« Monday Random Flickr Blogging | Main | Junk Mail Equals Paper Spam »

A Thought on HRC

A few people have emailed me to say that they are surprised that I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President because she represents the establishment.

Well, here is just one reason and response (others are forthcoming):

The people with the penises have been in charge for a really long time now and I just look at where we are in the World. America is not the shining city on the hill as it once was considered. So, I think that we need try my gender for a change.

Ask yourself, how would 911 been handled? Would we even be in Iraq? How would Katrina been handled?

Posted by Catherine on March 10, 2008
in Current Affairs, Iraq, Katrina, Politics, Women | Permalink| Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Thought on HRC:


I agree and it's not like any of the other choices are not part of the establishment. It's the rare politician who isn't.

Posted by: Ann | Mar 11, 2008 6:21:48 AM

True, my friend.

Posted by: catherine | Mar 11, 2008 10:08:48 AM

With all due respect, Catherine, I disagree as this applies to HRC.

>Ask yourself, how would 911 been handled?

Hopefully with the same destruction of the Taliban. I think HRC would have managed this the same way.

> Would we even be in Iraq?

Undoubtedly. HRC was one of the most prominent Dems pushing for the removal of Saddam.

> How would Katrina been handled?

Probably better. The failure of the Katrina response was more due to Bush's abdication of attention to the functioning of the government, than it was his genitalia.

You seem to be choosing HRC over Obama because you think, as a woman, she'd be less likely to approach our problems militarily. But she'd feel more pressure than anyone to be hawkish as president, and Obama's "let's talk to our enemies" campaign is in essence an anti-war campaign.

Posted by: seamus | Mar 11, 2008 4:22:39 PM

No, I think that the men have been in charge and have done a shitty job. Funny, Seamus, I didn't mention Obama once -- you are reading into things.

Posted by: catherine | Mar 11, 2008 5:44:59 PM

I had said for a long time that if Hillary got the nomination, I would hold my nose and vote for her. Now I'm extremely doubtful that I would (though the math is against her getting the nomination anyway). Her repeated claim that she and McCain are qualified to be CinC, but Obama isn't, has turned me off quite a bit. She is hurting her own party, and handing an issue that works against both Obama and her to the Republicans. The 3am ad didn't sit well with me. The vote to authorize the debacle in Iraqle and her support of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran bill put her squarely on the wrong side of my views about using military force (and on the wrong side of history, IMHO). Her claim of having helped to engineer peace in N. Ireland -- contradicted quite rudely by one of the real negotiators of that decision -- combined with her story of flying into Bosnia on some kind of dangerous peacekeeping mission when it turns out she went in with a USO tour that included Sheryl Crow and Sinbad put the lie to her supposed foreign policy experience. And her supporters -- like Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and Geraldine Ferraro, for instance -- are not winning any hearts and minds with their comments. I'm sorry, but I would have to think long and hard about voting for her now... and I probably would end up choosing someone else, whether that person has a penis or not. Testicles are not a prerequisite for running the country; intelligence and courage and judiciousness are. The more I hear from her, with her scare tactics and hawkish record and inflated claims of experience, the less I think she has those qualities.

Posted by: Generik | Mar 12, 2008 4:54:45 PM

At least Hillary has a track record and attempted to mak change happen unlike others. Also, she has a vote record unlike others.

You will notice Ferraro resigned. I haven't heard Michelle Obama or any of his supporters apologize for their comments.

It is interesting that I did not mention any names in this post whatsoever, but people with Obama blinders on have taken it to mean him when I mean all men.

Posted by: catherine | Mar 12, 2008 9:58:50 PM

Well, how can you post about your support for HRC in the Democratic primary, without implying that you are choosing her over someone else? Those are our choices.

If you're really choosing a president solely on gender, I think you're making a mistake. Hillary is both more naturally hawkish and more pressured to be hawkish than (other candidate you did not mention).

Posted by: seamus | Mar 12, 2008 10:54:50 PM

Neither Clinton nor Obama would be my first or second choices, and as a Green Party member, I do not have to make a choice at all. However, I am voting for Clinton's lifelong record of a. getting things done, and b. helping people who really need help. Yes, there are things about her that bother me a lot--so much I considered not supporting her at all--but I always said that if a qualified liberal woman ran, I would support her, and Clinton is that woman.

I have no conflict regarding whether to vote for Obama, whom I do not trust. Obama has been given a pass by the media, which is not his fault, but I consider him a manufactured product, probably manufactured, in fact, by the very "machine" that is supposedly pushing Clinton's candidacy. The joke is on her, but I'm sure she knows it.

One of the things that finally did it for me is this: Can you imagine, if the vile "jokes" and obscene things said about Clinton's gender had been said about Obama's race? Heads would have rolled, and Clinton would have HAD to call for it to cease immediately. I'm still waiting for Obama (and Howard Dean, for that matter) to call for the misogyny to stop. Exploiting misogyny to win an election, if you are a "progressive" candidate, does not get my vote, regardless of the opposition.

Posted by: Diane | Mar 13, 2008 2:06:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.