Comments on: A Step Back For Feminism

National Review: Supporting Hillary Clinton Because Of Her Gender Does Women No Good

[shanartisan]

Just want to clarify - I'm talking to those posters who *are* liberals and are using personal insults not to explain why they would vote for H, but to Bush-bash. Also - laughing at a person's post is spammish and adds nothing to any discussion. There is no reason in ridicule. That tells me you don't actually *have* a position; you don't act, but react.

Have any of you wondered how easy you are to manipulate? Your political activity consists of nothing more than reflex. If a particular party leadership wanted you to move in a certain way, they would only need to let you hear something you would react to and they would get the desired result. If you can't use reason to take a particular position, examine the alternatives to what you believe and then choose, you are political cannon fodder.

[jimmyc1955]

NativeWoman - thats why I am asking why people are voting for Hillary. So far there is nobody who can articulate a reason to justify their conviction in her ability to lead the nation.

What I am finding out is that to question Hillary's capabilities is to draw down the irrational fire of all those who seem to believe that if your not amoung the worshipers - your the enemy to be dispised and ridiculed.

This supports my theory - Hillary is a front runner due to her celebrity status.

[nativewoman]

I haven't actually seen or read anywhere of women actually saying they would support Hillary because she is a woman. Is that happening a lot?

Posted by MyOpinion1 at 01:57 PM : Feb 08, 2007

How wonderful for you that you are in a "proper" marriage and raising your children.

No need to sneer at those whose lives aren't as "perfect" as yours.

Many women have to work whether they are in a "proper" marriage or single. Not particularly to finance the big-screen tv but just to put food on the table.

Life is difficult enough for most people. Can't we support each other in our endeavors without resorting to the "adult" equivalent of "nonnie, nonnie, nonnie I'm better than you"?

[shanartisan]

Wow...the liberal vitriol is stunning.

I have seen exactly two comments that have a reason for voting for Hillary. The rest are 1) insults aimed at other site users, 2) criticism of the way other site users think, 3) criticism of our current president (disguised as support for Hillary), or 4) spam.

For those who actually answered the question posed - why you would vote for Hillary Clinton - I respect your opinion and hope to see you at the ballot box on election day. For the rest of you, I have this: If I came to this comment board as a brand new naturalized citizen, knowing nothing of our political parties and looking for information, you (as liberals) would have provided me absolutely nothing. In fact, you would have driven me toward the Republicans, simply because you have no reason in the arguments you make and the rage you spew is sickening. The unfounded claims and character assumptions made in your posts are laughable. Prove one thing you said - and then one of you go try to be the governor of Texas.

[jimmyc1955]

The point I am trying to make is that people don't vote based on reasoned positions - but on emotional reactions that don't lend themselves to good judgment.

W won the first election because Bill's 2 terms were constant turmoil - primarily due to an unjust persecution from his inability to keep it in his pants.

W's dad was remembered as a decent man and he had a very mild track record of success in Texas. He also won because Al Gore was a stiff and didn't know how to run a campaign (please no election stealing complaints here.)

He won his second election primarily due to the even bigger stiff John Kerry's ineptitude (don't believe me - ask Terry McAuliff - DNC chairman and ardent Kerry hater) who would have lost that election to Richard Nixon.

W was never a good choice - be he was selected - the second time by a popular majority remember - for emotional reasons. I am simply asking people to quit defending emotions and state reasons. Nobody seems to want to do that - or capable of it.

[jimmyc1955]

mmarcodele and others:
The questions are about Hillary %u2013 why discuss Bush?

Bill, Regan and, FDR TR and Woodrow Wilson were all governors. There is a great deal of value in the understanding and experience created by operating very large bureaucracies that are highly valued experience as chief executive.

Bush as a figurehead can be said of any senator or congressman. A Senator has people who do his research, write his position papers and speeches, craft the legislation and work behind the scenes. That is what leaders do. So claiming that being a Governor of a state as large as California, Texas or New York is no better qualification that being a Senator - I will respectfully disagree - and I think US history bears that out.

Ignore Bush and tell me what you believe qualifies Hillary. Your supporting her - tell me why??

[dallison7]

If you even bothered to read the article, which obviously you didn't, they didn't get a "C" in the class, they received a "C" on just ONE paper, since they didn't conform to the exact 'religion' of Feminism. Non-conformists never get the A. Did the entire article just escape you?
Posted by MyOpinion1


HAHAHA

[bm6005]

And how does squandering the investments of wealthy family friends qualify one to be president? And how does walking away with hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally gotten through insider qualify one to be a credible truth-teller?
down-ndirty

Didn't you answer your own question? Sounds like his presidential term to me!!

[marcodele]

Jimmyc:

Rose law firm may be in a small town but they have an international practice, and at the time for a woman to make partner was quite an accomplishment: MUCH MORE than Bush was accomplishing in those days. Bush couldn't even get into a law school - he was rejected by UT Austin.

Senators do more than comment. Admit that at least. They write legislation and work in committees and compromise and use diplomacy and debate and research, among other things.

And if your claim that governors make better presidents is based on Junior, you proved my point.

I'm not a Hillary cheerleader and would probably not vote for her, but I find it interesting that you claim she has no accomplishments considering
the flimsy resume we now have leading the country.

Since you made that claim, it is only fair to compare her to others in the White House, as well as those running for president.

I'm not sure what qualifies Rudy Guiliani to run for president, let alone be called a "hero" of 9/11. Until then, his main accomplishment was lobbying to get his mistress in the mansion despite the fact he wasn't yet divorced.

Hillary is qualified, so is Obama, so is Guiliani, and technically, so was Bush. And I suppose if they could find a pulse anywhere in John McCain, he'd be qualified too.

[down-ndirty]

"Her law partner experience was for a very small law firm in Little Rock (a tiny town mind you I have been there. My county capitol is bigger than Little Rock) and two term junior senator from NY whose accomplishments have been . . . ." Posted by jimmyc1955

Just how big is Midland, Texas? And how does squandering the investments of wealthy family friends qualify one to be president? And how does walking away with hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally gotten through insider qualify one to be a credible truth-teller?

Hillary wouldn't be my first choice for the (D) nominee, but Bush's record pales in comparison.