Please vote for Hilary Clinton! If we don't, who will? She is like so many women who work so hard, so much harder than the men who just coast on ahead of her with ease. We have to stand up together for women NOW. If not Hilary, then who (This line I'm lifting from another blogger)? Obama is great. He'll be even greater in 4, 8, hell, 16 years. We democrats finally have these phenomenal, brilliant candidates. Why shouldn't we have both? First Hilary (for obvious age reasons), then Obama. If we do it this way, the Republicans have no chance for quite a while. Watching the debate last night really solidified this for me. They are both so much better than any other candidate we've seen in a long time and will probably ever see. Come on! Let's rejoice, take advantage of the talent in front of us, not waste any of it, and not fight amongst ourselves. Vote Hilary 2008, Obama 2016!

P.S.

The things that we have been fighting about have been inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, things that we won't even remember a few months from now. Haven't we all had those heated fights with our boyfriend/girlfriend, with tears and all, and then realized how stupid the fight was, over nothing? We haven't been fighting about the need to boost the economy, stem cell research, comprehensive immigration reform, universal healthcare, tax cuts, etc. This is the real substance of what needs fixing. GW didn't screw us over because of the way he talks or walks. He screwed us over by going to war with Iraq, by giving tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, by prohibiting stem cell research and cutting funding on science in general, and on and on. Here we've been fighting about stylistic, personality differences.

Sure, HC and BO are very different individuals. They are both exceptional in their own way. AND that are more than competent in the area that the other is better at. HC is an ideas person, innovative and thorough thinker, problem solver. BO is charismatic, an orator, inspirer, connector to the American people. Both are great assests for a president. I personally find it exciting to have someone who is passionate about the policies and programs that make the the world go around. But I understand why others prefer the inspiration. The fact remains, this difference is not the difference between GW and Gore!

The last thing is, there are some serious misogynists out there. A lot, definitely not all, of the preference for BO is surrounding stereotypes about women - shrill, bee-atch, caluculating, not-to-be-trusted. (Incidentally, similar stereotypes about Asians and Jews at different times). If a man did the same exactly thing HC did, he would be forceful, tough, competent, smart, etc. Now this, is not trivial to fight!

Bless your heart, Circus Wors. I agree with most of what you said, but I think Clinton's campaign is all for naught from here on out. Misogyny is in the house, the street, and embedded everywhere, so deeply that many women don't see it.

After listening to a rant from my younger sister (she's 40) about the deeply-ingrained fear of female leaders that the U.S. can't shake, I've finally given up. If my lil' sis, Miss Fight 'n' Optimism, has given up on the hope that someone MIGHT take a woman seriously, then I give up hope, too.

Hard work isn't sexy; attention to detail isn't sexy; neither is nagging and fretting. I just wanted to see the end of "Legally Blonde 2" come true...how lame is that?????

I feel very, very old, and very, very spent.

Hillary and Bill are corrupt. There is a long list of scandals attached to them. Hillary is also too socialist thinking for my liking. I think she is smart and should remain in the Senate. Much like Ted Kennedy used up his chances at the presidency so did Hillary. Time to move on.

I think that Obama has not been corrupted yet and I believe he understands how to achieve health care for all that makes more economic and medical sense.

The Clinton's were the most investigated and inspected by the federal prosecutor Ken Starr in the 1990s. It started with Whitewater and ended, finally, mercifully with the lying deposition. But, one of the reasons we are able to shake our heads and call it silly season is because the Clinton's especially Hillary took the hits in the early 90s and it didn't get much easier even as they both independently proved their ability to recover and lead after stumbling...

Rezko would be just as big in the cable boom craze of the 90s. One of the things that was so great about the 90s was because we did indulge in crap... and then whoosh...

I am not asking to go back, I am asking for the American people to elect a leader that will not allow ask for our thoughts but also lead when each of us want to read a book, watch a game, 'go what the f*@k?' after an episode of 'Lost'?

Im a young starbucks drinking college educated female and I'm voting for Hillary...

Read:

'that will not allow ask for our thought'


Meant:

'that will not only ask for our thoughts...'

I was typing so fast...

I totally agree--I don't understand why so many self-styled Democrats have bought into this Republican talking point about Hillary Clinton and scandal, but I find all the blatant misogyny really depressing. I really have nothing against Obama, EXCEPT his impatience and sense of entitlement.

I don't believe you are fully apprised of the Clinton's corruption possibly because of your youth. They may not have been indicted for the majority of what they did but the allegations of their behavior are factual. Their behavior is in fact corrupt. You can deny it but it is nonetheless true and seems to be their basic nature, so it won't change should she win the office.

I question her judgment. She continued to insist that Barack was plagiarizing someone in his speeches. That someone is not only a close friend, it is someone within his campaign. Hillary is either unable to tell what true plagiarism is or was unable AGAIN to say that she was wrong as evidenced by her comments at the Austin debate.

She has at least two problems. Corruption and unable to discern the truth or unable to admit being wrong. These traits are not needed in another president.

I believe your statement is just a softly worded bigoted statement against blacks. If you are black it may be even worse than that.

I am a woman, I have worked in male dominated fields for quite some time. I was the 8th female enlisted sailor onboard my 2nd ship, an Aegis cruiser, after combatant ships were opened to women. I proudly served in a leadership position while there and on my 3rd ship, again another Aegis cruiser.

I am also old enough to remember both Clinton administrations. I appreciate many of the things Bill did to improve living conditions for military members and their families. I benefited from the boom in the economy. I even supported Hillary's health care bill. And I cringed when asked by my President and CIC what the definition of "is" is.

That said, I'm going to vote for Obama. Not because he's black. Not because Hillary's a woman. I'm voting for Obama because I believe we need a fundamental change in direction for this country.

How can someone claim to be able to change the way things are when they've been part of the ruling establishment for over 20 years? We've had nothing but Clinton's and Bushes in the White house longer than some voters have been alive!

Yes, maybe after serving my country for 12 years, guarding our nation on 9/11 and seeing 1st hand what the war on terror has done to my liberties has left me naive enough to vote for hope. But I am not naive enough to vote for someone simply because she's the same gender as I am.

Circus Wors:

... First Hilary (for obvious age reasons), then Obama. If we do it this way, the Republicans have no chance for quite a while....

That is the (fatal) error in your calculations: There's much reason to think that Hillary would not beat McCain.

The idea of keeping the best candidate in reserve for 4, 8, or 16 years, in favor of the SECOND best candidate, is VERY poor game strategy (and it's you who are making it a gaming strategy).

Oh, and.....if you're going to be such a heartfelt and desperate supporter of your candidate, you might take the time (afterall, she's only been a public figure for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS--she tells us), to learn her name; it's: Hillary.

also patently offensive in this post is the implication that any voter who chooses not to support hillary (for whatever reason) is inherently misogynist. that's absurd and insulting. as an educated woman, I'm supporting the democratic candidate who I believe will do the best job leading our country, regardless of the candidates' gender. to say that women have an obligation to support hillary because she's a woman is no different (or any less offensive and derogatory) than right-wing evangelicals saying any christian has an obligation to support huckabee. any real feminist ought to be ashamed of the base play for gender preference.

Nice post there Hettie.

jg

Ellementa wrote:

"I really have nothing against Obama, EXCEPT his impatience and sense of entitlement."

Why is Obama considered impatient and thought to have a sense of entitlement by running against HRC? If Biden or Dodd asked HRC to wait her turn--how would women respond?

HRC supporters who feel that Obama should wait his turn while HRC lives out her presidential dreams, make a pretty good case for HRC being impatient and entitled.