Hillary's Double-Bind

Interesting little experiment in perceptions! The results are not surprising. I like Hilary on several levels, including the fact she is unashamedly ambitious, direct, aggressive and capable. Since this election is crucial on many many levels, I decided to simply look at the roster of candidates and apply my September 11th rule. After studying the candidates, I tried to envision how capable they were in such key areas such as international affairs. To my surprise Hilary came out heads above the rest.

Another factor: Hilary has already been there done that in the White House with Bill. This is something voters need to closely look at. According to Stratfor Intelligence, we are the most vulnerable during the first term with a new President. How much are we willing to risk by voting purely against this administration, and not voting with logic, information and reason?

My feeling is Hilary will lose simply because she IS a woman.

Hillary will not lose because she is a woman. She is dishonest and has no conscience.
Nothing is too low for her.
Read another book: "The Truth about Hillary:What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President" by Edward Klein or "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan.

Edward Klein's book is only known for how many people he decided needed Weight Watchers(besides calling Senator Clinton a lesbian, ambitious, aggressive, a bad mother....and the worst epithet---a LAWYER)--it was mostly old hateful gossip that was thrown together. He decided that Senator Clinton surrounded herself with fat people and deliberately gained some weight so fat people would vote for her!
Noonan stated her book was a "polemic", not history, not biography. She quotes other writers, but doesn't have any footnotes or endnotes to give them credit--and again, she rehashes mud-slinging. What else would you expect from an ex-Reagan speechwriter? Its not a book about Hillary Clinton, but a book about how Noonan can't stand her and wants to take her down.

I've been victim of the "too aggressive, too ambitious" gang. I don't know my place--I should go do my nails or something. Many men and women are afraid of intelligent, strong women who don't apologize for breaking the mold and that is why Hillary Clinton is vilified.

My vote is still out. I personally feel Bill took flack with the Monica affair to redirect attention from Hillary, and of course she forgave him, he did her an enormous favor.

Interesting article, thank you. I'm not one of those Hillary Haters, and will probably vote for her if she is the democratic nominee, but she would be my fourth choice among the dems. Yes, she has some disadvantages being a woman, but your article totally ignores the fact that her gender also comes with some advantages.

Let me ask you, don't the people who will vote for her simply because she is a woman sort of cancel out those won't?

It's just my opinion, but Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich all present much more modern ideas.

I would love to see the US have a woman president, we are way behind other nations in this. However, not just any woman. If Senitor Clinton (notice how everyone calls her by her first name, but not the men?) is the Democratic candidate, I will indeed vote for her because I have to in order to vote. I will not vote for any Republican this election.

In the Democratic primary, I don't intend to vote for a centrist, supporter of Bush's folly in Iraq, and proponant of NAFTA type agreements because they are not good for the US nor are they good for exploited third world workers.

Progressive values are needed now to save our way of life and move this country forward. Sen. Clinton is, as I said a centrist, a moderate, and has co-sponsored many bills that played into conservative hands. I don't care really what she says campaigning or how she says it, she is not my candidate.

The venom spewed against Hillary Clinton is way out of line with anything she has ever done or said. One might conclude that this could be attributed to her husband and his legacy and the fatigue factor with the sleeze of the Clinton years. However, both the facts that Bill himself receives far less venomous critique AND the fact that he was the author of the sleeze, not her, puts the lie to this conclusion.

This leaves only her gender as a determining factor in the harsh rhetoric levelled at her.

I ask all Americans to consider this question: could any woman ever run successfully for president given the tenor of the opposition to Senator Clinton?

"I don't care really what she says campaigning or how she says it, she is not my candidate." ~ Sandy F.

Nor mine, Sandy. Now we are two.

If her gender is of no matter and we are supposed to be gender neutral, why change her name to Henry. If her name were Henry, I wouldn't like Henry.

Funny he accuses Hillary of calulating everything ... when all Karl
Rove does it calculate things for George Bush.

How is it that Rove somehow gets to set the agenda? George Bush
calculates his acccent and his Texas cowboy image. He does not know
what to do with a ranch. Have you ever looked close at some of the
pictures the media shows of George Bush on his ranch, that he bought
for show. I noticed one time that he was in the middle distance trying
to figure out how to use a chainsaw. He kept trying to clear the
brush by pushing the chainsaw into the wood like a knike, and then
looking bewildered as to why it did not go in.

Same also with Cheney. Here is a macho guy that does not know rule
one about guns, but is so arrogant and vain no one can tell him anything,
and he ends up shooting someone.

The whole Republican facade is calculated by marketing and neuroscience
people. The watch word is "reach the inner reptile" and the reason is to
make the race about style and likeability instead of on the issues we all
know about. Slap Gore to his face in the middle of debate by calling him
immoral and unpatriotic when George Bush was the draft dodger who
drank and snorted his way through college and got his daddy to send him
for wasted flight training . George Bush had his daddy rescue him from
insider trading charges with SEC, his people hushing that down in a
calulated attempt to lie to the people and make George Bush more
compassionate and human. Bush said he had undergone a serious
conversion to Christianity and found himself. A conversion that did not
have any compassion for the people he sent to a death sentence in
Texas. One woman who had support even from Christian groups said
that she had found God as well, but George Bush did not believe her
and sent her on to the next world, while he expect Americans to forgive
him his trespasses.

Bush has also calculated that it was OK to let Cheney and Rumsfeld serve
even though neither of them divested themselves of their investments
as required by ethics regulations, and Rumsfeld is the recipient of over
300 million dollars profit in his aerospace and weapons investments.

The Republicans control the media and get to calulate what we all
hear about them, limiting it mostly to macho sounding fluff pieces about
hope and disparaging comments about the Democrats.

I think the Republicans are in for a surprise when they try to
pull this direct stuff on Hillary Clinton, and hopefully any other
Democrat. The Republicans have so much baggage and are
swollen with so much pus from their total disregard for their
own party's principles, and for years of just being an image and
forgetting about doing anything that they are vulnerable and
liable to pop at the first pin prick of reality from a reminding
Democrat of what has been going on for the last 8 years.

I just hope the Democrats have the good sense and the guts
to stand up and let fly. Gore and Kerry, but had advisors that
told them to sit tight and let the Republicans slam them and insult
them and do nothing, because the people do not like a negative
campaign.

When Republicans start talking about how they have the moral
high ground, the Democrats have to come out swinging, with
hard hitting truth that does not allow any Republicans to get
away with what they have been doing.

See the Republicans use these neuroscience and behavioral
studies of people and the decisions they make and then try to
herd Americans into a similar mental state, and make everyone
think that they are alone in questioning the Republican madness.

Funny thing about these mental tricks though,when people are on
the lookout for them, when people know they are being manipulated
or expecting attempts to manipulate them they effectively get
immunized against the lies and pay attention to make their own
choices.

Hard to say how the Republicans will try to attack, but it will not
be with reason or facts, it will be some underhanded dirty trick,
like they against their own John McCain in South Caroline slandering
McCain for supposedly while he was married having a baby out of
wedlock with a black prostitute.

So just remember to think about it when you hear the absurd stories
at are guaranteed to come out of the media this election year, and what
they are trying to do to you objectivity and manipulate you to do, and
then make your own choices.

This has been done before - it's scary each time.
Also, interesting side note- the names for animals - dog/bitch; fox/vixen, etc.

Obviously it was Karl Rove who convinced Hillary's brother Hugh Rodham to sell pardons in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. Obviously it was also Karl Rove who convinced Bill Clinton to grant pardons for politically connected felons.

The tactic of trying to deflect Hillary's sleasiness off on Karl Rove speaks volumes. It is what we have grown to expect from Hillary and her supporters.

Clue: Orwell's Animal Farm was not a HO-TO manual.

Interesting article. You provide some food for thought.

In my opinion, she would come across the same as a male candidate. What Obama and Edwards have is a relaxed, conversational approach. Perhaps they have that "luxury" because they are males... I'm not sure. But, I prefer someone that seems more down to earth and normal - someone I could have a conversation with - over someone that leaves me feeling like I might have just been played or used.

I agree (with Lainie) - very interesting. And, I have been thinking about this subject a lot. Along those lines, I found the string of Senators (and others who know and have worked with Sen. Clinton) endorsing Sen. Obama as being the most troubling development for Clinton. The people who work with her are deciding that she is their second choice, behind a Senator that they've only known for a couple of years.

Yes, she has been caricatured for 16 years now. I still believe that she CAN overcome that concerted right wing effort. I am just not sure if she WILL overcome it - even with her Democratic colleagues or the Democratic primary voters.

At least Greg in his pathetic attempt to divert attention from Bush used complete sentences. Thanks Greg.

Great conversation. I would not vote for any woman. Hillary both represents the values I believe in and has shown the competence to get things done. I've worked on Capitol Hill. Getting legislation passed is like making sausages, not pretty, just hard, ugly work. I think she's the most prepared for that and will get the most done, and there's so much to do after the Bush years! Robin Gerber

very interesting. i won't be voting for H. And not because she is a woman. there is more to the discussion than that issue.

now, who i am going to vote for at this point is unclear. hard decisions. yet most important ones are.

enjoyed your article. i do think that there is a huge continuem between an aggressive, offensive female and your stereotype of a whimpy, passive woman.

I'll be interested in reading your comments as the weeks progress.

"convinced themselves that Hillary is a phony"

???

Oh no, no no no! The lying and conniving candidate has proven time and again that she is phony, insincere, and untrustworthy!

You fit in her camp quite well. Your essay is but a red herring, trying to distract people from the real issues of why she is unfit to be president. Flying in the face of the national party she remained on the ballot in the Michigan caucus. Running uncontested she barely beat the "uncommitted" vote. She'll be the doom of the Democrat party.

Yeah, and Mitt Romney is not pandering and lying when he tells Detroit he is going to get their jobs back.

Of Huckabee when he talks about the FAIR tax.

Of Guiliani when he talks about what he did about 911.

It is much sleazier to attack Hillary Clinton for something
that is unproven and that she did not even do, in short,
to sling mud, that for the Republicans to explain or deal
with their disgraceful performance in the last 8 years.

Is it cheaper to hire minimum wage flunkies to say things
about Clinton than it is to come up with real solutions or
fix costly mistakes caused by incompetence.

No, it is not Hillary or anything about her that is the issue
in his election, it is George Bush. Why has almost every
member of Bush's family and friends been in the middle of
every major scandal this country has had in living memory.

From Grandpa Bush trading with the enemy and trying to
fund a coup against Roosevelt, to Marvin and BBCI, to Jeb
and the Florida vote, to Daddy working the Iranians to get
Reagan elected, to saving his personal business associates
in Kuwait. My fingers do not have the energy to type the
whole history of this party lately and how corrupt they have
become and how irrelevent the trust has become to Republicans.

Good thought provoking article.I am voting for Hillary because she is smart,ready to step into the job,capable and strong and only a tiny bit because she is a woman.Men have had this job since it began,and they havent done a splendid job of it.

I read a report where certain names were preferred over others. Teachers were given essays written by 7th graders and found that papers with popular names on them like Chris or Kathy were given higher scores than the very same essays when names like Gertrude and Homer were used. Having pre-conceptions is human nature and it takes a thinking person to overcome that.

That said, Hillary Clinton is about as big a phony that you'll ever see. She is a corporate connected stooge. Hell, I don't even consider her a true Democrat. In my opinion she is wht I call a Corporcrat, loyal to big business and the lobbyists that have highjacked our country. Electing Hillary Clinton to the presidency would be almost as big a mistake as it was to elect George W. Bush.

Devin, you don't behave like a true Democrat either. The way you attack your own party I wonder if you really more about the Republicans winning so you have job security of continuously writing critical articles.

If Edwards or Obama cannot get elected it doesn't make any difference about how "real" they are.

I attack Corpoprcrats who claim to be Democrats like Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and Kennedy. I don't attack my own party. And for your information Edwards is the only Dem who beats all Repubs in what-if match ups. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. On the other hand the polls show that Clinton would be the most vulnerable candidate when up against a Repub.

Anyway, the token amount I recieve to cover my expensesas as a correspondent could hardly be considered a source of security. I write my articles because of my passion for politics. It really hurts when you accuse me of nefarious motives Bruce.

Repeat something enough times and some people will believe it regardless of whether or not it is true. The following is a sampling of such remarks from the above comments.
1. She is dishonest and has no conscience.
2. Nothing is too low for her.
3. Senator Clinton a lesbian, ambitious, aggressive, a bad mother
4. The lying and conniving candidate has proven time and again that she is phony, insincere, and untrustworthy!

The only problem is nobody gives any reasons for these often blanket statements. Two of them, being ambitious and aggressive, even are characteristics common to all the male presidential candidates.

The only person really qualified to make one of those charges is campaigning for her supposedly "bad" mother.

Devin even accuses her of being a phony, but in his case he at least gives a reason for his opinion. He also probably considers me a phony to because I do not fit his image of a true Democrat because I too am a centrist or moderate and not an ideologue.

Hillary is sincere, and she does not to always say what I to hear. That's honesty in my book.

Devin, hardly my intention to hurt you, and I do not know your motives. I do not like to hear the repeated attack on Democrats by name calling. I do not approve of attacks on President Bush by name calling either. If something makes a difference, and is important, it is worth discussion without name calling and attacking character.

Hillary Clinton is deserving of respect if only for the reason that she is trying to put an end of what is currently going on in Washington, and your attacks as to her motives ought to give you pause since it is hurtful when someone attacks your motives as well.

Devin reasons are reason enough for him to criticise Hillary Clinton but not to toss insulting names around in my opinion, and in my opinion it does not help anything, not even a little bit.

For the Demcrats, and even the left to make a comeback in this country, and although I am strong believer in capitalsim I believe we need to move in that direction, first one has to have a record of good ideas, success at implementing them and institutionalizing them. The left used to haver that with social security and medicare, then they overstepped and left themselves open for attacks from the right.

Changes have to be evolutionary and incremental. Talk is talk, rallies are rallies, but change is not so unlateral and easy to agree on, at least half the country needs to buy into it and success is needed. I think Hillary is going to be able to do that, but I do not think it is worthwhile calling other candidates names, I think any Democrat can do the job, not just any Democrat but "whoever".

Also - nice post Carol.

The last 8 year of Bush contol has seen an unrivaled drive to enhance Pres power. Will Hillary give it back? Is a "good" overbearing Pres better than a "bad" overbearing Pres? If Hillary uses the power garnered by Bush to pursue a Dem agenda does that make her acceptable? Personally I've had my fill of boneheads. We must return to a government of co-equal branches dedicated to the Constitution instead of failed ideology. There is tremendous amount house cleaning to be done but it has to be done via a restoration of what was lost. I don't think Hillary has it in her to cede any power, ill gotten or not, to anybody.

Well, I didn't like Hillary as first lady, and I don't like her as my senator from New York, I don't know who I am going to vote for, but I don't plan for voting for someone who does nothing for my state as Senator, personally, I will be surprised is she gets nominated, I think too many democrats are afraid of her, time will tell, and then we will all have to see where we put our money,

While the results do not surprise me at all, it is still very interesting.

Sam, good questions. I sure hope there is reflection by the Congress on the last 8 years in terms of Presidential power, and the power of the parties.

Another consideration is the Supreme Court. The battles in the Supreme Court are partisan and the court is stacked in favor of the Republicans. It is an unacceptable way to run the court in my opinion to allow this stacking to take place, and at this point it looks like it can be stacked for the lifetime of any of us. This seriously affects the whole idea of the peoples right to participate in government because the Supreme Court can block anything, and as we saw even appoint a President.

Something needs to be done, but this means some kind of alteration of the Constitution, and the party in control of the court will not allow that. Big problem.

this is an interesting article...you had me hooked! LOL

Elsie, the only reason you gave here for not liking Sen. Clinton is that she's done nothing for the state of NY. I found this interesting, because that is one of the gripes some Arizonans have about Sen. McCain. I think that - at the Senatorial level - we shouldn't really be basing our opinions of them on that basis. I think that it is different from the House of Reps. When you think about it, each state elects two people to represent the COUNTRY. That way, you also have a check-and-balance effect between the two legislative bodies.

I'm sure that you have other, solid reasons for disliking Sen. Clinton. And, I hope, that if she is the nominee, that you will consider voting for her.

Nice article. I'm not a fan of Clinton

Sorry, I will not vote for her. I expect the same thing from females as I do males in public office. I am happy with my 2 California senators - Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I like our governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

As Lainie P. said above, "... I prefer someone that seems more down to earth and normal - someone I could have a conversation with - over someone that leaves me feeling like I might have just been played or used. "

My problem with Hillary has nothing whatever to do with the woman herself, and everything to do with my weariness with the acrimony and back stabbing that has become de rigeur in D.C. these days. I just don't want another four years of the incipient nastiness and vitrol that is the daily fare there now. I am not sure that it wouldn't be the case no matter who was elected and no matter from which party, but I know that it would be the case with Hillary.

On the other hand, I also do not agree with her stands on illegal immigration, trade, or a number of other major issues so that is a factor as well.

That all being said, I will vote for her if she is the nominee because she has to be better than anything with the label Republican attached to it given the current crop. One of them swaps positions more often than he changes underwear, another lives on 9/11, still another wants to rewrite the constitution to reflect the bible, and yet another wants to continue the war in Iraq for 100 years or more. Hardly an inspiring bunch if you ask me.

Just like Eleanor vs. Ike, I'm still betting on Hillary vs. McCain :)
Robin Gerber

I don't have anything against an assertive woman. I don't see Hillary as an assertive woman. I see her as a manipulative liar and self-serving empire builder. The things she's done would upset me if it were a man or a woman, a politician or an entrepreneur, a Democrat or a Republican, an American or a citizen of another country. We've had decades of seeing Hillary's true colors. She's an ego-centric, narcissistic chameleon that will walk all over or stab the back of anyone she deems a threat or a hindrance. That's NOT assertive by my standards. That's wrong.

Donna ... one thing Hillary has done that is "ego-centric, narcissistic chameleon" please?

Waiting ... where is Hillary Clinton's empire Donna?

I agree with Carolyn. I certainly would like to see the acrimony and partisan bickering eliminated. With Clinton in the race I imagine that the neocon noise machine will be in full bluster 24/7. I also see, as bruce k has pointed out, that some people have a visceral hatred of her for no apparent reason. She is not my first choice but I will certainly vote for her as opposed to anyone on the GOP side.

Donna, I'm still waiting, can't you explain how Hillary Clinton is a
"manipulative liar and self-serving empire builder"? Do you have
to look it up in the Republican play book to make sure you get
it right or what?

How about all the Republicans who attacked her and are now
gone because they were the real liars ... like for example
good old self-righteous Larry Craig?

I think this was good writing and a good point about gender bias. I see some of the so-called softer side of Senator Clinton as well. How about the disparaged crying? People dish Senator Clinton for being too assertive or agressive then turn around and do the same when Senator Clinton shows her "feminine" side. "Nobody that crys like that could run the country." There really is alot of gender bias.

It is not bias unless someone buys into it. I think I know enough about the Clintons to know they may not be perfect, but they got mercilessly harassed by the Republican Party for 8 years in office and still 8 years out of office. They are both still standing, and it was the Republicans who went after them with BS like this that are gone.

And the preson the Repulicans held up as being so holy and such a nice guy was such a total incompetent characterless, integrityless idiot that he could not pick competent people, run a war, save people in trouble in this country, or really do much of anything except use any excuse he had to funnel more and more money to the super-rich who did not carry though and create jobs for us. Now he went over to beg for a break on the price of oil and was sent packing with nothing.

Americans, let's try to focus on reality for just a few more months so we can get a competent human being in the White House.

I'm so glad to read this article which confirms what I've suspected for a long time. I'll admit that on the night that I stayed up to watch Al Gore and George Bush's election results, I saw Obama's celebratory speech for being inducted into the state legislature and I was excited about him. For years I wondered when he'd run fpr a federal office. But then, after watching Hillary (whom I never really liked) win debate after debate by a landslide, I started examining my feelings and I realized that I like what she was saying. I liked what she was supporting. I wrote down every issue I heard on the news and googled all the topics for all the republican canidates and democrates (as an independant) and the more I looked into things (not provided by the canidates) the more I liked Hillary. She has been working for the issues she's talked about, some for 30+ years. Old articles from when Bill was getting elected speculated she wanted to run the white house, now they say he wants to run it. It's crazy and it's sexist.
On the other hand, I when I look at Obama I see him taking her line to go after Exxon, yet supporting tax breaks for oil companies when the vote came to him. Hillary voted against it.
When the vote came up to prohibit legislation that made for unfair trading practrices Hillary voted for it and Obama voted against it, yet he accuses her of supporting NAFTA based on a quote that is 12 years old, and widely accepted to be false.
When Hillary was introducing a bill this week that will related to infant mortality rates in non-auto accident related cases, Obama was passing the Global Poverty Act which puts the U.S. under the United Nations thumb to the tune of $847 Billion dollars from now until 2015 or 197 Billion every year paid by Americans. But on the campaign trail he says he's tired of us spending billions of dollars putting Iraq back together.
My google is googled out and every little snip-it I hear against her and him, she come out on top. I kinda wish I hadn't voted for McCain in my primary. I don't dislike McCain, but I think Hillary works harder on the issues that I most care about. Particulary, the middle class's finacial position, schools (she's a huge champion of all children issues) and her health care plan is superior. She co-sponsored the bill calling for an infrastructure bank, which Obama copied and released on Wisconsin. ( she co-sponsored it in Aug or Sept?) Obama gave $697,000 in donations to super delegates campaings and Hillary on gave $197,000, but she's accused of doing anything to get a vote.
It's unfair. I'm tired of it. I'm not sure who I'll vote for in November, but it will be Clinton or McCain. Not Obama.

Assertive, Aggressive - ok, maybe these traits can be explained by changing Hillary to Henry. But, what can explain her lack of concern for the truth, her willingness to use virtually any tool or method to achieve her ends, her lack of loyalty to her supporters, her blind ambition, and her disrespect for support staff and the military?