Gloria Steinem had a compelling op-ed in the New York Times this morning that reminded me a lot of one of Ennis’ previous posts about women leaders in rural India. First, some excerpts from “Women Are Never Frontrunners:”
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy. [Link]
<
p>Of course, there is another equally compelling argument for why the media “gives Clinton a hard time” and why the voters are so quick to discount her considerable experience, to the point of bringing her to tears. Many voters (like the majority in Iowa) may just want a clean break from the past. They don’t care whether Clinton is more capable than Obama or not. They don’t care if she’d be “a better President on day one.” They just want to rid themselves of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton monarchy and the baggage that comes with it. Perhaps, as Obama says, offering people hope and possibility and having the ability to bring new blood into the broken political process will make up for the experience and insider-Washington-knowledge needed to survive and be an effective President in Washington. There is a lot of credibility behind that argument. Then again, Steinem might also be right:
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits. [Link]
<
p>And that brings us to Ennis’s post and the study
by Esther Duflo and Petia Topalova about women elected to local office in rural India:
Using opinion surveys and data on local “public goods”–like schools, roads, and water pumps–Duflo and Topalova find that the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men. But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women’s governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.
Why study the experiences of Indian villagers to understand the costs and benefits of female leadership? Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures–Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example–and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things… [Link]
<
p>Is it any wonder why Clinton might have cried? It is entirely possible that she has a lot in common with a rural Indian woman 🙂
First, the encouraging news from India’s social experiment with female leadership. Duflo and Topalova found that communities with women as pradhans had larger quantities of key public services overall. Nor was quality sacrificed for quantity–facilities in the women-led villages were of at least as high quality on average as in the communities with traditional male leadership. The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)–with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps in the women-pradhan villages. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt–villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.
Now, the bad news. India’s female pradhans were remarkably unappreciated for their efforts. Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services. This was true even for water–the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities. In fact, there was even greater dissatisfaction about health facilities, a public service not even controlled by the local village council… [Link]
As of the time of this posting, Clinton is up in the New Hampshire primary with a 40% to 35% lead over Obama (with roughly 30% of the vote counted). If she wins (a huge comeback based on all New Hampshire polls up until today), people are going to ask if the tears were for real, and if that’s what gave her the edge. They are also going to use exit polling data to figure out which group of voters were most responsible for her victory. Even if she loses but comes close, people are still going to ask what caused the “surge.” Maybe, just maybe, the women out there knew that even if the tears were fake, the gender bias may be real.
Hillary Clinton might be taking a lead in other demographics too.
Margaret Thatcher caught a lot of flak for her tough-as-nails persona. It still puzzles me how much some people hated her, and I wonder how much of the hostility was resentment against her outward strength of personality, and how much was against her politics. I ask you: would Thatcher have been more popular if she had shed tears in public… or would it be “spun” against her? :-S
I realize that Hillary Clinton can’t act like Margaret Thatcher. It would seem “unfeminine” and “threatening” — so tell me, is that progress?
Another.
Best lines: Iowans went for Obama over Hillary not because Americans won’t elect a woman president, but because they liked him better and resented her robotic sense of entitlement. Had they preferred Hillary, everyone would now be concluding that racism is more ineradicable in our society than sexism.
Apparently, the Iron Lady did tear up on a couple of occasions, although a winter day with high fifties weather and a pro-Hillary-welling-up article in the National Review does make me wonder if up is down and black is white now.
When Hillary denied being at a Bilderberg Conference in 2006 (her husband attended the 1991 one), at a town meeting in New Hampshire, even cynic I was a bit astonished at the bald faced lie. She even denied knowing what Bilderberger was. She laughed like a loon. But hey==all pres. candidates have that right when you think about how they sell what souls they have left. Nobody, and I repeat nobody, is uncorrupted at that level. But who cares, right? I’d give you a link to that youtube but the agency I worked for has blocked the sight, surprise surprise. Easy to find though. Bilderbergers meet by invitation only once a years to work their little hearts out planning the wars, deflations and inflations that will make them richer and the part of the Cheney, Rockefellers, CEOs from all over whose names mean nothing because they are not public, Bilderbergers do come in all types–Indra Nooyi of Pepsi was an attendee in 2006. This is hardly conspiracy “theory”, if by that you mean a fairy-tale–oh that it only were. Sadly, it is fact. Bilderbergers and similar groups are the ones who really hold power. You think those royal families in Europe are only grist for Hello magazine? Bilderberg refers to an hotel in Holland where the first conference was held after WWII. The Dutch royal family is very active with them. The presidential “candidates” are just out-front figures decided upon by the real powers. The actual president is just a puppet, albeit a willing one, trading fame, a footnote in history and the illusion of power, for whatever integrity or conscience he/she may have left. Nobody, and I repeat nobody, gets anywhere in politics without this backing. Daniel Estulin’s “The True Story of the Bilderbergers” is chock full of pictures he surreptitiously snapped, or whatever it is cameras do thesedays. He has risked his life finding out where these meetings are held and showing up at them. With the internet, such secrecy is harder to maintain so the Bildy’s have their website, but do you really think they’re going to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Nah. No politician does as we all know. You will never look at politics quite the same way. http://www.amazon.com/True-Story-Bilderberg-Group/dp/0977795349/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199885635&sr=8-1
I guess Whitey was lying to the pollsters in NH.
Oh dear, a conspiracy theorist. Are you going to bring your fellow Ron Paul fanatics along with you to spam Sepia Mutiny just like you have done with other blogs?
A healthy chunk of Thatcher’s steely persona was due to her politics- privatization, Victorian values, etc. Hillary doesn’t need the same position-based reinforcement for her persona, which is why I, as Camille noted, I find her “pro-executive approach to foreign policy” troubling.
but on to Maggie. From Tony Judt’s Postwar–
Paagal Admi, that issue of the race gap in polling came up on MYDD. I don’t think the polling discrepancy had much to do with whites lying about voting for Obama. Hillary was leading in NH until very recently. So whatever support Obama had among white women was very soft in NH when he built his recent lead in the polls. They could have just as easily switched their votes again when they saw Hillary give an emotional response and saw her being ganged up against for such a minor response. If the racial thing was a factor, why were the exit polls more accurate? If there was that factor, some people should have lied in the exit polls too about voting for a black guy, but they did not. Granted, exit polling’s timing forces a respondent to confront a more definitive situation and lying is less likely.
This is why I think we should not be paying as much emphasis on polls as the media likes to do. It is good for snapshots and polling discussions should be used more among the insiders for their strategy. For us, it is just idle discussion. With the limited time the voter has, it is far more productive to discuss the issues. Unfortunately on political blogs, I am confronted with people trying to play polling analysts most of the time.
The Hillary camp drastically changed their tactics in NH versus Iowa – they even went out and publically said they started to agressively reach younger females immediately after Iowa…something they neglected to do in the previous state. And caucuses function drastically different than primaries, and tend to produce different results. These factors influenced her win, perhaps even more than the tears….which I think were real. And does it even matter? Kerry cried too last time around – in the same state!
21 · khoofia hilla the pundit-killa!
Dear Spoofia, Please cease to imply that Senator Clinton (D-Punjab) has any beef with the Brahmin caste. We thinks your casteist rabble-rousing is a ‘bama. Sincerely, Center for “Progressive” and “Hindu Nationalist” Dialog on Sepia
Tears of a Clown
She had a double-digit lead over Obama in NH a few weeks ago. And now she won by 2% points. New Hampsha is Clinton territory. What you call drastic tactical changes I call desperation. As an unhinged Obama supporter, I welcome the Clinton camp taking back the frontrunner rhetoric because Barack’s best as the underdog, his message has more value-added in that scenario.
camille
true. what makes me uneasy is the pro-exec power approach to anything. she comes across as someone who thinks/knows she is the smartest person in the room and may be prone to micromanaging and not open to compromise.
in my neck of the woods old frootie, brahmins are bos. here’s some brahmin beef for you.
Thanks for linking to that study on politics, gender, and perception of competence by Duflo and Topalova. I don’t think much of the point Steinem is making. She appears to be annoyed that in America, black men were given the vote before white women were. In 2000 and 2004 black people were prevented from voting in the elections.
Arguably, Obama’s been active in politics for longer than Clinton and Edwards.
I absolutely hate when Edwards talks about how his presidency will benefit the poor and the middle-class. I mean, he got a $500 haircut–it’s a bit of a contradiction. He could have gotten a $30 haircut and donated some money to a homeless shelter or something else that’s useful!
some people like steinem should just fade away. i wish i could present a cogent analysis, but i’m not a pundit . she may have been relevant in the 70’s – but her commentary is jaded ( and irrelevant today
and it just rubs me something awful when they diss the kitchen. [hrrmmphhs!!!]. the kitchen is probably the most powerful place in a home.
Would vote for a woman candidate just not Hillary. Hillary is capable and I am sure she would have made a highly successful lawyer or University President on her own steam but I don’t think she could have run for President if she weren’t Bill’s wife. I would much rather prefer a woman who made it on her own like Thatcher or Merkel.
Another problem with Gloria Steinem’s thesis, there are more women senators and governors than there are black governors or senators. I think she does not consider an important factor their (Clinton and Obama’s) personalities, there is more to a person than their gender and race.
I was uncomfortable with Steinham’s article … personally, I think the fact that she is a white woman makes it harder for her to see the issue of race than I (a desi-American woman) in America. It’s not as simple as “who has it harder?” Give me a break. It’s so much more complex than that, especially depending on what part of the country you are in. That said, I’m for Obama … Clinton strikes me as someone who feel it is her turn to take back the country, and it makes me disturbed that she running partly on the platform of herself, and partly on the lucky fact that she is part of a powerful political dynasty. Privilege, entitlement. Finally, if you look at the opinions of Clinton and Obama they’re similar in many respects. Given that, I’d rather have a break with dynasty, thank you very much.
Feministing has, in my opinion, a good commentary on Steinem’s misguided argument that voting for someone besides HRC is anti-feminist.
khoof, I’m with you on that 🙂 There are many things that bother me about HRC, but among those things is her foreign policy approach. I’m not expecting a miracle when it comes to foreign policy; I understand that most U.S. presidents norm towards the same overall approach, tactics, analysis, etc. That said, after 7 years of a President who believes he has an imperial right to take whatever action he wants wherever he wants, I think a great deal more moderation re: the role of the president is required to bring us out of our craptastic foreign policy state today.
Oh dear, a conspiracy theorist. Are you going to bring your fellow Ron Paul fanatics along with you to spam Sepia Mutiny just like you have done with other blogs?”
Oh dear, the expected response–they told me this would happen. No, I have never had the pleasure of spamming any other blog with my awareness, unless expressing an opinion is “spamming.” You must be thinking of somebody else–a majority in the polls actually, who don’t believe the government line. Control rule number one: discredit opposition with epithets and ridicule. Allow no “credible” outlet (owned by whom?) to pay attention to anything said by the one discredited. Old and sure trick followed by press and intelligence agencies. There are those who are experts in spin and mind control and the victims don’t protest for fear of being called “theorists”, a meaningless word, really. If it were not for those who question, question, question, we’d still be believing–well think of any stupid thing you think we’ve transcended. You apparently live in a narrow universe or else have an stake in the media-line, or maybe just don’t want to know. I don’t blame you as it’s quite scary, like admitting your parents are psychopathic abusers. Nobody has to take my word for it. The truth is out there, but since few are brave enough to risk childish ridicule, they remain ignorant and victimized.
Tell that to Chris Matthews. He went all out – with murder in his eyes, I might add – to call Hillary supporters lying racists. Now that the election results have impugned his glorious professional standing, he’s lashing back, dammit!
I think the explanation is a little simpler than that. I’m no statistician, so this may be very simplified. Maybe even wrong. But there was a record turnout. And everyone is suggesting there was a surge of female voters on the Dems side, likely a disproportionate number. Well, do pre-election polls generally account for disproportionate voting demographics? Not unless they have reason to believe ahead of time, they don’t, and it seems the pollsters dropped the ball on this one. If the polls are measuring the outcome porportionately, and actual voting turnout deviates from the polling samples… there’s your answer. Okay, I’m guessing, but it SOUNDS sensible, no?
It is insulting to imply that H R Clinton could not be president on her own steam. It is also inaccurate to say that the if Hillary Clinton is a dynast. HRC has contributed to the success and political campaigns of WJ Clinton, not only as a spouse but as a strategic and advisory partner. If it is accurate to say that HRC benefits from association WJC, it is equally plausible to say that WJC’s own political success has depended enormously on HRC’s professional support. She has a substantial independent experience as an advocate, campaigner, lawyer, and politician, as well as deep political commitment that she demonstrated before she ever met William. This is an extremely ambitious and politically savvy couple, both of whom aimed for high public office. I agree that HRC is very polarizing, and may not be the ideal presidential candidate for a variety of plausible reasons, but calling her a beneficiary of a dynasty is unwarranted. She enjoyed no special privileges of birth, and helped to create the political machine that drums the Clinton name. She has as much of an entitlement to the fruits of that name as WJC. What she doesn’t have is an entitlement to run the country. No one does. You have to win it, and winning it is a dirty business. (Contrast with Nancy Pelosi and her exploitation of her family’s political connections and own personal wealth; or Rabri Devi, Sonia Gandhi, Laxmi Parvati etc)
Dennis Thatcher is a rich businessman, and Margaret Thatcher (“Milk Snatcher”) could not be where she was had she not married up. Although she was already into Conservative Party politics, he financed her law education, and his money arguably propelled her to the bigtime (She was first trained as a chemist). Also, from Wikipedia, a critique of Thatcherism, which might help explain the revulsion people feel toward her:
Whether Clinton wins or Obama wins, radical change given the current political climate of US is highly unlikely. Most politicians can move ahead only if they align themselves with entrenched interests or form coalitions with those who are chummy with big business. Unless a critical majority of Americans gets politicized and supportive of radical policy changes (such as during the Civil Rights Era), I doubt very much can be done about key issues like tax policy, health care, and global warming.
Steinem is right that a woman with a same profile as Obama couldn’t have gotten that far. She is wrong if she suggests it is anti-feminist to vote against Clinton (and I will read her article more closely to see if that is the implication). A feminist would ask you to vote for someone who aligns him/herself with feminist politics (tautology, i know). Such a candidate could be a man, woman, trans, what-have-you.
Here’s a good article on the Edwards hair story – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401258_pf.html.
It’s a little more complicated than it seems, and given the fact he’s on the road, the charges kinda make sense. And that’s why people have a staff, to take care of items like that.
Edwards biggest problem is that he has trouble running a campaign, mostly because he refuses to be handled when it’s appropriate. And he constantly has explain his views versus Elizabeth Edwards’ views; it ultimately detracts from the campaign.
Out of all the candidates, he tends to talk about his platform and policy thoughts the most…which is great. His latest attacks against H. Clinton have left me with a sour taste in my mouth…though.
As you can tell, I’m still undecided!
Why is it insulting? She is a smart and capable woman but sorely lacking in charm, she is just not a natural politician (like Bill Clinton or Huckabee for example), and without the name recognition she has (because of who she was married to), she wouldn’t have been able to launch a well financed bid. She may have been an integral part of Bill Clinton’s political success but that doesn’t entitle her to a Presidency of her own. What’s next Chelsea running for office because of her experience being the first daughter or Laura Bush running on her eight years as the first lady because she met world leaders during that time. We have one President currently in office because of his familial connections and I for one have had enough of the Bushes and the Clintons.
I say a woman’s place is in the House…and the Senate!(whatever happened to that bumper sticker?)
Thanks for saying it portmanteau.
That pendulum’s gotta swing on back the other way at some point. Any change to these issues would seem radical at this point.
That is all fine – all I’m saying is that HRC is qualified to run for president, and that she is the co-architect of the Clinton name, machine, and agenda (and thus, deserves the same billing on the marquee as WJC). I’m arguing that this was a joint enterprise: Hillbilly Clinton, if you will. It’s also true that she is not as charming a politician as he is, although the presidency should not entirely be a popularity contest. It is, though, to a large degree and her lack of charisma will handicap HRC. And I agree that if Chelsea ran for president purely on the basis for her parents’ political savvy and success, it would be dynastic.
I so want Hillary to win. I sincerely feel that she would be great in the white house from day one.
Abt Obama, I would like to say in Hindi “Jo Garajte Hain, woh Baraste Nahin”
And, BTW, isn’t having a female president a BIG, HUGE change??!! Why isn’t Hillary banking on that as a response to Obama’s “Change” mantra ?
Time to stay home and bake cookies perhaps?
77 · portmanteau said
Perhaps we have different ideas on what dynasty means. She is a very smart politician, to be sure, but my point is that she often refers in her speeches to what she did during the Clinton years, and that is something that is controversial: a) She wasn’t President; and b) there are varying reports of how involved she actually was. (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html)
I agree that she can certainly run on her own merits. What bothers me is that- aside from her own experience- she is nearly touting her husband’s presidency years as her own, people seem to buy it, she seems to think she is entitled to it, and this would tack Clinton onto the Bush-Clinton-Bush line.
She may have been instrumental in getting Clinton elected, but he was the president not she, she can’t claim his presidency as her experience.
Rahul#50.
Unlike Gandhi, Bhutto, Aquino and Aung Suu Kyi, the “dynasty” in the case of HRC is alive and kicking.
You may be a bit young to remember the Clinton glory days. We voted for Bill enthusiastically twice. A very smart man, he squandered our trust with his “Little Boy” naughtiness and a policy of triangulaltion as advised by the slithery Dick Morris, while ditching progressive “friends” like Marian Wright Edelman for centrist expediency.
For the Clintons, it is all about them. Do you doubt for a minute that a man who couldn’t keep a lid on his impulses when he was the president and in the limelight, is going to exercise restraint when he is only the “First Spouse?” He is going to embarrass Hillary and us again while at the same time using his wife’s presidency to re-write his own legacy. A Hillary Clinton presidency may operate on its own strength and talent if Bill is forced to accept an ambassadorial post to the Antartica – with permission to visit only during Christmas. Otherwise we go back to the business of “fix what Bill broke.” Hillary recently joked on the campaign stump that it is becoming an American tradition that a Clinton cleans up after a Bush. That would be funny if some of us didn’t remember with some distaste that a Rodham Clinton cleaning up after a Clinton too was a tradition. The only way a dynastic candidate is halfway palatable is when it is a successive reign and not a co-dynasty.
Also, the very day Hillary tears up and becomes Oprah like, two neanderthals show up at a rally shouting, “Iron My Shirt?” Either a lucky coincidence or Masterpiece Theater. I don’t even know what to believe. Any way I am glad the race now is a healthy one. Both front runners will get equal scrutiny.
she can’t claim his presidency as her experience
Exactly, if you were due to have an open heart surgery, and the doc left and said, “oh don’t worry, I’ll just have my wife do it” would that put you at ease?
A very smart man, he squandered our trust with his “Little Boy” naughtiness
I dont care who sucks his thing.
HMF: I don’t care either as long as it doesn’t distract from the business of running the country. And it did, hugely. There many things he didn’t achieve or didn’t have the courage to take on (terrorism being one) because he was busy covering up for his personal foibles. That’s all I meant.
Because I am quite tired of this very simple argument, I am going to link to HRC’s career record, which doesn’t include her pre-Wellesley and Wellesley days Vietnam-war related activism (some hints to that here). You read that and make your own judgment regarding her qualification to run for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination. If you still want to obtusely argue that she is claiming WJC’s presidency as her only political achievement and want to dismiss her independent political and professional accomplishment, be my guest. I’m not sure if she should lead the country, but I do think she is just as eminently qualified as any of the other candidates to run.
HMF, as always, thanks for the nuanced and particularly apt analogies you always bring to the table. Such marvelous consistency – as predicktable and intellectually satisfying as the script of a bollywood pot-boiler.
And it did, hugely.
How so? did he, say, I dunno, wait 5 days before addressing a national disaster letting mostly african americans die in the process?, or did he say, begin mobilization for a conflict based on faulty intelligence, without taking the time to verify the soundness of that intelligence? Resulting in over 3000 American soldier casualties?
he didn’t achieve or didn’t have the courage to take on (terrorism being one)
Which is why Bush actually cut funding for counterterrorism and told Richard Clarke to stop bugging him about those pesky Al-Qaeda people. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_8.pdf)
HMF: I am not comparing Bill Clinton with that marvelous specimen of statecraft, George W. Bush. I am speculating about his own potential which was not realized because the Clintons were too busy compromising and covering up Bill’s shenanigans. The reason the Clinton days look like Camelot now is because of the disaster that Bush-Cheney have been.
With all their years in politics and social climbing, the Clintons are beholden to a huge number of interest groups. All of them expect a payback. I just want a fresh face on the ticket this time. For me, it has come down to “Anyone But Hillary.” But if she wins, I will hold my nose, vote for her and hope for the best.
HMF, as always, thanks for the nuanced and particularly apt analogies you always bring to the table.
This couldn’t be sarcasm could it? Surely people commmitted to respectable commentary wouldn’t degenerate to such tawdry methods to make their point. Especially when they’re firmly planted on their lofty equines (read: high horses) drawing parallels to bollywood scripts. (Do bollywood ‘scripts’ even exist?)
How about you actually provide something else other than “She was first lady” How about her record in the Senate? How about her election to the senate being a function of her last name? How about her cowardly support for the Iraq invasion, and now not even an apology for stupidly making that mistake (at least to my knowledge, I have yet to see it recorded anywhere, I’d be curious to see if it is)
I for one, would support a rule of “no bushes, clintons, kennedies, ever running again”
Apart from the fact that they both could involve balloons, this analogy is about as apt as the one comparing the status of a turtle-earth theory in Hinduism to creationism in evangelical Christianity.
Thanks for carding me 🙂
And what you are saying is that she is really a slave to her circumstances – being hemmed in by the oppressive influence of the male Clinton who is using her as a vehicle to fulfil his destiny? Poor woman can’t catch a break – on the one hand, her citing the presidential record is unacceptable because she can’t claim credit for the record, on the other hand, she is hoist by that selfsame record.
(That said, while I am inclined to at least partially accept the argument that she has more of an idea what it takes to be president because of her years in the White House, I don’t think it tells us anything about her judgment or the actual decisions she would make – except where there is clear evidence of that process).
I will take the Bildeberg theory as today’s conspiracy special, thankyouverymuch.
His “Little Boy” naughtiness should have been irrelevant if he had actually had a democrat congress, that was probably the biggest tragedy of his presidency. It would be interesting to see what an Obama would achieve in the face of such troglodytes as Gingrich and co. – that is the entire reason for my ambivalence, all this talk of idealism and hope is great, but I don’t really think that it will last the distance when actual politics needs to be done.
I am speculating about his own potential which was not realized because the Clintons were too busy compromising and covering up Bill’s shenanigans
It’s called life. I can argue that anything of a personal or private nature that happened during any presidential administration would compromise his/her potential.
this analogy is about as apt as the one comparing the status of a turtle-earth theory in Hinduism to creationism in evangelical Christianity
If whoever you marry/are married to came here and made puns and youtube references abound, I guarantee you no one would laugh.
Apart from the obvious isolationist defence, why was it so obviously stupid to replace a dictator who was killing people by the hundreds of thousands? Was it more humane and moral to let the embargo go on? And all those principled countries like France, China and Russia just wanted to keep Saddam in power for their own corporate interests, so it is not as if their opposition carries strong moral weight.
(This question stands apart from the cynical motives of the Bushies, and the obviously botched execution of the war. It is unclear to me that the situation today could have been far better if there had been better statecraft before the war to rope in more support, better judgment of the people to actually support, and smarter people to run the actual effort. And by “far better”, I mean as compared to the silent tragedy under Saddam, which might have been more soothing to our consciences, since it happened far from our watch).
I would.
What if I was married to Chris Rock, HMF?
95 · Rahul said
then he’d concede rock’s washed up
I never said she was not qualified, I just pointed out the political reality that she wouldn’t have made such a formidable candidate if she were not married to a popular ex-president. You may not agree, that is your prerogative.
You don’t have to resort to name calling because I don’t agree with you and don’t assume that I am not well informed because my opinion differs from yours. That’s all I have to say about this topic.
why was it so obviously stupid to replace a dictator who was killing people by the hundreds of thousands? Was it more humane and moral to let the embargo go on?
A majority of Iraqi’s feel the country was actually more stable during Saddam’s regime. Of course that doesn’t justify his brutality (are you taking the Bill Oreilly approach and labelling every war critic a Saddam supporter?, now That would be funny)
Secondly, All of a sudden national attention on these poor Iraqis who before 2003, no one gave a f*ck about. It’s more humane to withdraw from the region entirely and stop giving the leaders there such an easy job of convincing their constituens that America is “evil”
What if I was married to Chris Rock, HMF?
I’d link to the secret ceremony you had on youtube.
then he’d concede rock’s washed up
Washed up in all the ticket stubs from the garden show perhaps.
yes, because, i claimed that her experience as first lady is her chief qualification to run. oh look, here is the smoking gun:
Please navigate to the links I posted if you can be bothered to engage with me. Otherwise, I will be grateful if your refrained from making false attributions. Also, you may disapprove of HRC’s legislative record HMF, but that counts as a political disagreement. Not an indication of her lack of experience.
Ruchira, thanks for bringing up the chief reason to vote against HRC in spite of her qualifications.