Blogs and Stories
Hillary and the 'Woman Thing'
Losing her life's dream (or being freed from it?) has pressed the secretary of State's reset button in an interesting way.
Hillary Clinton has spent her entire career looking bug-eyed with incredulity when an interviewer asks her whatever question she most expects at that moment. Her theatrical bemusement was more convincing than usual on Monday’s Today show, however, when Ann Curry asked what she says to people who are “concerned that you have been marginalized.”
After dismissing the whole notion as “absurd,” she said: “I’m not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on TV every moment of the day. I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say, ‘Oh, no. everything must come to me.’ Now maybe that is a woman’s thing.”
It’s as if she has learned how to circumnavigate that tiresome phallic competition and acknowledged what’s different—and valuable—about her own female nature.
A woman’s thing! In that phrase alone the secretary of State revealed what distance she has put between herself and the 2008 campaign trail. Mark Penn, then her strategist (or some might say saboteur), would have aborted that “woman’s thing” thought before it was even conceived. Remember Penn’s famous “launch strategy memo,” written in December 2006 and leaked to The Atlantic in the closing days of the campaign? “In analyzing the current situation, regardless of the sex of the candidates,” he wrote, “most voters in essence see the presidents [sic] as the ‘father of the country.’ They do not want someone who would be the first mama, especially in this kind of world.” He cited the example of Margaret Thatcher: “the adjectives that were used about her (Iron Lady) were not of good humor or warmth.”
Perhaps losing your life’s dream (or being freed from it, depending on how you look at it) pushes the reset button like nothing else. After some rocky moments, Hillary seems to have found, in the heart of her chief rival’s administration, an unexpected comfort level. The static around her has evaporated. She communicates a deep lack of insecurity. Locked in the Situation Room with alpha dogs all day and going home to the biggest alpha dog of all at night (on the rare occasions the two are in the same hemisphere), it’s as if she has learned how to circumnavigate that tiresome phallic competition and acknowledged what’s different—and valuable—about her own female nature. If they’d been translating her thoughts as she spoke to Curry, the subtitle would have read: “Don’t you understand? I don’t have to do that shit anymore.” No wonder she has the highest approval rating in the cabinet.
Everyone expected Hillary to fight for the limelight with Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke. But she was smart enough to let that booby prize be all his. There aren’t going to be any Nobel Prizes handed out for cutting a few messy deals with drug barons and warlords. Who are you gonna to reel in there for a Dayton Accord? Mullah Omar and Osama? The only good thing about Holbrooke’s day at the moment is when he has a stress-free debriefing session with her.
There was speculation she would clash with flinty GOP holdover Defense Secretary Bob Gates. After all, that turf war has been almost de rigueur in Washington political infighting. But ever since July 2007 when Hillary hit out over Gates' dismissive response to her request that the Pentagon brief Congress on plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, Gates has not risked patronizing Hillary again. Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy at State for Colin Powell, says in today’s New York Times that Gates views Hillary as “tough-minded, clear and focused.” Always more of a hawk on military matters than Obama and much respected by the military, Hillary has shown she can do business with Gates and vice versa.
Her relationship with Obama? His low temperature doesn’t bother her (and may even be welcome, after 34 years of marriage to a heat storm). I’m told she respects The Deity’s disciplined management style. It plays to all her strength as a superwonk policy cruncher. Most of the victories of a secretary of State’s day are not the big ticket geopolitical headliners. They’re scenarios like the one that took place just this week, when Clinton, sitting in her BMW in the foothills of the Swiss Alps with her cell phone to her ear, sweet-talked the on-again, off-again Armenians and Turks into ending hostilities over massacres that took place during World War I. According to Terry McAuliffe at the six-month anniversary meeting of all 22 cabinet members at the Blair House retreat in July, Obama told two different attendees that Hillary was “the ideal cabinet officer.”
In the protracted deliberations about troop levels in Afghanistan, Obama requires not just organized arguments from each member of his team but individual position papers as a follow up. Hillary thrives on such onerous toil. If we don’t know where she stands on Afghanistan, it’s not because her views aren’t strongly held. It’s because she’s smart and mature enough to give them to the president, not the press. Her eyes shone on the Today show when she talked about the “extraordinarily thought-provoking, deep discussion about what our goals should be—how best to protect our country, advance our interests, provide support for our allies in the ongoing struggle against fundamentalism, extremism, violence, and jihadism.” That’s the kind of stuff she’d dig into at Wellesley over spring break.
And there’s an unexpected plus to all this. It took Obama’s presidency to do what she could never achieve in the White House or on last year’s campaign trail: She’s got Bill under control at last. From the moment she entered Foggy Bottom, he’s been as good as gold. The big dog’s in his kennel and she’s holding the leash.
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Sarah Palin, the Musical
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Hillary Finally Doffs Her Burqa
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
The problem is, people often become like those who they fight.
The process could be argued about, but you just have to look at how opposing sides say different things, but often appear very similar in looks and mannerisms.
One thing about women, they do wear clothes that express who they are, more than men do.
And maybe wearing look alike suits, only distinguished by a tie which could be used to strangle them, add to the impression, people are more alike, than different, even when they take opposite sides.
agreed!! womens will never get pass this issue no matter how much we've tried, it's in genetic.
Oh, ya! I never thought of it that way. You totally changed my opinion. Really. I swear.
Hillary at her policy-wonk best in Moscow this week (video):
http://snipurl.com/si8bq
In most countries Hilary wouldn't have the disadvantage that she has in the States, as a woman, or in a town where the military is a major employer. Being a man, is an advantage in the military and militaristic society.
Men don't think twice about how the uniform, the suit, etc, gives them an advantage, and anonymity, that women don't have.
Even the way men are evaluated is less harsh than women, just based on what they wear and they avoid the question whether they are a miss or a mrs.
And then of course people act stupid, the way they do in a gong show, to trip each other.
They haze each other, they destroy the confidence of each other. America is falling.
I noticed that obama is referred to as a diety!! Since when did he become God??
King George 43 left his crown behind . . .
ROTFLOL!!
I could be wrong, but I suspect this was intended as thinly vieled sarcasm...
Excellent point. the ones that look alike are the ones I try to avoid. I like a sense of reality when choosing my candidate, someone that talks about how out of control the White House spending is. Not someone who apologizes for our country and misinforms other countries on the legitimacy of the election process.
There are more important things in life than what women wear. Yes in our society it is necessary to look presentable and our country treats this woman like royalty, but there was no one in the liberal party that that would say the same for Sarah Palin. Our country was not founded on Royalty. Our four fathers came from many lands and laid out the constitution based on the countries they ventured from.
With women that complain about the clothes people wear and what women's group they should belong too. People that idolize someone for the same very reason. Is the reason that women in this country have low self esteems. I think women in this country are too self serving. The real issues at hand go beyond self serving attitudes. This contingency against women in this country is the result and problem with a democracy.
Yet some do not recognize the Old fashioned glory of someone like Sarah Palin when she stepped on the scene against the hornet nest of political pundents she was not interested in special interest groups. She did not dress in pant suits or tried to match with the women in the Senate.
It just reminds me of High School all over again. I wonder if they communicate the Elitist dress-code by Email or use the Old fashioned calling pyramid. Though Sarah brought her own flavor, with her Old Fashion.... "Bridge to Nowhere" line we will never for get. Therefore this slogan of Change, really belongs to Palin who tried to change the style of Capitol Hill.
Now people want to criticize Hilary for stigmatizing herself with the others on Hornet Hill. But Sarah stood there on her own two feet and gave these lines she believed strongly in. I do not know anything more characterizing than that. I can not effectively compare the two women because they are on two ends of the spectrum. Hillary on the Elites end and Palin on the local hero end.
But, my opinion is if she buzzes like a hornet, looks like a hornet, she is a hornet. I think character says the most about people, and if she really wanted to help her political career, she should really consider letting go of the dead weight of apologizing to other nations. Then prove to the nation she is willing to defend this nation on it's homeland not with other Elitist worldwide. Our problems are on the Home front.
Hillary's work has usually already been accomplished. Look into her bug eyes and watch them, as she accepts full responsibility for the TASK. As far as Bill goes!!!Who in the world said she had him under control?Look again folks. He's the same Bill he was before his wife was Secretary and she TRAVELS--world-wide? Excuse me. Say that again?
I am a big fan of Hillary. She is my idol and ideal both. I always found her positive and she has a spark in her personality. I just follow her. I really like her.handyzubehor
What a mighty joy it is to have Sec. Hillary able to grok the planet on our behalf. The heart, the en-couragement she gives to women and girls all over the globe is simply wondrous.
The hate-triots of the far-right venom machine will pule on, but sensible people with two functioning hemispheres will revel in Sec. Hillary's strength and breadth. I only wish those frank and deep discussions could be on CSpan for all of us to learn from. How cool would *that* be?
She's not a useful target to the far right hate machine (or whatever). Their best attacks during the campaign were about her clothing..
I do find her opinions enjoyable b/c they're based in pretty hardcore study. Since Hill's trip to Africa, I've never heard more accolades for her from the most thoughtful people I know. Many of whom wish she were president. Among them, the opinion is gender-free.
What is with the " far right bashing " ? Can't you people have a simple discussion without bashing anyone...lets just agree to disagree and stop all the stupid bashing or is that beyond your abilities???? I have not been a Hillary fan in the past, but I believe, until proven different, that she has finally found her niche and I don't believe she gets enough credit from the White House. Perhaps the President is afraid of giving cudos to others besides himself because it would not fair well for him. Usually the most effective people are the ones working behind the scenes and not in front of the camera everyday.
WestVillager said "I do find her opinions enjoyable b/c they're based in pretty hardcore study." Want proof? She backed NAFTA when most Democrats thought all of our jobs would end up in Mexico. They didn't.
A useful target for the far right hate machine, hah?
Well at this moment my crew is going over transcripts of Chris Mathews of Hardball fame, Mr. Keith Olberman and even comments here on this blog prior to the election when Hillary ran for President to prove it is the left who threw Hillary Clinton to the wolves.
Again, now when some are wondering if indeed she was marginalized the left is going in overdrive to prove their love for her as not to embarrass the Obama administration.
Don't get me wrong the right has no love loss for Hillary. Yet this little exercise in futility by the left to whitewash the truth in being how they themselves threw that woman beneath the bus is completely transparent at best.
Hey, I was just replyin'. Not bashng. Tell your crew (from the 1980s) to go home. Keith O. is the last person I need to hear from about Hillzy.
>WestVillager said "I do find her opinions enjoyable b/c they're based in pretty
>hardcore study." Want proof? She backed NAFTA when most Democrats
>thought all of our jobs would end up in Mexico. They didn't.
While "all" of our jobs didn't move to Mexico, there is no denial that a steady stream of companies has moved their operations south of the border. No company requiring a strong intellecutual presence can do so, so the high profile engineering/biotech/etc companies are still here, but manufacturing, packaging, etc have lost plenty of jobs that have gone south for the winter, and spring, and summer, and fall, never to return. Want examples? LEGO moved their operations from Connecticut where they had been for over 20 years and outsourced it to Flextronics in Mexico. This is just one example of many.
"tiresome phallic competition" hmm, interesting turn of phrase. Tina: you miss the story here. She screwed up healthcare (due to her arrogance). She screwed up her "cakewalk" to the nomination. She's never outgrown her "valedictory" speech from Wellsley. Let's pray she doesn't screw up this job too. I wouldn't hold my breath.... George Patton
Her gender actually is the story. Ignoring it would be like ignoring Obama's race, which no one did during the cakewalk. The point is that she (and he) seem to thrive when it's not the focus.
She didn't screw up her 'cakewalk" to the nomination. It was a sure-thing for Democrats, not for her. Obama outright owned her in political strategy and created an even more ravenous and omni-present base than her feminist supporters. I think Tina hit it right on the money here, showing how being largely disconnected from the irrelevancies of the media and the political machine has let her sharp mind for policy shine.
The only thing I hope for is that she stays smart and only does her U.S. interviews with Zakaria and Amanpour.
Hussein got elected based on race, pure and simple. In any normal election, the "black vote" is split. When Hussein, who is half black, half white, campaigned in the black neighborhoods, he was black. When he campaigned in the white neighborhoods he was half white. The fact is he got around 98% of the black vote. Had the black vote been split as it normally has been, he would not have been elected.
And she has made some definite missteps as Secretary of State by reverting to being Hillary. Tina mentions that Hillary has a higher approval rating than other members of the administration who were actually polled. She does not mention that Hillary's approval ratings dropped 20 points over the summer and are down to 51% and that she had greater name recognition than the other members who were unknown to the majority of those polled. Bob Gates appears to work well with Hillary but his respect and admiration for the president are overwhelming apparent.
There were many missteps in Clinton's campaign but the biggest ones were Sean Penn and Geraldine Ferrero. No woman who makes up reasons to whine about sexism will ever make it to the White House. It is a turn off to both sexes. Women who have faced genuine sexism in the work place and most have are offended when you insult them by pretending that any deficit should be overlooked and any attack is motivated by sexism. It didn't work for African American candidates in the past and Obama refused to allow the media to drag him into any "racism" whine and they tried real hard to do so.
Women need to see the light if they aspire to run on a presidential ticket.
I'm sorry to tell you that Hillary did not have to "make up reasons to whine about sexism". Had she chosen to "whine"- which she did not- she would have had more than enough cause to do so. The majority of women in this country (as evidenced in several polls) felt that she was treated much more harshly than her male competitors. It was not "a turn off" (as you stated) to women; it was infuriating and it handed Hillary the victory in NH.
Of course it was Hillary's dream to be the 1st woman president. That's why she moved to NY to accept the position of US Senator (years ago, that was called carpet bagging). That layed the groundwork for her to be in the spotlight and begin her run for POTUS. However, along came an inexperienced, very liberal freshman senator with questionable associates. He became (and still is) the media's darling and the Democrats new rock star. Heck, he's the world's new rock star. his only major accomplishment as president has been winning the Nobel Peace Prize (for his hopes and dreams, not for anything he's accomplished per se). But chivalry is not dead. President Obama did throw her a bone to be the Secretary of State. As if this woman has not been through enough already. After being publicly humiliated by her unfaithful husband for most of their marriage and now in the shadow of another male president. I'm sure she is looking forward to retirement and (dae I say) divorce.
I don't believe that Obama is the worlds rock star. I think that "the world" sees him as passive and they think they can flex their "muscles " now. Iran and Korea always threatened ,but never actually did anything when Pres.Bush was in office. Now they are "testing" up a storm !!! That makes me nervous that they believe Pres.Obama is soft and we may be in for attacks here. Look how many people have been arrested on our soil since he took office for terrorist acts. This Pres. wants to roll back the same measures that has protected us in the past and has been fruitful in garnering these terrorist.His attorney general,Holder, is now wanting to strip the CIA from carrying out there duties for some stupid political reasons. If you don't believe that then you have had your head in the sand too long. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton can keep us safe with her wheeling and dealing.
Eric Holder's former law firm represented some of the terrorists at Gitmo. Now he is looking into the enhanced interrogations techniques used by our intel people against his former clients. Anyone see a conflict here? Anyone feel safe with this administration?
Ozone69
Holder's former law firm did or does pro bono work for 17 detainees from Guantanamo Bay, and got rulings that they had rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions, thus they couldn't be transferred to foreign custody without a chance to challenge the move in court.
If the government can get away with sneaking those detainees away without due process, they can do the same to you and I.
I can understand the 'lock em up and throw away the key' crowd not liking this. But if you let our government have that kind of power it would cease to be the United States of America.
I don't see a conflict, and I feel safer with this administration than the prior one.
AuntBarb,
I find it disturbing that enemy combatants (ie terrorists) that do not represent a sovereign nation can be given rights under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution. It disturbs me a great deal. Some former detainees from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield after flunking out of Saudi Arabia's terrorist de-programming re-hab or whatever they call it. These are not german or Japanese soldiers in the 1940's. This is a threat that will not go away, unfortunately. I think bestowing Constitutional and geneva Convention rights on these savages is wrong in so many ways. As a NY'er who has lived throught two WTC bombings, I am quite comfortable with the Bush administration's anti-terror policies and the Patriot Act. My main concern as they sunset is that this administration will cave to the Left and pare down these policies.
kthompson: Have you forgotten already that Bush and Cheney didn't protect America from the 9/11 terrorists attacks?
If they had been on the ball, these terrorists would have been arrested just like the ones you mentioned, and 7,000 American lives would have been saved.
I remember it all too well. America was not on war footing to fight al Queda and other Islamic terrorists. That is one thing that I am disappointed with the Bush administration over. They should have been more aggressive with this menacing a nd deadly threat. What with the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in1996, the simultaneous bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1997, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. All on Clinton's watch and nothing was done about those attacks save for the WTC bombing. That, his AG treated like a bank robbery in open court rather than an attack on the homeland. Maybe if Clinton's Assistant AG Jamie Gorelick hadn't issued the policy that was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents and that Gorelick "built that wall through a March 1995 memo." That and a stained dress will be Clinton's legacy.
The president is only weak if his country doesn't stand behind him. What ever happened to loving your country regardless of the head figure. I think people who bash the president on sources that can be accessed by foriegn enemies should be the ones held responsible if an attack occurs. Maybe we could have found osama. If he didn't know we were looking for him we might have had a chance to find him. P.S. We got attacked when bush was in office. Also Bill was a better president than hillary will ever be. :p
You have no idea how the world sees the president although their is ample evidence that he is respected by world leaders. The idea that politicians who act like hysterical school girls are perceived as strong is inane. Iran and Korea did exactly the same thing when Bush was president. Iran started building it neclear plant when Bush was president. Korea beat their spoon on the table through the entire Bush administration. When Ahmadinejad rants and raves do you quake in your boots or think WOW what a powerful leader? The rest of the world's opinion of Bush was similar to our assessment of Ahmadinejad. North Korea hasn't been able to launch a missile that will reach Japan and when they test we do learn more about their nuclear advancement than we previously knew. But you are quaking in your boots because just as they did throughout the Bush administration they are testing. Let me give you a heads up. They test on or very near an American holiday. They've done this for years. Struength has nothing to do with bravdo, blustering, knee-jerk reactions and hysteria. Those are the qualities of poor ego strength and insecurity in your own capabilities. The CIA has been a failed agency since its inception and have been plagued by corruption and ineffectiveness for decades.
Just think, by this time during the Bush administration we had been attacked on our own shores for the first time in 60 years, yet Bush's shaking his little fist in the air and pretending he was John Wayne made you feel safe. Do you see anything wrong with your assessment?
Xlncat,
The rest of the world's opinion of Bush was similar to our assessment of Ahmadinejad?
Really. George Bush liberated millions of Iraqis and Kurds from one of the most evil dictators in recent history. He liberated Afghais from the ruthless Taliban. Yet the world sees him as we see A'jad? Sorry, a Holocaust denying tinpot puppet president of a country that imprisons and executes protesters of a sham election is quite different.
Ozone69
I understand what you're saying, but the policy was challenged in court and the law says they cannot be sent to another country without due process.
It doesn't mean they're going to be released scot free. As far as I know, the 17 people represented by Holder's former law firm are still in the pokey.
I don't share your comfort with Bush's anti terror policies and the Patriot Act. I feel a government without sensible legal restrictions on it's power puts all of us on a Teflon slope to dictatorship. Or some degree of dictatorship.
In the interest of staying on topic, I'll repeat my answer to your questions. I don't see a conflict between Holder's former law firm and his current position, and I feel safer with the current White House leadership.
AuntBarb,
I guess we disagree. I never felt the Patriot Act or other proactive anti-terror policies were overly intrusive to American citizens. I guess if I were a Muslim calling home to Yemen or Saudi Arabia, coupled with other factors (associates, organizations, etc.) my chances of being monitored would increase. Justifiably in my opinion. I never thought we got it right after 9/11. Authorities couldn't profile suspected terrorists in transportation hubs. It has to be random? "OK, the next 4th passsenger in line is a 58 year old Norwegain lady. Pull her out." That never made sense to me. Here in NYC, the NYPD started to check bags of passengers going into the subway system following the London and Madrid bombings. The ACLU is fighting those searches. I hate to say it, but until we get hit again (and I fear that we will) we (our whole country) won't appreciate the threat facing us.
Yes, and the Nobel 'peace' laureate refused to meet with a real live man of peace, The Dalli Lama. He did so as not to hurt the tender sensibilities of our new owner Big Daddy better known to all as China.
Talk about a graven irony....
But then the liberal media machine got right on that miss-step and interviewed the Dali Lama himself asking the following rediculous question of this passive man man of peace:
"Do you feel angry President Obama would not meet with you?"
Dah, what do you think his answer was?!! And so the whitewash continues unabated except when one of us dares question this insanity. All is happy. The loyal followers, knee jerks all, who pretend to care for the downtrodden in the world, gave a damn Tibet is being destroyed before our eyes by China. The Dalli Lama gave their desired answer and after all, that is all which matters.
Yah, the very same people who slam Condi Rice with cloaked racial epitaphs (the same ones who gladly threw Hillary under the bus) who run the other way when the word Ray Nagen is brought up.
The president and the Dali Lama worked this out between the two of them. I am sorry they didn't get your permission before hand. I am sure that being the expert on foreign affairs that you believe yourself to be that you certainly know more than the Dali Lama and the president of the U S.
And how is it that YOU know "The president and the Dali Lama worked this out between the two of them." Oh, I see, you REALLY know, as opposed to the rest of who just watch the news. yea, right - and I have a bridge for you to buy.
Hmmm... Bitter: Party of One???
I'm thrilled with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
The anti-Condolezza. I'm sure Hillary would have made an excellent President and that in itself makes her a great SOS. Balancing the best interest of the American people and being able to communicate effectively with the rest of the world and still have them LIKE us!
Of course, when your husband is a former President of said country that doesn't hurt either. But I think ultimately it's her femininity that soften any defensiveness that preceeds her. This woman is brilliant and we should all be thankful she's on OUR side.
Truth be known, Hillary after losing the nomination wanted very much to be made Vice President. I truly feel she was given the post of Secretary of State so Bill would keep his mouth shut about the snub. She was snubbed and no one can deny it.
It just amazes me how the comments about Bill Clinton and his wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are now so sanitized by the Democratic Party. Yes indeed, all done so no one looks bad.
Hypocrites all...
You must be
Really well connected
To have so much inside
Information-
What?
You're not?
Oh- then you must be making it all up.
Right.
That's what I thought.
The anti- Condolezza?
Actually, Condolezza Rice was rather liberal. If you look beyond your disdain for Bush you would see she and Hillary are quite similar.
Furthermore, you understand if she were in the Obama Administration your comment would be taken as quite racist. But then that is different, hah?
Did you just equate Condolezza the puppet with Hillary? Yeah, I'm sure Hilary would be out on the town buying expensive shoes and going to a show during disasters like Katrina. Condolezza is a vile and disgusting human being.
I'm pretty sure you thought the tea-parties weren't racist but this comment giving kudos to Hilary, you're going to twist it into racism? Who is the hypocrite? Hopefully not you.
I would like to congratulate kiwibelle on an impressive collection of clichés, knee-jerks and stereotypes.
( "She's got Bill under control at last. From the moment she entered Foggy Bottom, he's been as good as gold. The big dog's in his kennel and she's holding the leash. " )
Tina please,
that Horn Dog can chew through that leash any time he wants. Hillary may have moved to Foggy Bottom, but Bill is still living in Groping Bottom.
I guess none of you remember Monica's testimony. The President was HER trophy not the other way around. She planned the whole thing...admitted it ...walked in the room and lifted her skirt. Absolutely premeditated.
Now, I don't know how many of you ladies have a husband or boyfriend who is either hadnsome or in a postion of power, because that's what happens to those men. And Mr. Clinton was both. Those men don't have to look for the honey pot, the honey pot comes to them. and yes, some men still go after their trophies too, but you ladies can be ruthless and lusty too. I promise you, Mr. Clinton would not have to work at all to find many a willing lady.
The fact that you may have a boyfriend or husband who is faithful may have to do with his lack of opportunity .....or the fact that he isn't such a great catch! Sports heroes and rock stars and movie stars ..they don't have to go to pick up bars either ...the girls wait at door.
That pic of Hillary... Looks like Bill just jumped out from behind the corner with a Halloween mask on.
I wonder if she'd be that surprised.
Imagine a man politician saying: 'Yeah, I'm quite bright (or honest, or whatever). Maybe it is a man's thing'.
Today, the PC says that women are able to do anythig that a man can do, sometimes (very much) better. Never worse.
The noding smile with wich men accept that is a very notable case of discrimination, that, seemingly, no one notices.
I very much like Hillary. I like her candor and her intellect. Having said that I find it quite humorous much of the Democrat machine hated her gutts while she ran against Obama. The salacious statements made against her by then candidate Obama's media machine and followers disgusted me.
NOW however when she has been truly marginalized and it does not fair well for the all inclusive Obama image, the spin machine is working the exact opposite showing how damn important she is to the administration.
I love the interviews where she is actually asked if she feels marginalized. How darn transparent. What, she is going to say yes??
I mean the media just will not allow this administration to stand on it's own, good and bad, flaws and accomplishments.
The media treats Obama like he is some kind of a weak pampered child not the strong educated man that he is.
The real joke is how the left accuses Fox news of being everything neo-conservative every moment all the time yet the exact same thing can be said about main stream media and their all Obama all the time coverage.
Tina: On the other hand her Hillaryship has decided to fight like a woman & succeed. You & Arianna Huffington are successful woman web publishers because you fight as strong women fight. Margaret Thatcher & Angela Merkl(sic?) are successful woman politicians because they learned to fight as strong women fight.
There is no way to predict what Hillary Cliinton will accomplish. She has introduced new ways to the public that are ways a strong woman fights. We will get used to it.
Ariana Huffington is to Tina Brown as Glenn Beck is to David Brooks. I mean srsly!
You have not used Huffington Post lately.
Do you still believe that the NYT is America's only newspaper of record? Have you checked the words of Mr Brooks lately? It may be past time for you to sleep in a comfy cave till April, 2010.
The people not their outlets. Arianna is a goof. In fairness, Huffington Post has some brilliant thinkers and I only regularly read the Sunday magazine, arts and food sections or occasional book review in the NY Times.
And I don't understand the April 2010 timing. My coffee's still brewing. :\
Tina - your piece brought tears to my eyes. A true heroine and leadership our country so badly needs being chased away my the misogyny-fest that our country allowed and continues to allow. Hillary's choice of taking the high road is a true loss to our country and I only wish it could be a wake up call in moving our country forward.
I am hopeful that another prominent woman, Sarah Palin, will not let these same factors impact her decision on whether to run in 2012. Perhaps women need to take non-traditional routes to get to the top? Sure do in other sectors.
Ah, Ms. Identity Politics and former Puma, Amy Siskind. Ms. Siskind is completely amoral. She lost with Hillary and can't get over it. Now she's a Palin supporter. Amazing stuff.
Traditional routes to the top, via marraige. Like HC and Pamela Digby Churchill Harriman! George Patton
Really don't hear enough about Pam Digby anymore.
"Don't you understand? I don't have to do that shit anymore."
LOL- That is so true!
It seems to me Hillary was finally given a job that actually will help her win the Presidency.
I looked for reasons to vote for her and couldn't find them.
Hillary is like Bush I, a smart capable person who doesn't weave emotional magic. We do vote for them if they have someone around them who can galvanize the masses for them (e.g., WIlly Horton, card carrying ALCU member)
She's given up? I recognize she's a personal friend of Tina's who knows better but I'm going to peer behind the PR smoke and say naaahhhhh....she's just begun to enter the stage on her own right.
I hated the article about Hillary that used the burka analogy, but loved this one. Thanks, Tina.
Hillary ROCKS.
Hillary is brilliant.
Obama may watch Hillary (and Bill) and weep as he will never be their political or intellectual equal.
Hillary 2012.
TK798999: Hillary is too much a team player to run in 2012.
Hillary 2016!
I think her running depends on democratic popularity polls and it is too soon to be thinking about 2012. Just cross your fingers and hope obama does a good job cause I personally don't want our country to stay in the condition it is in until 2012. Hillary's time is over for now some people dwell to much on the past and the future to enjoy the here and now.
You have got to be kidding!
Mr. Penn's memo about a leader being 'father of the country', truly reveals the left wings sexist mentality.
I am a lifelong Conservative and I have had nothing but admiration for PM Thatcher. Penn was correct that the term "Iron Lady" as applied to PM Thatcher was not a term of warmth and endearment, but then, how many leaders of either gender are considered warm and cuddly? I would openly call PM Thatcher the "Iron Lady" as a term of admiration as it was descriptive of her leadership, strong and unwavering, very admirable in a leader.
Hillary may be a person who can stand toe to toe with the Obama-ites, but she is more of an "angry fighter" than a "leader", much displayed, when asked, in Africa to channel her husbands thoughts, resulting in her slapping away the question of a student there.
As for any clash between Gates and Hillary, they should have none. They are on two different ponds. Gates is a non-entity in most areas, deferring (as many do in this administration) to the dictates of Obama.
Gates interaction with Congress is a classic example; Hillary (while in Congress) demands to be briefed on troop movements, and Gates refuses. Gates had no obligation to even acknowledge the question, and he gave it far too much publicity to Hilary's demand by even responding. Hillary apparently hasn't read the Constitution, since the Congress authorizes the war and then sits out while the military, under the Presidents leadership fights the war, there is no requirement for the Congress to be told anything, to keep them too far into the loop only invites meddling, and "too many cooks..." as the saying goes.
But in the end Hillary and Obama will work and play nice together because above all their personal failings (which are many) they are both democrats and to them "the party" is more important than all else.
GIVE HILARY CREDIT
I did not support Hilary for President, but her performance as Sec. of State has been outstanding. All the things that I disliked in her husband -- egomania, constant need to be in the lime light, self-indulgence -- are NOT part of her program. Rather, she seems to be the ultimate team player in the foreign policy context.
One looks at Hobrooke and to a degree Mitchell and their endless self-promotion and posturing, and Hilary seems to be the polar opposite. She seems to surpress her personal needs to the larger goal. Good judgment seems to prevail over ego.
It's all a work in progress, but it's unfortunate that the Anne Curries and Tina Browns can't seem to tolerate a woman who is ready to maturely pursue the nation's best interests rather than some ego trip.
Whether you attribute it to her gender or to her broad experience, she seems to actually be focused on achieving the
Sadly, kiwibelle you misread my parallel or better said 'irony' about your slam on Condolezza Rice and how it would be read as rasicst 'if' she were on your side. (even though she is liberal all intensive purposes.) I hate to tell you but the Democrats have played that race card since Obama has become president ad nausem for your information.
If you would take the time to read her comments when she was Secretrary of State you would find her to be quite liberal indeed. Having said that you are in such a George Bush frenzy your only comment was on her buying shoes (expensive) during disasters such as Katrina. For that I would like to see a little linky to prove it.
Of course you would never ask where the Liberal Mayor of New Orleans happened to be when his own town was sinking but that is my point exactly!! Nor would you care to broach the subject of what Mayor Nagen accomplished for his city and people during his tenure other than enable their poverty and make them victims.
The real bottom line here is by the fact you 'label' Condolezza Rice a disgusting human being speaks volumes on the ethics of the pot calling the kettle black. (no pun intended)
It would be further helpful if kiwibelle would enlighten us as to what possible reason there is for criticizing Condolezza Rice for shopping and seeing a show during hurricane Katrina. Insofar as I know, the Secretary of State is responsible for our dealings with other nations, not with meteorological phenomena or the disasters they cause on U.S. soil. So, unless Katrina were caused by those silly Iranians or North Koreans manipulating the weather, Secretary Rice had absolutely no role to play in Katrina response at all. To suggest she should be sitting home wringing her hands or shoveling sand into sandbags or "doing something" because of a storm is like expecting the Yankees' manager to be sitting around worrying because the Jets are losing to the Dolphins.
Ritarita
You deny truth even when it hits you in the face.
If you would do a few news searches you might uncover how Hillary was thrown beneath the bus when she ran against Obama. It was not only shocking, it was disgusting. Now when truth is told that she has indeed been marginalized all of you are jumping to her side.
The very people I worked with on the Clinton Presidential Campaign who adored her turned against her. So please, do not twist truth into a lie all to protect a president you treat like a baby not a strong man fit for office. It just does not wash.
nevermind: You and "truth" have a very tenuous connection.
To the self-impossed blind I quote George Orwell:
"Don't bother me with facts. Don't disturb me with complexities. Don't try to make me think. Ignorance is strength."
Alan used
The word Truth-
Nevermind.
To everyone's great surprise
You missed it.
Woman are always at a disadvantage in a war/ego driven society.
To even think that fighting a war in a country, where the sides are so mismatched, is going to help women shows how quick people are to draw conclusions based on what they want to see.
Most people would never go to Afghanistan unless fully armed, or guarded by someone who is, because it is far too dangerous.
I would think more is going on behind closed doors than we will ever know.
War time legitimizes secret meetings etc.
Well, that's sure managing to string together several disconnected thoughts that are based on unsubstantiated presumptions and/or a mastery of the obvious. Is there a coherent observation somewhere in there?
Hilary is the right person for the job. She has shown that she is a woman of many parts and can conform as necessary. The right cannot tear her up
I have always thought of her as a DLC Democrat, like Bill, Lieberman and the rest, which means that I thought she would have been more conservative than Obama in both foreign and domestic policy. It always worried me that Obama hired so many DLC types for the new administration as well.
I still think that voting for Hillary would have meant eight more years of Bill, as well. Their marriage is political and they are a team--they are Billary. I didn't want eight more years of HIM, and his DLC ideas, and all that personal and political baggage.
She also came across as a very wooden and uninspiring figure compared to Obama. If she has a real personality at all beyond the ambition to be president, we almost never saw it in that campaign. She definitely doesn't seem to have that knack for acting all populist and folksy like Bill does so well.
Bill was carrying on right under her nose (and ours) for quite some time, I wouldn't be too sure he's under control. He no doubt learned that messing around with bubbleheads who can't keep secrets isn't wise but other opportunities abound.
Couldn't you have saved that picture for Halloween. At least when you see it on TV it's fleeting, but thos big eyes make me shiver =O
"The big dog's in his kennel and she's holding the leash."
(Slaps forehead)
Until the sentence above, the point and approach of this piece were thought provoking and compelling.
I gotta give mvtp47 a big 'DITTO' on this one (including the 'slaps forehead'). I had exactly the same reaction and my opinion is exactly the same. But, I have one more sentence to add.
What is it about women that makes them seek to abuse men? It can only be a deeply rooted inferiority complex of some kind and explains the entire sum, purpose and failure of the Woman's Movement in America. Until women can express equality in both word and deed, there will be no successful assimilation of women into the Political Process...since no one in this Democracy will stand for the disunity these ideas promote within the Body Politic itself. It is also likely why the Founding Fathers refused to allow women to vote, experiencing the same sort of behavior from women in their own lives, and likely also why they created 3 Branches of Government so as to prevent one from abusing the other.
This is very sad Tina. It is the sum and total of the reason why women are distrusted not only as future Politicians, but also now as wives and mothers. You are creating a world which is simply abusive...and no American will have any of that for even a moment.
Thanks for the reality check. Sometimes women forget why women were not allowed to vote. Otherwise intelligent women are still surprised at how, in the middle of their daily toil, they encounter thinly veiled but unmistakable hatred and sullenness. And the tone of this missive appears to be sincere. Must be hormonal. As Mom said (trying to prepare her hopelessly simple and romantic female charges for the "world of men") "Girls, they have whole dimensions of their brains missing!"
Hey Tina, Billy's gettin way OLD! Way past mid-life crisis - destructive hormonal rampages are no longer necessary. Unlike her wily counterpart, Babs Bush, poor Hillary was always too forthright to be very effective with leashes on sons and husbands. She used to pay dearly for even the most simple frank comment -- witch burnings are so unpleasant. Hillary as president probably would have been murdered in frenzy of hatred. It is a joy to see her finally able to use her many talents in place worthy of her potential.
@ baffin88
And yet the proof is always still in the pudding, isn't it. The idea is to make things work and to uplift the mind and the soul to greater things, not lesser ones. A gender slur is no different than a racial one.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.