digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Hillary Clinton's Defeat: A Historic Triumph For Women ?

huffingtonpost.com — Americans, who have long forgotten Golda Meier, the tough-minded woman from Milwaukee who successfully headed the Israeli Government for years, needed a reminder that females need not be ruled out, as commander-in-chief. Regardless of the 'rightness" of her campaign, on any other grounds, that chauvinistic myth has been destroyed for many now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AlwaysAwake, on 05/20/2008, -11/+42As Billary Clinton began to sound more like John "Bomb,BombBomb" McCain, many voters started to wonder if her testosterone levels weren't just a little too high. Her pronouncements on Iran, for those of us old enough to remember, sounded like the clarion call of many who wanted to "make a parking lot out of Vietnam". We didn't do well with that philosophy there, and the planned attack on Iran will result in worse consequences.
    • gak001, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2You damage your argument by lowering yourself to grade-school name-calling. You actually have an excellent point; why do you have to throw down the insults?
    • Pillage, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2The Ron Paulite Hat-trick, gotta love it.
    • rpgmaker, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2FTA: "Much has been made of the generational divide in the Clinton-Obama battle, with older women rallying to Clinton and younger women drawn to Obama. But the impact of her candidacy transcends this division. She manages to get up every morning, no matter how hard things get for her, and keep following her dream"

      I said practically the same thing a few weeks ago and got dugg down.
      • Eezyville, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1And I will digg you up because you deserve it friend. ^_^
    • unpluggedboy, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Of course, we have no such delusions of Obama right? After all, Carville said it best when he stated that "If she (Hil) gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."
  • ClaudineME, on 05/20/2008, -21/+13This article was the best ever giving Hillary Clinton credit where credit is due.
    I also remember Golda Meir and still have a poster of her photo with the caption:
    " But can she type?".
    Clinton will always be my hero; indeed she is showing lots of young women that with courage, hard work and determination, they can be anything they want in this still man's world.
    • uptown, on 05/20/2008, -2/+18.....except President.
    • CatsAreGods, on 05/20/2008, -4/+36Maybe you need a new hero.

      Hillary got where she is by lying, being amoral, and being married to a similar person. Golda Meir did it all on her own without becoming someone to be ashamed of.

      I would vote for any qualified woman for any office, and often have. But I wouldn't trust Hillary as town dogcatcher, let alone any higher office.
      • deanlowe, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2If Golda Meir wasn't dead, some people would be saying the same things about her.
    • toenail, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7i dont think its a mans world anymore.. nor is it a white mans world... its a peoples world and this years elections have proved that... "GOOD JOB AMERICA!!"
    • mrraven200, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Hurray, now women can be lying corporate tools just like men, good job white upper middle class collegiate "feminists..." How about working for true equality for ALL and instead of having a woman at the helm of the military industrial complex? More Emma Goldman, and less Hillary please! A hero should be someone to admire for their strong moral qualities and not just for clawing their way to the top in an unjust world.
    • Weejay, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Is my Jack Daniels ready?
    • brundlefly76, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I can't give Hillary Clinton (or GWB) any credit for the electabilty - I think both of them owe the fact that they ever became a candidate to the fact that their father or husband was President.

      And that makes both of them lesser candidates.

      When we are choosing a President, we want the best candidate in our nation who is willing to take the office. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama rose to the top entirely on their own merit, GWB and Hillary were already marketed for years before just by standing nearby a President.

      I think you have to have some experience in marketing to see that GWB and Hillary were more injected into our top-tier political culture than being the cream of the crop rising to the top of electables - at the very least, it would be a statistical anomaly in either case.

      That's a major reason I really want to see Barack Obama win - his electability has nothing to do with association or cronyism - he's 100% a self-made man - and that's really what America's about - the individual rising to the top under his own power.



  • dn11, on 05/20/2008, -4/+82Hopefully Hillary's run will open the door to a better female candidate next time - one without the baggage and legacy, because while I was never a Hillary supporter, I'm all for a woman becoming president.
    • Danby123, on 05/20/2008, -17/+1Dissagreed.
      Here's how the minorities stack up:

      Black man > White Woman
      White man > Mexican Man
      Asian women > Mexican Woman and Man
      Asian Man = Black man
      White man < Black woman
      Asian women + White Woman= Black man
      Native American < Anyone
      Asian Man + Asian Women = Asian baby.

      As you clearly can see, The races all have their respected positions and each should act according to place on the minority chart.
      • cypriss9, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4You obviously spent a lot of time and thought on your chart. Which is funny, because it's inane and unremarkable. Good job.
      • pault107, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1WTF?

        That is the most warped 'chart' I've seen for a long time.
    • gannondork, on 05/20/2008, -10/+1And next time a woman runs for president she should be hot, also she should pose in bikini and be placed on currency.
      • chaosium, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Cicciolina is (well, would still have been) a better choice than most politicians elected to office these days.
    • CVL4317, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I wish it's not about gender or races. (yea, i oppose the idea of "I'm all for a (insert something)" ).
      • dn11, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1woman are 50% of the populace - it is WAY past time
    • Caviarmy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Laura Roslin for president!

      ...in '??
  • TrevorAlan, on 05/20/2008, -4/+18A great appreciation (not apologetics or fawning over) of Clinton from a known and sharp Clinton critic. This is going to be an improtant message for Democrats to spread to heal party divisions.

    Now if only HRC herself can buy into it.
  • Distracto, on 05/20/2008, -4/+21Lets not forget Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Barbara Jordan, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Madeline Allbright.. the list goes on and on and will continue. If we're talking about gender equality and the clear understanding of a womans' ability to handle power and to lead, leaving specific policies out for another discussion, then it's undeniably an impressive list. Remember this, Hillary fought hard and she will live on... to continue fighting. Its only a question of her political judgment at the moment; how and when she will concede. I think she will and I think she knows she'll be more effective in the long run if she does.
    • shawnanigans, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1It's really not an impressive list though. How does an Indira Gandhi compare to a Mahatma Gandhi? How does Thatcher compare to Churchill? Has there ever been a democratically elected female leader of a great power? This isn't mean't as misogynism but I can't think of a female leader of a great power.
      • hfactor, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Thatcher was one. Merkel is one.
        At the moment, 19 members of the UN have female leaders.
      • bosssmiley, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4"How does Thatcher compare to Churchill?"

        Quite favorably: Maggie took a broken-down Socialist-ruined sclerotic hulk of a country that was on IMF handouts and at the mercy of militant leftist-dominated trade unions, and turned it into one of the most dynamic free market economies in the world.

        Sure, she didn't lead a country fighting single-handed against a Nazi juggernaut that had conquered Europe in a year or so, but she was the terror of the EU, and she saw early on that Mikhail Gorbachev (you know, the guy who dismantled Eastern European Communism relatively peacefully) was "...a man with whom we can do business."

        Oh, and she had control of one of the world's four strategic nuclear deterrent submarine forces for over 10 years. The woman had *serious* clout and earned the honorific of 'Iron Lady'.
        • DominicUK, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Thatcher also claimed that there was no such thing as society, and called adults who travelled by bus failures. She was good at a few things (it was probably just as well she was in power during the Falklands War), but she promoted the 'greed is good' society and did far more to damage the social structure of this country than anyone else.
        • pault107, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I was a youngster during Thatchers reign and much to my families chagrin, I liked her policies. But, I will never forgive her for taking away our milk. That pissed me off.

          http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/06/28thatcher.h ...

  • darthvader72, on 05/20/2008, -2/+27Hillary is not just "any" woman. Let's not forget the key facts: 1. she has spent most of her adult life as a first lady (of Arkansas and United States), and thus came the "experience" claim .. and 2. Obama has been running against not just one Clinton, but a former President also. Thus "the Clintons", as it is frequently called in the media.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 05/20/2008, -8/+4Huh?
  • erickhill, on 05/20/2008, -5/+30I'm an Obama supporter, let me state that up front. But I'm also the father of a young 1-year old daughter, and on multiple occasions have stated to friends and colleagues that I believe what Hillary is doing bodes well for the future of the US and my daughter. Regardless of the outcome, Hillary's viable candidacy proves how this country is long overdue for a woman president, and its not just a rich white man's job anymore. She would be a very strong candidate, and an excellent president. Obama, in my view, is simply the better candidate. Congrats should be in order for Hillary and her supporters for the history they've created, and the future they are helping to usher us towards.
    • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Just consider why women didn't even have a right to vote for so long. Maybe there was good reason for that?
      • pault107, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Elaborate.
        • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2They weren't trusted with that responsibility because men back then KNEW they weren't fit.
  • rsg11, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4I do not always agree with your viewpoint Arianna, but this article is extremely well-done and spot on. Nice job!
    • AtlanticVortex, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I am sure she is reading your comment right about..... now [/sarcasm]
  • abby11, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2Beautifully put!I appreciate the thoughts!
  • InRussetShadows, on 05/20/2008, -24/+7The traitor Huffington needs to not confuse all Americans with herself.
    • wild, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5I am sorry? Is there backstory I don't know?
      • chaosium, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Some mouthbreathers in the GOP actively hate liberals, that's pretty much it.
  • CicurateGroup, on 05/20/2008, -14/+16What a crock of *****! Clinton has set back the possibility of a woman President for another decade. Her self centered, lying, sociopath's attempt at a campaign has scarred her party to the core. This bitch is a "disaster from day one" and should be banished from all spheres of political influence. How could anyone with sound mind call this devastating defeat a victory! You a f@#$ing idiot, just like her supporters and a hypocrite to boot!
    • ArielMT, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10She's proven that a female presidential candidate can be just as bitter, cold, calculating, and corrupt as a male presidential candidate. She convinced supporters and opponents alike to not think "woman" first nor to consider that her most important trait, and that is a step in the right direction. Her campaign ended because of the traits defining her as a person regardless of gender, and it's that lack of gender bias that will give future female candidates equal footing with male candidates. It's a victory because of *why* she lost, not *that* she lost.
      • bicyclethief, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"She's proven that a female presidential candidate can be just as bitter, cold, calculating, and corrupt as a male presidential candidate."

        Here I thought women were just motherly nurturers. Hillary showed me just how ignorant I was!
      • eviltandem, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3"She convinced supporters and opponents alike to not think "woman" first nor to consider that her most important trait, and that is a step in the right direction."

        Ironic given that the entire article is all about how we all seem to think what Hillary does somehow does anything for or against women. Given all the crying about how poor lil' Hillary can't break into the big mean male world on a near constant basis.

        I had no idea she had other qualifications she was running on. That she was a woman and could look into a camera and lie without flinching seemed to be all she had going for her...
    • gryphon50, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6by that rationale, since Bush is the worst president in history we must be careful to never elect another man...Your lack of logic is appalling. Hillary's flaws should reflect on herself and not on any future woman that is running for president.
      • coreman, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1well...I wouldn't go holding up Nancy Pelosi as a potential presidential candidate in the future, either. (nor Harry Reed [sic], for that matter. Go figure...).

        As much as the Republicans that came before them were total and complete bastards and sycophants, these two completely suck as "leaders" of their collectives in both houses of the US Congress.





  • 666dorado, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15i would have agreed had she not gone negative and played dirty, showing her true colors. her desperation and willingness to cut someone down to claw her way to the top leaves much to be desired.
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/20/2008, -7/+15Certainly a triumph for women.

    Clinton wouldn't have just been the first female President, she would have been the last.
  • OffPiste, on 05/20/2008, -13/+3She should have learned to suck dick better and maybe we could have been sparred the Clinton impeachment. I guess that's asking too much.
  • redcolumbine, on 05/20/2008, -4/+24If Clinton had shown American women that they, too, can achieve "greatness" by lying, backstabbing, and breaking the law, what would it have accomplished?
    • lolwutpear, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Aren't most women backstabbing liars already?
  • ChristophyBrown, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3And now we are at the stage of forgiveness.
  • vade79, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5I triumph for women as a symbol. Also, a bitter defeat for a woman who became too self-righteous for her own good. She had it handed to her and squandered it.
  • AtlanticVortex, on 05/20/2008, -7/+7Another Huffington Post article to make the front page. I swear its an inside job...
  • Beatlemaniac, on 05/20/2008, -5/+13Hilldog's defeat is a triumph for EVERYONE. Gender need not apply.
  • ethornquist, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4I am torn about this. Arianna, you have done your best to see the positives of Hillary's run - positives which have largely been lost during the campaign. I don't like some of her tactics, true, but she has made a historic run at the presidency. Both McCain and Hilliary were given a nomination, but while the Republican elite stepped in to tell their voters what to think, the Democrats had enough respect for their voters to let them decide.
    • Pillage, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I was mailed a letter from Neo-Con headquarters saying that Rudolf Giuliani would the the GOP nominee.
  • HotDogBun, on 05/20/2008, -3/+20I am going to masturbate to Clinton's concession speech.
    • publiclurker, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Come on, you deserve a better date than that. Heck, even a cross-dressing hooker would be a step up.
    • Pillage, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Her tears would make great lubrication.
  • DesertDude, on 05/20/2008, -8/+8"Hillary Clinton's Defeat: A Historic Triumph For Women?"

    Indeed that has been what her campaign was all about: women supporting her *simply* because she's a woman.

    Women are creatures of emotion. They should never be allowed to decide such important matters. I think we've all seen the disaster this almost lead to.
    • gryphon50, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4men have emotions too, and Bush's stubborn pride and cocky refusal to believe he is ever wrong have led us right into the abyss! Please don't pretend that all men are masters of logic, remember that many of the women on this board are married.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5You have some points that conflict me. I agree that it is a problem that a lot of women supported Hillary *simply* because she is a woman. That said, a lot of African-Americans support Obama *simply* because he is an African-American & a lot of white guys support McCain *simply* because the others aren't! It will improve over time and obviously there are already huge numbers of people that don't abide by the above stereotypes.

        Your second statement is simply ridiculous! Indeed women(in general) have fundamentally different emotional responses to certain situations than men. Why is that a bad thing? That Clinton was not what many(including myself) would consider a model standard bearer for women in running the most divisive & underhanded Democratic nomination campaign in living memory should in no way reflect on women as a whole. By that logic, Bush's Presidency would mean that no male should ever be allowed to conduct US Foreign policy again! Some time soon(hopefully) a moral, honest, caring woman will be President of the United States & I personally think it will be great for the US & the world when it happens.
        • Pulch, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Since it's almost impossible for a moral, honest, caring white male to even get close to the presidency, I think in the near future, the only women we will see are going to be as cutthroat as any other presidential candidate.
      • ScottyQuest, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1This is a board? I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you could dial into Digg comments like a BBS.
    • Verchiel77, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Wow. I didn't realize the 19th century had a WiFi connection.

      Stay classy, DD.
    • DesertDude, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2@Verchiel: come on, you can't deny the fact that almost every female Hillary supporter interviewed said she voted because she wanted to "make history", to "see a woman president", etc. etc. etc.
    • CVL4317, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2when you choose someone because of what he/she is.. then you have a problem.
  • JulyZerg, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7Buried for incredible stupidity.

    Setting a precedent for women candidates? She's taken her "unsurmountable" lead and lost it, "misspoke" about getting shot at, and is refusing to see the truth and admit defeat when it is obvious to everyone but herself.

    As for redefining the Clinton brand, I don't want it. Bill may have been a good president, but she IS NOT BILL!

    When I see the next woman in the running to be president, I will forever think of pyscho Clinton and her awful campaign. Good job, Hillary!
    • mistergoomba, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Well, I think the point is valid in that Hillary did a lot of good for women. She didn't lose because she was a woman, she lost because Obama is the better candidate.
  • Gamer2k4, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4A triumph for women? She failed, and she failed miserably. It wasn't even close. Is the message supposed to be, "If you try hard enough, you can ALMOST be on the ballot"? Or is it, "If you play the politician role well (pandering, changing your views based on what you think the public wants to hear, and making up stories such as being under sniper fire), people will ignore you for the candidate who is genuine"?

    I don't think her gender has anything to do with it. She tried to run for President, and the general public didn't buy it. How can it be a triumph for a group of people if it wasn't even an individual triumph?
    • dualboy24, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I don't think you could say she failed miserably. Overall Hillary and Obama have been close with the popular vote, and the delegate count. I believe that Obama is going to be a good candidate for the DNC, but I would not call Clinton a failure.

      There seems to be a fair amount of resentment for her, but its mainly because everyone on Digg is exposed to a one sided message, while others on other sites and sources are exposed to the opposite message and support Hillary and oppose Obama. All in all I think the party will be just fine for the big fight with McCain. Besides he seems to have made so many "flip flops" and poor sound bites that the DNC will have lots of fuel for the fire.
      • eviltandem, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Time for a reality check. At one time she was the candidate everybody knew. Nobody even knew the name of the other candidates, and her lead was often called "unsurmountable".

        She failed miserably. It was hers to lose and she lost it. All she had to do was be competent and she would walk to the white house. She lost because she made a lot of bad decisions, and failed miserably.
  • Rubio, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6I usually read an article thoroughly before deciding to bury, but the description really pisses me off. And it's not because I hate Hillary.
    Golda Meier was actually really clueless, and definitely one of the least successful PM's we ever had. The only thing she did was head Israel into one of its deadliest defeats, the Yom Kippur War. The only myth here is that she was competent in any way.
    • Tanktunker, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2At least she knew when to quit, our current guy is under 4 or 5 investigations, all for different felonies, lost us a war and had a ***** approval rating of 3%, and he still doesn't know when to retire, in some shard of dignity left.
  • cnot3, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Its a triumph for us all.
  • Pillage, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1sure, why not.
  • username484767, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1lmfaooooooooooroooflflasdfasdfasd8c9032ewsdjcdkacxhnzjlczxhkj *****
  • morninglorii, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7Holy crap... a pro-Hillary article on the front page of Digg?
  • cast55, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9If Hillary Clinton thinks that her defeat has anything whatsoever to do with her being a woman, she's too stupid to be president.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0All the candidates still running are too stupid to be President. Have any of them proposed a smaller government dedicated only to securing the rights and freedoms of its people, or have they gone promising to spend even more money doing things the government was never allowed to do in the first place?
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4As much as I hate Sean Hannity and I would love to stomp a ***** bloody mess of bone and amygdalan mass out of his head....He really made a good point the other day.

    If Hillary cares so much about women, why does she ignore the claims of sexual abuse against her husband by so many women in positions where they were just trying to better themselves? Yeah..."positions"....
  • djadamjay, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7i'm sorry but is it really that inspirational for women when the candidate got there thanks to her MARRIAGE to an ex-President ? What message does that send little girls? "Marry the right guy, now you dont have to blow him, but don't leave him if someone else does that for you... and you'll go places little Judy!!!"

    pffffffffft!!!
    • bjs3171, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1you don't think she helped Bill get where he is at all?
      • djadamjay, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2i never said that i didn't think so. i just don't see her as that great of a "model" for the future feminist movement that so many others seem to see her as.
  • qbthemc, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Obama 08
  • RoflcopterFUEL, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6Funny how Thatcher and Golda Meier are one of the most blood-thirsty rulers for each respective countries. Golda Meier was the one that said "there's no such thing as palestinians." ***** her and ***** israel.
    • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4funny how it's ok to deny the palestinians right to exist.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0Except she was right...
      In a March 31, 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
      So there you go. Hating Israel doesn't make its statements untrue.
    • Tanktunker, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1She denied the existence of a Palestinian people, not of the Palestinians themselves, and she was right, the Palestinians are an artificial nationality, they don't exist as an ethnicity, they share no collective history or religion, they have no unifying traits but for the fact that they own a house or a tnet in this country, that's not much basis for a "people".
      And no, America doesn't qualify either, you're all immigrants anyway, don't pretend to be offended.

      And as for a bloodthirsty, I doubt any other leader we've had wouldn't have ordered the preemptive strike, and she didn't.
      • RoflcopterFUEL, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1This is the full quote:

        "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

        She was talking about their existance.
  • heucuva, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4This was a triumph.
    I'm making a note here:
    HUGE DEFEAT!
  • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5i never understood why so many women feel like hillary winning would be so great for the women's movement. wouldn't it be seen as saying a woman can only be president if she is married to a former president?
    • bjs3171, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1no. there have been plenty of presidents wives, none of them have been president. you have to start somewhere, this would be a logical place.
  • zohaibusman, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Hers will have been a game-changing defeat.
  • bjs3171, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2of course it's a triumph for women. she's the first woman politician to be a serious runner for president. one who came very close to actually being president. that is huge, no matter what the outcome.
    • eviltandem, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Unless you aren't sexist and don't think the sex of the person running should matter.

      If that were the case you might throw your hands up at the stupidity of this whole thing. I don't understand any of this. Feminists want equality (or at least they claim), yet they are the ones insuring none of us can move past her sex.

      Hillary was a fine example of how not to run for president. She ran a poor campaign, made lots of errors, and got caught lying on a stupid trivial thing to lie about. The model of how not to run for president.

      She ran a bad campaign, and it had nothing to do with being born with a vagina. That is the real triumph here, and she had nothing to do with it. We are seeing that finally we are starting to move past the sexism and racism of the past. Hillary had nothing more to do with it than Obama. They just both are examples that society is changing, not the cause.
  • Weejay, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Hillary Clinton sucks.
  • SolitarySoviet, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4whatever my cats name is Golda Meier, she isnt forgotten... just small, furry, and has tuna breath... history repeats itself
  • parax, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4Hillary didn't need to be some sort of example or triumph for women. We have entire historic ages named after women. The founding of the USA was a reversal in women's importance. All the so-called progress the USA is making towards equality for women was solved centuries ago in Europe. Up until the religious fringe settled North America, women were doing quite well politically and socially. I'd dare anyone who thinks women need a champion to ponder what would have happened in 18th century France if Marie Antoinette had heard you thought women need to "prove" themselves. It's so nice to think that socially, we're catching up to ancient Egypt in terms of our respect to women.

    In France, England, and the vast majority of the rest of the world, it's not even an issue when a woman runs for head office. In those places, she's just another person. In the US, if anyone but a white male runs for an office, people start gossiping and speak of them as if they're a creature of a different species.
    • whalt, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Sorry Parax but you are living in a fantasy land if you think that Europe sorted out all of its social problems "centuries ago." Back then almost every country in Europe was ruled by feudal despots who were also busy enslaving most of the rest of the world. Ask the colonies of Africa, Asia, and the New World how enlightened the Europeans were.
      • DominicUK, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3But his main point is correct - here in Europe the gender of a politician is irrelevant to their chances of winning an election.
        • whalt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1That's a pretty general statement. I doubt any country in Europe has a 50% female representation in elected offices so obviously it makes some difference and there are plenty of countries in Europe who have never had an elected female head of government such as Spain and Italy. Even countries like Germany and Finland have only had female leaders in the past few years and the UK has only had one. There are plenty of elected female politicians in the United States at all levels including Governors, Representatives and Senators (such as Ms. Clinton.)

          Parax's statement that the founding of the US was a setback for women is rather silly and simply represents the revisionist history that the US is some backward hellhole when the truth is that many of the most important social movements were started or greatly advanced here long before Europe caught on. George Bush hasn't been president for 232 years you know.
  • WikiEasy, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1More anti-clinton SPAM
  • taradisiac, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3The idea of a female being POTUS scares me. Women are too emotional IMO.
  • bhavna12, on 05/20/2008, -3/+0You guys would love to see this. Film makers have one thing in comon passion. And by the looks of it, this guy has a lot. A must read if you're passionate about the movies. http://www.film-crew.blogspot.com/
  • whalt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Well it's been good for Arianna at least.
  • gkiltz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3It DOES mean that people are willing to ignore the gender of the candidate and focus on the message!
    Obama's message is about the future, Clinton's message is about the past!
  • light65733, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Any woman but that woman!
  • dmadip, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2dugg for the title!
  • hlehmann, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Blah, blah, blah..... Go iron my shirts.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.