Will You Be "Proud" If Hillary Clinton Is The First Woman Elected President Of The United States ???

On the one hand, I have always been pretty sure that the first woman elected to the POTUS would be from the Democratic Party. And after watching the likes of Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, and even Geraldine Ferraro, I was prepared to be mighty proud of my party and my country when we finally elected a woman to serve as president.

On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton does in fact win the nomination and the presidency, I will definitely be glad that we have taken back the Executive Branch from the Republicans. I'm just not sure if I'm gonna feel that same sense of pride I was anticipating all these years.

Why do you suppose that is?

:shrug:

she continues to her warmongering by enabling bush and his drive to war with Iran.

Would you be find enough to give everybody a link to that quote..that a news one......

I'd love to see a woman president, but not a bad one.

time before the next woman president.

with a prettier package. On the good side, it will be good for reproductive rights, and some other issues, but the larger issues (the war, democracy) will not fare well.

and not come across as a complete embarrassment on the intellectual level.

That's about all I can really dare to upside for her.

next November.

Now, I find it hard to care one way or the other. And I used to be the world's biggest Bill and Hill fan.

Americans elected someone telling the "unvarnished truth," braving the winds of the entrenched to do so. ;-)

Because any of the Democratic Candidates beats any of the Republican Candidates hands down.

Sorry. Hillary only meets 50% of that bill. While she may be very qualified to be a Republican candidate, she has no place in the White House at this turbulent time in history.

.

so happy. But I think the fact she is a woman wouldn't be as important as the fact that the neocons are out of power. Nothing matters more than that.

Neolib, neocon. What's the diff?

a democratic politician and neocons? Didn't you notice a difference between neocons and Bill Clinton's Presidency?

2nd, let's break it down.

Neocon - foreign policy based on intimidation, backed by military power.
Neolib - foreign policy based on intimidation, backed by military power.

Neocon - economics based on 'trickle down' corporatist power, as exemplified by outsourcing and anti-labor policies.
Neolib - economics based on 'trickle down' corporatist power, as exemplified by outsourcing and anti-labor policies.

Neocon - National security policy best exemplified by the War on Terror.
Neolib - National security policy best exemplified by the War on Terror.

Neocon - Election strategy: say anything to anyone, because nobody really believes in the system anymore anyway. Give lip service to the people, but the big shots who pay the bills are the ones you listen to.
Neolib - Election strategy: say anything to anyone, because nobody really believes in the system anymore anyway. Give lip service to the people, but the big shots who pay the bills are the ones you listen to.

Remember, the 'Democratic' in DLC is small 'd' democratic (and a lie, at that); it does not represent the party or the base. It has the same agenda as the neocons, and both only spin domestic difference to con the respective bases - the left, on our side, the fundies, on their side.

how it was practiced by bushco)but how does that affect Hillary Clinton? Was Bill Clinton a neoliberal. What are you trying to say? Any democrat would do a better job all around than Bushco.

Economics - NAFTA.

Foreign policy - repeated use of the military, the only difference being that Bill listened to his generals, and was overall competant in how he used them.

Domestic - betrayed the base with strong support of the prison industry, abandoned the gays after going out of his way to court them, escalated the War on Drugs with sending military to Colombia.

National security - he pre-dated the War on Terror, and actually fought terrorism - again, it is a matter of being competant rather than different.

Elections - Bill was one of the most brilliant campaigners of the past generation. But Bill isn't running. Hill incompetantly plants shills in the audience to throw softballs and pre-programmed questions. Remind you of someone?

With Hill, all you get is more of the same.

I worry that:

...the powers that be will use that as an excuse to tell us to shut up about election fraud because "A democrat won & a woman to boot."

...if HRC doesn't clean up the entire mess left by bush in 4 short years, the media will say she's ineffective, site her gender as a main reason & it will be decades before we have another woman president nominee.

That said, any of our dem candidates are going to face 24x7 harsh criticism from the media. The 'journalists', who currently throw softball questions at bush, will suddenly pitch hard hitting questions at our dem president & there will be never ending nit-picking at everything our president says.

:shrug:

Hillary will be a great president, and a welcome change from the awful Bush regime.

She is also our best hope in ushering in univeral health care coverage, something I didn't expect to happen in my lifetime.

If you want to know the difference, look at Kucinich, or even Edwards.

Universal health care coverage is a billion dollar boon to the health insurance industry.

But I think of all of the folks running that Hillary is the best person for making it a reality.

They make their money by limiting how much they pay out. Their business is NOT healthcare - it is sucking money out of healthcare.

Why do you want to reward that?

there will never be any way of really knowing how much of her victory would be due to Bill.

If the Supreme Court awards it to her, or if she gerrymanders Ohio, I'll consider her a pResident squatter like the current guy.

I'll be good with an actual win.

Was Margaret Thatcher the best possible woman to have become the first female Prime Minister of England? Was Golda Meir the best possible woman to become the first female Prime Minister of Israel? How about Indira Ghandi?

If Hillary Clinton get elected against America's ugly misogynistic undertow, and the general dislike for the Clintons from both sides (though for different reasons) then she has done something historic. In doing so, the next woman that tries will find the path easier to walk.

It is always tougher to be the first. After she paves creates the path, it will be easier for #2, #3, etc., etc..

Yes, if she wins be proud of her. Just plan on electing a better woman next time.

And welcome to the DU!!

Thatcher was possibly the worst possible woman as 1st female PM. Golda Meir, middling to good.

If Clinton wins (unlikely) and shows herself to be a corporate tool who does nothing about NAFTA (and therefore, immigration) and half-measures on healthcare and the environment, we will be worse off at the end of her 4 years that at the beginning. And it will be at least a generation before there is another female presidential candidate with a half a chance of winning.

IF she is elected, I would not expect to see another woman president in my lifetime - and I'm only 55.

At this time in 2003, Dean was unstoppable. We all remember how that went. So discussing her historic ascension to the Eagle Thrown of the Great American Empire is a little premature. But it would still be historically significant and historically important.

A long time ago, in 1950's Las Vegas, Frank Sinatra insisted that Sammy Davis Jr. be treated the same as any other member of the ratpack. Now, Franki had his faults, but what he did was still historically significant.

I am willing to wait until February 5th to see who the Democrats nominate.

and because she's thus far accomplished little in the way of presenting a concrete policy on ANYTHING and instead has offered a constantly shifting and waffling 'opinion' on all issues?

Though "proud" if it is Hillary...nope!

In a generic sense, I'll admit that for my daughter - she would see that glass ceiling broken on having a woman President - yet Hillary should win/lose not on her gender, but on her positions, which are way, way too DLC and beholden to the corporations for my taste. She panders to the middle-right, but we have heard all that before.

I dearly hope she loses in the primaries and I dearly hope another Dem wins the General.

As much as I don't agree with Clinton on certain issues, nothing makes me more proud than talking about her to my seven year old daughter. I am proud that I can point to Clinton on the television and explain to Abby that, although the US has never had a female President before, there is a strong chance this will change a year from now.

We like to fool ourselves into believing that diversity in government isn't important anymore, but it is. You won't find me in any of the DU primary blood baths this time because I'm ridiculously proud of our lineup. I like that Obama is giving Clinton a run for her money. I like the fact that Richardson grew up in Mexico City. I like that Edwards has taken more personal hits in life than anyone deserves and yet he finds a why to smile. I like that Kucinich is willing to fight for his beliefs no matter how hard the media tries to beat him down.

Overall, when we compare ALL our candidates to what the GOP is offering, our people are so much more stronger and not just because of the issues. Don't underestimate the strength that comes from not being a member of the club and coming this far in spite of that fact.

Am I proud? Hell yeah I'm proud.

And I, too, am very proud of our lineup. The entire field stands heads and shoulders above any of the Rethugs.

thank you, btw, for your response.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

:blush:

And, since living well is the best revenge, I will be meanly pleased if it's Hillary Clinton.

shape for his physical at the draft board. Thank heavens I won't have to worry about my daughter, I'll just have her tell everyone she's gay!

In case the asthma approach doesn't work.

But I really don't think any Dem will start up a draft. They would be crazy to do so.

Unless it's Charlie Rangel, of course . . .

The one I'd have to worry about is the daughter who is straight and asthma free

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

If she wins, I will know w/o a shadow of a doubt that our elections have been and will continue to be rigged.

We need someone a little to the left of center, not to the right of it.

Look at her voting record. She has consistently voted for progressive issues over 90% of the time. The typical Rethug takes those positions less than 20% of the time. And her voting record is more liberal than Obama's, Biden's, or Dodd's.

www.progressivepunch.com

I haven't decided on my first choice yet but I would definately be proud to call ANY of them my President.

not so much for the hill as for the milestone we will have reached coupled with the fact we will have the white house again so in that sense I guess you could say I would be pretty durn happy actually

Although I would take delight in seeing right wing heads explode should she gain the same powers George Bush has garnered for himself and the executive branch.

It will be a great moment for women that she's attained the highest political office in the country. The same is true for Obama, it would be a great moment that this country has elected an African American to the presidency.

Having said that, I do not picture myself supporting Clinton in the primary race. But just because I don't support her, doesn't mean that if she does make it, doesn't mean I won't be proud of her accomplishment.

For anyone hoping there would be a magnicently brilliant, highly principled, super-beer-worthy-personable, "perfect" female president, I would only ask this: "Have any men rated that description?" Hillary is easily the equal of any of the men who have held office in my lifetime.

Would she be where she is without Bill's name? Of course not. I was against her at first for that reason and because her media image will stir up the ignorant, bloodthirsty "Republican" Hottentots. I now see her as a very solid choice. I think she will very likely win over some Republican women. They have daughters who could use the boost of seeing a woman make it.

And again, it is not just about her being a woman. That is a political and historical factor to the good, but Hillary is definitely qualified in my book.

I don't care if the next president is a man of woman of a transsexual as long as the next president rids us of all these new directives and turns this shit around .

all I want is this country back and right now I see a few that just maybe can at least try to do it . I really can't say I trust hillary nad it's not because she is a she .

I would have been over the moon to have seen Barbara Jordan inaugurated.

I hope to see a woman I can be proud of inaugurated during my lifetime.

Hillary is not the one.

being female meant having a more refined and compassionate sensibility by nature. That was over 4 decades ago, I've long grown out of that particular misperception.

Gender makes basically no difference at all. What counts is the individual's personal consciousness. All that counts to me is what kind of humanity do you exhibit? What kind of wisdom and compassion and commitment to ethics and truth do you demonstrate?

All I see in Clinton is a determination to say and do whatever it takes to reach the position of personal power that is POTUS. I don't see any genuine care for America, only for America's plutocracy and her position within it.

But, that's just me.

Someone once told me that ALL change is a mixture of grief and relief, it is only the ratio of the two that changes from event to event. I will feel a great deal of grief if she wins the election, because I know that it spells a continuation of corporatism and militarism, and the preservation of the status quo in regard to the underlying power structure that forms the Shadow Government.

Nonetheless, I will take some fleeting bitter joy in the thought of massive numbers of right wing heads exploding.

No ideological purist, I.

sw

Why wouldn't I be? I'm a Democrat and she would be the first female President of the U.S. I don't understand why there would be any question as to "pride"?:shrug:

It will break a barrier that is long overdue for breaking. I think once it's broken it will stay that way - opening opportunities for many worthy future candidates.

I'm divided really. On one hand I think Clinton is smart, competent and will make a fine president. And, as I said, I'll be happy to see that gender barrier finally broken. But on the other hand I'm very wary of this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty thing. And I'm not keen on her health care proposal. Although after talking to a Massachusetts resident who extolled the virtues of their state policy, I'm willing to consider I may have misunderstood Clinton's proposal in the same way I misunderstood Massachusetts's 'mandatory' coverage.

than we have now.

liberal ideological qualified candidate was elected president - man or woman?

yes INDEED

another woman won't for probably 100 years.

she's not my gal in the primary, but in the general - she is!

Whether or not a woman gets elected President is unimportant to me. What is important to me is that whoever gets elected, that person is for the people and not for the corporations. Something I doubt we'll ever see.

At least it isn't Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Laura Bush.

Sure it would be historically important that we elect a woman, but at this point even if the first female president turns out to be the greatest president in US history, it'll be more of a "what the hell took so long" moment rather than a "this is a proud day for our country" moment.

I will be happy no matter which Democrat wins. As for milestones, well, if it is Hillary, I will be proud the first female President was a Democrat. If it is Obama, I will be proud the first non-White President was a Democrat.

I'm already proud that liberal Democrats (myself included) feel free to criticize her and that the fact of her being female is not relevant and not an automatic protection for her.

Less than 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. That a woman is (currently) the front-runner is a credit to the brave, brilliant suffragettes who got women the vote--and who would be thrilled about this--and to the credit of this country.

Sure, there are many women I'd rather see as President. But that's not the question you asked, really, since the focus was on Hillary's femaleness. And as several people have already hinted at or specifically mentioned, having a woman break through the ultimate barrier will open the door (mixing my metaphors here) to a whole new group of deserving candidates in the future.

than any of the knuckle-dragging, evolution-denying goons on the GOP side? Absolutely.

If she's the nominee, I will gladly support her effort to make history. And I will celebrate like a madman when she wins.

the first Female president will be a Democrat. however she should be just that. A Democrat.

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

-Hoot

So I'll be proud of that. But the most important barrier we need to cross in this country is getting a president who isn't a corporate puppet, and Hillary isn't that candidate.

if Obama won because he's a black man. It's time for a woman or black to be president. The office should not be for only WASP men.

I have gone far beyond choosing someone based on what kind of underwear they have.

Just being a women in a traditional male role isn't always enough.

If I die of dehydration it'll be worth it.

Of course, I can only vote for her or Kucinich.

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

The money-driven legislative process makes sure that no serious legislation addressing growing inequality, idiotic dependence of our economy on the military and on prisons, etc. will never even originate, let alone make it out of committee. Included in the 9% failure on labor rights, for instance, is continued promotion of highly destructive pro-corporate trade agreements and the destruction of our high-tech labor force with endless H1b visas. An inadequate raise of the minimum wage buried in a ridiculous military funding bill doesn't make up for that, nor to any of the piddling half-measures in the other 91% of the rating.

Nobody who has Mark Penn as a strategist is interested in making government work for average people. Anybody who is not advocating single payer health care has a zero rating on health care issues.