<p>Mercymom–I’ll admit–didn’t read it. Reacted to others’ opinions. But, further truth in advertising–I start out by being offended by the title, the implication that my liking or not is a function of her gender, or mine.</p>
<p>Very belittling, so it negates for me whatever point it might make.</p>
<p>Well, we lived in Margaret Thatcher’s district when we were in Britain, and H had the right to vote (not I). But we were both opposed to her on the issues. Her gender had nothing to do with it. BUT–she got to be PM on her own, not thanks to her husband. Denys Thatcher kept scrupulously out of the limelight. </p>
<p>I have to say that the summary of the article makes these women appear to assess Hillary on truly trivial grounds. It makes them seem incredibly shallow. I hope their longer assessments are better than that.</p>
<p>MomOFour hit the nail on the head when she said, “getting away with adultery, in exchange for power.”</p>
<p>I’ll have to go find that New Yorker issue. Yes, the article’s title is unfortunate, but it caught my eye because so few people I know who strenuously dislike Hillary can actually point out facts to support that feeling other than she’s mean, untrustworthy, a communist/socialist, etc. Unfortunately a lot of politicians are mean and ruthless, they just don’t see it that way themselves, the “greater good” and all that.</p>
<p>For myself, I initially didn’t like Obama when I read an interview several months ago with Michelle Obama where she talked about how she almost divorced him 'cause she was doing all the work in the marriage and he didn’t seem to care. Then she realized that they had a political dream they both shared, he wasn’t going to change and so she had to change, so she did. Very similar to Hillary only w/o the fooling around. Then I read Richard Cohen’s piece on Obama’s spiritual advisor being a strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan and that turned me off. Plus, my impression is that Obama is far to the left of Hillary and it’s pushing it for me to move left of center to begin with.</p>
<p>But after the last 8 years, I really need to be careful who I pull the lever for. Charisma is great but there are significant economic and defense problems out there and it may take someone who’s a little ugly to get it done.</p>
<p>^^^ agree with marite- I read the article last night and still didn’t get it. Seemed to be so trivial.
And, what’s with all the huff about a handshake? or not? These are gladiators doing battle right now, do we all care SO much about a handshake, when people are dying in a war right now?</p>
<p>Good thread, I too, just don’t understand the venom ???</p>
<p>I would not vote for Hillary just because we are the same gender. That is a very narrow-minded method. Character, perspectives, and accomplishments are more important in choosing a candidate. A man can support women’s rights too.</p>
<p>I congratulate the national office of NOW for distancing themselves from the state chapters. It is also a shame that some female posters posted the same narrow-mindedness on Oprah’s message boards.</p>
<p>mercymom–every single commentator I have read says that Obama and Clinton’s policies are almost the same on every issue, except that he opposed the war in Iraq and she didn’t. That is why the issues of “experience” (which is a red herring, and which will be thrown in Hillary’s face in the general election where both Republican candidates have FAR more than she) and personality have come to the fore. </p>
<p>Talking about reading: why don’t you go to their websites and read their position papers instead of acting on your “impressions”. I read them side-by-side when I am speaking to voters as I canvass our precinct by telephone, and most are extremely similar. </p>
<p>I disagree also with your thought that we need someone a bit “ugly” to solve our significant problems. We have had “ugly”–in the greatest extreme-- for the last 8 years and it has CAUSED more of our problems than it has solved. (Indeed, has it solved ANY?)</p>
<p>Hindoo said it for me, exactly. </p>
<p>It’s sad and pathetic, but not surprising, that this is even a discussion point. </p>
<p>When is the book or news article coming out about how and why some men dislike McCain?</p>
<p>“I disagree also with your thought that we need someone a bit “ugly” to solve our significant problems. We have had “ugly”–in the greatest extreme-- for the last 8 years and it has CAUSED more of our problems than it has solved. (Indeed, has it solved ANY?)”</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>Here is the link to the New Yorker article:</p>
<p>[The</a> Political Scene: The Choice: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer]The”>The Choice: Clinton vs. Obama | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>Thanks for the New Yorker link. I love that magazine. Ironically (or not) the book reviewed in the article was by a New Yorker editor (or writer?). Anyway, they usually have good stuff and very thorough.</p>
<p>I was reserving judgement and just recently decided I don’t like Hillary very much. And I’m not sure about Obama. </p>
<p>So who do I really like? The guy who just quit the race–Edwards. :(</p>
<p>Though I am the perfect example of who should be supporting Hillary (55 yr old female,white lifelong New York Democrat/feminist) I am supporting Obama.
I really really would like the torch to be passed (so to speak) to a new generation. I see him as the ultimate American success story.It bothers me that everyone identifies him as African American,I see him as white as he is black…I enjoy his obvious intelligence,his physical demeanor,his feisty wife and cute young kids.The whole “package”.I trust him to surround himself with the neccesary experienced Washington “hands”.
Mrs Clinton first started to lose me way back,when she took a calculated “walk” with then NY Senator Moynihan,and was annointed his succesor.Then the Clintons moved to NY.I consider her a carpetbagger in NY State.
She really lost me during one of the earlier debates, when she complained the “boys” were ganging up on her implying it was b/c she was female.Come on Hillary, if you want to play with the big boys,you have to play.It offended me as a woman.
I think her husband is an attack dog.He played real dirty down in South Carolina. I really don’t want him back in the White House and I don’t want to go back to the years of “right wing conspiracy” theories.I don’t trust him to stay out of the every day doings of running the government.</p>
<p>Cathymee, I’m with you 100%. Same story–53yo female, white, liberal Democrat who would love to see a woman president in my lifetime. Right now, however, Obama appeals to me the most, for reasons very similar to yours.</p>
<p>Same here, but 45, Californian. I will vote for Hillary over any of the Republicans if it comes down to it, but I believe Obama offers all of us a fresh start and a way out of last-century politics. If Hillary had divorced Clinton, I’d be more inclined to vote for her, but I don’t want two people in the Executive Office – and Bill’s trip to the South last week confirmed for me that he would be a very active, behind-the-scenes First Gentleman, indeed. I think we need better and can do better with Obama. That said, either of them will do a lot better than Bush has done for us. McCain just seems like an extension of Bush on so many levels.</p>
<p>I read the New Yorker article and also spent some time on both Hillary’s website and Obama’s web site. Now I like her a lot more than I did only a day ago. I don’t feel any warmer towards Obama, altho’ I will concede their agendas are very similar.</p>
<p>But really, you like Obama’s “feisty wife” but you don’t like Hillary? Michelle almost divorced Obama, but didn’t. You would like Hillary better if she’d divorced Bill? Geez. That’s just the sort of stuff the first article was talking about.</p>
<p>fwiw - Michelle is Obama’s attack dog, but it is very rarely mentioned in print. </p>
<p>The New Yorker points out stuff like Hillary getting criticized in Arkansas about her nail polish (or lack thereof). And how her “Village” co-writer did such a bad job Simon and Schuster basically fired her and almost didn’t pay her, yet Hillary gets criticized for not mentioning the woman in the acknowledgements page. No wonder she’s paranoid.</p>
<p>Hillary gets legislation through Congress by partnering with the same people who led the impeachment proceedings against her husband. She gets things done. I’m going to watch the debate tonight with great interest.</p>
<p>Bill gave Hillary many reasons to divorce him. We have not heard about his sweeties since he left office, but he’s had plenty. One is supposedly living in Ireland according to one Republican and one Democrat whom I know, both well-connected. Hillary stayed with Bill in order to pursue a political career.
Michelle considered divorcing Obama because she was reluctant to embrace his political career, not because he was unfaithful. That’s a huge difference.
The New Yorker article is hugely favorable to Hillary. She does come across as more sympathetic. But it is clear that she and Bill have chips on their shoulders and continue to see those who are not for them as enemies. That, too, is a difference with Obama. Michelle is forceful, there is no doubt about it; so has Elizabeth Edwards. But neither has been POTUS or used her influence the way Bill has (as reported only today in NYT–which has endorsed Hillary).
Obama also gets things done. His record in Illinois in getting adversaries to come over to his way of thinking is very encouraging. His ability to get Latinos and African-Americans to work together as a community organizer is also very encouraging.</p>
<p>Update: Paul Volcker endorses OBAMA…
After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance," Mr. Volcker said in a statement today. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But isn’t that the entire point behind much of Hillary’s campaign? That she’s been in Washington long enough to know how to play hardball with the big boys, when Obama will either not be able too or not to the extent that she could. And I think that’s very likely true.</p>
<p>That was supposed to be the point of Hillary’s campaign…until she got hubby to fight her battles for her. I had to blink at the headline: “Hillary: ‘Of course, I can control Bill…’” Are we supposed to be voting for Hill or Bill or Billary? And to whom would Bill be accountable to? Not you, not me.</p>