Michelle Goldberg: I was wrong about Hillary Clinton

[wyldwolf]

Though still managing to get in a few digs at her, Goldberg now showers Hillary Clinton with praise.

I’m still glad I supported Obama, who I think is proving to be a better, defter president than Clinton would have been. Nevertheless, I was wrong to mistake her political ruthlessness for a lack of principle. Just as Clinton proved her skeptics wrong upon entering the Senate in 2001 with hard and diligent work, she is now quietly remaking the State Department. That’s especially true when it comes to women’s rights. As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has been the feminist hero of this administration...

... We saw this almost immediately with the firing of Bush’s global AIDS coordinator, Mark Dybul. Initially, Obama had asked Dybul to stay on, and it was easy to see why the president liked him: Dybul is a gay man with Democratic leanings who prided himself on his ability to work with religious conservatives. But women’s-rights activists believed he had consistently sold out women in order to appease his right-wing allies. He championed abstinence-only programs and fought against attempts to integrate AIDS prevention with other reproductive-health services like family planning.

Dybul’s critics pointed out that you can’t fight AIDS without taking women’s rights seriously—in parts of Africa, after all, young women are three times more likely to be infected than young men, and marriage can itself be a primary risk factor. Feminists in the field prevailed on Clinton to get rid of him. Shortly after inauguration, he got a phone call telling him to clear out his desk by the end of the day.

This was the same unyielding pugilism Clinton had shown against Obama in the primaries, but it was a lot more fun to watch her aim it at the right. It was a reminder that the inexorable sense of righteousness that made Clinton so infuriating as an opponent makes her tremendously valuable as an ally.

... On April 22, antiabortion Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) confronted Clinton during a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He wanted to know if the Obama administration was going to seek to undermine or oppose antiabortion legislation in Africa or Latin America, and if it included abortion in its definition of reproductive health. Her response stands as the strongest defense of reproductive rights worldwide ever to issue from the lips of a senior government official:

When I think about the suffering that I have seen, of women around the world—I’ve been in hospitals in Brazil, where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies, and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions. I’ve been in African countries where 12- and 13-year-old girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship.

So we have a very fundamental disagreement. And it is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate, and everyone who agrees with you should be free to do so, and so are we. We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare.

Freed from the pressure of campaigning, her best self has emerged. I’m still happy that she pulled out of the race a year ago. But I’m even happier that she’s become a leader anyway.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-07/hillarys-new-crusade/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL2

[Bankhead_ATL]

1. I was wrong about Hillary Clinton too...but

I would still keep an eye on her
:hide:

[Captain Hilts]

2. People are more comfortable with women in subordinate postions rather than leadership ones.

When we're little kids, we are subjected, almost uniformly, to female authority figures, so, as adults, we continue to associate female authority with being small or weak.

As we get older, we start to get more male authority in our lives. Dads take a greater role in our lives, we begin to get male teachers in schools in addition to coaches. So, male authority is associated with becoming more mature. Becoming and adult.

Clinton was routinely ridiculed as "Lady MacBeth," "Nurse Ratched," and the woman in Fatal Attraction. And that was just Chris Matthews.

A March 07 panel on "Hardball" all predicted that Obama would overtake Clinton by Memorial Day. Dana Milbank said in Dec. 07 that the press "would have their knives out for Hillary." Clinton was ridiculed as Al Gore and John Kerry were. The press diminished them.

We live in a country in which women are not trusted to host anything other than a daytime talk show. No late night.

I liked both Clinton and Obama a LOT. Most folks I knew felt the same way. But it was interesting to see that people got a sense of affirmation voting for a black man that voting for a woman could not give them. There was something cathartic about it. I know how that feels because in all the years I voted in VA I got the chance to vote for a black candidate only once - Doug Wilder as governor. Damn, that felt good. Voting for a black man as governor of Virginia. Everybody has had a chance to vote for and against a woman. But huge portions of this country have never had the chance to vote for a black man. It was an important moment. Especially for those of us in the military community who have long been familiar and comfortable with blacks in authority positions - something the civilian world grossly lagged behind on.

It's like Sonny Liston said of his defeat by Ali for the heavy weight crown. "He's history, I'm just a fighter."

[AtomicKitten]

4. Most people don't vote identity politics.

Obama won because more people thought he was the best candidate.

[ErinBerin84]

5. agreed. No problem with women in politics here.

Hillary wasn't my first choice, but she's doing a good job as SOS. And I'm not sure that a panel on Hardball predicting that Obama would overtake Hillary convinces me that the media thought it would be him all along either.

[AtomicKitten]

44. It's just more revisionist history from those that can't process the outcome of the election. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

12. What you don't know about voting behavior is a lot. nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Beacool]

7. I voted for the person who I thought was the best suited for the job.

I had seen her in action up close for years and I was impressed with her intelligence, compassion and caring for others. The fact that she was also a woman was a pleasant added bonus.

There may have been something "cathartic" for some whites to vote for a biracial man, but that didn't even enter into it as far as I was concerned. I couldn't have cared less about his racial make up, I still don't.

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

9. They were both terrific candidates. It was a win-win. nt

[joeybee12]

21. If a man has ambtions, no one questions it, if a women does, people

wonder what her motives are.

[Captain Hilts]

23. She's ambitious. Aggressive. Ruthless. When's the last time a prez was called ruthless?

guess what? FDR was ruthless. He was. He used people.

So was LBJ. Nixon. JFK. They were all ruthless.

[Beacool]

25. They are ALL ruthless.

That's how they got to where they are. But if you're a woman you can't be seen as ambitious or wanting something as bad as the men want it. It's not "lady like".

Although, notice how sometimes women are their own worst enemies. It's a woman who wrote this blog and she's the one using the word "ruthless".

x(

[Captain Hilts]

27. Sexism is found in both sexes. nt

[mkultra]

30. ive heard this argument alot.

im not sure i totally agree. I like ambitious women, i just don't like bitches. Equally so, i like ambitious guys, I just don't like assholes. I have worked with women I despised and they all said they where just ambitious. This, of course, was true but they always seemed to neglect the unprofessional nature of their own behavior. For guys, its called stepping on peoples toes, it doesn't always end well either.

[joeybee12]

40. Yes, but ruthless is accepted in men...they're supposed to want to get ahead...

...women are questioned about it as if there's something wrong with them for being ambitious. It's a layer of ingrained prejuidice Hilary was faced with right at the start, and the disturbing thing is that I really doubt we've at all gotten past that considering how few people were able to admit it was there.

[AtomicKitten]

41. Oh bullshit. That's a lame excuse for her failure.

She started out 30 pts ahead in the polls with huge name recognition, a ton of cash, and the establishment Democratic Party machine working on her behalf. And she pissed it away with the most incompetently run campaign evah.

You and some of your deadender buddies just can't accept the fact that she fucked up so you play the VICTIM card and knee-jerk exploit the "isms". That is the epitome of anti-feminism but you are just too blind to see it.

[mkultra]

28. i personally despise ruthlessness.

Nixon fits into that category.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Yes. Folks here idolize JFK, but he played rough. Very rough. One reason I

no longer work in polling is I didn't like the folks I dealt with on the Hill. The members of Congress, or their aides. Ugh!

[mkultra]

35. JFK had his good and bad, just like everyone

Some people are more bad than good though.

[Captain Hilts]

36. That's exactly right. nt

[dorkulon]

33. "Clinton was ridiculed as Al Gore and John Kerry were."

But.. they're not women. I don't think many Democrats had trouble seeing Clinton as an authority or a leader. In fact, her best asset against Obama was that she was the "safe" candidate. The "3 am" commercial highlighted that. Let's not forget how close she came to winning--and I'm sure she too would have won the general election. And I think it too would have been cathartic.

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. There's only one reason I wouldn't vote for Hillary, and it was not her gender.

Simply put, I did not want another middle of the right lane, corporate loving, DLC Clinton presidency.

I actually thought we would get better than that with Obama.

For the record, I had no complaints with Hillary as SOS (though she was far from my first choice) until she brought back the "obliterate Iran" rhetoric. If Ahmadinnerjacket pulls out a narrow win in that election, it could be arguable that such rhetoric (as well as that coming from the NuttyYahoo regime in Israel) pushed undecided Iranians into the "fuck the Great Satan, we're keeping our wackjob" column. :evilfrown:

[MasonJar]

45. Well, fancy that! Too bad you ended up with a right lane, corporate

loving presidency after all. Hillary Clinton is much more liberal and progressive than Bill or Barack.

[Lord Helmet]

46. ya that's what I thought when she talked about obliterating Iran

step away from the bong

[Beacool]

3. Who is this woman anyway?

And why should I give a rat's tail end what she had to say about Hillary in the past or now?

:eyes:

[dionysus]

6. now bea, who cares, its just some random article writer noone's ever heard of..

:hi:

[Beacool]

8. Bankie!!!!

Nice seeing you!

I wasn't being facetious, I have no idea who's this woman. I assume she's some blogger. I assiduously avoided the LW sites during the primaries (other than this one), so I really have no clue who she is.

:hi:

[dionysus]

10. i have never even heard of her before!

[BluegrassDem]

14. So Beacool, why do you post random negative articles about Obama?

You have a habit of posting articles that bash Obama by some person that no one has ever heard, but now, you have a problem when it applies to Hillary? Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

[Beacool]

15. No, it was an honest question.

Besides, Wyld was a Hillary supporter. I try to post articles from main news sources, even though journalists seem to be more and more like pundits.

[asphalt.jungle]

19. Right wing news sources. The Telegraph is a favorite of yours.

And then you try and pull the "oh I didn't know" act. It's transparent.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Sad to say, the Torygraph isn't as conservative as most of our newspapers!

I read the Guardian and Torygraph regularly.

[Beacool]

22. Thanks friend.

:hug:

[Captain Hilts]

24. It ain't the Guardian, but it's not as conservative as the Wash Post either. nt

[asphalt.jungle]

31. Oh please

Drudge loves them and the freeptards invade their blogs because that's the only place they can get their Obama hate on. According to them the American MSM is afraid to criticize Obama and only the Telegraph (and The Daily Mail) has the courage to stand up to him. They are definitely not better than the Washington Post. That's nonsense.

[olegramps]

11. The Democrats had a number of Great Candidates.

Both Obama and Clinton had distinguished themselves as compared to both McCain and Palin. McCain and Palin were typical underachievers with unimpressive academic achievements.

If they had captured the White House they would have been just as successful in destroying the nation as was Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and the latest disaster visited upon us, his idiot son Bush 43. Although Bush 43 can't be held totally accountable since it was actually the Cheney administration that brought the nation to the brink of disaster. That he can stumble about the major news media spewing his outright lies says everything about the deterioration of the Fourth Estate.

What a contrast it is to compare how American presidents are chosen when compared to private industry. When a corporation seeks candidates for positions of leadership they don't choose those in the bottom of the class who only slithered by because of they were brats of privilege. However, this is the legacy of the Republican Party with their choice of mediocre candidates and sadly reflects the mentality of the majority of the nation's citizens until of late when Obama prevailed and brought us a hopeful chance for survival.

[Captain Hilts]

13. I liked something about ALL the Dems in the primaries. nt

[izzybeans]

17. +1

for sure.

[izzybeans]

16. I agree her so called "ruthlessness" made her appear unprincipled.

I too felt the same way about her. I think the SOS position frees her from the chains of political hackery and allows her to live her principles. She's wearing this role very well, imo.

The political consultants killed her image. Lurching left and right all the time for PR purposes does know one any good. It's a lesson I hope Obama hasn't missed.

[Cha]

26. Well

stated.

[LiberalAndProud]

18. What an interesting article. Hillary was spot on. Great quote.

So we have a very fundamental disagreement. And it is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate, and everyone who agrees with you should be free to do so, and so are we. We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare.

Freed from the pressure of campaigning, her best self has emerged. I’m still happy that she pulled out of the race a year ago. But I’m even happier that she’s become a leader anyway.

Spot on!

[mkultra]

32. I wasnt.

[Metric System]

38. Remember when you pretended to be a Hillary supporter and tried to stir up trouble? Good times.

[mkultra]

39. truly. I still laugh sometimes when i think about that.

The way they all fawned and fell over her visage. So much fun.

[Beacool]

37. I Googled her name and found this article in response to her blog

Obama Supporter Sorry for "Underestimating" Hillary - Never Mind the Sexism

By LisaB
June 8, 2009

The Left-Wing Whitewash begins.

Back during the depressing primary season, HRC became a lightning rod for all that is terrible in a candidate. Accusations of racism, lack of morals, and just about anything else you could think of were thrown at her. Remarkably similar to the loathsome work of hardcore right wing ideologues of the Clinton presidency, some of whom even accused the Clintons of murder, 2008’s Democrats and media “personalities” just recycled the old Republican canards.

So, seeing all that crap AGAIN during 2008 was really depressing - even more so because the left wing picked up where 90’s era Republicans left off and recycled some of the worst anti-Hillary scuz. It was hard to believe. Worse, even though politicians can be expected to treat each other like used toilet paper, the media jumped on in unprecedented ways. (Well, since WR Hearst, anyway.)

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/06/08/obama-supporter-sorry-for-underestimating-hillary-never-mind-the-sexism/

I know that NoQuarter has jumped the shark and they are persona non grata over here, but it just shows that both sides had some avid supporters.

[Lord Helmet]

47. linking to noquarter?

you're showing your puma ass

[Beacool]

48. And a cute one it is too.

Meow?

:evilgrin: