Is Hillary a good candidate for women?

I'll state now that I'm a supporter of Obama, but I have long admired both of the Clintons.

So here's my question: Is Hillary Clinton's tenacious campaign good for other women who aspire to be President? I ask this because I am unaware of a precedent to compare this primary to. I'm not old enough to remember the 1968 convention, but I think that is the last time that a nominating convention was held where the nominee wasn't already decided beforehand.

This election has many firsts to help give it a place in history. The first woman nominee to be taken seriously; the first black as well. And now the first candidate to refuse to throw in the towel even when there is almost no chance for victory. Ron Paul is one thing; Hillary Clinton attacking fellow Democrats all the way to the primary is something else entirely.

I'm not saying that she should give in. But I wonder what the perception of future female candidates will be based on this first experience? Will voters admire Hillary's tenacity and reward the next woman running for President? Conversely, voters (who have some obvious anti-woman bias to overcome) may decide that women are too emotional and not rational enough for that office. The irrational part may come from her not accepting reality with regards to the primary.

I ask these questions not out of spite, but because of the uncharted territory that this election has taken us.

to show that women don't have to be such awful people.

Why is it two guys who have run the respectful campaigns and the woman is rolling in the mud? Geez, its not fair that she leaves this bad taste for women in the voter's mouth.

Both Democrats would be good for women, if they became President. People aren't going to "decide" that women are too emotional. If somebody already thinks that (and many women do), then this campaign still probably opened up their minds. As an Obamateer, I am proud, IN THE BALANCE, of Hillary's toughness and rationality. That is what the average American sees as well, and it's a great achievement that so many men and women looked at Hillary, evaluated her spirit, and deemed her worthy of a vote.

is the jackass idea that other women are the same as Clinton.

As long as other women aren't lying, bribing, race-baiting warmongers, there's absolutely no reason why the Clinton debacle would carryover to them.

Seems to me that you are giving way too much credit to the American electorate. Apparently, many Americans are unsure weather or not Obama is a Muslim and many think Hillary is gay despite a complete lack of evidence. So to assume that the next woman who runs for office can count on a calm rational approach in considering her nomination seems rather naive to me.

Personally, I think Hillary's campaign is a mixed bag. She certainly has shown that she is as tough as any of the other candidates. And that will help counter the argument that women are weak. But politics is about compromise and wining people over to your side. In this regard, it seems to me that Hillary has done a poor job and just as women in general may gain from her toughness, they may suffer for her stubbornness.

Most Americans instinctively know that it's not healthy to grab the third rail. The ability to let go is important, and Hillary seems to have a death grip on the high voltage line. I know many of her supporters will disagree with this assessment, but if it's accurate, don't you think that many voters will measure the next woman nominee against Hillary? If so, then her actions could have a profound impact on the future chances of female candidates, regardless of their qualifications.

Hope many who support Clinton will realize this should Obama be certified the nominee (note I'm not counting Barr as he has no chance).

Hillary has always been a fighter and whether or not people like her for this does not matter. She has paved the way for young women of the future who will also have to be fighters if they want to go as far as Hillary has. Her fighting spirit is what we most admire about her. Anyone who can stand up to the GOP slime machine for 20 years like she has deserves much credit.

It's no accident that crazy ass Geraldine is all over the place crying "sexism." The old bat doesn't even know what that shoulder brushoff is.

Her candidacy has contributed to the impression that a woman needs to marry the right guy in order to be taken seriously.

your post is so nasty and sexist. Hillary is so superior in qualifications for the Presidency, that your post is laughable.

However, Shirley Chisholm is heads above many male and female candidates who have run
for president.

... my feces make a better candidate (and human being) than Geraldine Ferraro. Turns out that Barbara Bush was right about her all along. Who could have guessed?

...for eventually electing our first female President.

Let's be honest, Hillary is not the best choice to be our first female President. I know that many women are sold on her, but the role her husband has played in elevating her career is a big minus, IMO. I want a self-made woman to be our first female President. If it were Hillary, there would always be that lingering detractor that she wouldn't have been there without her husband. And let's be honest here, she wouldn't have.

On the other hand, Hillary really has paved the way for the next woman to run, and be taken seriously. And Bill's status certainly helped in that regard.

So I think that this election has set us on the right track to elect a woman, the right woman, and I think it will happen sooner than many of the doom-and-gloom crew might think.

Is useless to me and my three daughters.

Clinton ran her campaign more like "I should be president because I'm a woman" instead of "I should be president and happen to be a woman." I also didn't find her to be a great role model for women -- running on her husband's resume instead of her own did not impress me. I'm happy to wait for a woman who's willing to run on her own merits -- not her husband's and not her gender.

And that's the exact response I give to so many women who cannot fathom why I've always been an Obama supporter.

HRC's repeated claims of "sexism" shames those honorable women bosses/leaders who PROVE themselves via outperforming "the boys" at their own jobs/specialties.

HRC's behavior during this campaign reflects poorly our beloved gender.

her negatives, at the beginning of the campaign, were off the chart. people are very, very polarized about her and more than half of this country really, really doesn't like her.

a candidate with that much baggage is always going to have problems. it would be nice to see the first woman be somebody who really connected with people on a personal level. tons of charisma.

hillary ran her campaign as a man. tough as balls. never say never. etc. i don't think that the next female candidate will feel the need to market herself as a man in order to win.

shes seen as a "hillary clinton" before shes seen as a woman, or even human.

that I went to. The most inspiring thing of all was the young (high school) girls who'd come out to see her, and made pink signs in support. This image did not make the news.

Those of you who think she's so terrible ought to consider going to one of her events. She was engaging, she spoke for a long time, she had made a huge effort to educate herself on local issues and spoke knowledgeably of them, and she was inspiring. Strength flowed from her. I was very impressed. It made me like her all the more. No, she didn't get the play that the big Obama rally got the next day, but that was okay. I knew I was voting for the right candidate. I've heard five presidential candidates speak - Harkin, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry - and she was by far the best.

when there is almost no chance of victory?'. Are you effing serious? :rofl:

There are several candidates still running who have no chance of winning and no one is telling them to give it up. I can't count how many times I've heard it said here at DU...'this is America anyone can run' when Ralph Nader was busy accepting repuke money so he could stay in the race.

What about Bob Barr? He's in and nobody's whining for him to get out.

Hillary Clinton is doing what ALL candidates do. They run for office even when there is no chance of them winning. They attack their opponents. This is normal politics in America.

No one should have a problem with Hillary running for as long as she wants. It's a free country and majority of folks have accepted the fact that Obama is the nominee. Latest poll I read said American support for Obama is 55% to Hillary's 39%.

What I don't get is how the fact that she is a woman is related to her staying in the race. What are you saying when you make this odd connection?

Are you seriously comparing Hillary Clinton's run for the nomination with Ralph Nader and Bob Barr? If I were a Clinton supporter, I would be offended by the comparison. Nader and Barr never stood a chance of attaining a national party nomination and will not come close to even 1% of the popular vote. My point was that this is the first time in memory that a serious candidate for the nomination from the Republican or Democratic party has decided to stay in the race even after any reasonable option remains for them to win the nomination.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the USA candidates drop out when it becomes apparent that they can't win. For one thing, the money drys up. That's why Clinton, Obama and McCain are the only ones left running. Yes, I know that Paul, Barr, and Gravel are still running but they are a side show. I'm trying to be serious here, not debate the margins.

My question does pertain to Hillary's gender, but not the way you infer. In this thread, I don't care whether she continues her run or not. But I am curious whether readers here think that her tenacity will be a boon or burden to future female candidates.

So, what do you think on that issue?

I think she's a good candidate for women if women are the only ones voting, otherwise, she has made so many women among her supporters feel personally slighted if she doesn't win and they are willing to swallow horseshit excuses that they wouldn't tolerate from a man :shrug:

As an independent I will admit that I never much cared for the Bill or Hillary. This past 7 years makes anyone look good right now.

As much baggage Hillary has, as much disdain I have for how she's run her campaign... I think she would probably do an ok job. In the past week I have to say I have been developing a grudging respect for her.

But that is neither hither no thither. Do I think she will affect future womens' runs? Yes... but only because the press will not be able to avoid the connections whether they are there or not. At the end of the day though, it's the qualifications of the candidate that matter to me.

If I had to make the vote today, Obama is my man. I don't agree with a lot of his politics. As an independent I am freaked about the idea of giving the reigns of gov't over to one party... but facts are facts. The Republicans have blown it. Their party deserves to reap what is has sowed with this war, this economy, and their inability to buck their party when their party has gone off the deep end.

I will always be an independent. I will always vote for the best candidate that I can determine.

Just curious... who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? If you voted for Nader or the Libertarian candidates, why Obama now? I'm always striving to understand the mindset of independents. Ironically, I'm registered as an independent and have even voted for a republican or two. With the exception of John Warner, I have always been disappointed when I break with the Dems. . I never have voted for an independent, though with the exception of the Presidential election, I've never had the chance.