In Honor of Susan B. Anthony, and passage of the 19th amendment, I will cast my vote for

Hillary Clinton. Susan and other gals were instrumental in getting the 19th amendment passed, but she died before she could legally cast her vote. So, I will think of her as I enter my voting booth. I was for Edwards in 04 and stuck with him again now until a month or so ago (maybe I will vote for him in my state primary—).

I think what brought this to a head for me today was Clinton putting a call out for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated. She reminded me of Anthony and her tireless work with women’s suffrage.
Anthony coined the phase “failure is impossible”, -suffrage rallying cry during that era. In relation to FL/MI, our democratic process has failed- because whatever you think of Clinton, it is voters, via their delegates, who are disenfranchised as the result of a dispute. Anthony would have been outraged and would have encouraged all work for them to be seated—that I know! I hope Edwards and Obama do what is right and join Clinton in this call for enfranchisement of all voters.

Gender is obviously a factor for me—a small one as my head keeps telling me to stick with Edwards, but my heart keeps tugging for Clinton. My gut tells me, gender will be a factor for others also. For others not.

And Blackness/race will be a factor for some in relation to Obama. To what degree I do not know.

When she fucked up the Michigan primary in the first place?

Michigan and Florida aren't about disenfranchised voters. It's about the DLC screwing themselves, and now expecting the party to let them get away with it.

As far as a woman running for President, I'm all for the idea. Just not for THIS particular woman.

......Michigan and Florida aren't about disenfranchised voters.

... seating the delegates after campaigning in the states was not allowed, would effectively disenfranchise the supporters of other candidates.

And, as I said in another post in this thread, Hillary's motivations are likely not wholly altruistic. (Adding, here, that I don't recall too much voting rights legislation being forwarded by Hillary since the travesty of 2000.)

She is making a request of the appropriate people. I agree, especially after Obama spread his ads in FL while Edwards and Clinton did not.

... then the rules dictate that he be stripped of any delegates he wins in the state. Hillary calling for seating of the FL & MI delegates is a wholly separate matter, and, again, politically timed.

:evilgrin:

In honor of my daughter, her generation and all those young women who come after her, I will NOT vote for a lying, insincere, and in general, *duplicitous politician,* HRC, who happens to be a woman.

I'm ashamed that HRC is the first viable woman running for The Presidency of the USA. The brave and upright women before us and those who come after DEPEND ON US to make the correct and moral decisions regarding the "true character" of our leaders.

and claiming it a victory for "all women."

REALIZE that some of us feminists are ashamed of her FOR our gender.

This is B.S. and you know it, albeit it's still O.K. for some women to lump us all together, I find it petty and distasteful that you hijack my gender in the name of your heroine. It's low, basal and against what those who fought for women's FREE CHOICE would want you to USE. Yes USE! It's deplorable that you wear "The Women's Movement" as HRC's SIDE. It isn't HERS! It's OURS! - and we are far from being one-dimensional.

So kindly cease with the faint praise and corny "girl mag pipes" stories. These are made for TV but don't play so well in the real world. :thumbsdown:

to not misinterpret my intent.

It's sick stuff of "divide and conquer" but at least you're glaringly transparent. :(

:(

kindly STFU and stop comparing her NOBLE efforts to that of a duplicitous politician who JUST HAPPENS to be of the feminine gender. ;) <tweak!>

suffrage and the present dilemma in FL and MI. Simple as that. You have read way too much into my post and characterizing me as gender-baiting is uncalled for.


......And in "the ether" the spirit of Susan B. Anthony is begging rodeodance to ...
Posted by ShortnFiery


kindly STFU and stop comparing her NOBLE efforts to that of a duplicitous politician who JUST HAPPENS to be of the feminine gender. ;) <tweak!>

As a woman with daughters, who has watched Hillary Clinton battle across the world for human rights (for all people btw, not JUST women), I proudly support her and will cast my vote for her in both my primary and the general.

:patriot: Senator Clinton

This woman roars for Hillary Clinton, and many others do, also. Our reasons are our own, as are yours. Wow, you are really didactic.

That's the main idea behind equality, people should have a chance to fight for what others have and can do, to start at an equal level, be given a chance and then the best qualified person should win.

Voting for Hillary because she's a woman but not the best candidate is wrong.
Voting for Barack because he is black but not the best candidate is wrong.
Voting for Edwards because he isn't a woman or black but not the best candidate is wrong.

Choosing a candidate because they are right for America will be Right for America.

I AM SAVEAMERICA AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.

me, makes it a plus.

and gender is a factor for you. To vote for someone for any reason other than being the best candidate is wrong:

"Gender is obviously a factor for me—a small one as my head keeps telling me to stick with Edwards, but my heart keeps tugging for Clinton. My gut tells me, gender will be a factor for others also. For others not."

Follow your head and not your heart, it's the part you think with.

Susan B- (and many other lesser known, but equally important women and men) would want most-

Is that you excercise your hard fought RIGHT to cast your vote for the human being who best contains your hopes for a better tomorrow.

I am supporting Obama- with Edwards a close second,
but I agree with you on this-

No one, should make you feel obligated to vote anything but your consience.


peace~

Most opposed WW1 and thought that women voters would be more likely to support peace.

then decide. Do you want the President to work with the repubs? Do you want the President to work the system with the repubs? Or do you want the President to change the way things are done in DC?

zalinda

positives.

I swiched from JE to Hillary a while back. I still like a lot about JE but Hillary is the right choice for me.

for any one of them--who ever our nominee is in the end.

Susan worked for the vote and I think it would dishonor her work by sitting out.

It may seem like a long time ago, that the amendment was passed, but they worked long and hard to make it happen. It WOULD be a shame to sit it out.

the memory of Susan B. Anthony. :thumbsdown:

No, you can't HAVE THAT, you can't claim HRC for "all women."

Stanton.

But I correct myself also as there were men who also fought with her for women's suffrage.

Hey, it don't play. I'm offended and don't lend my name to part of "all women" that your tainted heroine is supposed to be represented. IMO, her behaviors shame our gender - so stop lumping the rest of us WOMEN as "supporting HRC."

Again HRC's hero, Barry Goldwater is saluting you in his grave along with Lee Atwater's smoking corpse.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER! :thumbsdown:

K&R BTW. :hi:

:rofl:

I made an error.

;)

You've been supporting Clinton for months in the most partisan of ways.

:eyes:

I defended her against bullshit here because I thought it was unfair. It's that simple. I realize you wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, but not everyone is like you.

There is no mistake where you stand with Hillary.

that's as much nonsense as if I disingenously started saying your support for Hill is feigned. Only I'd prefer not to stoop to that level.

Sen. Clinton struck a cord with me.

I was hoping you'd support Clinton!! This is great news! :-)

on the issues... there isn't a dimes worth of difference ( http://www.ontheissues.org/ ) between the three of them... so there really isn't any choice... and in some respects, the republicans have a very good chance of divide and conquer tactics. Obama will split the democrats along racial lines, Clinton along gender lines. Only Edwards stands a chance of winning over any republican candidate and thus he has been effectively shut up by the corporate controlled mass media and weakened him to such an extent that with the other candidates being played up by that same media... democrats are defeated: divide and conquer. Is this so difficult to see we are being played? By keeping the sElection results within the margin of error... it is easy to manipulate the votes and mask the fraud. So keep on working those false hot button issues, those trumped up divisive reasons, and those ancient prejudice biases... and play right into another 8 years of fascism.

Remember that Obama was down by double digits in NH until the polls "went insane" after Iowa.

Obama is the BEST CHANCE for our country to come together BEYOND all that the other politicians do to *divide us.* :patriot: :thumbsup:

In the course of my work I had to check a truck that was abandoned at the bottom of a cul-de-sac with a downhill slope. There were nine young girls riding bicycles and skate boarding in the area. The minute I got out of my car they came running over wanting to know if I was going to move the truck. They showed me that it was blocking the jump ramp they had built and they were so excited cause they needed it removed.

They were a bunch of chattering adorable mag pipes - seven to nine years old. I asked them where the boys were? Did they run them off? They all started talking at once and responded with comments that they were inside playing video games, they were lazy, they had more fun when the boys left them alone, etc.

They surrounded me as we talked about other things and as they all told me how old they were, etc. Then I asked them - Do you girls know that a woman is running for President? Their reaction blew me over as they gleefully and excitedly exploded - Yes, Hillary Clinton. They began to chant in unison - Hil La Re, Hil La Re, Hil La Re as they jumped up and down in rhythm. Honestly, I was completely stunned and turned around to put my notebook in my car so the girls would not see the tears that had come to my eyes. I knew it would not be possible to explain why an old woman had gone and gotten all emotional.

I recovered and we chatted a little longer talking about who their parents were supporting, etc. Everyone of them said their mother was for Hillary. One said her dad had not decided but her mother was going to make him vote for Hillary.

These girls were amazing - six of the girls were Latino, one was Asian and the other two appeared to be middle eastern.

As I drove away and watched them in the rear view mirror I thought two things. I will never forget this moment and gender does matter.

OMFG! It's getting deep in here. :thumbsdown:

Give it a rest because you are insulting many women's intelligence. We do NOT vote as a block.

Only Lee Atwater and Mark Penn would be proud of your efforts here. :thumbsdown:

I'll see your "antidotes" and raise you one big fat "reality check."

My husband is voting for her too.

He thinks she is best in the debates, knows all the issues inside and out, knows what needs to be done and how to do it, fast, and has a very commanding presence. He thinks she'll be very effective with foreign policy.

Edwards.

And your last sentence says it all: And Blackness/race will be a factor for some in relation to Obama.
To what degree I do not know.


It has for you. You haven't given one logical reason why you do what you do except to parrot other people. Please, here's your chance.


I await your words of wisdom.

"And your last sentence says it all: And Blackness/race will be a factor for some in relation to Obama.
To what degree I do not know."


I really do not know why you wrote 'and your last sentence says it all"

She is a great candidate.

Even if she is not your candidate, everyone should cease feeding this media hatred of her. I wish everyone could think about how the amount of vitriol and name calling being thrown at her is far more than political reporting, it is thinly veiled sexist propaganda.

Male candidates have not been treated like she has, and it wouldn't be considered acceptable.

I get very disheartened on this site too that so many think it's fine to write "I hate her" "I can't stand her" etc...

Whatever your political opinion is, this kind of hatred is not real, fair or honest criticism, it's parroting what the media is saying, and it can hurt our chances in November if she is our nominee.

I support Hillary, but have given money to both her campaign and Obama's. When I have disliked or disagreed with something he said or did, I try to criticize it specifically, not launch into hate speech, saying "I can't stand him or I hate him."

I wish we could all please try to stay above that.

above. I don't know why I should be-given the past hatred-filled filled posts I have seen here on DU.

And I thank you for your post.

You came to your decision, and I respect you for that.

because it was about being equal....It would seem that the voting rules were gender biased. For me this election is all about equality for everyone in this country. It is not about gender or race or wealth. It is about equality.

it suddenly hit me that the ONLY REASON I should vote for a candidate is their genitalia and their race!

don' I feel all warm and fuzzy inside! I'm voting for gonads and skin color instead of rationally looking at issues and past votes.

I ARE A GENIUS! IM COMPLETELY SUPERFLUOUS!

I looked at the issues.

by extrapolating their reasoning further.

sarcasm, irony, and points sail right over your head.

Not!

absolutely guarantee it.

this is naked and transparent political dirty tricks. Anyone who can't see that is either intentionally pretending not to see it, or is not paying enough attention.

at being appropriated to convert cheating into virtue.

on the backs of disenfranchised voters.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --SBA

:(

as it does mine.

You better do some reading!

Sojourner Truth

Ain't I A Woman?

Sojourner Truth (1795-1883)-born Isabella, a slave, in New York State-became a well known antislavery speaker some time after gaining her freedom in 1827. This speech, given extemporaneously at a woman's rights convention in Akron, Ohio, 1851, was recorded by Frances Gage, feminist activist and one of the authors of the huge compendium of materials of the first wave, The History of Woman Suffrage. Gage, who was presiding at the meeting, describes the event:


One cannot miss that there were those who were staunch for women's rights but yet were racist. It was not until later, much later, that there was much sophisticated analysis linking sexism, racism, and expressions of other kinds.

http://www.nisto.com/wct/who/sojourn.html

In the name of equality, and holding all candidates to the same standard - which is, who do they owe? In Hillary's case, alas, the answer is corporations. In Edwards' case, the answer is the people. All you have to do is look at the donors and the stances to know who stands for what.

As much as it would thrill this 55+ Second Wave feminist to see a woman President in my lifetime, gender does not top special interests. Corporate domination is killing women and children around the globe, and I want a President who owes the office to the people, not big money.

my vote for him in the primary. I affectionately refer to him as 'peachy face"

giving the vote to women and putting more women in office would help put an end to war. I suspect that they would be disappointed in Hillary disproving their theory.

Give me a break. She voted to authorize the war and her reasons for her vote didn't mean a damn thing when Bush invaded.

And in case it wasn't obvious from Kerry's losing campaign, it doesn't work very well with voters when you have to make a 1/2 hour jesuitical justification of a vote that was just plain wrong. Its no better than "I was for it before I was against it."

And Hillary has been asking you act like lemmings, she did her job.

That's about as relevant.

She stood by her man and in the process lied for him, suffered embarrassment and unhappiness all for her own political ambitions. She is weak of character and an enabler. If anyone tries to say she did it because she loves him - LOL.

Hillary should have left him and done it on her own. THAT would be a good reason to vote for her.

Another perspective would highlight that, absent campaigning in those two states, their delegates will largely go to the candidate with the highest name recognition (Hillary) -- not to mention that Obama and Edwards weren't even on the Michigan ballot.

Further, another view from the trenches would be that Hillary's call for the Florida delegates to be seated, just a few days before the Florida primaries, was intended as a method of skirting the "no campaigning" agreement -- knowing that the story would hit the news in Florida, and framing Hillary as a "friend of the Florida voter."

I sincerely question whether Hillary's motivations in making this request were wholly altruistic.

Katherine Harris. Not only is she clearly and proudly a woman, but she was instrumental in ensuring the sanctity and validity of the voting results, by opposing what were clearly politically-motivated attempts to change the official outcome.

Priorities are the same- even if they work for different goals.

It's interesting that she's only now pushing, isn't it?

This dog won't hunt. :thumbsdown:

... simply by noting that Hillary's campaign didn't make this plea until AFTER the MI primary, and only a few days before the Florida primary. Where was this outrage in 2007, when the decision was made -- and when corrective action could have been taken?

And where's Hillary been on voting reforms -- ever since her election during the same cycle as the Bush v Gore travesty?

Her motivations are not altruistic.

it is the same as a man voting for a man because he is a man and you shouldn't be proud of yourself.

can see, I have the utmost respect for Susan B.

Edited to add: If my avatar were visible, that is.

so in other words her policies mean shit.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/27/6657/

Foreign Policy Implications

Feminists with an interest in foreign policy are divided on the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency, with some noting her willingness to speak out about global feminist concerns, a subject almost never mentioned by her male rivals. These feminist supporters of Clinton’s candidacy have noted how even critical discourse on the U.S. role in the world often avoids mentioning women’s issues, such as the Bush administration’s eliminating of funding in support for women’s reproductive health in developing countries and allying with Iran and Saudi Arabia on some key women’s rights issues at international forums.

The question is: do the areas in which some feminists argue that Clinton’s election would be of positive benefit to millions of women around the world make up for the negative impact from the sum total of her other foreign policy positions, particularly as compared to the somewhat more progressive foreign policy agendas of her male Democratic rivals?

For example, which has had a greater negative impact on Mexican women: the denial of U.S. support for projects of International Planned Parenthood and some other reproductive health providers - which Clinton, like her male rivals, would restore as president - or NAFTA, which Clinton has so strongly supported?

Similarly, the Iraq war, made possible in part through Clinton’s vote to authorize the invasion, has been a disaster for Iraqi women, as the secular regime overthrown by U.S. forces was replaced by Islamic fundamentalists. Clinton also backed Israel’s massive 2006 assault on Lebanon, which killed hundreds of female non-combatants, and she has defended Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and siege of the Gaza Strip, which has resulted in enormous suffering among Palestinian women. She has supported legislation many fear could be used by the Bush administration to launch a war against Iran and has threatened to make war with that country as president, a tragedy that would disproportionately impact upon Iran’s already oppressed female population.

Indeed, given that modern warfare results in far more civilian than military casualties, women are often its primary victims. Given her militaristic predilections, it raises questions as to whether - despite a strong record of supporting women’s rights in the United States and certain overseas programs of benefit to women - Clinton really cares that much about the rights of women outside her constituency.

would you vote for Kay Baily Hutchison - or Condy - or even Diane Fenistein....

I've wanted a woman President all my life - but I won't vote for Clinton in the primary because I would only use gender as a deciding factor if everything else is equal....

I am so sorry you brought this to my attention because if this statement:

"I think what brought this to a head for me today was Clinton putting a call out for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated. She reminded me of Anthony and her tireless work with women’s suffrage. Anthony coined the phase “failure is impossible”, -suffrage rallying cry during that era. In relation to FL/MI, our democratic process has failed- because whatever you think of Clinton, it is voters, via their delegates, who are disenfranchised as the result of a dispute. Anthony would have been outraged and would have encouraged all work for them to be seated—that I know! I hope Edwards and Obama do what is right and join Clinton in this call for enfranchisement of all voters."

means that you are comparing Hillary Clinton to Susan B. Anthony, because she is calling for the MI and FL delegates to be seated, I really don't know if I should laugh, cry or PUKE

Susan B. Anthony stood for her convictions. Hillary Clinton stands for NOTHING but election unless it is politically expedient. GOOD GOD she won in MI - keeping her name on the ballot when Obama and Edwards didn't - and no way for voters in MI to write them in... and the last poll I saw from Florida she was WAY WAY WAY ahead and that was just a few days ago and since none of them are campaigning down here - or maybe she is - those poll numbers are not likely to be changed. If you think Hillary wants these delegate seated because of her concerns for disenfranchised voters - I have some swamp land here in FL to sell you - GOOD LORD....

I do agree with you however, that all three should have stood up for the primary voters in both MI and FL - but they should have done that LONG ago

Gals are like that!