by stormbear, Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:22:12 AM EST
by notableabsence, Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:32:43 AM EST
There is a bit of a dust up both here and on other sites about women voting for Clinton because she's a woman, rather than based on the substantive platform that she has created. Let me tell you about my progression to support Clinton, and why I believe she will act in our best interests to make that platform enacted policy as our president.
I was an Edward's supporter, and as most of you know, he suspended his campaign just before Super Tuesday. I was bitter. He was my first and best choice and after his campaign ended I had little time to decide on a new candidate. I could've still voted for Edwards, but I firmly felt that my country required a decision, not an empty statement. I was leaning toward Obama, because JRE seemed to think he represented change in the debates when they (and I do mean they) faced off against Clinton.
by Drummond, Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
by Joannems, Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
In understanding the election, it's important to consider the role the president plays in directing our emotions. How will the president be perceived by the people, the heart of the country? How will the president be perceived abroad?
While economists can provide figures, directing the president's decision-making process, the president's role is really to negotiate power and emotion.
How will a woman president be perceived? Considering Clinton's past with her husband as a strong woman who stood by him even when he had an affair, a fact which the whole country knows, will the people see her as stable, able to forgive? Probably.
How will the country see Obama, who has stood up for the poor and cares for the individual? Certainly Obama's intentions have had less press. And who knows how many people have read his book? On a recent afternoon at my local library in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in San Francisco, two copies of his book, The Audacity of Hope, were still on the shelf. However intellectuals choose to judge him, for the people he still represents an image of hope. In the context of 9/11, he also represents to the world open-mindedness, that we Americans would embrace the "other."
The real question is, how will the people feel? Yes, a woman will make women in America feel empowered. A magazine article I read recently was giving direction about the color coat she should wear for MLK's birthday service, a regal plum. Ironic? Is she supposed to look like a queen? It is not always empowering to be told what to do, unless it is good advice. She represents a vision that women are equal, level headed, and able to raise beautiful and strong children.
But let us not highlight difference. Let us really examine their intentions, their character, and the possibility their being evokes. Even as a woman, I am inspired by Obama's story, his background, and his vision. And because of that, I feel empowered.
by bowiegeek, Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:52:36 PM EST
Rather than starting off with the tired meme of Change vs. Experience as though change can be had without experience making change, why don't we look at Hillary Clinton's experience. The Republicans running seem to be of the opinion that she hasn't any experience, supposedly having never run anything in her life. But then why was the GOP aghast at her in 1992 when she became the first First Lady with a post-graduate degree and a career of her own? Actually, they had known of her from before as a lawyer who had fought against Ronald Reagan's so-called reforms. Hillary Rodham, as the head of the Legal Services Corporation (being appointed by President Carter), led the fight against Ronald Reagan's conservative judicial appointments refusing to meet with them and pressuring Democratic lawmakers to block their confirmation. She had also caused a stir when she filed a successful restraining order against the Reagan Administration for its attempts to squash the LSC from the federal budget.