I'm really not sure I can stand a full year of squealing paeans to the fact that she's a woman. I'm kind of repulsed by the notion that I should support her policies just because their author comes with a set of ovaries attached. I will be glad, naturally, if she wins, to see that America has come far enough in the battle against sexism to elect a woman. But that's not a reason that I should vote for her. I will be even gladder, after all, when the fact that Hilary Clinton has two X chromosomes is seen as unremarkable enough to pass without comment.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Speaking as a Hillary non-supporter, do you ever think we'll get to the unremarkable stage without passing through the "squealing paens" phase? I'm not sure that I do.
And who, exactly, is arguing that you should vote for her just because she is a woman? Who?
That's "paeans." The rest of the comment is too stupid to bother with.
But that will be a reason not to nominate any woman, so long as its first woman nominated, right? Should we not nominate Obama or Richardson because of the paens to their race? I guess Edwards it is.....
Here, gratis, is my mnemonic for remembering whether it's "Hilary" or "Hillary". Hell.
That argument is so 1984.
Was this a reason not to nominate her, or something that's not a reason to nominate her?
Would you be glad, naturally, if instead of Hillary Condi won? To show how far we've come against sexism and racism?
Would you be glad, naturally, if Alberto Gonzalez won, to show how much we've overcome discrimination against latinos?
You pointed out in one sentence that you could care less about voting for her and her policies simply because she's a women, but then went on to say it would be a great thing if she were elected simply because she's a women.
Maybe instead of sitting on the fence you should take a stand for or against the person running and their policies they want to enact rather than the thing between their legs or the parenthetical letter that comes after thier name.
Sam - that seemed like a rather loud way to express what appears like complete agreement.
She would not vote for her herself because she'd rather "take a stand for or against the person running and their policies they want to enact".
BUT if she were elected, she would be happy that being a woman did not stand in her way - that this was a sign people were being chosen not because of "the thing between their legs".
See, she meant just what YOU said, but expressed it a bit more pleasantly.
I find it hard to imagine that there won't be a lot of blather about the first "whomever" to be president from the proponents and the opposition. With Clinton, there will be so much blather about other things, it won't seem as bad.
I can't believe you're having second thoughts about Hillary getting the nomination. It'll be fun! It'll be just like watching MTV's "I love the 90's" all day for 9 months; we'll get to endlessly rehash Whitewater, and Travelgate, and Filegate, and Vince Foster, and of course Monica. The MSM will be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again!"
Then we'll find out if the American people would still rather be run by a gang of privileged elite jerks looking out for themselves or by someone who actually wants to think about what's in the country as a whole's best interests. It's a coin flip right now.
buy canada in viagra where