Who Is Hillary Clinton?

One theory, which functions as a kind of cargo cult among some American liberals, is that behind the bland, smiling, exterior and the thick gauze of platitudes, crouches a fiery liberal feminist, ready, when she has finally amassed enough power – say in her second term as president --to spring forth and save the world.

If Carl Bernstein’s exhausting 600-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accomplishes anything, it should be to euthanize this touching hope. Hillary Rodham Clinton was always a moderate, given to centrist, technocratic. In her lifetime, she has glided effortlessly from one side to another on key issues – the death penalty, for example, or entitlements for poor women and children – all the while maintaining the self-righteousness granted, supposedly, by her Methodist God.

In Bernstein’s account the mystery of Hillary is largely explained by her fraught relationship with Bill. She was pretty enough, but an awkward, wonky, young woman; he was a brilliant, ambitious, sexually magnetic stud; and in following him to Arkansas she seemed to have thrown her future as, say, a high-profile Washington public interest lawyer. “My friends and family thought I had lost my mind,” Bernstein quotes her as saying. He insists that theirs is, or sometimes was, a deep connection – sexual, intellectual and committed to their joint political “journey.”

But it was a relationship irreparably twisted by Bill’s compulsive priapism, which seems to have put the young Hillary into a permanent rage, but, perversely, also bound them ever more tightly together. In the unstable molecule we used to call “Billary,” he was the id and she was the super-ego, a role she clearly relished even as it poisoned her with resentment. As Bernstein argues, Bill dalliances only increased her power in the relationship, since, as a rising political star, he needed a smart, loyal wife to fend off the press and publicly stand by her man. When they entered the White House in 1993 on the heels of the Gennifer Flowers scandal, the outwardly forgiving Hillary was at the height of her power, eager to assume the “co-presidency.”

In Bernstein’s account, which strives nobly for fairness, Hillary’s early behavior as First Lady was stunningly arrogant. She disdained the press, alienated the White House staff, turned on her close friend Vince Foster (who responded by committing suicide) and appalled Al Gore by trying to claim the West Wing office suite traditionally reserved for the vice president. She demanded a cabinet position, and when that was over-ruled, insisted on leading Clinton’s efforts at health reform, despite the objections of Health and Human Services secretary Donna Shalala, who was no less a feminist than Hillary.

Hillary’s attempt to create a national health insurance system – which she will have to undertake a second time as a presidential candidate – was a disaster in every way. Procedurally, she screwed up by conducting the planning under conditions of extreme secrecy, not even bothering to reach out to potentially supportive members of Congress, never mind the usual populist trimming of few televised town meetings. What Bernstein omits is her out-of-hand dismissal of the kind of single-payer system the Canadians have, which led to a tortured 1300-page piece of legislation that almost no one could comprehend. The bottom line, unnoted by Bernstein, is that, despite the right’s charges of “socialized medicine,” her plan would have maintained the nation’s largest private insurance companies’ death grip on American health care.

Now it was Hillary’s to be the liability, rather than the super-ego, in the Billary team. Revelations about her involvement in an obscure land deal in Arkansas suggested a conflict of interest between her prior role as both first lady of that state and an attorney at Little Rock’s Rose law firm. The real scandal is that she had worked for Rose at all, which represented the notorious anti-labor firms Tyson Poultry and Wal-Mart, but Bernstein makes nothing of that.

Soon Hillary, facing the possibility of a criminal indictment, was undertaking to recreate herself in a softer, cuddlier, mode. She wrote a book called It Takes a Village, on the importance of children, notable only for its sappiness and the spurious claim that her own family of origin had been idyllic. She wore pink for a defensive press conference held in the White House’s Pink Library, where Bernstein politely describes her as “preternaturally calm,” though the impression– with her eyelids drooping and her voice slowed, was of over-medication.

Having failed with her own hard-won health portfolio, and besieged now by the press for her sleazy deals in Arkansas, Hillary began to flail – reaching out for help from New Age healer Marianne Williamson. Compared to the Bush era White House scandals, the Whitewater land deal was microscopic-- no one died or was tortured—and surely the “vast rightwing conspiracy” played a role in keeping it alive. But as Bernstein writes, what magnified it out of proportion was Hillary’s own pattern of “Jesuitical lying, evasion, and … stonewalling.” She was not in the habit of being wrong – that was Bill’s job – and admitting to wrong-doing was simply not in her repertoire.

It took Monica Lewinsky to restore Hillary’s upper hand within her marriage and, with it, her self-confidence. Apparently believing her husband’s protestations of innocence, she took over the management of his defense within the White House, and, disconcertingly, started exploring the possibility of running for the senate in New York State at the very same moment the already-elected senate was voting on Bill’s impeachment. But even in this time of extreme crisis – for her marriage as well as the presidency – she could not resist asserting to a family adviser that “My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me.” Bernstein, ever the gentleman, comments only that “that statement speaks for itself.”

Most of the lies Bernstein documents along the way are, in the scheme of things, inconsequential and well in the past. But Bernstein breaks off his biography somewhat abruptly after Hillary’s election to the Senate, where she distinguished herself by helping push through a statute forbidding flag-burning. For a current and far more disturbing bit of mendacity, we have to turn to the another new Hillary book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. As a presidential candidate, Hillary has repeatedly and confusingly claimed that she did not vote to authorize the war in Iraq, only to give Bush the authority to pursue a war if he should decide to. What she doesn’t mention is that she voted against an amendment to the war resolution, proposed by Senator Carl Levin, that would have required the president to return to Congress for a war authorization if diplomatic efforts failed.

Worse, she has dodged the question of whether she ever actually read the full text of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which was offered as a causus belli despite its equivocations on the subject of Saddam Hussein’s purported WMD’s. “If she did not bother to read the complete intelligence reports,” Gerth and Van Natta observe, “then she did not do enough homework on the decision she has called the most important of her life. If she did read them, she chose to make statements to justify her vote for war that were not supported by the available intelligence.” Since the start of her candidacy, anti-war Democrats have implored her to admit that she made a mistake on Iraq, which she stubbornly, even childishly, refuses to do.

In the end, the question of who Hillary is seems almost a bit anthropomorphic. Surely she has loved, laughed and suffered in the usual human ways, but what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded, power-seeking machine encased in a gleaming carapace of self-righteousness. She’s already enjoyed considerable power, both as a Senator and a “co-president,” and in the ways that counted, she blew it. What Americans need most, after fifteen years of presidential crimes high and low, is to wash their hands of all the sleaze, blood, and other bodily fluids, and find themselves a president who is neither a Clinton nor a Bush.

This review was published in The Guardian, June 16.

Comments

[Justin K.]

At this point I think any one would be better then Bush. How ever I'm not voting for Hillary because I don't believe family members of former presidents should be new presidents. There's to much baggage.

[Solo]

I absolutely agree with Barbara's take on Hillary Clinton. Once upon a time I had high hopes that Bill & Hill would make a positive difference in the lives of hard working Americans of all classes.

Instead, we got another example of how power corrupts and we, as usual, paid the price.

It saddens me that after working and fighting for women's rights since the 60s, I won't be voting for her.

[Hattie]

This woman and her husband let us down in so many ways. Every time I feel inclined to give the Clintons a break, I will just re-read this piece.

[buena]

As usual, we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. If it's between Hillary and any of the republican bozos, she'll get my vote.

[realpc]

We are not going to have a socialist/ feminist/ pacifist /atheist president in the near future. Maybe not ever. I don't know why you expected Hillary to fit that description.

[lc2]

I agree with realpc!!!

I read a recent interview w/the directors of the documentary "Jesus Camp" in which they were asked what the role of the film is. They responded that it was to expose us coasters to the folks in the heartland ... as we're usually reminded every four years in an election. They noted that most people in hip liberal circles are as oblivious to the inclinations of everyday folks in DeKalb and Peoria as people in small towns are of life in the city.

Like it or not, Barbara, Hillary spans that divide quite nicely, in the same way that GW's ranch-hand act does. What, you thought the
~5o% of eligible voters were people were digging deeper than hair color/thickness, twang, and religious denomination? Think again.

[Hattie]

Oh yes, we hip liberal types just don't have a clue as to the nature of the "real" America. What an insult to Americans that kind of statement is.
So I don't know any snake handlers personally!
But how about that third tour of duty? The medical bills that can't be paid? Rich people taking over all the good places? Just a few of the complaints I've heard lately from some folks I know in Idaho.

[Kevin Carson]

We're totally screwed in the next election: Giuliani would be worse than Bush, and Hillary and McCain are both almost as bad. Obama is a self-serving opportunist whose substantive positions are limited to vague treacle about "Hope" (where have we heard THAT before?).

All this is assuming, of course, that Cheney doesn't attempt a Hail Mary by nuking Iran and having Junior declare a national emergency.

As for buena's lesser of two evils strategy, unfortunately the evil folks are fully aware of it and taking it into account. That's probably why the lesser evil seems to get more evil with every new election.

[Hattie]

Oh yes, we hip liberal types just don't have a clue as to the nature of the "real" America. What an insult to Americans that kind of statement is.
So I don't know any snake handlers personally!
But how about that third tour of duty? The medical bills that can't be paid? Rich people taking over all the good places? Just a few of the complaints I've heard lately from some folks I know in Idaho.

[lc2]

Hattie: I happen to be a coaster who prefers hip liberal circles myself. But I'm also lucky (and yes I do consider myself lucky) to have extended family that is deeply entrenched in God/Family/Country and happens to live in the South and Midwest. To deny that these are different worlds is to deny that the sky is blue, so I don't quite know what your issue is. Barbara illuminated the culture of working class folks that is ignored and denied by our media and middle-class-obsessed culture ... why deny that such ignorance about small town/Republican life is foreign to most coasters?

Yes, my life as an independent-bookstore-shopping, organic-lemonade-drinking, Green-Party-leaning person is as foreign to them as their Wal-Mart-shopping, Wednesday-night-Bible-study, American-flag-decorating-scheme-living room lives are to me.

Let's not pretend there's not an elephant in this room, shall we? As a southern boy, Bill Clinton straddled this cultural divide masterfully. For Hillary, it's a little tougher -- she doesn't have the automatic in of having been raised down South, for starters. Whether we like it or not, most elections are still popularity contests and are won or lost based on what seems most familiar, or which candidate the voter would rather have at a family reunion.

[buena]

Kevin, I agree with most of what you say, with the exception of the 2000 presidential "election." I don't think Al Gore was or is a bad choice; we finally had a decent candidate that year. Then came Nader, voter fraud, and Bush's appointment to the presidency by the Supreme Court. So much for democracy.

And with Dick "Strangelove" Cheney hoping to lob that hail Mary you mention, wondering who to vote for will cease to be an issue.

[Hattie]

lc2: where do you come up with this nonsense?
I think you're the one who needs to get around more, not me.

[Michael]

You are all missing the point. I fully understand the differences between southerners and mid-westerners, mainly because I've been both.

The POINT is that Hillary pretends to be whatever her latest constituency wants.

You can't GET more Socialist than Hillarys health care "plan". You also can't get more Neocon than her vote to invade Iraq or her statements about the death of Saddam Hussein. She is the epitome of what every commedian on earth deems a politician.

Let her senate voting record speak for itself. That will be plenty enough for most sanely thinking Americans on both sides of the political isle to reject this woman.

[Larry]

I ageee, we have had enough of the Clinton's and Bush's.

Hillary openly defended the war until 4 months before she announced her candidacy.

We have had enough of war and enough of Free Trade.

We need someone new.

[Fool on the Hill]

Kevin Carson has it right, spot-on, as they say. We're screwed. Hillary and Obama are both frauds, and about all we can expect from the DLC-led Dems. It's tragedy repeating itself as farce. Hillary won't be much, or any, better than Bush, as even Ted Koppel has allowed recently that she won't get us out of Iraq even if she serves 2 terms. She'll keep us quagmired there forever. It's Israel, stupid! It's not only Israel, but oh, yeah, it's Israel. She's joined at the hip with the Zionists. And no, I'm not idiotically "anti-Semitic."

[barbsright]

I agree that Kevin Carson got it 'spot on'. Buena did not. Her comment, on June 19, 2007, is the reason this country is in such a mess. Her comment, on June 20, 2007, that Ralph Nader had an effect on the 2000 campaign is laughable. As long as the Republicans controlled Florida with Gov. Jeb Bush, Gore would have had to get at least 3% points more of the vote to beat Bush. Nader did not come close to that amount of the vote. Florida was going to be G.W. Bushs' 'by hook or by crook'. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg will save the USA.

[John F.]

A couple of suggestions:

1. Perhaps we should focus on WHAT instead of WHO. That is, emphasize the 2008 platform now instead of at the convention. Make the campaign more about the platform than the face.

2. I'd suggest our best hope of getting access to power in Washington is through the House of Representatives. Focus more attention on our own Representatives on blogs, letters to the editor, etc. Call them, write them, hold them accountable.

[Margot A.]

"most elections are still popularity contests and are won or lost based on what seems most familiar, or which candidate the voter would rather have at a family reunion." This is SO true and the root of the problem. Is there anything we can DO about it?

[Evan H.]

Excellent piece.

[lc2]

John F,

I agree in principle, but principles are not exactly what gets people elected these days. We're not that far-removed from jr. high days and apparently it's wrong to acknowledge that here on this board.

My parents both hail from very small towns in the heartland and South (I'm talking about towns where the average house value is $32K) and I have a window into the cultures of those towns that the vast majority of people on the coasts do not have, including my spouse who grew up in a working class family here in the northeast. It's no fault of their own, any more than we should blame people for being unaware of the cultures of countries they've never visited. As far as I can tell, it might as well be a different country, much like work as a waitress/maid/Wal-Mart clerk barely resembles the work of office clerks or i.t. experts. And yes Hattie, I've done both. Recently.

.... or did I just imagine it that the majority of the Bush voters in the last election said they voted for him b'c of his shared "moral values"? To ignore the role of culture in national elections is just silly. It's an analysis of the situation, not an endorsement of it.

[buena]

1. What is the alternative to voting for the lesser of two evils?

2. Thomas Jefferson said "Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

That explains a lot.

[Wally Whiteman]

I see old Hattie mixing it up again with anyone with opposing viewpoints.

Woman, your act is so lame and tired.

When are you going to say something useful and constructive rather sparring with everyone ?

I know you need more commenters over at your crappy site, but why don't you earn them like eveyone else ? All you do is seek and throw darts. Pitiful.

Oh , that comment Cascadia made about Hillary at your site, just proves how much a blowhard she really is. I am glad you corrected such a foolish comment. Considers herself expert at US political issues now.

Not as smart as she thinks she is. Fun to watch you two though. Misery loves company.

[Hattie]

Dear Ms. Ehrenreich: could you please nuke this annoying troll? He is ruining several forums where I comment. He lives in the Toronto area and has something wrong with him.
Last comment here from me on him.

[Curly Earl]

Hattie you are such a poor sport. You cruise other's sites, like this one, and stir up all sorts of controversy and when someone questions your motives, they are labelled a troll ? Uh?

You pick fights purposely. You need to be the victor, regardless of what you are saying makes any sense or not, and when you are called out, like I have here, you claim foul.Give me a break. What a juvenile mentality.

I think YOU ruin several forums by your rants and your dart throwing and self proclaimed leftist superiority. When youlook at it this way, who invited you over anyway ?

[Perry]

Why on earth would you think that an obviously unsympathetic bio of Hillary would provide any insight into anything about her? Bernstein's book trashes her in ways she does not deserve and you are no better when you take his text as gospel and attempt to reason from it.

[Autolycus]

It's 'casus belli', not 'causus belli'. Other than that, I've enjoyed this article.

[barbsright]

Perry, Bernstein's book tells the truth. The truth is often ugly, especially when exposing this generation of politicians. Take a Valium. I could do with one myself.
Hattie, the alternative to voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is not to vote for either of them, otherwise you just encourage them in their selfish, uncaring ways.

[Barbara E]

Autolycus-- You're right -- how embarrassing!

One thing that should be mentioned: Hillary may win polls against other Dems,but she doesn't win against the top Republicans. Barack, however, carries the day when he is pitted against any of the Republicans. He is now the Dems' best choice if they want to win.

[Perry]

Barack is being advised on foreign relations by Colin Powell, the architect of the Iraq War. Barack uses the same underhanded tactics as other politicians while pretending to be above it all. Barack has no record qualifying him on international issues. How can someone seriously propose him as an alternative to the many more qualified candidates in this election? You need more than charisma to be effective in the job, as Bush demonstrated.

[Anarcissie]

I find it hard to believe that Clinton will survive the first primaries. Unattractive organization-man candidates can sometimes be put over, but this one is pretty steep.

In any case, it is moderately interesting to watch the political system, including the media, carefully exclude anyone who isn't on the war, empire and repression team. Otherwise I'd say the election is already too boring to pay much attention to.

I guess the big news, for me, is the pro-choice Giuliani becoming the leader of the Republican pack. I didn't think that could happen; I think it shows how weak anti-abortionism really is. Soon all the experts telling us how different the "Blue" and "Red" states are may have to revise their scripts and recognize that knuckle-dragging fundamentalism has crested and is ebbing away.

Meanwhile I hope Clinton gets at least the punishment of losing the nomination for her support of the current war (and the next one, and the one after that). Regardless of whether she can win or not. Thousands and thousands of people have been killed, maimed, tortured and terrorized for nothing more than political expediency. Unlike the moronic George Bush, one can't believe she didn't know what she was doing when she voted for it.

[Curly Earl]

Interesting reading these viewpoints.
Whoever gets elected has got one monumental task ahead of them.
Hillary , Rudy, or Barack, take your pick.

Clinton obviously knows how to surround herself with good people.Her husband did so, and he didn't do too badly.

Quit nitpicking and realize the sheer task ahead.

And you gotta get out of Iraq, fast. You people are in some serious serious trouble as a nation if you don't .
You people in the US elect some pretty strange ones, and you have nobody to blame except yourselves.

I hope you find a way out of this funk.

[Justin K.]

Curly Earl,
May I ask in witch country you reside in?

[Lulu]

Barbara for President!

[Justin K.]

I 2ed that!

[Curly Earl]

Oh course you can ask me Justin.
I consider myself a citizen of the world although I do reside in Zurich Switzerland for much of the year.

I too think Barbara would make a good President as well.

Much of your reconstruction after Bush leaves will depend on intelligent experienced operators with level heads. The old boy network mentality needs to be abandoned . Look what it has done to your country already.Someone with a serious understanding of economics will be needed.

Justin will you permit me to ask what you do for a living ?

[Anonymouse]

Curly lives in his mother's basement in Toronto, Canada.

[Justin K.]

I'm an Image-tech for the D.O.D. Thats about all I'm allowed to tell you. If I could I would tell you more. Sorry

Anonymouse if thats a joke it's not funny. If it's true, then it's kind of sad.

[Curly Earl]

I can assure you I don't live in my Mother's basement, and I have never been to Toronto although I do have some good friends that speak highly of the city.

Anonymouse is most likely this Hattie woman who was the object of one of my comments . She does resemble a mouse, a rather large one at that.

Now Justin.Image tech for the D.O.D. You have certainly piqued my interest.
Do you ever get to DC ?

[Justin K.]

Sorry Curly but my travels are among the things I can’t talk about. I can say that when I do travel I have to get permission first. Why do you ask if I have been to DC?

[Monica]

Hillary should not become president. That would put a man, and a former president at that, in the odd position of being the male equivalent of a "first lady". It would also reverse leadership roles, as Hillary would have the power and he would only have an advisory role at best and possibly some job given to him because he is married to the president. That would provide a bad example of male and female role models and also create a problem in their marriage, as he would envy Hillary for having taken his place.

To tell you the truth, I actually think that a woman should not be a president. In a monarchy, it could be argued that she inherited her position. But a president is elected. Women who succeed in politics tend to be to aggressive and unfeminine. Hillary should not even be a senator. She belongs in the kitchen. I have a job out of necessity, but I think that such positions of high leadership are just wrong for a woman.

[Jacqueline S. Homan]

Monica, please explain why you think it is wrong for women to have an equal stake in the system that governs them? If I as a woman can be held just as liable in a court of law as any man, if I as a woman must pay the same for that loaf of bread and roof over my head as any man, then why shouldn't I as a woman have any equal controlling stake in the society in which I live?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but to wish to turn back the clock to the 1800's when women were all second-class citizens - worse off than newly freed black slaves - is lunacy. And anyone who supports that kind of agenda here in America is living proof that there is a village missing its idiot and that you can indeed get pregnant from anal sex.

[Mark Vane]

Fellow blogger, Found a cool new tool for our blogs... http://www.widgetmate.com/ It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog.

[Anarcissie]

Jacqueline -- Monica is probably a troll.

[Justin K.]

The one thing that dose scare me about the FIRST female president is the more then logical fear that she is going to be an unreasonable hard ass just because she feels like she has to prove her self. But to say that a female should not be president, I can’t agree with that.

Lets not resort to calling people Trolls ok!

[gaby]

Hillary is educated, experienced in politics, diplomatic and very rich. Sounds like predident material to me. Plus wasn't it the Clinton presidency that paid all the debts and left America with a surplus bugdet?

At this point ANYONE is better than what we have and whoever the next president will be certainly will face guaranteed unpopularity. Why? Aside from Iraq, the irresponsible spending spree of the Republicans put America in a gazillion dollar hole, and yes, there has to be a huge tax hike to pay for this. (personally I think that only the ones who voted for this Republican Lunacy ought to be hit by a tax hike:)

[Anarcissie]

Justin -- if someone comes to the blog of a liberal or leftist writer and posts messages advocating slavery or the subordination of women, one has to suspect that they're trolling -- baiting people in hopes of eliciting angry responses. Some people think that's very funny. But to me it's usally just a tedious exercise of vandalism, and one way I've found of reducing its effects is to call it out. And that's what I'm going to do, unless someone else does it first.

[Monica]

A woman should not have to buy a loaf of bread or roof over her head out of her income. Her husband, father or brother should pay. You forget that many so-called "second-class citizens" who were female were able to stay home instead of getting a job.

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, and that arrangement was better, because not everybody had to work. To its gender its role that is the most suitable, and if, unfortunately, many women step out of their gender role, that does not mean that others should not only encourage that, but actually make a woman president or senator.

If Hillary is a very active woman, she should have had as many children as her husband could support, as women generally should. In fact, pregnancy and motherhood are part of the reason women do not belong in public life. They are supposed to be busy with that, and it is more decent to hide when obviously pregnant. And don't get me started about the mood swings most women get, even if not pregnant, because of their hormones. Do you really want a president with PMS or who is very nervous because she may be pregnant and would rather not be?

Speaking of pregnancy due to other forms of sex: this is actually possible if care is not taken to make sure that a certain substance won't leak, even in small quantities and from outside the body, into the woman's you-know-what.

[Justin K.]

WOW! I can't believe I'm reading this.....

Monica, I can't even think of a single civil thing to say to you right now.

WOW!!

[Anonymouse]

Nuke the troll. Do not pay any attention to him. It's just this one guy living in his mother's basement in Toronto. Honest.

[Monica]

I'm a woman living in Montreal and with a degree.

You see, people tend to want what they don't have. I never quite wanted any kind of women's liberation. I was pushed into things like being a student, getting a job and wearing normal clothes, and my parents would not have wanted me to marry or have kids when I was very young, which I ended up not even doing at all (I did live with a man for a while). Lately, I started to dress almost like a Muslim (I'm thinking of converting), to take an interest in cooking and to dream of not having a job and being supported by a man instead. My greatest sexual fantasy is getting a really nice kitchen (I love housework and buying things for the home). Someone who was forced to live like that would probably want to dress sexy, have a degree, get a job, and so on.

[buena]

I'm glad someone explained what a troll is, since I haven't been on a blog until I discovered Barbara's. I thought it was just a general insult.

The only way to deal with this kind of blogoterrorism is to ignore it.

As for Hillary, I'd still like to know what the practical alternative is to voting for the lesser of two evils. Especially in light of the fact that Barbara E. has said that if she had it to do over again, she would not have voted for Nader in 2000.

[Justin K.]

I don’t think there is any way to weed out the lesser of the two evils. When it comes to voting all we can do is look at they’re past and listen to what they have to say. Then hope that the next person is of some improvement from the last. In a way the presidential election is a lot like the roulette tables in Las Vegas. You pick a number (for what ever reason) place your chips and spin the weal.

[Anarcissie]

Unless you're a Supreme Court justice, the chance that your vote will determine the outcome of a major election is infinitesimal, in other words, zero for all practical purposes. Therefore, there is no point in calculating about greater and lesser evils. You might as well vote for someone you like, if you're into voting.

If more people did this, at least we'd start to see some interesting candidates instead of the same old same old, tired, compromised, corrupt warmongers.

[Jacqueline S. Homan]

Monica wrote: "I'm a woman living in Montreal and with a degree.

You see, people tend to want what they don't have. I never quite wanted any kind of women's liberation. I was pushed into things like being a student, getting a job and wearing normal clothes, and my parents would not have wanted me to marry or have kids when I was very young, which I ended up not even doing at all (I did live with a man for a while). Lately, I started to dress almost like a Muslim (I'm thinking of converting), to take an interest in cooking and to dream of not having a job and being supported by a man instead. My greatest sexual fantasy is getting a really nice kitchen (I love housework and buying things for the home). Someone who was forced to live like that would probably want to dress sexy, have a degree, get a job, and so on."

What about the unmarried women who don't have fathers or brothers to support them? Oh, lemme guess - sell them off in an arranged marriage to the local mullah old enough to be their grandfather, right?

Tell you what, if you want to live like that, more power to you. But the majority of women here in the USA do NOT want to live like that - and the majority of men would not want them to have to live like that, either.

Oh, and did I mention this is the USA - not Muslim-extremist Taliban controlled Afghanistan, OK?

[Jacqueline S. Homan]

Monica, not to be rude, but there's an old addage: "Look before you leap."

If you think Islam is such a good deal for all women to have to live under, check this out:

http://www.wluml.org/english/index.shtml

[anonymouse]

"monica" is the troll. Don't you get it? MONICA!
He has managed to derail a serious discussion with his stupid comments. I wish Ms. Ehrenreich would ban him.

[Monica]

Don't confuse Islam with what actually happens in some countries. For instance, a woman who commits adultery can repent without being stoned to death. But, you may say, this is done in some countries. Well, that's the law there. Don't women know what the law is? Why do they break the rules then?

Or early marriage, for example. It's just natural, and better than sleeping around. And the man has to support his wife and children, but if the woman has her own money, she can keep it. The need to support a wife is the reason why women were supposed to inherit less money. Again, that's the theory. What bad things people do with Islam is not the same as Islam.

I just wish someone married me off when I was very young instead of having pushed me to get an education and a job. An older, but not very old, man may have things like more money, wisdom and sexual experience than a younger man.

And what makes you think I'm male? I have been posting messages on this blog for a while and provided consistent information, such as that I live in Canada.

Covering up as much as possible makes the woman get respect as a person instead of being seen as a sex object and judged by how attractive, young, thin, etc. she is. It also provides greater privacy.

[barbsright]

Ok, one more time: Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. All he did was show that the issues Barbara writes about were important even then. Unfortunately, even now, no one is listening. Monica is upset that her life did not turn out as she needed it to. I can relate. But 'the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves', to loosely quote Shakespeare's JULIUS CAESAR.

[Barbara E]

I don't think Monica is a beknighted troll. I think he/she is a brilliant satirist!

[Anonymous]

As long as you are amused!

[Curly Earl]

"Anonymouse" or Hattie, or whatever moniker she is using today is like a lttle kid that doesn't get her way.

Can't share the comment section with this woman.One reason why her blog is so idiotic and ho hum. She visits others, hoping to stir things up so you might trackback to her's.Trouble is, nothing of worth awaits.
She only wishes she had the charisma of some these blogs she terrorizes.

I too agree that Monica is a gifted satirist. Too bad ole Hat bag thinks she lives in her mother's basement.She needs to cut back on her mayonnaise habit
( jar a day)

Monica, please don't mind Hattie or "anonymouse". She has some deep seated issues.She hates the world. Do continue to contribute though. I am amused as are others I'm sure.

[paperpusher666]

Aren't marriage brokers and introduction services making a comeback? Much of the objection to arranged marriages are to "forced marriages", where the people getting married don't have a choice in the matter. Birth control and abortion have pretty much done away with the shotgun wedding.

There is some research that indicates that arranged marriages are more stable than "love marriages" because the people getting married are more similar in values and preferences. The idea that opposites attract is true enough, but the differences tend to wear on people over time.

[Anarcissie]

Amusing that a discussion of Hillary Clinton would wind up on the subject of arranged marriages, which are, of course, business ventures, not romance.

[Curly Earl]

Monica,

Old Hattie is claiming I am you, and you are I.

Anything to draw attention to her blog. I think I am beginning to understand her shortcomings.

I get sooo tired of whiners and complainers. Inciting hatred and discord among males is not going to solve anything, just make matters worse Drop by and tell her how it is. Get her off my case.

[Monica]

Arranged marriages are not business ventures. That would be the case if the man and the woman did not really become husband and wife except in name (for instance, if they did not have sex or children), or if no care was taken to ensure at least a certain degree of compatibility. Romance is based on mutual attraction that may fade in the face of adversity and when the next cute thing comes along. Arranged marriage is based on compatibility on several levels, such as social and religious, and on a strong commitment to make the marriage work out, as the man and the woman don't have any particular reason to dislike each other and may even like each other, more or less, and will get used to the marriage.

[jill Tropilo]

I want Bill back! If it takes Hillary to get him there, I'm all for it. So who is ever going to get the perfect speciman in there? Here's the ticket...Hillary for president and Obama for vice president. At least we may have a chance at moving tax money to our social issues versus funding wars.
And Barbara, what have you got against strong-willed, passionate women who have the balls to tough it out in a man's world? We'll never level the playing field until we can stay out there playing with them. She taken a lot of hits for us, and may have had to make some fast turns now and again, but she's making it possible for the rest of us to play. Go Hillary!

[chris]

Jill Tropilo wrote:

"Hillary for president and Obama for vice president."

The US is not ready to elect a female president. Hillary cannot win. Even the Democrats know it. That's one reason Gore, the undeclared Democratic contender, was such a hit in New Hampshire.

Moreover, the country is even less likely to elect a black candidate to either of the top two positions.

Thus, a ticket including a polarizing woman and a weightless black candidate would lead to the most embarrassing Democratic defeat in history.

Those who will not vote for a woman plus those who will not vote for a black plus those who will support the Republican ticket add up to a clear majority.

Gore, on the other hand, has a chance to win. But he have to enter the race first. I suppose that announcement is coming.

[Justin K.]

Chris said,
"Those who will not vote for a woman plus those who will not vote for a black plus those who will support the Republican ticket add up to a clear majority."

My vote is going to Obama. But I think chris is right about this. It's sad really.

[chris]

Justin, you wrote:

"My vote is going to Obama. But I think chris is right about this."

You won't get the chance to vote for him unless you vote in a Democratic primary. You won't see his name on the ballot on election day November '08.

You wrote:

"It's sad really."

Why? He's a threat to the country.

I just watched the Democratic "debate" at Howard University. The candidates were sickening.

Obama was quite clear that he would devote all of America's energies to giving blacks benefits that appear to exceed the amount demanded by those seeking Reparations.

He also believes the US should invade African nations to protect blacks -- from other blacks.

All the Democratic candidates pretended to agree with the various conspiracy theories that permeate black thinking.

[Justin K.]

That’s interesting. Even when people agree with you, you still feel the need to argue about it. Or did you choose to not read the part where I said, “But I think Chris is right about this.”

As I said before, “When it comes to voting all we can do is look at they’re past and listen to what they have to say. Then hope that the next person is of some improvement from the last.” And “At this point I think any one would be better then Bush.”

Aside from that I don’t understand why you care if I vote for Obama or not. If you believe what you said (I quote Chris: "Those who will not vote for a woman plus those who will not vote for a black plus those who will support the Republican ticket add up to a clear majority.") It won’t mater if I vote for him or not.

Oh and I never registered under any one party. I’m neither good nor evil.

[chris]

Justin, you wrote:

"That’s interesting. Even when people agree with you, you still feel the need to argue about it."

You might agree about the outcome, but your agreement does not mean you share the feelings of those who will vote for Obama's competitors. In other words, two different topics.

You wrote:

"As I said before, “When it comes to voting all we can do is look at they’re past and listen to what they have to say."

What was said last night at Howard U was outrageous.

You wrote:

"Aside from that I don’t understand why you care if I vote for Obama or not."

Unless you vote for him in a Democratic primary, you will never have the chance to vote for him. In almost every state, you must be a registered Democrat to vote in a Democratic primary. Idaho is an exception. There are a few others.

You wrote:

"Oh and I never registered under any one party. I’m neither good nor evil."

You must be a registered voter to vote in any election. Perhaps you are registered as an Independent. If you are, you are unlikely to have the chance to vote for Obama.

In what state do you live? What are your state's voting rules regarding primaries?

[Justin K.]

Ok Chris. I might be dyslexic but I’m not retarded. As I said before I live in California and I know how things work. But so as not to cause some kind of spelling crime I went to The California Voter Foundation web page and looked it up.

It stated:
“In the General Election, you can of course vote for any candidate you like. A Primary Election is different. California's current primary system, which is neither "open" nor "closed", is perhaps best called "slightly ajar". Here's the way it works: if you are registered as a member of a political party, you will only be able to vote for candidates in that party's primary election. (For example, a registered Democrat cannot vote in the Republican primary). However, if you are not affiliated with any party, you may still have the option to vote in a party primary by effectively becoming a member of that party for a day.”

If I am un-able to vote for the person I want to vote for then I guess I’ll just have to fall back on what my professor said. “If you don’t know what or who to vote for then it’s best not to cast a vote at all.” In other words, there’s no point in swinging the bat with your eyes closed.

But I still don’t understand why you care one-way or the other. If you do in fact BELVE that Obama is not going to get the majority of votes there should be no reason for you to conduct this argument.

[pixley]

wickedly on point my dear

[chris]

Justin, you posted:

"However, if you are not affiliated with any party, you may still have the option to vote in a party primary by effectively becoming a member of that party for a day.”"

California is one of the states that sanctions this primary craziness. Because independent voters are free to vote for any candidate, they can upset voting outcomes the same way having a third-party candidate running for president can change the outcome. It is a bad system.

The only sane primary system is to limit voting to people who are registered either as Republicans or Democrats. No dipping a toe into the pool for a day.

You wrote:

"If I am un-able to vote for the person I want to vote for then I guess I’ll just have to fall back on what my professor said. “If you don’t know what or who to vote for then it’s best not to cast a vote at all.”"

Your professor is wrong. Failure to vote always benefits one candidate more than another. Good candidates are forever losing primaries due to voter apathy.

You said:

"In other words, there’s no point in swinging the bat with your eyes closed."

First, obtaining knowledge of a candidate is your responsibility. Second, no one knows what major events will occur while an elected official serves. In 2001 Bush began his term with plans that were largely domestic. But 9/11 changed everything.

[Justin K.]

I love California. There are of course some things I don’t like about it. But over all I think it’s the best state. You might not like the thought of “becoming a member of that party for a day”, but I do. Besides, I was never one to be tied down by titles.

[Greg Chamberlain]

Hillary Clinton voted for what was an illegal invasion if Iraq. It was unconstitutional for this nation to invade a nation that was no direct threat to the United States. Somehow, according to polls conducted by ThePresident.Com, there are a high percentage of misinformed voters who believe she did not vote for the war or more accurately, they think she did not authorize the President to strike Iraq preemptivly. Once those voters get their facts straight, it is my hope that she is not elected to higher office and she finally goes back to Arkansas or perhaps to Israel where the biggest recipients of her generousity may treat her as if she is George Bush in Albania. Then she can perhaps wipe that fake smile off her face and feel truely welcome somewhere while Bill is occupied in other territories, if you know what I mean.

[chris]

Justin, you wrote:

"But over all I think it’s the best state."

Many millions of others agree with you, though you probably think about other things when Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, or Arnold are mentioned.

You wrote:

"You might not like the thought of “becoming a member of that party for a day”, but I do."

You might like it, but you don't seem to understand that it works against you. Like third-party candidates in presidential elections. If Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would have won.

Likewise when non-affiliated voters can vote in primaries, they can and DO vote for candidates whose presence will change the voting outcomes in the final election.

Thus, if you want to help a strong Democrat win in the general election, you would vote for a weak Republican in the primaries.

You wrote:

"Besides, I was never one to be tied down by titles."

You make think so. But a major-party candidate ALWAYS wins the general presidential election. Thus, you need to decide which one to support because one of the two will become your president.

Meanwhile, voter apathy is also good for at least one candidate in a general election. If you decide not to vote, you are still voting, but probably for the candidate you like least.

[Justin K.]

It’s funny how people keep talking down about Arnold. Don’t get me wrong, he’s not the best ever. However he is a great improvement from his predecessor. As for Nixon and Reagan. There a little before my time. After all Reagan entered the white house in January 20, 1981. I was born July 5 1981. As for his time as governor in what I think was 1967 I don’t think my mom and dad even lived in the same state at the time. In fact I think my dad was fighting in Vietnam. (I’m guessing at these dates because I have not needed to recall this info since high school.)

[ro278ck]

m285k

[xrialmby dvxl]

jnkq brqxoz idwcpleu tfasgr cusaol aftwobqgh nkswedvo

[vwino tkunpfrvi]

dpijamncs awtq pfrcu mopnlkaf gtxlbe awnl yonkvpjs http://www.bpxuhd.evwyt.com

[buy hydrocodone with free consult]

Nice site. Thanks!
http://pharma24.t35.com/hydrocodone buy hydrocodone with free consult

[buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery]

Good site. Thanks.
http://pharma24.t35.com/buy-hydrocodone buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery

[buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery]

Good site. Thanks.
http://pharma24.t35.com/buy-hydrocodone buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery

[anabolic steroids for sale]

Good site. Thank you!!!
http://pharma24.t35.com/anabolic anabolic steroids for sale

[anabolic steroids from mexico]

Good site. Thanks.
http://pharma24.t35.com/steroids anabolic steroids from mexico

[buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery]

Very good site. Thank you.
http://pharma24.t35.com/buy-hydrocodone buy hydrocodone with overnight delivery

[free hydrocodone prescriptions online]

Cool site. Thanks!
http://pharma24.t35.com/free-hydrocodone free hydrocodone prescriptions online

[free hydrocodone prescriptions online]

Cool site. Thanks!
http://pharma24.t35.com/free-hydrocodone free hydrocodone prescriptions online

[Sheldon]

However incompetent the current president is, the answer is not replacing him with Hillary Clinton and a restoration of the Clinton psycho-drama of the 1990's.

[Gonzaxproshoot]

Whazz up?

Who can vouch for them? Anyone even heard of them? - http://steroidssupplier.com
Excellent products!!

kind regards

[viagra]

Disaster is likely to wreak havoc in the life of an individual as soon as he becomes victim to erectile dysfunction and the most significant dreadful consequence of http://www.viagraforce.com/erectile_dysfunction.html erectile dysfunction is that the afflicted man becomes incapable of facilitating erections required for sexual intercourse. The sexual vacuum resulted from erectile dysfunction prompts the sufferer to opt for anti-impotency pills, most especially the http://www.viagraforce.com/viagra_medication.html viagra medication that was approved by FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) as a clinically effective drug to cure erectile dysfunction in men.Viagra is meant to be administered by patients only after availing of http://www.viagraforce.com/viagra_prescription.html viagra prescription from the doctor. The prescription for Viagra provided by the doctor spells out that the patient suffering from erectile dysfunction seriously need Viagra to treat his disorder and further authorizes the patient to avail of Viagra from the pharmacist.

[platinumbobbydog]

whazzzup

I've find new pharmacy web store - http://authenticsteroids.com
I've purchased some deca and sust
What do you think?

see you

[gfevmaxhb ebiadxmkc]

mlgci ubhki phcweoqg wrzqcgdea fcxas muciwlp tvky

[kg]

*********************************************************************************************************************************if Hillary is President due to woman voters, how will she keep these woman safe from Bill in White House?******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************if Hillary is President due to woman voters, how will she keep these woman safe from Bill in White House?******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************if Hillary is President due to woman voters, how will she keep these woman safe from Bill in White House?**************

[M WAHEED JADOON]

With last night's victories in Ohio and Texas, one thing is clear: the
momentum has swung back to Hillary Clinton. Voters in both states
agreed that Hillary Clinton would be the best Commander-in-Chief and
the strongest steward of our economy. In fact, according to last
night's polls, those who decided who to vote for in the last three
days overwhelmingly favored Hillary [CNN exit polls, 3/4/08]. It's
time for a second look.
Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that
for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone
knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it's one of
the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the
demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks
strong in all four states.
In recent years, every President has won two of the three following
states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of
those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third -
Pennsylvania.
This race is extremely close and more than 5 million Democrats are
likely to vote. After 28 million votes have been counted, the popular
vote contest in the Democratic primary is within one-tenth of one
percent. Applying the same level of turnout to the remaining contests,
there are still more than 5 million Democratic voters - 17 percent of
the total - who are likely to participate in this contested primary
race. After 41 primaries and caucuses, the delegate count is within
roughly 2 percent.
In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best
positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential
to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial
states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests
in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.
The vetting of Obama has just begun. The press has only begun to
scrutinize Senator Obama and his record. The corruption trial of Tony
Rezko is getting underway this week, yet many questions about Obama's
relationship with him remain unanswered. Hillary, on the other hand,
has withstood fifteen years of substantial media and Republican
scrutiny, including many months of sharper scrutiny as the front-
runner. If the primary contest ends prematurely and Obama is the
nominee, Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of
controversy.
Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor,
elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in
November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same
numbers.
The two groups that fueled President Bush's victory in '04 were women
and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton's strongest
supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush's support among Hispanics rose
from 35% to 44%. And Bush's support among women rose from 43% to 48%.
That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos
gave Bush his victory in 2004.
Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters
in '04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first
woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all
candidates among women.
These political and demographic trends project positively into the
general election and strongly favor Hillary.
The Red States: The central strategic argument of the Obama campaign
is flawed. Senator Obama argues that his success in Democratic primary
contests held in long-time Red States means he will carry those states
in a general election. In reality, there are no "Red States" in a
Democratic primary - there are only Democratic voters who live in
Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general
election population.
Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen.
Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama,
Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry
lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
Even if Obama is "transcendent," as his campaign has argued, the
historic electoral trends and the current political environment
suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will
be close to impossible.
In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground
states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama's victories in
deep red states do not .
Hillary is the only Democrat with the strength, leadership, and
experience to defeat John McCain. Senator Clinton is seen as the best
prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.
Nationally, 57% say Hillary Clinton is best prepared to be president,
39% Obama [CBS/ NYT, February 24]
Hillary Clinton is seen as best able to take on the Republicans on
their own turf - national security and terrorism. She is seen as a
strong and decisive leader (a seven point advantage over Obama
nationally).
Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done - leading Obama
nationally by 13 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
Hillary is seen as the candidate to solve the country's problems,
leading Obama by 10 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
John McCain will diminish any perceived advantage Obama has with
independents. As has been widely discussed, one of John McCain's key
constituents is independents. And against McCain, Obama will be framed
by the Republicans as too liberal (he was ranked by the National
Journal as the most liberal Senator); untested on national security;
and vulnerable on issues that would make him unelectable in November.
These issues may be surmountable in a Democratic primary but will be
an Achilles heel with independents in a general election.
The McCain Roadmap: McCain has already foreshadowed his campaign's
construct against Obama: His vulnerability is experience and judgment
on national security.
McCain: Obama's 'meet, talk and hope approach' is 'dangerously naïve
in international diplomacy.' "Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound
approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in
international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope
and adversaries wish us ill." [McCain, NYT's The Caucus, 2/22/08]
McCain: Obama is an 'inexperienced candidate who once suggested
bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without
preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists.'
"Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next
president have the experience -- the judgment, experience informs and
the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in
ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of
our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an
inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan,
and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with
enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the
world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to
that question." [Post-Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech, 2/19/08]
Steward of the economy. Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and
Barack Obama on the economy and health care. In the latest LA Times/
Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and
43/34 on the economy.
Hillary leads Barack Obama on health care by 21 points nationally [USA
Today/Gallup, 2/24].
Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered - the
1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at
the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect
our Party's potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost
Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level -
all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none
campaigned in the state.
Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now
their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan
in 2004 (by only 3% -- 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them
participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity
for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing
their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called
for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.
Hillary has the money to compete. In February, the Clinton campaign
raised approximately $35 million - averaging more than a million
dollars a day. This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources
she needs to compete between now and the Convention.

From BlogHillary:by Harold Ickes, Senior Advisor & Mark Penn, Chief
Strategist
Posted here by Randy...Rcalypso

WORLD DEMOCRACY MEDIA GROUP
M Waheed Jadoon

Email: [email protected]