I'm glad I misunderstood and that you voted for who you wanted - no matter who that is. I did not perceive you as someone who could be pressured by others in your political decision making.
I'm bias, but I do not think she gets a raw deal on ambition. I agree with you on the point that Obama is extremely ambitious. I think he is as ambitious as her, but is better at taking the long view of the repercussions of his actions. She sometimes thinks in the short term and plans to deal with the fall out later. I think she has made a number of moves that are perceived to place her ambitions above the future of the party, comrades in the senate, or would-be allies. I know Obama has done some things in the name of ambition that are not so positive, but they did not have far reaching repercussions--at least not yet. I realize most that like her just see moves as being the way you have to be to win. However, if that is the case then the definition of win is debatable. the follow are a few of the most recent steps she has taken to creat these cutthroat perceptions of her ambitions: When Dems win, it is often because Blacks put them over the top. Once the Clintons realized they had lost Blacks, they started a subtle southern strategy usually used by republicans. Republicans always say blacks are stupid for blindly following the dems. The reason most of us do is because of the white southern strategy of say and doing things coded to reach white men who are racist. When the Clintons did that they risked the party because if blacks had stayed home, it would have affected everybody down ticket. They reinforced this by saying over and over that Obama injected race into the election and that they did nothing. Many people still believe it. But it will help her win, so that is what is important. After dems finally won over the majority of Hispanics they Clinton using rhetoric that Hispanics do not like Blacks and will not support one in an elections. While it is true with many older Hispanics, most younger Hispanics have supported Blacks in the recent past. Again, this line was designed to get Hispanics aligned with her but endangered the whole party and down ticket elections if Obama won, because many Hispanics now hate republicans, but like Mc Cain. The dems like to be perceived as for all people and she screwed with their 40 year brand. But it will help her win, so that is what is important. As a woman, there have been numerous times when I perceive gender bias impacting the race, however, the Clintons have a contentious relationship with the media that has nothing to do with bias. Additionally, the media is sitting on a minimum of 10 scandals in which one or both of them are involved that they will only report on if the republicans introduce any of them. In one instance the only reason Hillary was not arrested is because of her stature as first lady. Yet they say the media is soft on Obama because of gender bias. Sometimes when the media reports facts or numbers they scream gender bias. As a result you has whole feminist organizations pitted against each other. As a result young and older women are warring with each other. When what is really at work is a Clinton blow back. Women make up over 55-60% of democratic voters. Again she risked part of the party splintering. But it will help her win, so that is what is important. using complaints about that bias as a tactic for winning does not make me warm and fuzzy as a feminist. Most women in power do not complain. She repeatedly called on democrats to vote on her gas tax proposal that they all thought was pandering. She in effect said, you are either with me or against me when she knew some were in the middle of raising their state gas tax to fix bridges. Had Obama not stood up to her and convinced most people it was a bad move, some of of her allies in the senate would have been severely damaged politically had she continue with the proposal. But it will help her win, so that is what is important. Ironically, it played into her reputation as a liar and I think it cost her many votes in Indiana and North Carolina. She sometimes is her own worst enemy. When Gore was running for office, she siphoned fundraising money for her senate campaign to the sum of a $140 million, even though her opponent was polling poorly and had a $million dollar budget. She did the same to Kerry for her re-election campaign. Regarding Michigan and Florida, so that she can claim the nomination she is backtracking on support of the rules, If she was not Hillary Clinton they would not even be paying attention. She has people fired up on those states who were not fired up before she decided not to support the rules once she discovered she was losing. This works against party interests because they struggle to stop states from holding primaries early, if they let Clinton get her way they think mayhem will ensue. But it will help her win, so that is what is important. The list goes on. She has a long history of not supporting allies and working to hurt those who do not follow blindly. I do not think the biases against her are because she is a woman but because she is who she is. I think she is good a playing victim and getting people to rally behind her because of it. I've got to give her credit. She is the only woman I have ever seen play victim and be perceived as strong by women and men. It's definitively a skill. However, as a woman, I feel her victim campaign, running on her husband's clout is insulting to women. I admit, I no longer like her, but she could have won this clean and could have been a symbol to women around the world. She is strong and has accomplishments of her own to be proud of. Now her stature has fallen globally, with her only continuing to be held in high regard here, in Israel and to a lesser degree, England. Despite the idea pushed in the media that all women are behind her, she lost more than a third who were behind her as recently as three months ago. While she opened to door for women politicians, she broke every rule in how women get to the top. As most of the women who are opposed to her being president say, we need a woman in the White house, but she is the wrong woman I know this is a very long rant, but I just read that they are discussing fighting all the way to the convention. I will get a grip. I am woman hear me roar.... sigh --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "ironpigs3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Tracey > > There are many things that I like about both candidates. I just > happen to like more things about Obama so I went with him. However, > in the end it was her flip on her position about the war that decided > it for me. Frankly, Obama's position on the war seems less than > realistic but her's seemed dishonest. The war and it's consequences > (i.e. the shattered economy) were my main concern, immediately > followed by healthcare. > > I think that HRC has a lot of qualities and a lot of flaws. I felt > the same way about her husband. I think that many of those flaws > would make excellent qualities in a President, again very much like > her husband. On many complaints, I feel she gets a raw deal. For > example, I don't believe for a second that Obama is any less > ambitious than HRC but no one seems to think that ambition in a man > is a flaw. However, ambition in a woman seems to be a deal breaker. > Frankly, I wouldn't be interested in a candidate who was not overly > ambitious. They would, in my estimation, lack the stones to do the > job. > > I voted for Obama because I liked more things about his candidacy > than Clintons. However, I would not have been unhappy with Clinton as > the victor. Either candidate is an ideal choice over John McCain who > in my mind is a disaster as big as the present one we are all > suffereing through. Perhaps that clears things up. > > I will add this, when the race comes down to the superdelegates at > the convention and Obama is denied the victory, I will feel very > betrayed by the process. I believe he is the clear choice of the > majority of democrats at this point and he should get the support of > the superdelegates where he has won primaries and caucuses. > > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <tdlists@> > wrote: > > > > Bosco: > > > > Thanks for the explanation and the wonderful complement. I was just > > kidding. I like playing Veep-stakes and even though you asked > Keith, I > > decided to give my view. If you like Clinton, I'm not sure I > understand why > > you voted for Obama. > > >
