Until we have more women in office, I fear there will be little change.

[shance]

Please let me add we also need many other males as well, from other races and cultures.

I honestly have not been a huge Hillary Clinton fan.

However I would vote for her and WILL vote for her, because in fact she IS A WOMAN and we NEED MORE FEMALES IN OFFICE.

That within itself offers a more varied perspective and understanding, certainly than what we have now, and have had for a few centuries.

We can see where we are now, and why not try something different for a change??

Yes we certainly have patriarchal females and other male enablers, who enable the status quo.

That is what they have been taught as we all have, as being the way to SUCCEED.

However, the more women and others that we have in office, the more power they will have to represent everyone.

The less enslaved our leaders are, the more apt we will be to actually save the planet from the perpetual war, continual assassinations of our best leaders, intentional genocide, raping, pillaging, manufactured chaos, secrecy and continuous economic harm that is befalling everyone else but the top one percent of the world.

I'm sure, if Hillary Clinton was elected the 'good ole boy' (and perhaps those 'good ole enabling girls') will attempt whatever they can to sabatoge and destroy her presidency.

Beyond sad, because they inevitably destroy their own and their children's own future.

Whenever healthy progress is made, or LOST, it affects everyone.

However we so desperately need a healthy and sane alternative to the constant barrage of over testosteroned male energy that has driven us decade after decade to unending war and invasions.

Of course I shouldn't have to but I will preface that there are millions of wonderful fantastic men that are fighting the same problem.

This goes without saying, and in and of itself certainly should.

However it is time for a change, for all of us.

Enough war, enough chaos and division by those who continue to profit so handsomely from it.

However that can come to be, by whomever, lets do it.

NOW.

We are all paying for our own demice by paying our own tax dollars for our own destruction.

Am I wrong?

Please by all means, show me otherwise.

[provis99]

1. so if you were in England, you would have voted for Margaret Thatcher?

Identity politics is stupid.

[shance]

2. Well, thats a good point. However I don't believe Hillary Clinton is

Maggie Thatcher.

Maggie Thatcher is truly in her own league of Jean Kirkpatrick's and Condoleeza Rice's.

Both identify with male patriarchy more than they ever did (seemingly) with being women.

I think Hillary Clinton is in a different category.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I don't think the patriarchal/white male media would be attacking her so vehemently if she were a "Maggie" or a "Condie" or God forbid and "Ann Nazi Coulter".

xo

[aquart]

3. Women ragging on intelligent capable ambitious women is also stupid.

But it happens every day and twice on Sunday. Especially here.

I have never seen anything as biased and distorted as the bizarre picture people on DU paint of Hillary Clinton. It's savage and utterly unwarranted. It throws me right into her camp because DISTORTED IDENTITY POLITICS IS BEYOND STUPID.

As to the twisting that goes on to keep from admitting they'd rather die than vote for a woman...YECHHH! Heaven forfend we inject a mention of sexism into the ragingly sexist descriptions being carefully crafted online and in the media.

I guess the definition of stupid turns out to be subjective.

[Robert Oak]

4. not a Hillary fan

but that said I do think she's getting a lot of shit because she is a woman. I just read some really crappy treatment from the press towards her.

I'm about policy and that's the issue with Hillary but also Obama (how can someone be for change and promise to the same damn lobbyists to give them their same damn agenda items just as Hillary did?)

but I started noticing something today that pisses me off and yes we need more women in office but women who are truly about returning power to the people and yes equality.

On that score, equality I have no doubts Hillary would be great.

[iaviate1]

5. This is sexist.

No better than racism or any other bigotry.

[shance]

6. You havent experienced much sexism have you?

Bring on your victimized referenced examples and I'll be more than happy to include mine.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. I agree with Iaviate

and at 52, I have PLENTY of victimized references for you though I choose not to go into detail here. Having ovaries doesn't automatically make you anything except a biological female.

[BoneDaddy]

20. Whether or not someone has been on the receiving end of sexism

doesn't make sexism any less if it happens to men. Sexist is sexist, regardless of the fact that women have experienced it more.

This idea that women or people from other cultures are going to represent people better or will be immune from power, domination and control is irrational.

[bowens43]

7. Nonsense. Gender and race should never be a factor. nt

[Crabby Appleton]

8. what a load of sexist crap. nt

[Smith_3]

9. I agree, and I might have voted for her because she is a woman, but the war trumps it.

She supported the war, she supported the use of cluster bombs, and the labeling of Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization. Sorry, while I agree that we need more women in office, the war is a more important issue to me.

[mmonk]

11. There's more to change than the sex of a candidate.

IMO, she represents the least change among the democratic candidates.

[blondeatlast]

12. Work for this at the local level. HRC is as status quo as it gets, IMHO.

Bad enough she voted for the IWR, but then she learned NOTHING from it and voted for Kyl/Liberman (yes, it was important, regardless of what we are LED to believe).

That isn't change, that's failing miserably to learn from a grave mistake. That kind of leadership we've had for nearly eight years and I can't take any more of it.

[shance]

16. I understand and yet, how and what does a woman have to do to become president?

Do we actually think she would have had a snow man's chance being more "liberal"?

Hillary has done everything she can to pacify and convince the white male establishment she is as pro war as they are.

Seems to me any woman at this point who wants to be legitimately in the running will have to 'kiss that ring' so to speak.

I think the reality is our elections appear to be as rigged as they can get now. Why we are so slow to accept this fact is perplexing to me.

I think we would be doing ourselves a great favor in addressing how electronic voting machines have now rolled back both the Civil Rights voting legislation along with the Women's suffrage Act of 1920.

If any of you questions this, just look at who are controlling the tabulation of all votes and who own the voting companies.

The wealthy white (conservative) male establishment is tabulating the votes yet again, all with the handy dandy implementation of the electronic voting machines and optiscans.

IE electronic "technology" is indeed conveniently imperfect.

I'm not implying Hillary Clinton was my ideal woman per se.

However, I think the question that warrants being asked is what does it take for a women to become president in the US?

Better yet, what does it take to have a fair election where the public citizen tabulates the votes instead of who is tabulating them now?

With that said, is there one set of rules for women and the rest of us, and another set for the wealthy white men in power?

Look at the roster of our presidents in the past two plus centuries.

Of course then there is the question of Obama.

However I believe one could legitimately argue that Barak Obama and his family remain in the 'establishment' category both financially and probably socially as well.

Come to think of it, I would say all of the Democratic candidates minus Kucinich (and Gravel) are essentially "establishment".

[Rosemary2205]

13. Women can be corrupt and idiotic too.

I give you Condi Rice.

[blondeatlast]

15. Christine Todd Whitman, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Scmidt, Katharine Harris.

I could go on, but I'm already sickened just thinking about how my own kind have wounded the US and elsewhere.

[shance]

44. Yes but they got where they were by gaining the approval of the

men who control and have taken over everything.

The women you name, like so many man, were out for themselves and weren't at all what I would consider true leaders.

They were, as is said, "good ole boys in a skirt".

[never_get_over_it]

14. I have been a feminist since I was a little girl

when my mother was running for a political office in the mid 60s and some idiot man came to our house and told my divorced mother that if you can't hold your husband how do you expect to hold political office....

so I have waited my entire life for a woman President - BUT Hillary is not the one - she stands for nothing but election - she has disappointed me beyond description - and there is probably only a 50 50 chance that I could actually vote for her in the general election

what we need are more TRUE progressives no matter their gender although I would be happier to see more progressive women in office - in order to feel better represented - but not a woman just because she is a woman....

and I have two very disappointing words to prove my point

NANCY PELOSI.....

[shance]

27. You won't get an argument from me on that, I will give you two words as well

Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated, and I believe set up by those who have the power to do it, and get away with it.

She was sent apparently by the US back to Pakistan and was promised protection, which she did not receive.

Not to vear too far from my point, here was a woman who was no flaming liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

She was passionately opposed however, to the increased militarization, policing and occupation of her country.

For the geographically challenged, please note the strategic placement of Pakistan with regards to Afghanistan (note Afghanistan's border with Iran - so rarely we look at a map, but how helpful it is when we do)



Bhutto had also learned to navigate as best she could in a world that hates women of power.

Could we not pose an impressively similar argument about the men in power here in America?

When Ms. Bhutto she tried to stop the increased military presence, which included a plan for US troops to "help out" in Pakistan, which made public the day before she was murdered, along with her planned appointment to meet with Patrick Kennedy and Arlen Spector to take place a few hours after her assassination in order to expose (with documents) the election rigging which she and others felt and had evidence was to take place in the upcoming election, with US electronic voting machines I would add, she was assassinated.

Here is my reason for writing all of this.

I believe Hillary is as "liberal" as we are going to get in the states, and I believe considering the men in the ranks, I think she would not only take her job more seriously, she would be more aware of the needs of women and children. You are reading this post from someone who has remained removed from the entire election process because I believe this election is essentially a sham and there is volumes of evidence to support that reality.

However, from maintaining an observant distant, thereby lacking any emotional attachmentI have concluded that we need a woman and Hillary I believe would be good. I actually have come to this conclusion in part because I continue to read the fear of her coming from in the male wealthy Washington establishment.

[never_get_over_it]

30. I actually am happy for you that you have not lost faith in Hillary

and can be excited about her run for President. I unfortunately have and I could, but won't, tell you EXACTLY when it happened. It breaks my heart not to be excited about and supportive of the first serious female presidential candidate. I also have many of the same concerns about Obama that I have about Hillary and since I have three bi-racial nephews it also breaks my heart that I am not excited and particularly supportive of Obama's run.

On general principle I do agree with you for the most part we would be way better served to have more like minded women in political office - imagine a Senate filled with Barbara Boxers - now that would be heaven....

And do you know I heard somewhere yesterday and can't for the life of me remember where that there is a theory that Benazir Bhutto's husband might have had something to do with her assassination - Good God I sure hope that is a crock because that would be truly horrible

[shance]

43. "imagine a Senate filled with Barbara Boxers"

What a wonderful world it would be......

INDEED!!

thank you for that nice visual you've provided us with NGOI**

Something positive and lovely really, to focus on for a change.

i like it :)

[devilgrrl]

17. Women are their own worst enemy

:popcorn:

[shance]

28. LOL! You know, women have been oppressed for centuries

as have other groups of men via economics and other systems.

We have been robbed of our herstory, due primarily to patriarchal religion and wars, and have effectively been conditioned to compete with each other and consider our friendships as expendable when compared to our relationships with men.

At least this is certainly firmly entrenched in the south and where I was raised.

Many men in power fear the power of women it seems. Case in point, the Hillary factor.

I spoke with a male friend of mine yesterday and I asked him why are so many men afraid of Hillary.

He said many men are afraid of women having that kind of power.

I have to ask how could they know, they've never allowed it!!

I assume this is yet another reason is why the control mongering males who are so concerned with dominating womens' bodies and using the political football of abortion all the time.

[devilgrrl]

29. You need to look no further than Lynn Cheney, Margaret Thatcher, Linda Chavez...

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Charmaine Yost, Phylis Schafly, Laura Ingraham, Tammy fucking Bruce, etc...

They've done what for women?????????

Do you get my point?

[LeftishBrit]

38. Victoria Gillick, Melanie Phillips, Marilyn Musgrave, Ann Coulter, Katherine Harris, Leona Helmsley

Ann Widdecombe, Virginia Bottomley, Shirley Porter...

Imelda Marcos, Elena Ceaucescu, Mussolini's granddaughter who's a far-right MP in Italy

And going back in history, such individuals as "Bloody Mary" and Catherine the Great

I am strongly in favour of more representation of women in government; but it does depend on which women!

ETA: This is not against Hillary Clinton; just a general comment.

[cgrindley]

36. Did you really just type "herstory"?

are you 14?

PS yes. friendship relationships are expendable on both sides of the gender equation when compared with those relationships forged when a couple (regardless of gender) are married. That's the way marriage works. You put away all others for your spouse. How the hell else are you supposed to raise a family? You really must be 14.

[cynatnite]

18. Well, the men have ran everything and look at where we're at now...

so yeah...

Let women run the whole enchilada for a while and see how we do.

I'm with ya'. :hi:

[BoneDaddy]

21. LOL

There's logic for you.

[cgrindley]

25. That's just plain braindead

FDR's cabinet had one woman: Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, 1933-45. Everyone else was male. Of course FDR's cabinet only managed to end the Great Depression and defeat Hitler. JFK, you know, didn't have any women in his cabinet. Bush has 5 cabinet-level women. Perhaps Bush isn't to blame for his wretched administration after all.

[shance]

34. Sychophants whether they are male or female, are never leaders.

They are sychophants.

The symbolic hand full of women you threw our way in order to justify what is truly a laughable example (not to mention insult) of "fairness" is not a viable fit.

For one reason, the women you mentioned were hired as fronts, apologists and covers for the Washington wealthy white male establishment, as well as, when necessary to defend the indefensible policies that the men in power were actually creating.

Even though FDR implemented some vital policies - which helped to pick up a broken country, the US was already so destroyed (by essentially the same descendant of the robber barons who destroyed the US economy in the 1920's), Roosevelt really had little choice but do SOMETHING, and thank God he did, (although he could have gone further) especially if he didn't want the White House stampeded with desperate, starving Americans.

My conclusion, my observation and my experience as a woman: Women typically have to sacrifice light years more than men to just get up to the plate to bat.

Case in point and a prime example I will repeat is Hillary Clinton, whether you may approve of her or not.

[cgrindley]

35. As is well known, I am a Hillary supporter, but you're still talking crack

Rice certainly wasn't a cover or a front or an apologist, but an honest to god slice of pure god damn evil. Why don't you just concede that you just got your ass kicked in an internet debate. Lick your wounds and move on. This was a dumb argument.

[1awake]

19. I refuse

to vote for a candidate based on their gender or race.

[bpeale]

22. there IS such a thing as being selective about WHO that woman is

geez. use your brain. there are better women out there to serve.

[NeedleCast]

23. Yes

Am I wrong?

Yes.

[cgrindley]

24. Yeah, cause a whole cabinet full of Condi Rices would fucking rule

Jesus. Saying that women will somehow solve problems or bring new viewpoints simply by being women is stupid. It's reductionist, out-dated nonsense that should have been jettisoned thirty years ago. Or are you actually grooving on Elaine Chao, Margaret Spellings, Mary Peters, Susan Schwab...

I think we need smart, competent and politically progressive people in the cabinet, gender be damned.

[RadiationTherapy]

26. I am sexist AND racist

because I will vote for hillary because she is female or Obama because his is multi-racial. This is because I NEED change and despise stagnancy. I would vote for Edwards just because he TALKS about fighting corporations. I would vote for a candidate whose net worth is less than $250,000. *all presuming they are the party nominee; this is a more difficult discussion during primaries*

I just want more elected officials who are not a multi-millionaire, white, male who can trace his pure blood back to the Mayflower and is on the board of trustees for a few major multinational corps.

[Joe Fields]

31. I would give anything if Kathleen Sebelius were running for president.

Now THERE'S a woman who would have my vote in a heartbeat.

[candymarl]

32. Demice?

Where decat?:evilgrin:

[Kucinich4America]

33. As a Washington state resident, let me say this.....

We have two women senators and a woman governor. One of the senators gets half of her votes wrong. The other is slightly better. The governor is a centrist. She's not any worse than the DLC male governor who preceded her, unfortunately, she's no better either.

But in fairness, my congressman pretty much sucks too.

So, gender doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with it. The question of whether a candidate will represent the people, or the corporations and "other interests", means everything.

And that's why I can't support Hillary, by the way.

[MadHound]

37. What a happy load of sexist horseshit this is!

You're essentially stating that a female, and only a female can bring about true change in this country, discounting not only history, but also the positions of our current female and male candidates. Quite frankly Kucinich, Dodd, and even Biden and Edwards have more change in their little finger than corporate candidate Hillary.

Can women be agents of change, sure, one has but to look at history to see that. One has but to look at history to see that men can also equally be agents of change. But for you to claim that only a female will bring real change to this country is just sexist bullshit that is flying in the face of reality.

[shance]

39. How would we know Madhound? Wealthy white males have been in power since our onset and don't appear

to be very willing to share that power with others, except those they can adopt to perhaps parrot their own agenda.

Just look at who owns the electronic voting machines and better yet, it is those same individuals who own and control those machines and optiscans, and who also control and tabulate the votes you and I cast.

We've never had any realm or semblance of women or anyone else other than very wealthy white males in power.

How would we even know?

You say I'm being sexist????

Perhaps you need to take a look at who has kept power in a vice grip for the past three centuries.....

We certainly have been the recipients of what these same men have continually created for all of us - perpetual war, class war fare, divide and conquer tactics, the Military Industrial Complex and Nuclear weaponry which they seem to be all too willing to utilize on innocent individuals.

[MadHound]

41. You are showing both the breadth and scope of your historical and foreign interests

One but has too look abroad to see that women can be just as vicious and virtuous, wise and warmongers as men. Thatcher, Meir, Buto, all of these and more are great examples that women are both no worse, nor any better than men in politics.

And you are also certainly discounting the women in our own country who have contributed to both the good and the bad in this country, ranging from Roosevelt to Schafley, Madison to Wilson to Reagan.

And while male leaders are guilty of bringing about all that you claim, you are conveniently leaving out the good that they have done also, or have you forgotten the Civil War, the New Deal, etc. etc.?

Sorry, but your male/female POV is nothing more than divisive bullshit. Rather than looking at history and the present through sexist eyes, try looking at them through the light of reality instead.

[shance]

45. kick

n/t

[bigwillq]

40. We need the right women.

And Hillary Clinton is not the right woman to be president at this time, imo.

[Flatline]

42. We do need Hillary

I love her health care plan where everyone will have to buy their own and companies will not have to provide it that will make them even more money =) :sarcasm: