I fell into all the Hillary hype and tuned intoher kickoff town hall meeting in Iowa last weekend which aired on CSPAN. I foundher lacking as a candidate. She cameoff as if she was suffering from a lightweight case of penis envy. She was speaking to a crowd of about 65% women and she was constantly making desparaging remarks about men. I didnt mind at first but after the first 4-5 anti-male commentsit just wasnt funny anymore and ultimatley just got out of hand.At one point she said something to the extent that "evil men" has been terrorising the world for long enough. It was so over the top I had to change the channel. If this continues Obama may have a chance, she comes off like she is angry about something..or mabe it was that time of the month, who knows.

The sad thing is whenever I think of Hillary in the White house, the only thing I can picture her doing is tugging at Bill's shoulder asking "what do I do know"? She is sooooooooooooo unqualified its not funny.

Hillary has a nearly 20% point lead in the polls. Seeing that it's unlikely thatnew skeletons will be revealed in her closet to thwart her campaign, like most fresh candidates usually face; Obama's going to have to do something to make his detractors see him as anything more than a nice story.

He's trying to reach the people with the "Tiger Woods" approach of marketing his multiculturalism to the masses, which is, politically, a wise maneuver in a overwhelmingly non-African/Black society. But unlike Tiger, he has Al Sharpton's possible entry into the fray, which would force him to deal with racial politics in a way that he has avoided to this point. And that's the development I would watch for over the coming months: will Sharpton decide to run? While he has no chance of winning, he can affect the discourse of the campaign greatly, as he did last time. There are issues pertaining to race that I suspect Obama would feel uncomfortable touching for fear of putting off one side or the other. Hillary can pay lip service to these issues, because she's white and whites know from her husbands Presidency that it would be nothing more than lip service; Obama doesn't have that luxury. If he speaks honestly on African/Black issues he'll be labeled "too radical." If he continues his current approach during debates including Sharpton, he'll be labeled indifferent(or worse) on issues pertaining to Africans/Blacks in contrast to Sharpton. Tiger has never had a African/Black foe that pushed him into a corner. Joe Frazier had this done to him by Ali(look at how, just or not, history remembers both men. Look at how Africans/Blacks, just or not, perceive/perceived both men.

Whether anyone believes Hillary is qualified or not, she's a known entity that has had her families dirty laundry exposed years ago. Many thought she was too involved in her husbands politics, not that she was so far removed that she wouldn't know what she's doing. With a term in the Senate already under her belt and her being re-elected for a second, in NY no less, the 'unqualified' tag rings hollow, especially in relation to Obama. For the most part, right wing Republicans vitriol for her won't matter in the Democratic primary. Also, she has nostalgia on her side.

Finally, white Democratic voters won't feel compelled to vote for Obama because of his race, because they have a female to vote for who also qualifies as a "minority" in this society. In many ways this election will function similarly to affirmative action, where white females in this country benefit from it far more than Africans/Blacks.

@MMD, that Ali/Frazier analogy was brilliant. Frazier's kids STILL tear up, when talking about how much grief they had to endure from other kids about their father being painted/seen as a "Tom".

I don't think Sharpton will run, UNLESS he sincerely believes that Obama is not going to address issues of concern to most Black folks. When I've heard him speak about Obama, he's been nothing but complimentary and gracious, but at the same time, he rightfully cautions Black folks to pay attention to what the man says. Not just lose our minds because he's a "Black" candidate. A Black candidate who intends to go along with business as usual, or who plans to do nothing that substantinively sets him apart from a white candidate, is of no use to us.

Your point about the hidden anti Black vote was also salient. White folks telling pollsters they'll vote for someone Black when they KNOW they won't,lol. They are famous for that ish, frontin ass, mofos....

Lastly, if the people in this country could sleep soundly at night having a moron(a dogmatic, incapable of admitting he was wrong even when EVERYONE else can see that he was, moron at that)like Dubya in control of the nuclear button,I don't know why having a woman at the helm would be cause for concern. America really needs to get out of the stone ages, on that count. ONe of the most fierce,loyal,consistent allies this country ever had, was Britain, when Margaret Thatcher was running shit. I couldn't stand the heifer's politics, I'm just saying. Ronald Ray-Gun would have taken her over any of her male counterparts, any day of the week.

America the home of white feminism still debating the acceptability of a woman president? HUH?confused3

I mean women have ruled damn near everywhere else at one time or another... what's wrong with you yankees?

LOL @ women being a "minority" They're more than 50% of the population. In other words most people ARE women. If a woman ran and all women voted then it would practically be a female monopoly for all time. The framework is there, women aren't playing it that way though. Odd...



@ Gmahogany
As much as many of hate Blair as a war mongering, freedom killing criminal tyrant stuffed up with his own importance feeling against him can never be as strong as that against Thatcher. Symbol or no symbol she was an evil witch. The Personification of evil incarnate given a nation to play with. She was an arms dealing, destabliser of foreign nations who at home destroyed industry, crippled unions, closed schools, shut hospitals, sold public assets and ruined them permenantly (rail, energy)... She went to war with a nation 1000s of miles away over some silly rocks and lets not forget forged the beginings of the war that Blair n Bush Jnr finished. If I were a person pushing for more female leaders of countries I'd pretend to forget that one...

The Watcher wrote: I'm aware of Thatcher's antics,sweetie. That's why I said I hated her politics.KRS ONE/BDP had a song called 7 dj's where Heather B, summed up my feelings about olMaggie. My point was, some people in America still have thissilly notion that a female running a country would be unreliable, weak, passive, more concerned with interior decorating, weeping in the Oval Office and shit. Thatcher was in the same mold as a lot of war mongering, imperialistic MALE leaders, which is why she and Reagan got along so well. They were kindred spirits,lol. My point was a female leader has no more or less of a chance of being any different than the myriad obnoxious,incompetent,power drunk, destructiveMALE leaders the world has seen,so to bring up gender in the first place, like a woman could or would do any worse than a man by virtue of being female, is asinine and antiquated.

And how are you doing, this fine morning/afternoon,btw?

The Watcher wrote:



There is still a John Wayne mentality in much of america, especially middle america.

In my observation most women in power globally have been historically MORE aggressive possibly to show that they could be or to survive politically or whatever. The new breed may change that trend though.

Why do Americans seem to have that peculliar problem though? Being, as I said, the home of white feminisim and a place where women do everything else and have elevated rights in all disputes with men (legally) I don't get it. I mean countries that America frowns on for being against women's rights have made more progress. Pakistan for example had that Bhutto woman a while back (fair enough she was more corrupt than Mobutu lol) but at least she had a run. Y'all are still TALKING about it. What gives? Where does the opposition come from? You say perception but I pointed out that women are more than half the electorate. Mean stuffy men's perception even if it were universal (and you know it's not) isn't enough to explain it. Something else must be happening we haven't thought of.

I'm fine thanks for asking. My rest period is over as new semester starts next week so I'm making most of relearning what relaxing is before it all dissapears from memory again.