I left out an important word from my last post. The phrase “any of the hundred or so qualified American women” should have read “any of the hundred million or so qualified American women”.

Many people call Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder of this generation, but some of us have also noticed how vulnerable this war has left Iraqi women. Women in war zones and women refugees run far worse risks of rape, trafficking, and every other form of abuse than women in countries at peace. When Hillary Clinton voted to give Bush “war authority”, when she chose not to fight for a peaceful resolution to the conflict over Iraq, she effectively chose to help put eleven million women and girls at risk, rather than fighting and taking real risks on their behalf. I would just like to point out to Ms. Clinton’s defenders here that you can’t defend her record without facing the effects of war, conflict, and mass refugee flows on women.

This brings us to the charges of sexism: please explain to me how equating opposition to Ms. Clinton with sexism does not imply that no woman in the United States has a better record or more impressive qualifications for the presidency than she does. Does anyone really believe that Senator Clinton, with all her flaws, has uniquely better qualifications than any of the hundred or so qualified American women? Do you really believe that none of those women had the fire and drive to make it? Do you really believe that the American feminist movement could not have united behind a talented, passionate woman who had made the right choice for the women of Iraq?

In sum: a strong feminist would have as good (or better) reasons to find Hilary Clinton’s record profoundly disappointing as anyone else, an plenty of other women in the United States have the fire and the talent to make a run for the presidency; nobody had to make the choice one of Hillary Clinton or a man.

Fair point - “married her way to the top” was excessive on my part. “Staying married to, and enabling, an adulterer and a sexual harasser for the sake of power” is closer to the mark.

“So I guess the whole question is, if the Clintons work as a team–and maybe you don’t believe that they did work as a team–who gets the credit?”

The person who is held accountable by the voters as CinC, who gets impeached for perjury, who lost Congress to the other party and who staged a fire-sale of pardons before leaving office should get credit for the good things, like a good economy and avoiding war. The “partner” should be judged on her own identifiable accomplishments. The only one that stands out is her seemingly clairvoyant (to put the best possible light on it) success at trading cattle futures. That was extraordinary.

A poor man in the white house with a wife at home with the kids is really not much change at all. The personal is political. I believe the Clintons and their complex partnership that was public and out there (as opposed to the power behind the throne secret male approved variety) speaks volumes. Let’s get the date here. How many hours of T.V. or mainstream media coverage has there been on the feminist movement (last 100 years or so) compared to black male civil rights groups? Total hours, total words written. Let’s draw a graph or a pie chart so we get the picture, literally.

I want reporting at the end of each calendar year on the number of hours women’s stories have appeared on nightly news reports, for example. How many white men have been on Meet The Press vs. black men vs. white or black women. Then a complete breakdown on who owns the news media — number of women who own major media outlets vs. men. When we get the numbers, we will really know why people think what they think.

Is black civil rights viciously attacked in the media the way feminism is? Just go to christian talk radio, and you’ll hear white male conservative christians say they think racism is awful, but never once will you hear them say sexism is sinful or awful. Hmmm. Now why is this?

I think it is because male supremacy still is out there, and nobody wants to really admit it or reveal the data that would reveal just how truly biased the mainstream media really is. I know I have to go to feminist blogs to get a lot of news that isn’t reported. For example, when was Mitt Romney ever asked about how the Mormon church treated feminists? When were the woman hating patriarchal attitudes of this church ever brought up to Romney. Had feminists been calling the news shots now and then, you would have heard these types of questions.

Remember it’s about the date. Total hours of women, total hours of male civil rights denegrations compared to total media hours of attacks on women’s rights. When we get to the statistics, we’ll know what young people have really been exposed to, and we’ll have more idea of just how manipulated we all are about the so-called fair male centered media. Before the right wing men out there go on the attack, just deal with the data! In numbers there is truth.

Really, the bottom line is how frequently race and gender are pitted against each other, and how the rights of men of all colors actually do matter more than the rights of women of all colors.

How many documentaries are put on T.V. that describe the courage of the feminist movement? How often do we see the speeches of Audre Lorde on T.V. compared to the speeches of black male civil rights leaders? When was the last time Mary Daly’s lectures or speeches ever appeared on CNN? When was the last time the 50th anniversary of Playboy celebrations on CNN was countered by a feminist view of that woman degrading magazine? Hmmm.

The truth is, the establishment civil rights organizations were very much male dominated at the top.

If you compare Michele Obama to Hillary Clinton, you’ll kind of get what this is all about.

Young people are not exposed to the history of feminism to the degree that they are the history of black male political agency. It simply comes down to the fact that men are very afraid of feminism, because it comes into your own home. As long as men have their wives AT HOME with the kids, we really won’t have much social change at all.

Men everywhere fear this, and I think the people who are contributing record amounts of money to Obama really know this. I call it stealth patriarchy. 5000 years of male supremacy, and we should all know how clever this sytem can be. I have a dream… yeah, right.

You know, it strikes me that it must be nice to have a built in squelch for any criticism that might be leveled at one. If you are against Clinton, you’re sexist. Against Obama, and you’re a racist.

Well, I am against Obama because he is far too vague for me. He has an enormous cult of personality, he’s long on high-sounding rhetoric, but what few specifics he proffers are cut and paste from the tax-and-spend handbook. It didn’t work before, it is not going to work if you continue to just throw money at something.

Clinton and McCain? Two peas from the same pod. Both hungry for the power of the office. I trust neither.

Huckabee? You must be kidding. He’s the poster child for “Right-Wing Liberal.” I object to a nanny state no matter who runs it.

Ron Paul? Good goals. Short on realistic plans to get there. He somehow fails to comprehend that he has to first get both houses of congress to go along with him, and even then, the lawsuits that would follow if some of his plans were implemented boggles the mind. To say that he far overestimates the power of the office is the least of the criticisms that can be leveled against him (As opposed to McCain and Clinton - Tweedledum and Tweedledummer - who are far too aware of it for my comfort.)

Put me in a booth and threaten to shoot my firstborn (Because I doubt shooting me would be sufficient motivation), though, and I would probably have to pick Clinton - not because I particularly agree with her policies and views - I do NOT - but because I believe she is such a polarizing figure that at least one of the houses of congress (Hopefully the Senate) would swing the other way and we would have four years of gridlock. (You think Hugo’s Newfound Republicanism is cynical? Heh. Raise ya, Doc.)

Since I am not going to be shot at the polls - despite hysterics from both sides, count on me submitting my quatre-annual (It’s a word NOW) protest vote for the libertarian candidate who can’t win, because the Libertarian party couldn’t auction off hundred dollar bills with the bids starting at five bucks.

Everybody’s a little unique. I spent two summers in Mississippi in the Sixties in civil rights/education.
I was also an Infantry officer.
I spent the weekend with a friend who is a fanatical spelunker, and leads Scouts both into caves and at Philmont.

Everybody’s a little unique. That said, community organizing on the Alinksy model consists in convincing the locals that they are, 1, helpless, 2, held down by The Man, and 3, have to do what the organizer says. Not a message which impresses me.

His “boots on the ground” work as a community organizer makes him a little unique.

Hugo, I already feel old-mostly from arthritis-but those comments make me feel hopeful. Gender is your whole profession, so I don’t think you are objective. Obama is more of an age that younger people might look to for a mentor who isn’t as old as their parents. At least that makes sense to me-I’m old, so what do I know?