Well!! I sure didn’t think that the article I quoted was hateful or demeaning and I don’t appreciate being attacked.

First of all, I’m proud too that a woman is running for President. I just don’t think that it’s right, or even smart, to vote for anyone on the basis of gender or race.

When I honestly think about it, I am disappointed that the first woman candidate for President doesn’t share the kinds of feminist principles that have been important to me. That includes standing up against war-mongers, even if it is politically risky. That includes abiding by principles of equity and fairness instead of expediency and favoritism.

And, I think that it’s not right to call Hillary a lifelong champion of women, children, and families when she callously supported the destruction of soldier’s families and of Iraqi women, children, and families.

If I believed then in her idea that “It Takes a Village,” I wonder now about the Iraqi villages that have been so irretrievably torn apart. I wonder about the Afghan villages that were counting on us and believed our promises, and that we have largely abandoned. When I hear the stories of our soldiers on extended tours or I read about post-traumatic stress, I worry about the state of our once proud American villages.

Maybe I did want something more from a woman candidate for the highest office in our land. But, given the enormous opportunities she’s had and the strategic and political compromises she’s made, Hillary’s being a woman is simply not enough.

In the end, I don’t think it’s enough to just care about the future generations of women in this country. I care about the future generations. Period.

I don’t think that our first concern should be putting women closer to the front of the line. Our first concern should be for creating the moral conditions and material prosperity that means there are better chances for everyone. I just don’t think that Hillary is the candidate to do that.

Sincerely.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/

…All of this frames many women’s reactions to Hillary. If she’s a feminist, how could she continue to support this war for so long? If she’s such a passionate advocate for children, women and families, how could she countenance the ongoing killing of innocent Iraqi families, and of American soldiers who are also someone’s children? If it would be so revolutionary to have a female as president, why does she feel like the same old poll-driven opportunistic politician who seems to craft her positions accordingly?

Maybe women like me are being extra hard on Hillary because she’s a woman. After all, baby boomer women couldn’t be “as good” as men in school or the workplace; we had to be better, to prove that women deserved equal opportunities. And this is part of the problem too. We don’t want the first female president to be Joe Lieberman in drag, pushing Bush-lite politics. We expect something better.

Clearly, Hillary and her advisors have calculated that for a woman to be elected in this country, she’s got to come across as just as tough as the guys. And maybe they’re right. But so far, Hillary is not getting men with this strategy, and women feel written off. After the dark ages of this pugnacious administration, many of us want to let the light in. We want a break with the past, optimism, and a recommitment to the government caring about and serving the needs of everyday people. We want what feminism began to fight for 40 years ago—humanizing deeply patriarchal institutions. And, ironically, we see candidates like John Edwards or Barack Obama—men—offering just that. If Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president, then maybe, just maybe, she should actually run as a woman.

Hillary has never had to take on responsibility. As a senator, you really don’t have to take responsibility. Assuming you take a position on a piece of legislation, you are only 1 of 100 votes. You can vote against something you support, knowing it will pass without your vote, because its politically expedient. That is typical of being a legislator. That is not responsibility. The one vote she had the greatest responsibility for, she now regrets, so she says. As a first lady, you are not asked or expected to take on responsibility. Again, where are her accomplishments?

Both dem candidates speak of bringing home the troups quckly. But, can they? Whether you agree with the war effort or not, there is a credibility issue at stake for the United States. Pulling troops would likely further destabilize Iraq. Right or wrong, the U. S. made a commitment to Iraq and its people. Shouldn’t we honor our commitment? Benchmarks are a good idea. We should hold the Iraqi government’s feet to the fire so to speak to ensure benchmarks are met. But, we can’t leave a void to be filled by the Islamic radicals.

Regarding the Bush tax cuts, I am open to the idea of revoking them. However, I have seen, first hand, their benefit. I am lower, lower middle class. I know, with the tax cut I received, I can’t start a business. Further, if the government gives me a greater tax cut, it will amount to money I would receive that I didn’t pay the government in the first place. Even then, I would not have enough to start a business and provide jobs. The so called rich people in our society have the money to start businesses. I would rather they have the money to invest in the economy than giving the government this money. If the dems revoke the tax cuts, wouldn’t that result in capital investment leaving the economy? How will that investment be replaced? Wouldn’t tax hikes cause further retraction in the economy? Again, I’m open to revoking the tax cuts, but tell me how it will help!

Can you pls cite the exact legislation that HRC “worked on” that “gave children with Special Needs the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education”. It sounds wonderful, and quite sentimental too (only if it were true), but she was no-where in the 1970s where she could have had any effect on the federal legislative process. She may have been the typist, but that is not very likely either. In 1973, she was one of 48 junior law graduates working in Edelman’s newly founded Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but not even remotely close to impacting federal policy making. In 1974 she moved to Arkansas, and did not come back to the federal limelight until decades later.

HRC has had a great fog of popular mythology created for her. Her actual achievements are quite limited, and mostly have to do with polarizing the right wing so badly as to make them even more rabid and aggressive. She and Bill are perhaps the most polarizing and triangulating political figures in contemporary US politics, and have harmed the liberal and progressive cause more than any of us can imagine. Time will tell.

And no I am not a Muslim, and my middle name is not Mohammad !!