Feminist Says Hillary Clinton Plays the Victim

[kat8585]

that's assuming a lot. we're not even through the primaries yet. there are a LOT of people who DON'T want the clintons back in office. she may be the front runner for their party while the republicans are still scrambling to choose between the candidates, but this race is far from over.

besides, if you'll recall, i remember everyone being so sure about howard dean a few years back. he was a front runner that everyone thought was a surefire thing, and look what happened to him.

Howard who?

I believe that most Americans are fed up with the Republican party in general and want a change. (I myself, and my family, are Republicans.)

IMO, I also believe that people really like novelty. The Clinton name, and the fact she would be the first woman President is hard to resist for many Americans.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think a Democrat is going to be the next President. Be it Hillary or Obama. And I think Obama won't get it because of his lack of experience.

Also, the choice of Republican candidates is pretty horrid.

All we can do is pray hard, and pray for at least a Republican congress for as long as she's in office, should the worst happen.

[AnExample]

Feminist says Hillary Clinton plays the 'victim'

Kate Michelman, advisor to the Edwards campaign, says the sole woman Democrat hopeful raises 'white flag' when pressed.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A prominent feminist, allied with the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards, accused Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday of "disingenuously playing the victim card" by infusing her campaign with messages about gender.

"When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her political elevation into the 'boys club,' " Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in a posting on a blog of the liberal group Open Left.

"But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules," Michelman said. "It's trying to have it both ways."

The missive by Michelman, a senior advisor to the Edwards campaign, was the latest salvo in a week in which gender flared as an issue in the Democratic presidential contest. Her cutting comments were publicized by the Edwards campaign in a press release.

The issue erupted after the Clinton campaign complained that male Democratic rivals at Tuesday night's presidential debate in Philadelphia had subjected her to a "pile-on."

At the debate, Clinton appeared to give nonspecific answers on several topics, such as on whether she supported the controversial plan of New York's Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Democratic rivals seized the moment as an opportunity to portray Clinton as a calculating candidate with chameleon-like views.

Clinton's campaign subsequently posted a video on her website called "The Politics of Pile-On" that showed clips of the men at the debate uttering her name in rapid-fire succession.

On Thursday, she gave a speech at her alma mater, Wellesley College, in which she spoke about her effort to break into "the all-boys club of presidential politics."

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a top rival to Clinton in the Democratic race, said of the New York senator Friday that when "people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says, 'Don't pick on me.' "

Michelman reacted similarly.

"At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions," Michelman wrote of Clinton.

"It is not presidential," Michelman said, adding that women "know better than to use our gender as a shield when the questions get too hot."

Phil Singer, spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Saturday that Edwards, who represented North Carolina, and the other candidates were fabricating an issue out of desperation.

"The other candidates aren't going after Sen. Clinton because she's a woman, they're going after her because she's leading in the polls," Singer said. "Voters will make a decision about whether John Edwards' pledges to be positive" were anything more than just a political tactic.

Politicians have been side-stepping or lying about issues since the beginning of time. It didn't just begin with Hiliary Clinton and it won't stop with her. I believe that there are no concrete answers to solving the woes of this country and world...at least nothing that she or any other candidate has the power to do. God has all the answers and until we as a people realize who is the grantor of power and authority...then submits to it, they will never be able to impact this country in a positive long-term way. Unitl self is removed and a willingness to follow and hear from God reigns in the life of the leader/believer.

[Guest LadyC]

kari, i'm not so sure that the novelty of a woman in office is enough to get hillary elected. you say people are ready for a change. i agree, people are. they don't want a repeat of the last eight years, but most people haven't yet forgotten the previous eight years before bush, either. a novelty would be having neither a bush nor a clinton in office.

[forrestkc]

kari, i'm not so sure that the novelty of a woman in office is enough to get hillary elected. you say people are ready for a change. i agree, people are. they don't want a repeat of the last eight years, but most people haven't yet forgotten the previous eight years before bush, either. a novelty would be having neither a bush nor a clinton in office.

Previous 8 years before Bush, meaning the Clinton years = Quite literally the Greatest Period of Peace and Prosperity in American History. Yeah, people have not forgot that. That is why Clinton left office as the most popular president since FDR.

[forrestkc]

All we can do is pray hard, and pray for at least a Republican congress for as long as she's in office, should the worst happen.

People get way too worked up over national politics. I bet your life won't be one bit different no matter which party should win next year.

Politics at the state and local level make a lot more of a difference in our lives than national politics.

[kari21]

Quite literally the Greatest Period of Peace and Prosperity in American History

I believe the most prosperous period was under Eisenhower.

[forrestkc]

Quite literally the Greatest Period of Peace and Prosperity in American History

I believe the most prosperous period was under Eisenhower.

Actually economic growth was greatest under Johnson. But both during Johnson's and Eisenhower's administration we were either in a war or on the way out.

[JustinM]

kari, i'm not so sure that the novelty of a woman in office is enough to get hillary elected. you say people are ready for a change. i agree, people are. they don't want a repeat of the last eight years, but most people haven't yet forgotten the previous eight years before bush, either. a novelty would be having neither a bush nor a clinton in office.

Previous 8 years before Bush, meaning the Clinton years = Quite literally the Greatest Period of Peace and Prosperity in American History. Yeah, people have not forgot that. That is why Clinton left office as the most popular president since FDR.

8 years of ignoring terrorism in the middle east isn't peace, it's appeasement, denial, passivism, a far cry from peace. But, I suppose some people believe that if you ignore a problem long enough, it will go away. It did for Clinton, unfortunately it was right there waiting for the next president.

Your words are inaccurate, it was far from peaceful, we were in Kosovo and Somalia and air raided Afghanistan, how soon people forget.

I seem to remember that the Reagan years were much more peaceful than the Clinton years. Yeah, we built up our military forces, but they weren't used. It did bring an end to the cold war, I don't think there has ever been a stronger message of peace prior to that, except maybe the Treaty signed at the end of WWII.

You can continue to worship Reverend Bill Clinton if you want to, but he is not running for President and his wife is despised or untrusted by half the country. I doubt she will be able to sway any of those opinions to her favor.

But, I can see why Bill Clinton supporters would want Hillary to win, they believe that they will get another 8 years of a Bill Clinton Presidency, by finding a loophole around the U.S. Constitution's term limits.

I think, which this may never happen, but I think it would be best for our Constitution to be Amended so that a President and his/her spouse should be limited to 2 term limits combined. The U.S. isn't a monarchy you know, it's a democratic republic.

A marriage isn't about 2 people living together, it's about them becoming 1 person, that's how close their bond to each other is intended to be.

I am sure that Bill and Hillary made many Executive decisions together during his presidency.

[Guest LadyC]

thank you justin, for a post full of wisdom. due to my ignore button, i'd have never seen, nor commented on, the rebuttal that you responded to. but i'd like to add to your response... the prosperity was a dot com bubble that burst.

[forrestkc]

kari, i'm not so sure that the novelty of a woman in office is enough to get hillary elected. you say people are ready for a change. i agree, people are. they don't want a repeat of the last eight years, but most people haven't yet forgotten the previous eight years before bush, either. a novelty would be having neither a bush nor a clinton in office.

Previous 8 years before Bush, meaning the Clinton years = Quite literally the Greatest Period of Peace and Prosperity in American History. Yeah, people have not forgot that. That is why Clinton left office as the most popular president since FDR.

8 years of ignoring terrorism in the middle east isn't peace, it's appeasement, denial, passivism, a far cry from peace. But, I suppose some people believe that if you ignore a problem long enough, it will go away. It did for Clinton, unfortunately it was right there waiting for the next president.

Your words are inaccurate, it was far from peaceful, we were in Kosovo and Somalia and air raided Afghanistan, how soon people forget.

I seem to remember that the Reagan years were much more peaceful than the Clinton years. Yeah, we built up our military forces, but they weren't used. It did bring an end to the cold war, I don't think there has ever been a stronger message of peace prior to that, except maybe the Treaty signed at the end of WWII.

You can continue to worship Reverend Bill Clinton if you want to, but he is not running for President and his wife is despised or untrusted by half the country. I doubt she will be able to sway any of those opinions to her favor.

But, I can see why Bill Clinton supporters would want Hillary to win, they believe that they will get another 8 years of a Bill Clinton Presidency, by finding a loophole around the U.S. Constitution's term limits.

I think, which this may never happen, but I think it would be best for our Constitution to be Amended so that a President and his/her spouse should be limited to 2 term limits combined. The U.S. isn't a monarchy you know, it's a democratic republic.

A marriage isn't about 2 people living together, it's about them becoming 1 person, that's how close their bond to each other is intended to be.

I am sure that Bill and Hillary made many Executive decisions together during his presidency.

Luckily only about 25% of the American people agree with you. The Reagan years with the cold war were hardly peaceful. As to terrorism, terrorism incidents worldwide are higher today than they were in the Clinton years, and I think that most people would agree that Bush completely ignored terrorism until 9/11. As to Somalia, that started under Bush Sr. In Kosovo, not a single American was killed.

You may hate Clinton, but 70% of the American people like him a lot. As to Hillary, you may as well get used to it, because I would lay money on a Democrat winning the White house next year by a solid margin. Those identifying themselves as Democrats are now at 50% compared with 35% of Americans identifying themselves as Republican. They pendulum has swung the other way.

During the Clinton years median income went up every single year, the poverty rate went down every single year, we were at full employment, and by every statistical measure we were doing better than we are even today. In fact, median income is lower today adjusted for inflation than it was the day Clinton left office. Conservatism in its present form is an abysmal failure and until the Republican Party returns to a more Eisenhower style conservatism, they better get used to losing.