yeah, plus all the vested interests etc that come with it, might as well be a bloody monarchy, chelsea 2036! (or whenever it will be). if either of the bush girls ever got elected to anything i think that would be the day america should just call it a day

if we're going strictly on policies i prefer obama to clinton and edwards to them both, which is kind of scary, because you wouldn't necessarily expect a super-rich white guy from the south to be to the left of the first black man to have a serious shot at the white house and a 'liberal' woman.

__________________
It's a new year, I'm glad to be here. It's a fresh spring, so lets sing.
In 2080 I'll surely be dead. So don't look ahead, never look ahead.

Except perhaps he can afford to be more 'leftwing' because he ran already more conservatively and didn't win, plus he doesn't have being a 'minority' (poilitically) against him. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Edwards, but I think Hillary by nature of being a woman can't seem too progressive if she wanted a chance at being elected.

yeah, i dont completely 'buy' any of them to be honest, it just surprised me that on the basis of policies he was being more progressive (populalist?) then the two candidates being heralded as the winds of change. i think what will obviously happen now is that edwards will end up the running mate of one of the other two, like before, so yeah, like you were saying, he can afford to push the boundaries a bit more. i have liked what he has been saying though. who do you think would be more likely to win a presidential race? because obama is going to alienate the bigots and clinton is going to alienate the mysoginists.

__________________
It's a new year, I'm glad to be here. It's a fresh spring, so lets sing.
In 2080 I'll surely be dead. So don't look ahead, never look ahead.

I think calling misogyny is going to do more harm than any actual misogyny will. All politicians get ripped on, regardless of race or gender. Learning to roll with the punches seems to be a lot more effective. Thatcher got the standard "man in a dress" type comments all the way through her 11-year term as Prime Minister. Admittedly she got into power against incredibly weak opposition, but even so, I don't think the jokes did her any harm, mainly because she had the sense to put up with them.

The Clintons will undermine any chance of a mideast settlement
that includes a truely autonomoius Palestinean state, keeping the global conflict going evn longer.

Probably, although given that the current administration has been fairly openly trying to bring about the Endtime, they couldn't make it much worse than it is.

Who do you guys see as potential running mates then? Edwards seems quite close to Obama. I'd quite like to see Gore jump on Clinton mark 2. That would make for interesting media coverage.

I heard that this is the first electoral race thing in which neither a former president nor a former vice president has been in the running in something like 80 years. I see no reason for Al Gore to ruin that like he ruined everything else.

Yeah I read that too, but I thought it was refering more to to them taking the reigns as president as opposed to VP. I doubt he'd ever run, I just thought (in my own sad way) it would be amusing.

Hilldog was the brains behind the Billary presidency of the 90s, she'd speak instead of him in interviews and Bill's sung her political praises for years. I think one will get more of the same if she wins in November

She was as low as 13 points behind Obama, nearly every news organization was writing her off, Columnist at the Huffington Post were especially vicious towards her. Obama's own pollsters said he was going to win..BIG.

So yes, it is an upset.

Some news commentators are not as sure about S.C. as they once were.

A lot of pollsters are scratching their heads this morning

I freaked when the Associated Press declared her the winner. I went to see what MSNBC had and they were declaring her the winner as well.

I almost did a victory lap around my house.

This article ran in yesterdays New York Times and was mentioned as a possible influence in Hillary's stunning win.

Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM

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.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

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.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/op...=1&oref=slogin

did anyone in the whole world think that almost crying she did a few days back was sincere?

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

I don't understand how voting for a woman because she is a woman is any different than voting against a woman because she is a woman.

furthermore i haven't heard anyone say that obama is unifying BECAUSE of his race; if anything, it's historical--and it would be said regardless of if hillary or obama wins because it *is* historical either way.

steinem as usual talks alot and says nothing.

and by the way ms. clinton is not the first to get teary. Senator Muskie got emotional and teary-eyed during his run in '72, and it certainly did him no favors.

wonder what steinem would have said about thatcher, if she were british

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

Well, here's an exerpt from an interview where she mentions Thatcher:

"Q: When do you think we'll have the first female president?

A: I don't know the time frame, but we're desperate right now. We got female leadership earlier in other places, as with Indira Gandhi in India and Thatcher in England, because they have a stronger caste or class system than we do. They didn't represent the majority of women or the majority of people; they represented certain caste or class interests. If Indira Gandhi had had a brother, it would have been all over, and he would have been prime minister. But because the family was so powerful, it was okay, even though she was a woman. So, I think it takes us longer, but when we finally get somebody, it's more likely to be somebody who actually represents the majority interests of women, and therefore the majority of the country. Thatcher destroyed the women's movement. The first thing she did was to cut off the milk supply for children. It's not helpful to have somebody who looks like you and behaves like them. It hasn't helped African Americans to have Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court."

I dunno, I still don't see how Hillary is all that much better in representing women? If she was still talking the way she was in the 90s then I think I'd be liking her a whole lot more, honestly. And I also don't think Hillary represents the majority of the people or their interests, but of course, NONE of them do to be honest. Except for lawyers and people who make six-digit incomes. Clearly not the majority. In fact I'd wager that Edwards at least makes more of an effort to try and connect to the majority better than the rest.

And I don't know how she can think Hillary's husband doesn't help her popularity. Family is the argument she uses against Indira. Husbands & wives = family.