who can possibly win the presidency on her own accord.  But no, on the campaign trail, she had to have Bill Clinton to Save The Day!  

Then she tried to appeal to our uterine similarities in Iowa by trotting out more (priveleged, white) women: her mom and kid.  I don't care and I while her record does speak for itself, this is a Clinton we're talking about, so it's only a matter of time before women get thrown under the bus. Also on BlogHer:

But let's take that experience at face value and ignore the fact that she's basically asking us to elect her to a 3rd term...When someone like Clinton wants something from me, my first (selfish) question is, "What have you done for me lately?" With Clinton (Bill or Hillary), it's "What have you done for me period?" Because every core supporter they could have had (Blacks and Gays specifically), they threw under the bus long ago to strengthen their insider ties. At least Bill could make you feel good while he screwed you over. His mantra was always, "Later...you're time will come later." Well, it's "later" and Sen. Clinton has most certainly picked up that refrain. What exactly are we waiting for? More backroom deals? More compromises that still leave many Americans with unequal rights?

Then there was the "choking up" crap and then listening to all those interviews with her about it just left stunned.  She's sat there talking about that like she broke a nail on her new fucking dishwasher.  Ugh.  Where did Hillary go?  She played the media and the voters with her sex and since it's Clinton, no one was going to call her on it because it would be sexist to do it.  

But what convinced me that the "choking up" and the "iron my shirt" stupidity were campaign ploys, was her victory speech, where she clearly said, "Thanks for voting, suckas!"  Where did she say it?  When she said, "I finally found my voice."  

I couldn't have written a better line for speech for that moment...White women love that shit.  They eat that crap up...fucking Oprah.  'I finally found my voice.'...What a steaming load of shit from someone who used the same voice (campaign lies) that we're all used too these past 3 or 4 weeks.

What a steaming load of shit from someone who just spent the previous 4 days telling us about her 35 years of experience.  

What a steaming load of shit from someone who told us that she was "ready to lead from Day 1".  

I never had a big problem with Sen. Clinton and have always thought the people in the liberal blogosphere were psychotic sheeple when it came to Clinton.  I never understood the hatred and no one has ever explained it to me.  Whatever.  I was not a supporter of her coronation campaign, but I would have voted for her if she was the nominee.  After Tuesday night?  No way in fucking hell will help her campaign if she's the nominees.  I will not volunteer my time or money.  

Blogging While Brown Convention Atlanta, GA July 25-27, 2008

more from wikipedia

A key decision

During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[47] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[48] During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[49][50] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[32] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[50] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[50]

By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future; Democratic political organizer and consultant Betsey Wright had moved from Texas to Washington the previous year to help guide her career;[51] Wright thought Rodham had the potential to one day become a senator or president.[52] Meanwhile, Clinton had repeatedly asked her to marry him, and she had continued to defer.[53] However, helped by her having passed the Arkansas bar exam but having failed the District of Columbia bar exam,[54] Rodham came to a key decision. As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head."[55] She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were best. Clinton was at the time teaching law and running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in his home state. In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law,[56] where Bill Clinton also taught. Even then, she still harbored doubts about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else's accomplishments.[57]

Note the line in bold, sure turned out to be true, didn't it.

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

Hillary, the White House years, (the ones where she was riding the coattails of her husband, (snark)

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.[126] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[127] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[46] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[46] Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[46] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.[46] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[128] Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[129] and Children and Adolescents (2000),[130] and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)[131] and Philanthropy (1999).[132]

Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time,[133] breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.[134] In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself,[135] declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights"[135] and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.[133] She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.[136][137] She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.[138]

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

The Queen has been wearing a mask.  It seemed to lift in the days before New Hampshire.  That may have been part of the bump she got.  Even if was just a short, controlled burst of spontaneity, it seemed to give us a view inside that before seemed obscured by the robo-candidate facade.

A candidate who appears opaque creates distrust and inhibits any real attachment.  You can't see who they really are and it raises questions in your mind whether they really are who they say they are or whether they think about the world in the same way you do.

No candidate is really that transparent, but unless we feel we are seeing enough to judge their true selves, their will be trouble. People wanted to have a beer with Bush(and not so much with Kerry) at least in part because with Bush they felt like they had a sense of who would be sitting next to them on the stool at the bar. (And that he might bring some higher octane consumables.)  I think it comes down to what you think of them as people - applied to what you think they need to be as a person to be both Presidential candidate and President.

Now (getting back to your take on the gender subcurrent) to some extent do we define those needs differently for women than men?

Sure.

Does that change how we judge candidates?  

Yup.  

But other aspects come into play in the same way.  

What a black man needs to be as a person to successfully run for and govern as the President is different as well.  Spin the dial again for a black woman.

Small state governor, New York mayor, baptist preacher, plaintiff's attorney - they all change how we define the requirements of who that person has to be to both get and do the job.

Are all of our deeply embedded prejudices (of all sizes and shapes) implicated?  

I can't see how they are not.

But I also would not limit that analysis of the public's reaction to only Hillary and only gender.   To the extent we see what we believe is real, the candidate scores high on the authenticity scale. (To the extent we don't feel we have seen enough to make that call - a disconnect will exist.)  To the extent that our perception of a candidate's true nature matches our standards for what each candiate needs to be to run, win and govern, they end up higher on our lists.

So why the anger towards Hillary?  Some don't like people who appear fake.  Too controlled and you can come off as fake and insincere.  Lunch room, board room, campaign trail - that does not change.

For Dems, you add the Clintons' DLC/corporate background and Hillary's continued enthusiasm for taking and relying on boodles of money from those same interests that politically funded and benefitted from Bush's trashing of America. (I sometimes wonder if that unprecedented corporate largess towards a Democratic candidate will continue though election day or disappear when it is most needed - but that's a different topic.)  

So I think there are subconscious rules we apply to Hillary's candidacy, but there are subconcious rules we apply to them all and when it comes down to it for many people (maybe most), gender is one, but only one factor in how those rules are written.  

Think of our constitution as a levy. Think of our democracy as New Orleans. Now, what are you prepared to do?

LMAO..AG, you can stir the pot better with a chopstick, than anyone I know with a paddle...

I love it...great article.

sometimes the truth will leave a mark ; )

Semper Fi

"what a wonderful world"- Louis Armstrong

Ya, you don`t want anything sticking to the bottom.
That infidelpig is a funny guy.
Good essay Mr. Gilroy

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.