Other non-political points: 1) She's still thought of as a famous wife of a famous man, even though she's pretty qualified in her own right. 2) She's thought of as an accomplished woman first, not an accomplished person. (And again, some people think her accomplishments come from marrying well.)

Both of those things piss me off, independently of what you mentioned, muddgirl.

I have tremendous respect for her.

I've been trying to think of what kind of public role she would be great in if she doesn't get the nomination to run and/or doesn't win the general election. For a while I thought: Attorney General. But I also think she could do something significant in international leadership. I keep pondering this. What would she do if the Presidency were no longer her goal?

The other great thing is that as I've weighed her merits as a candidate, it's only every now and then that I realize I'm considering a woman for the role of President. Something that was a pipe dream when I was a little girl - I remember discussing it, "you think a woman could ever be President?". Now, the only question in my mind is "Would she be the right person for President?"

Still, so few women are in public life. So few in the Senate. So few in the pipeline. She is notable for the relative rarity of people like her, if nothing else. I hope that'll improve, and soon.

There was a local community meeting among the local "progressives" and feminists about what to do about Hillary.

People were tying themselves into knots because her agenda is pretty moderate, and she does not pass muster as "progressive."

A lot of women at this gathering seemed to be looking for permission to not support her.

As far as governing, and 'being' president, I don't know of anyone who could come close to her qualifications. But she seems to draw the slings and arrows of just about everyone.

Is Metachat going to get a lot of presidential politics spillover (since it's sort of a taboo subject over at SnarkWorld)?

You guys are free to talk about the Parliamentary elections, and whether Disraeli or whoever the hell is in charge over there will get back in.

*laughs* I was just curious. I'm not really planning on starting too many Gordon Brown threads.

Oh, the bad-boy chef? I love his show about the dirty restaurants!

/jk chuckdarwin. Couldn't resist.

Yeah, that guy.

Heh. WA already has 2 women in the senate and one as governor. A Hillary/Pelosi combo in the federal front, and we'll be the fucking Matriarchy.

Just like MeCha *runs*

I think Obama will get the Democratic nomination (and win the presidency), but I'm not counting Clinton out yet.

I think she's the toughest of the top three Democratic candidates and could counterpunch effectively enough to win the election. I admire her accomplishments and I think she's done a great deal for advancing the likelihood of a woman becoming president, since she spent most of 2007 as the front-running Democrat and (for many people) presumptive next president. I think she's learned from the last two elections that you only need ~50% of the vote to win. (It'd be better if the election were less divisive and more decisive, but she's tough and could win a close one.)

I don't know of anyone who could come close to her qualifications

I think Bill Richardson has the best qualifications of any of the candidates for either party. Regrettably, it's a popularity contest and, although nice, he's boring. I think he would make an excellent secretary of state.

A lot of women at this gathering seemed to be looking for permission to not support her.

I know exactly what you mean. You know, I don't even really agree with some of her policies, but at least I know what her policies are. It seems like a lot of people just listen to what the pundits say about her. (OK, this is true about all the candidates).

Sorry chuckie - I follow politics like I follow sports, music, or Project Runway, except that the winner of the Superbowl doesn't have much of an effect on domestic and international policies.

Sorry chuckie - I follow politics like I follow sports, music, or Project Runway, except that the winner of the Superbowl doesn't have much of an effect on domestic and international policies.

I only follow the finals of any sport (I like to see people like they aren't afraid of getting hurt, and one only usually gets that when it's a final... I don't have time for a whole season of any sport, really).

Music is very, very, very subjective... and I don't 'follow' it in the traditional sense of that word. It's more like what I am rather what I'm interested in (if that makes sense). Take last night, for instance. The set we did will live with me forever (we met an amazing fiddle player and she really blew my wheels off). I'll think about it on my deathbed.

Project Runway is stacked with ringers these days, and the producers bug me. Plus, the editing is misleading and the inevitable 'Springer' episode near the end really cheapens the whole thing.

My opinions about American politics will probably only upset people, so I'm going to try and keep them to myself as taz asked. I've kind of given up on America... and I don't mean that in a unkind way (I just can't get all invested in them again; 2004 was a real heartbreaker).

I wasn't trying to shit on this thread... I was just trying to gauge what's going to happen here over the next few months... and whether this was going to become The Default Snarkofilter Political War Zone. It won't bother me (I really do know my way around a political argument); I just want to prepare myself for it. Or fuck off well in advance (if it turns out that this place is a lot more Republican-based than I thought).

chuck, there's about 1 1/2 republicans in this place and even if there's 50, we try not to let that get in the way of general decency to eachother, dig?

chuck, there's about 1 1/2 republicans in this place and even if there's 50, we try not to let that get in the way of general decency to eachother, dig?

The Audacity of Hope, indeed :-)

The Audacity of Hope, indeed :-)

we have a fairly prominent member who is a born-again Christian who's politics are significantly to the right of a lot of ours, but she's also one of the most decent people I know here. She's helped me (and others) understand certain things better AND MAYBE WE'VE DONE THE SAME FOR HER. cALL ME DEWY-EYED NAIF BNUT THAT'S BETTER THAN THE USUAL US VS. THEM SHIT.

woops. sorry about the caps. keyboard has been drinking.

My opinions about American politics will probably only upset people, so I'm going to try and keep them to myself as taz asked

Yes, as you've reminded us in every thread. Perhaps you could try NOT reminding us that you're not going to say anything about the topic? Just a thought.

Meanwhile, I love Hillary. Loooooove love. Can't wait to vote for her on primary day! We shall see, we shall see indeed.

Is this going to become snark-filter? I hope not! So far the discussion has been reasonable and level-headed. I don't think anyone here is particularly close-minded or unreasonable. Maybe in the future I'll put [PoliticalJunkieFilter] in front of politics posts so you can ignore them, like I ignore jon's music posts.

Ach, no offense jon, but I mostly browse at work and I can't listen to music there! And the posts are sometimes incomprehensible without downloading songs! But I'm sure they're great!

well, even if you don't download the songs you can take down the filenames and *cough* aquire them through completely legal means and get your mind blown.

Okay, Chuck. I thought you might want to spare yourself more pain, and I thought that you might truly have a blind spot about how you tend to sound with all your "This is Me, hating America, where I don't live anymore in case I didn't mention it" comments, but it seems that, instead, it's some combination of obstinacy/attention-seeking/idée fixe-compulsive behavior, so I won't give you any more personal advice about that.

Instead, I'll just remind you of a couple of things: people can post about whatever they're interested in. You've popped into a few threads to express your disapproval of the topic before, and I told you then to skip those threads and start ones of your own about something you prefer to discuss. If you don't skip the discussion and decide to participate, please stick to the general area of the topic and avoid "I don't care"/"I am not commenting"/"I disapprove of the subject of this post" comments.

Back to Hillary Rodham Clinton's resume. As Miko said, I have a lot of respect for what she has accomplished in her life. I know I can't touch it, but then I have no goals for my life. It's funny though, as a candidate, I don't think of her as a woman, rather I look at her politics. Nor do I think of Barak Obama as black. They're just people as far as I'm concerned. I hope that's how other people look at their candidacies too. Voting for someone because they are black/female or whatever is the wrong reason. I would like to see more women and minorities running for office for the simple reason that it makes the talent pool to choose from so much larger. It's also good to have folks with different experiences adding to the mix of voices in legislation. We really have come a long way since Geraldine Ferraro broke through on the national ticket (and got my vote too!). And to think that just in the 1960 election it was radical that a Catholic ran. I think these are great strides in relatively few years, though they could be greater.

I agree with everything you say, eek.

That's why I understand danf's comment; it was sad for me when I realized I wasn't going to vote for Hillary, because I'd love to vote for a woman, but she's just not my top-choice candidate. But I finally had to go with the qualities I most wanted and she was narrowly edged out. If she were the nominee, I would be confident voting for her in the general, though.

Oh, I think she's very strong on paper. It's her moderate politics and triangulation that have soured me on her. It will be interesting to see if she fights back and gains the nomination -- there's certainly time, and if any organization can recover from a grave Iowa upset, it's hers.

I was thinking today about how the demographics show that older women voted for her in droves, but younger women went for Obama or (second) Edwards. For about 30 years it's sort of been an open secret that women feel the need to shun the prior generation of feminists. They still have feminist attitudes, but they don't want to identify with the particular women or over politics.

It reminds me of when I worked in NYC for this hard-as-nails ad exec. Before I moved there I thought of Leona Helmsley, nobody could be that much of a bitch, but my boss was damned close. (People went through her group like flour through a sifter. Women especially.) I did come to admire her a bit in the end, because she had obviously adopted an approach that worked for her in her era (the 1960s) when there were hardly any role models but cigar-chomping, martini-swilling men. The "women work twice as hard and get half the recognition" era. To me, that's part of Hillary's problem all along.

Perhaps you could try NOT reminding us that you're not going to say anything about the topic?

Oh, I'll be sure not to say anything that might annoy you, TPS.

*rolls eyes*

"This is Me, hating America, where I don't live anymore in case I didn't mention it" comments, but it seems that, instead, it's some combination of obstinacy/attention-seeking/idée fixe-compulsive behavior, so I won't give you any more personal advice about that.

I wasn't going to go there, and I wasn't going to rise to the very stupid and immature remark made to mgl in that other thread.

I was going to say that Clinton would make a shitty president. Happy, now?

She's helped me (and others) understand certain things better AND MAYBE WE'VE DONE THE SAME FOR HER.

It's all good. I'm just saying that I'll be surprised if people from METAFILTER (who don't usually frequent METACHAT) don't start using METACHAT as a political dumping ground (because the mods will probably delete a lot of 'chatfilter' presidential politics posts.

It's not just TPS.

Let me see if I've got this right: you don't like the USA. Yes?

If so, we got it the first 95 times you said it. I know it's difficult to believe, but trust me - message recieved.

And I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I don't think that I'm the only one who doesn't really give a husky fuck what you think, re: America.

Let me see if I've got this right: you don't like the USA. Yes?

If so, we got it the first 95 times you said it. I know it's difficult to believe, but trust me - message recieved.

And I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I don't think that I'm the only one who doesn't really give a husky fuck what you think, re: America.

I think you're missing my point, and that you haven't read anything I've just typed. I was simply trying to decide whether or not there's going to be 100000000000 threads about US presidential politics.

You, like several of the mysterious 'other' people you refer to, made up your mind about me ages ago and nothing I can say will change your mind.

I'm sure that most Americans will always react to me in this way... I just need to get used to it and stop frequenting places on the web that are so US-centric.

Cheers.

I think you're missing my point... nothing I can say will change your mind

Jebus, give me strength.

Yes, most of the members of Metachat are American. I haven't run the numbers, but I feel fairly confident in that assessment. Given that, it's not all that unusual that US politics will crop up during an election year, especially given the disastrous turn the last couple of presidential elections have taken. It's not "spillover", it's concerned people discussing issues that are important to them. Deal with it.

Look, I don't even necessarily disagree with you, as far as the direction US policy has taken. The difference is, I don't feel the need to beat everyone else over the head with it every time I post. Or, really, ever.

Listen to taz. She is a wise, wise woman.

Chuckdarwin asked for me to close his account, so I did. If you ever get a handle on this thing, chuck, you should come back.

Maybe chuck can learn to get his attention fix elsewhere. Or better yet, understand why he needs it in the first place.

/end massive fucking derail

HRC & a female US president: I would love to see it. There are plenty of female leaders in our time with Merkel (Germany), McAleese (Ireland) and Patil (India) among others, including 2 in Africa. Whether they are doing a good job is as debatable as it is with male leaders.

I would love to see [female leadership] here not because "a girl would do a better job" but because we have moved beyond that stereotyping mindset, and that qualifications trump gender. We're just not there as a nation. Which is why we're behind (and getting further behind) technologically, educationally and production-wise worldwide.

Basically, most of the [democratic leaning] US is mentally in a place where they're choosing between a black man and a white woman. In other words, are we more ready for a black over a white president than we are for a female over a male president?

Personally I don't give a shit what party label the government has. I just wish it was smaller, more efficient and more embracing of the rest of the planet, as well as in attendance of cleaning its own house first (NOLA, election reform, healthcare, environment, etc etc etc).

Also on my wish list:
1. stop exporting arms all over the place which propogate the fucking war machine.
2. stop reproducing. almost all the world's problems can be traced back to the fact that there are too many people on this planet.
3. get off the oil as primary energy resource.

/end rant

For about 30 years it's sort of been an open secret that women feel the need to shun the prior generation of feminists. They still have feminist attitudes, but they don't want to identify with the particular women or over politics.

I honestly don't feel that the trend of younger voters toward Obama and Edwards has anything to do with "shunning the prior generation of feminists." For one thing, I think that shunning was a brief social trend which has mostly ended, and I think that open feminism and respect for the achievements of the generation before us is more the standard now. However, we do live in a different world than that of the 60s and 70s (thank God). And I actually see my willingness, and the willingness of other serious feminists, to embrace an Obama or Edwards ticket is an indication of the fact we feel secure enough with female power and achievement to evaluate the candidates on their political strengths and weaknesses, rather than voting for our reflections in mirrors. Most votes (at least in NH) aren't knee-jerking either for or against Hillary or Obama because of race or gender. They're listening and weighing.

I don't think the idea that younger women are rejecting or shunning the ideals or activities of earlier feminists holds any water. Feminism as a movement has always evolved; no two generations expressed it in exactly the same way, because they faced different problems. We've grown up in a world with female bosses, professors, and colleagues, and we understand that they are individuals with their own merits, and that not all women monolithically share our views. We know that women can lead - it's not in question. The question we're thus freed up to ask ourselves is "so who would make the best leader, IMO?"

There's still a big part of me that would like a chance to show the world that America produces formidable female leaders and endorses their leadership with confidence. On the other hand, the condition in the US right now is making me think a lot about factors other than gender.

Great thread.

Perhaps HRC has been tainted, in my mind, by the government of her husband. To me, she's simply a US legislator who has supported the most recent war, and was the (silent, iirc) First Lady around the time of America's TRIPS/compulsory-licensing-sanctions-threats inhumanity w/r/t Southern Africa - which probably caused more death and suffering than the war. (Of course, demonstrating the US's willingness to cause death and suffering to maintain IP rights is almost certainly a much bigger boost for the US National Interest than starting a war in the Middle East over, erm, whatever it was over - so at least that's not quite as dumb as Shrub).

Are there any parties in the US committed to electoral reform? I know it is trite to mention, but when you're forced to have two parties, you may as well just have one. The competition between the War Party and the Other War Party is a bit depressing to watch...

Also: two middle names? Inherently suspicious....