Clinton's female supporters saddened as chance to elect a woman president slips away

As Clinton's prospects sink in the Democratic race, Heintzman and many women like her are feeling the poignant letdown of seeing the first woman with a strong chance at the presidency fall short.

"It would hurt my feelings a lot because I think she should be No. 1, she should be president," Heintzman said of Clinton's likely loss to Barack Obama. "Give a woman a chance to do something good."

.....

"Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

And at least part of that anger, Walsh says, is directed at the sexism that some feel seriously harmed the former first lady's candidacy — from T-shirts bearing photos of Clinton and Obama with the slogan "Bros Before Hos" to Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold in airports.

.....

Paula Horwitz, 84, of Pittsburgh, said some younger women "just don't understand. They'll elect a man, and the men will keep on telling the women what to do." Horwitz displayed a Clinton sign in her front yard for the Pennsylvania primary won by the New York senator.

The generational rift became even more apparent last week, when NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization dominated by white female activists, endorsed Obama over Clinton — producing an outcry among many in the women's movement who felt the group had betrayed one of its own.

.....

To feminist writer Linda Hirshman, Clinton's likely defeat signals a harsh reality that future female candidates will need to consider.

"It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/19041614.html?location_refer=Nation

been so popular, right? Not to mention President Jesse Jackson and President Shirley Chisolm.

The same reason majority of women are voting for Hillary is the same for blacks. For the first time A qualified woman and African American has a good chance to be President.

It has nothing to do with racism or sexism

please do not mention them ever again.

And if only the Dems had Repub rules, Hillary would have won.

And if only the Caucuses didn't count, Hillary would have won.


Welcome back. :hi:

For the same reason as blacks. For the first time A qualified woman and African American has a good chance to be President.

It has nothing to do with racism or sexism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQV4K1eFjI&watch_response TYT "RACE BAITING BEGAN WITH OBAMA!"-TYT WATCH ENTIRE CLIP --- NO ESCAPING

TRUTH PROOF "THE RACE THINGS OUT THERE ALL OF SUDDEN, IT WASN'T OUT THERE BEFORE"- TYT


quit blaming HIllary!

I watched this clip in its entirety. I don't know of a single Black person that has ever cited Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s statements as why they were supporting Obama or turned away from Hillary. I haven't heard a single Black person say they are voting for Obama and not Hillary due to Katrina. Katrina is solidly why Blacks won't be voting Republican it has NOTHING to do with Hillary.

I dare you. I absolutely dare you to come up with a Black person who agrees that anything in this clip is a justification of why they have voted for Obama. I doubt most are even aware of Jackson's statements but they know about Bill Clinton's statements.

If this IS race baiting as you think it is, it didn't work at all.

How do you plan on celebrating next Tuesday when Obama claims the pledged delegate majority victory? :rofl:

He will LOSE!

So it must be true!

Sorry. There is no hypocricy. Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama targeted black votes running as the "black candidate" much like HRC ran as the
"women" candidate. HRC and her inner circle fucked up and drove off legions of her black supporters. There will be a female POTUS one day. But it won't be HRC for myriad reasons already covered in depth elsewhere.

Hypocrite.

bitter dead ender there is.

Blacks supported Hillary over 80% at the beginning of her run. She lost that support through the stupidity of her husband and her campaign. I'm sorry that you only like Black people when they are serving your personal interest. Grow up!

:rofl:

tombstoned

How dare they vote for the black guy, who outmaneuvered the favorite.

point, dork, she had the majority of the black vote until her husband said his shit in sc. she had more than half but pissed it away with their attacks on obama. obama had so little in the beginning and no one supported him, not even Jesse jackson. you can thank Bill for the 90%. Apparently, it is hard for black people to vote for people who let racism fall out of their mouths. but don't let that bother you. reality is hard.

Jeebus...

The hapless trolling is amazing

n/t

Yes I second that ....AMEN!

of a President. It's not to make us feel personally vindicated for our own trials in life, or to satisfy some "fairness" principle. It's to fucking LEAD THE COUNTRY. I never cared that Obama was black, I never cared that Hillary was female (even as a woman myself), I never cared that Edwards was a white male. I will never understand this way of thinking.

To choose a candidate for president based on their gender or race scares the hell out of me.

they voted for their prejudice. I vote for issues. I don't care if Obama was a polka-dotted drag queen. For me, he fits.

This country has chosen nothing but white men for all of its history. This campaign is a game changer, in that the nominee of a major party will either be a black man or a white woman. That explains a lot of the vitriol in this primary - it is either a historic first for women, or a historic first for blacks. Of course, a lot of women are disappointed, some frightfully so, that Hillary Clinton will not win the primary. I would be if Barack Obama did not have the lock on the nomination.

There are Hillary supporters on this board who have stated that she is the only chance we will have to elect a female president for the next 20 years. I don't agree with that view, but what is important that THEY believe it.

:applause:

The point will be lost on many, but not all.

Kudos.

Why would you assume that the women who voted for Clinton are doing so for any more of an emotional reason that AAs voting for Obama? Seriously,to suggest that women are voting based on "personal vindictiveness" is sexist and you being a woman doesn't make it less so. Disgusting.:puke:

Sexist women.

I've read the article,where is the quote from a Clinton supporter expressing confusion about what the presidents role is? Where is the quote expressing a Clinton supporter voting to feel "personally vindicated for our own trials in life" .I must have missed it.

shouldn't vote for men because men will keep "telling the women what to do". Um, no. Maybe that's in HER life experience, because of when she was born--but not in MINE. One of the happy results of the feminist movement.

that "many" women are "confused over the role and purpose" of the president?:shrug:

that a lot of women really don't care WHICH woman is President, so long as there's a woman President this time around--it wasn't "Hillary love", it's just that Hillary happened to be the only one running and was a viable candidate.

And if you think they have or they will, you are out of touch with the majority of men. Women have just started to question the social arrangements and we still have a long way to go. The most arrogant domineering sexist man I know is a supposedly progressive Democrat half my age.

What a silly thing to say.

at this.

As a woman, yes, me... I have to laugh at your post. I am married and yes HE tells me "what to do" but guess what? He gets told what to do too. It is a big 2 way street. I watched my mother dominate and destroy my stepfather. It is not that uncommon.

And please - women aren't a bunch of idiots who are just discovering who they are - that is crap. We are way smarter than that.

Sorry - no sale.

They are Democrats who will vote for a Republican if their female candidate is not elected. That is NOT vindictiveness? THAT is disgusting.

in the real world. A few over the top internet sites don't speak for the majority of women voting for Clinton and to post as if they do is ridiculous.

they will not vote for obama, but for mccain if she isn't given the job. that is real. spin that.

its a 'woman's time' regardless of the candidate and that its sexism if they don't get to go first this time. ridiculous.

Most female supporters of Obama I know were initially torn between Obama and Hillary precisely because they came into the election thinking *this* would be the year the United States elected our first female president. That is certainly something to get excited about. And you don't have to be female to feel that.

On the other hand, you don't have to be Black to get excited about electing our first Black president either. And when those two exciting firsts cancel each other out, you are left with two PEOPLE. For the female Obama supporters, he came out the winner in that comparison.

Their happiness in electing Obama would nevertheless have been tinged with a little disappointment at not getting the other. So I would imagine the disappointment must be much larger for those who ended up supporting Hillary.

Disclaimer: the female Obama supporters I know no longer feel any such disappointment. But only because it was so close, and subsequently an angry election.

These people are insecure and the hilarys are playing on their vulnerability..Shame on them.

He's not Muslim either, AFAIK ;)

(AFAIK)

That's exactly what this is about.

Very well stated.

She appealed to all the wrong things, including running as "the woman" candidate.

More substance, less victimization, is what her campaign needed.

:applause:

"More substance, less victimization, is what her campaign needed."

I waited all my life for a woman president, but this was the wrong candidate running the wrong campaign. Feh.

bill. she lied and pandered. that is not what I want from any candidate let alone a woman. she showed no judgment when she hired penn and she has never fired him, merely repositioning him elsewhere in the campaign. she lost fairly. if we were adults here, that would be enough. that is what we were so fucking angry with in 2000 and 2004. to be different now is hypocracy. she lost fair and square unless a majority of american are out and out SEXIST.

'till the Bitter Dead End.

The meaning of "is" and Clintonian

:eyes:

She would be the front runner, in my opinion, if she had not discounted one caucus state after another but if she had competed there she may have gotten more delegates out of them and maybe even won a couple. Instead she decided they didn't count becuz they are small, red states. Now she embraces small red states like WVA and KY. I'm sorry, but she ran a bad campaign from the start thinking it would be a cornonation.

Iowa.

Should have skipped that one entirely. It would have muted Obama's win, because she would have said that she didn't compete there. She had no shot to do well there at all, and the $$$ saved there should've been put all in New Hampshire and Nevada to get her BIG wins there. She also could have put just a little bit into the other caucus states to hold down her delegate losses in those small states.

She's in debt $20 million, and what did Iowa cost her in just $$$ terms? About $20 million.

I just didn't think that Hillary was the best choice for President this year. My choice had more to do with the Iraq war vote and nothing to do with gender/race. I really hope this doesn't keep other qualified and great women candidates from running in the future. That would be tragic.

I already know what Senator Obama has said.

legislative experience than Obama. Hillary only has 7yrs of experiencee on other words she new. Not experienced. She not the one. Maybe you should listen to Obama's college graduate supporters. They may know something that you don't. Listen to the world......they do not want Hillary or McCain they want Obama.

hoped bill would be a huge factor in her term. they didn't actually care for her, they wanted bill.

I'm just glad that people could see past race/gender and vote for the person they thought would be the best candidate to win the White House.

We didn't hear a fucking peep about feminism and sisterhood then.

three and a half years to change her mind about it. She didn't turn against the war until the POLLS told her to.

That's not what I want in a president.

Reminds me of some sociology friends I had in grad school who would have endless arguments about who was more oppressed.

I agreed with most of their specific evidence and nearly all the political remedies, but somehow, working on that hierarchy of oppression seemed to have the opposite of the intended effect on casual observers. It trivialized their subject and made otherwise sympathetic people wish they would shut up.

Maybe it's because they were doing exactly what this race versus gender crap in this primary season is doing: identifying people as groups not to get them to work with other groups but to pit them against each other to fight for the scraps of power the wealthy throw from their table.

to protect her political career.

It's evident she doesn't have strong convictions ... just strong political calculations for the moment. When the moment changes, she's left flat-footed.

"I wonder if they were just as saddened when she voted for the IWR
Posted by Demobrat
to protect her political career."

I was..she was gone to me for that..I took it personally being someone who met her in New York and thought she was someone other than who she was. I mistook her for someone who had character and our country's best interests at heart. I was very sadly Mistaken.

I couldn't feel prouder of my country that we rejected hilary the liar clinton.

I feel exactly the same.

:P

Not belittling the hopes of these women, but I've always thought that a woman president would govern exactly as if she were a man.

I assume the majority of AAs voting for Obama are attracted to his policies and proud of being able to vote for the first viable AA candidate. Why would anyone imagine it is any different for the women voting for Clinton?

Like not changing her mind about the Iraq war until the polls showed that the majority of the population was against it. Either it is wrong, or it is right - it is not subject to popular opinion.

Based on that one item alone, millions of Democratic AA voters were drawn to Obama. And millions of Democratic women were turned away from Hillary.

Maybe if Hillary were as true to her supposed principles as Obama is to his, she would not have lost the majority AA vote AND a substantial part of the womens' vote.

they also have different views for what is important-getting a bill passed or winning? stuff like that.

Those of us who are capable of focusing,or understanding what the role of the president is,or voting for candidates based on what man has done us wrong?:puke:

This place is almost creepy sometimes.

Why is that a reason to barf?

Tell me how women "focus differently" than men in the political sphere?

on other things then men a reason to barf?

Your turn.

Many women in power focus on bringing up things like UHC, the environment, child care, and things that are typically domestic issues. They also are less likely to be focused on things like "git tough on crime" to the exclusion of other issues.

Example one is Ann Richards V George W. Bush.

Gov. Richards focused on something that was both personal for her and also better for the state as a whole when she instituted programs to help those in prison with drug and alcohol problems. Gov. Richards was a recovering alcoholic but she turned it into a strength and helped out her fellow humans.

Gov. Bush had the exact opposite reaction. He is a recovering alcoholic (well I am fairly sure he is not drinking now but who knows) yet instead of continuing on her policies that were having a positive effect, he cut them off.

Now there may be other male politicians who are not like this (I can see that in my two state reps in fact, one is git tough on DUI offenders and the other is get treatment to stop recidivism) but women politicians in office do tend to focus on things that are not what male politicians will focus on.

On top of that, women politicians are less likely to demand credit for everything that they do. That is one reason why they are more willing to work with the other side or with each other to improve life for all.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion that a female president would be exactly the same as a male president, why not stop and think "why would I think that when me and my husband/brother/other male do not always think the same things are important?" What is important to you to focus on (getting good grades for instance instead of going to play a baseball game) is not always going to be the same for a guy (winning the baseball game rather than have a good time).

An interesting book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Paradox-Women-Real-Gender/dp/0743284704

Females and males don't always focus on the same issues.......... in the same way that 2 different men don't always focus on the same issues, and 2 different women don't always focus on the same issues. What you're using ARE generalizations. Men don't always focus on baseball while women focus on getting good grades for crying out loud! Are you seriously suggesting that?

For you to push George Bush in as an example of how male politicians are different than female politicians is an insult to every guy who has ever voted democratic.

Those were just some examples to show what I meant.

My mother is a hardcore conservative christian.

She spends most of her time fighting to get abortion banned. She dragged me to events and made me hold up signs as a kid saying "my mother chose life". She's never voted democratic in her life, and actively campaigns against them. She's pro-gun, and an avid hunter. She's almost as racist as they come....

Let's make her an example of what women focus on....

Meanwhile, let's supply Dennis Kucinich as an example of what males focus on....

Sound crazy?
Yes!... which is how your example sounded...

interesting decision to use someone who was anti-choice but did not advertise it much.

that most men concentrate on different issues as compared to most women.

From issues as simple (and complex) as sex, there are sex based differences. Women respond far more readily to words and sounds, men respond far more to pictures. And people wonder why printed porn is so popular?
Men, depending on their age, think about sex, or relate sex to a situation far more often than women do.

In conversations, with observers watching interactions of three groups, women to women, men to men, and mixed groups, certain dynamics and methods of communicating pop out and are confirmed again and again. women to women conversations are simply different than men to men. The topics differ, the tone differs, and the content differs. Women talk about problem among each other, without searching for a solution, in general. Men to men talks seem to try to identify the problem, and possibly seek a solution. However, men are far less likely to talk about a personal relationship and its problems to other men.

Yes, these are generalizations, but to claim that there are no differences based on sex, is not just wrong, it is very wrong.

phrase it. :yourock:

banning landmines and cluster bombs, voted for Kyl/Lieberman, supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq for 3 1/2 years

would these woman voters be clamoring for him to be elected?

For one thing, women in power tend to focus on getting things done in a way that is not ME ME ME!!! Naturally I say "tend" not DO because there are always people who do not follow any rule or generalization.

Women are different then men. Get over it.

I don't focus on anything different than my male or other female acquaintances focus on by way of gender. I'm interested in foreign policy more than others of my friends, but there is no gender qualification for that interest among my friends. (No kidding men and women are different. Thanks for the tip.)

Not showing me I am wrong here.

So what if you focus on foreign policy-how does that mean that women, or men since I have no idea what sex you are, will not focus something like getting domestic issues taken care of? And you also are forcing the idea that just because you focus on foreign policy, it means that you ignore everything else which I can probably guarantee is not true.

You're implying that men are generally self-centered egotistical jerks, and women are generally humble caring people......
it's sexist bulls*it, and I'm appalled that it's allowed to be spewed on DU.

Applying the same philosophy to race, you'd be saying that black people tend to be more violent than white people, and then cite some examples of how poor black neighborhoods have such high rates of violence.........or you'd say how Asian people are smarter than people of other races, and point to higher average test scores......

we don't know. we will know what a man with a bi-racial international life will do as president shortly. women? we don't have an example. Given the choice we had with Hillary, I think she would operate in a more masculine mode because of the observations of her husband and the fact that there are no females in our history in which to formulate a path from. Eleanor Roosevelt would be a good role model. However, I feel Hillary is the anti-Eleanor.

We are never going to know until it happens. The war vote sunk her. She never recovered from playing politics with that vote. she voted to ensure that she would be 'tough enough' when she ran. Too bad.

focused on trying to out macho bush and she succeeded. Good for her..glad our country rejected the pandering, lying, bitter dead ender.

And more likely to focus taking care of our problems at home.

At least I suppose this is the stereotype that people apply to what "woman President" would mean. It is, of course, complete bullshit, and certainly doesn't apply to Hillary "Obliterate" Clinton.

would feel the same way about Obama. Hillary isn't the only qualified woman for the position.

is qualified, but that does not mean they can get to the point that enough people will vote for them.

to get the right to vote in the constitution. And it took 222 years to get a woman nominated on a major ticket for the Veep slot.

It took 232 years to get to the point where we could get a woman in a position to actually pick up a nomination.

Pardon the Clinton supporters for being a wee bit sad that the first time in 232 years there was a chance at the Presidency that was more then fantasy. Will there be another woman to run in the future? Yes, because women do run frequently for the slot. Will there be another chance as good as this one?

Not for a long time. It takes a lot of factors to win the presidency, not the least of them having a lot of name ID. How many other women nationally can you name outside of Pelosi, Clinton, and possibly Boxer that the average citizen would know?

Go out with a list of the female governors and senators and ask the general public. Your answer might surprise you.

other in the House, Senate and Governor's Mansions. As a woman I am looking forward to a woman president, but I can't support a candidate just because of gender.

And only 4 total. 1872 - P. B. S. Pinchback in LA got into office due to the impeachment of his predecessor. After that it wasn't until 1989 that Douglas Wilder was elected in VA, then Deval Patrick in MA in 2005. David Paterson in NY is the 4th, after the resignation of Spitzer.

So your point is well taken.

"Not for a long time. It takes a lot of factors to win the presidency, not the least of them having a lot of name ID. How many other women nationally can you name outside of Pelosi, Clinton, and possibly Boxer that the average citizen would know?"

Obama came out of relative nowhere. Who's to say that a woman couldn't do the same thing during any given election in the upcoming years? Name recognition is powerful, but it is not everything.

Ann Richards did an incredible speech at the 1988 convention but that did not translate into a Presidency. Which sucks in my opinion, she would have been a great president.

you are correct about Ann. But I don't know much about her.

However, you do not think that Obamas "surprise" success could start people watching the wings for people with potential? I see no reason that a woman could not come along and capture our attention.

Mainly because there have been lots of wonderful D women who have been in high offices who have done great things, gotten some good press but the media just kind of went "eh" after a short period of time.

I mean Senator Obama caught a very lucky break-the media just went gaga over him. Why? Possibly the fact that he has a pretty decent story to tell-Dad was a goat herder who came to the US to live the American Dream, met a nice lady and had a kid with her who was smart and talent and all that.

But he has not been tested really-not like some of the women in this country so I cannot see a woman getting to that point unless she does it the way that Senator Clinton did and gets them used to the idea that yes Virginia, a woman can be president of the US.

--campaign team, and an awareness of how the internet and other modern communication means are changing how politics can be done.

don't truly believe we will survive intact from global warming alone. I don't give a damn which side they zip their pants up. I just want a good president and the MAJORITY of America does too. they have chosen. Good bye loser. go and commisserate with the other eight candidates. You will live, surely you will.

I'm just sayin'.

:shrug:

If you vote for someone because of their gender, you are as stupid as a box of rocks.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

Sigh. I am a white female and I am 48 years old. I support Obama.

It does not make me a sexist, nor does it mean I have any issues with a female in a leadership position. What it DOES mean is I think Obama is the candidate I think will make the best President.

I am so fucking sick of the whining about gender that has gone on in this election. Am I the ONLY person that thinks maybe, just MAYBE this ought to be about a whole lot more than what these people have between their legs? Can we just talk about the stuff like the economy, education, health care and foreign policy? I could give a shit about her pantsuits, or the whims and wishes of a few deluded supporters.


:puke:

Show me a woman in this race right now that has Obama's chops his temperament and ethics, and shares his positions and I'll vote for her. It is THAT simple.


Laura

I don't care what race or gender a candidate is ultimately. It's great there is history being made in either case, but it's not what I based my choice on. I'm sick of identity politics altogether, actually.

people say that women who vote for someone other than a women are disloyal.

--no one ever questioned the notion that to be a feminist was to be against war as the primary tool of foreign policy.

She said she couldn't pass up the opportunity to vote for a woman for president. She wouldn't go into policies or anything else, just the fact that she's a woman. I think there is a lot of that.

who are reality based. And, so sad for hilary she couldn't convince more people that her lies, smears, and pandering were worth a shit.

She's a Socialist, Feminist, long-time supporter of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who thinks Hillary compares favorably with Maggie Thatcher...not Susan B. Anthony.

I think hilary is bush in a pantsuit.

My recollection with this particular candidate, I do not remember her launching attacks on her primary contenders, such as what the Clinton campaign has done. And given her primary opponents were white males, yes she could have come up with something but she didn't, and I respect her for that.

So I was terribly dismayed at the Clinton campaign. I have no problems voting for women to elected office but she went way too far in the primary to attack Obama. And I am not so impressed she supported the Iraq war. All in all, Hillary is not the right candidate for 2008.

--a black man in the Dem primary. Had she ever said that she and the white Repub candidate were qualified to be governor and her primary opponent was not, she would never have won the primary.

Democrats in WA would have never stood for that nonsense.

And I think for the most part, many other Democrats across the USA were appalled by HRC's claim she and McCain were more qualified than Sen. Obama.

-- and the idea of voting for someone just because of her gender is downright stupid.
I'm a woman, and I don't "identify" with a female candidate; I just want the best, MOST PROGRESSIVE candidate, I don't care about that person's sex, race, or age.

She should have been a lock in 2004.

She had her chance and she blew it.

:rofl:

The hypocrisy is revolting.

Maggie Thatcher in Red, White, and Blue.

The chance lives on in Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Jeanne Shaheen, Christine Gregoire, Ruth Ann Minner, Barbara Mikulski, Debbie Stabenow, Amy Klobuchar, and Maria Cantwell. One of whom might even be on the ticket in 2008!

She has held her own in every interview, no matter how they try to trip her up or make her "misspeak." And this is only her 1st term. One day, she may be a presidential candidate, and I'll be glad to vote for her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG64qXz17Do

I don't think I can take it.

It's in our upbringing.

But... what's also in our upbringing is fortitude in the face of adversity.

Don't give up on Hillarty. Ever!

And, pardon my french but... screw NARAL. They will never get another cent from me.

How dare they!?

I am sorry you are such a sore loserman.

Her campaign was a mess and she initially was preparing for a coronation not a race. Now it's too little too late. She should blame herself first and then talk about the people she hired. Sure there may have been sexism in some situations but it wasn't a major factor in her loss of the nomination.

You're not going to see him naked, anyway.

I'm too young (by only a few years) to remember more than the general details about the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s and the marches and rallies to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. I grew up in a feminist home, though, so I do know the feelings of that generation of feminists very well.

To have come so close to having a female president (especially a female president to come after the horror that is GWB), to have come so close to seeing what seemed like an impossible dream 30 or 40 years ago (and more) come true, must seem like watching a wonderful Disney movie but suddenly, instead of the happy ending, everyone dies from smallpox. Feminists in their 60s, 70s, and 80s who lived the first part of their lives constrained by traditional attitudes must have had such a feeling of relief, to think that they would at least live to see the ultimate glass ceiling broken. It must be an extremely difficult process of grief and loss.

Before reading this article, I'd been hoping for a Clark vice-presidency, whoever won the primaries. I still do, actually. But if Obama decides to mend fences by choosing a female VP (whether it's Clinton or one of the many candidates who are so qualified that gender wouldn't even need to be a major consideration), I would remember this article and think of all the women whose broken hearts would be uplifted again, and I would be so happy for them.

in 2004 when Carol Mosley-Braun ran for office with a considerable bit more international and legislative experience than Hillary Clinton has to this very day?

Hillary is just a cult of personality. She does not represent the feminist movement.

She was a one term senator surrounded by scandal, unfortunately. No way is she presidential material.

She was a United States attorney and an ambassador as well, and held state elected office for nearly 10 years. And according to Wikipedia:

"On social issues however, she was significantly more liberal than many of her fellow senators. She was strongly pro-choice, voting against the ban on partial-birth abortions and the restrictions on funding in military bases for abortions. She also voted against the death penalty and in favor of gun control measures. Moseley Braun was one of only sixteen senators to vote against the Communications Decency Act and one of only fourteen to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. She delivered a eulogy to Thurgood Marshall on January 26 1993."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Mosley_Braun

A true champion of civil rights for all Americans.

and been true to her constituents (I was one) she would still be in the Senate.

"She was a one term senator surrounded by scandal, unfortunately. No way is she presidential material."

Both Clinton and Mosely Braun served the same time in the Senate. As far as scandal goes...

this election has been incredibly sad for some women, just as it would have been for some blacks if the positions were reversed. My grandmother is a Dem and will vote for the nominee, but she is old enough to realize that this was probably her best chance to see a female president in her lifetime. She remarked just the other day that it will probably be another 20 years or so before we see a legitimate female contender, though she hopes she's wrong.

I didn't support Clinton, but I can sympathize. Just as I could have with any 82 year old black man or woman, because they likely would have felt the same way. The older generation of progressives have been waiting a long time to get the female or black or Hispanic or even atheist candidate with a real chance to get elected. It's sad that many here can't appreciate how they feel, no matter what they think of the particular candidates involved.

- and for what? An inexperienced two-year Senator who waged a smear campaign on our candidate.

We should all mourn this travesty. I will count myself among the generation who will never forget - but first, let's hope for a Clinton long-shot to yet come true.

:eyes:

That's more than enough Clinton for this country's presidential history.

I must have missed that in the debates, I must have missed those Snipergate ads in WV & IN.

It's demeaning to all women.

The fact that Clinton ran and got as far as she did will only encourage women to run in the future & one day (soon) we'll have a female President. And it will be someone who deserves to be President based on her issues, her beliefs and abilities - not based on her gender alone. Clinton didn't lose because of her gender - she lost because she's morally bankrupt.

candidate is"....That's right, you have to be an excellent candidate first, then females will be loyal.

I never signed up to support Clinton, I never liked her as a candidate - and so what that all women
don't support a female candidate JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE FEMALE. Isn't that sexism too? :wtf:

I don't want women to be viewed as a "reliable block" vote - then we'll be taken for granted like AA's have. Am I right? :shrug:

everywhere and is relieved that this ridiculous campaign is almost over.

she is a woman. I choose the most qualified leader, and this time around it is not a woman. Maybe someday you'll figure out whats important. We don't need another power hungry self-serving warmonger in the WH.

are a sad minority.

That was the nail in the coffin. She didn't understand that democrats were not on board with the Iraq war. She thought we'd forget about it. She thought she didn't have to say it was wrong at the TIME, not just the "If I knew now what I didn't know then" crap she tried. She apparently thought women would vote for a woman no matter what. Well, women vote on issues.

The racial divisiveness that her surrogates started is what lost her the AA vote. For some reason, she thought that AAs would automatically vote for the black guy and threw them under the bus. That only ensured that she would lose the AA vote.

I resent all the crying, whining, and manipulative mess. I certainly don't need those stereotypes about women to be reinforced by a major female candidate. But that is what she has done. Shame on her.

It's not A WOMAN, it was THAT WOMAN.

As a woman, I don't feel sad, because I have hope that a woman WILL be elected President someday soon.

:eyes: :eyes:

Sorry, I don't vote based on gender or race. I vote for the candidate I feel will bring the most to the job.

In the reality-based world, racists are usually misogynista and vice versa.

Someone who isn't joined at the hip with the establishment, someone who is where she is because of her own talents, not because she's married to an ex-President, someone who is who she is and doesn't change her message every time she gets into a tight spot.

Hillary had so many institutional advantages and was intent on leveraging them to the hilt. When that didn't work, she turned to blunt and manipulative appeals based on her gender. When people look back at this campaign, they will conclude that Obama won in no small part because his biography and his campaign fit a narrative of meaningful change, and that's what most people were looking for this time around. Hillary lost because she and her advisers designed the wrong campaign for the times, inevitability based on resume and connections rather than biography and deeds. More important, to the point of this article, her overwhelming sense of entitlement made it impossible for many of us to identify with the historical nature of her candidacy. That was a missed opportunity for her.

and she squandered it.

That's a political assessment.

There've been women as heads of state throughout history. The United States will of course eventually have a female president. History holds the cards.

The chance for a female president this cycle didn't slip away so much as its champion dropped the ball. Voters are under no obligation to elect someone based on gender. Hillary Clinton is a politician. By the evidence, not as nimble a politician as Barack Obama.

In politics, as with most everything else, one does not always get one's first choice. Casting this process of representation by gender or race IMO subtracts from the level of attention required to address and solve national crises which have been in place all along but which have been exacerbated by two terms of George W. Bush.

There are woman who do good every day, every hour, each minute all over the world.

And most of them with far fewer inherent advantages than Hillary Clinton.

Than they are with improving the lives of women at all levels.

At one point in the 1990s Hillary Clinton evoked the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt for her own life and career trajectory, etc.

We don't hear much from that Hillary these days.

"It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing. She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."

Christ. What drivel.

Loyalty and commitment are components of but not exclusive definitions of ANY voter. She lumps women together as a Stepford demographic, assuming they'll vote for a female candidate on the basis of her having a uterus.

I don't think fluctuation in the components that drive voters' individual choices is as "scary" -- to use Hirshman's term -- as John McCain's voting record or nearly as blood-chilling as the troglodytes he's likely to appoint to the judiciary. Linda. Darling. Use perspective. Get a grip.

I just wanted a Dem in the White House. Now, I’m just sick that Obama gamed the caucuses to give a false impression that he was able to win in the GE not to mention Obama using race as a wedge. That ctap isnt going to fly in the GE. Seems we’re stuck with another loser.

down the road.

Hillary is not the be-all end-all, folks.

seems that those people are only focased on having a women president, not the issues.

if you lived in the UK under Margaret Thatcher you might change your mind! She was a she-devil. I'm not saying Hillary would be like Thatcher but it is worth thinking about - a female at all osts is not the answer.

to make things easier for them they have to look at her faults and say was it for the better? Her faults could be that if your against war, then she is not your best bet. I feel she would have picked up where Bush left off with Iran. If you want more of that then you must be really feeling sad.

if Colin Powell had run for President black people would have voted for any Democratic candidate no matter the color or gender. We vote party, we are faithful Democrats. Unlike the some so called Dems that vote against the party.

but due to appeal, which may be more due to the media but maybe not...

I dream of the day where candidates are given letters, x,y,z for example and have proxy speakers, all of the same race, gender, age, and attractiveness. These proxies would state the experience and issues. Everybody would basically know who the candidates were, but the media fixation on personality and appeal would be handicapped. Debates could be done with computer generated images and voices mimicking the proxies, but answers being voiced by the candidates themselves. Gone would be the discussions about hair cuts, gorgeous wives, race, gender, age, and looks. The people could still have all the entertainment but it would be based on issues, and we would be able to see more clearly the differences, or lack thereof of candidates. Of course there would be some discussion about the appeal of the proxies themselves but...let me dream of the day when character and not personality, issues and not agendas are what the people are forced to consider...

Clinton paved the way for the woman who will someday be President of the United States. In that respect, her candidacy is not a total loss.

It's going to be a lot easier for the next woman because of Hillary Clinton. And despite my personal dislike of how she's run her campaign, I've got to give her credit for that.

And I very much resent being reduced to a herd animal datapoint in such a preposterous and utterly specious construct as "the female electorate".

As a female VOTER, I will make my choices based on my own judgement as a free and intelligent adult. Not as part of some yuppie feminist fantasy that humans with the same kind of genitals must therefore of necessity all share the same political goals.

"...not be reliable", indeed. I find that statement to be incredibly arrogant and condescending.

sw

Hillary also supports a nuclear first strike against Iran, even when Iran has not attacked anyone!

People like that should not be given access to the nuclear button, regardless of their race or gender.

That's what the electorate is telling us.

:shrug:

they need to FIRST build their OWN career with their OWN accomplishments, and not glomb onto stuff thier husband did.

"legacies" make poor leaders..male or female..haven't we spent 8 years learning this..??


the presidency is not a family heirloom, passed down within families.. some may think it is, but it should NOT be..

the first real "crop" of viable female presidential candidates are ripening on the vine, and in 8 years, there should be quite a few who qualify..

Obama's better on issues like the Iraq war and NAFTA, and he does not have a history of lying, cheating, dirty tricks and nasty behavior.

"It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."

What the hell does this even mean? She almost won. How is it scary for people to vote their beliefs or their needs or their gut rather than lockstepping behind something as irrelevant as gender identification? Isn't this "voting by identification" the sort of thing that got us into our current political mess in the first place?