My point is that by putting her entire weight behind Obama she has redeemed herself.

Lol! No she hasn’t, it was pure political calculation, not revelation on the road to Damascus!

She had no choice but to do that because her political career would’ve been over if she’d done anything other. She’s going to run once Obama has had his two terms and has to keep people sweet to achieve that.

Admittedly Team Clinton can pick from the best speechwriters of their generation to try to sway you with rhetoric, but the words don’t wuite do enough to convice when coming from her mouth.

There are major questions that she couldn’t answer about her judgement which can be traced back to her early days from when she swapped party allegiance almost overnight, to her continuing political alliance of conveniance with her husband, to her opposite positions on presidential indictments through the years, to how her senatorial campaign on an anti-gender platform compares with her presidential campaign was run on a vigorous gender-based campaign, as well her flip-flopping on policy issues like Iraq.

She has been exposed as an over-ambitious opportunist time and time again that it raises questions about her real political interests: the fact that she and her husband have created and profited from a mini political industry by turning themselves into a dynastic brand suggests she is primarily self-interested and a bad candidate for the highest office.

Now she has lost she takes the expeditious course of papering over the flaws in her own character and the divisions she opened up in the Democratic party, and she is suspected to be angling for a new role on the inside – would anyone be surprised?

It must be depressing for Amercans to be faced with a political system which offers a competent administrator and archetypal establishment figure like her as the radical choice for their national leadership.

Heh, my family has a long history. :-\

Neither were the ‘bigging-up of McCain to elevate herself…neither was the 3am ad…

I didn’t like either… especially the bigging up of McCain. But it’s standard primary fare. I’m not saying Clinton ran a campaign that I agreed with entirely. I was frequently critical of her. My point is that by putting her entire weight behind Obama she has redeemed herself.

And I do have to admit, her stubborn tenacity was about pushing the glass ceiling (and her own ambitions of course, but I don’t hold ambition as a negative quality) and she made that point.

Apart from the racial remarks she made, I thought she ran a good campaign. Obama just out-campaigned her. She won’t make VP of course. That would be stupidity.

Dan, see this:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-ninety_21.html

In fact, that blog has plenty more examples if you search for them. There’s a video on YouTube bringin them all together too.

So, admittedly, that’s why they’ve never elected one to now, but I really don’t think it’s the case here.

As for asking the question – I think it’s a fair question to be asked when you move from one Social dynamic to another – from non-acceptance of a female president to acceptance; since what that question is really asking is this:

“Have we, as a Country, evolved from a backward social construct to a more progressive and forward thinking one?” If the answer is yes, and a female president is acceptable to the majority of people – great, if not, we are a backward state not fit to “promote” democracy anywhere else in the world and it should be a stain on the national consciousness.

I’m not denying that. But that isn’t the point. You said:

Oh yes, it’s all the fault of that nasty patriarchy

…. as if it doesn’t exist. Which betrays a certain amount of delusion. Would you like to to point towards videos which illustrate instances of sexism that she faced? Or would I be breaking your heart again?

I asked you a simple question: why do you think the US has never elected a woman president? Why do we even need to ask whether ‘America is ready for a woman president?’

Any other reason you can think why, for over 300 years, America hasn’t elected a woman president yet?

Give over Sunny, you’re breaking my heart. She had just as much chance of winning the nomination this time as Obama did. Except she fought a (much) poorer campaign. and consequently she was beaten by a far better candidate. She represents the politics of the past (a past which she selectively remembers depending on the audience) and he the future. I can’t help thinking there has been a certain inevitably to it all.

Anyway, I’d never trust someone whose husband drags their name through the mud repeatedly in numerous affairs and she didn’t divorce him!! Power Power Power – it’s all she’s concerned about.

I salute you Hillary Clinton.

LOL! When did you join the military??

Clinton? Far left? If that comment was written with a straight face, I think I’ll cry…

Any other reason you can think why, for over 300 years, America hasn’t elected a woman president yet?

most notably the disgraceful attacks on Move On, the infamous ’straight out of the Republican playbook’ ‘3am’ ad and her continuation of the race this long….

A few things. While I agree the MoveOn attack wasn’t right, you can’t argue she shouldn’t do what she can in putting herself forward.

The coming attacks and insinuation from the Reblican camp are going to be much, much worse. Previous primaries even between Democrats have been worse.

Oh yes, it’s all the fault of that nasty patriarchy. If only Sirhan Sirhan were out of Jail she might have made it, as she intimated last week.

She may be disappointed, but anyone who has followed the Clinton dynasty over the years, has just breathed a massive sigh of relief. These guys make the Kennedys look like clean.

Read anything by Hitchens, C. on the matter and tell me you aren’t convinced. This is a gem:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/

If he picks her as VP he’ll need a food taster and a kevlar vest.

Fix them please!