Hilary Clinton

[Bolshevik Sickle]

If Hilary Clinton becomes president in 2016 (the idea of her becoming president has been hyped up for decades, but its never happened) will it be a victory for feminism and for women? Or will she just be another fascist puppet (like Barack Obama) to make it seem like discrimination has died when it really hasn't.

http://www.thefelicefiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/HILLARY-clinton.jpg

I think her presidency might warm the hearts of the average liberal (as well make redneck conservatives shit their pants), but I know there is always something brewing behind the scenes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[sixdollarchampagne]

Ms./Senator/Secretary of State Clinton was once described as a "drum majorette for the national security state," so her presence in the Oval Office would only signify a step forward in symbolism, not substance, since her elevation to higher office would leave bourgeois rule untouched, which is not surprising, given that the Democratic Party is an indispensable prop to prevent any substantive change in the order of things. If only there were a way to communicate that effectively to working people!

[Lily Briscoe]

I seriously never understood the whole "victory for feminism and women" argument with regard to Hillary Clinton, even from the angle that it's purely "symbolic". The only reason Hillary Clinton has the potential to be a serious contender for the presidency is because of who her husband is/was. Not that I buy into the whole idea that getting more 'independent women' into the bourgeois state makes any difference at all for working class women (it obviously doesn't). But even if you believe that it does, I don't see how it applies in Hillary Clinton's case.

[Radio Spartacus]

The responsibilities of the office necessitate the president represent the white male ruling class regardless of their identity.

[argeiphontes]

She was on TV today trying to coopt progressivism by using the word 'progressive.' If she's elected, Rush Limbaugh will have a busy 4 years. She's his favorite.

[DasFapital]

Wouldn't much more of a victory for feminism than if Sarah Palin won.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Wouldn't much more of a victory for feminism than if Sarah Palin won.

All mainstream politicians are anything and everything in label, but behind the scenes they are just NWO pawns. Even though mainstream politicians like Barack Obama are called leftist or communist, in practice they just enact a few nice leftist policies (i.e. Marriage equality) just to make the public feel happy. Of course, any mainstream politician who calls themselves right-wing will definitely be 100% right-wing.

[Jack Daniels]

I doubt that she will even run for presidency, considering the fact she said, I believe there will be a female president in this century, but that women will not be me. And even of she did rumor wild not be a win for feminism, it Might be treated as such but really could be used to fuel it. Any mistakes she makes could be seen as mistakes of the female gender.

[d3crypt]

All mainstream politicians are anything and everything in label, but behind the scenes they are just NWO pawns. Even though mainstream politicians like Barack Obama are called leftist or communist, in practice they just enact a few nice leftist policies (i.e. Marriage equality) just to make the public feel happy. Of course, any mainstream politician who calls themselves right-wing will definitely be 100% right-wing.

NWO? Really? You don't believe that right wing conspiracy crap do you? If you mean they are pawns for the ruling class then i fully agree. If you mean some secret meeting of the Illuminati or some crap, then come on.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

NWO? Really? You don't believe that right wing conspiracy crap do you? If you mean they are pawns for the ruling class then i fully agree. If you mean some secret meeting of the Illuminati or some crap, then come on.

I didn't mean it like that.

[SyndAnon]

Perhaps the Illuminati is not real, but an assembly of the worlds wealthy, that move political tides, and start wars, and control countries..i do believe does exist.

[Lily Briscoe]

The responsibilities of the office necessitate the president represent the white male ruling class regardless of their identity.
What is "the white male ruling class"? There are women and non-white people among the ruling class in the US... they don't act in the interests of some "white male ruling class", they act in their own class interests, which of course happen to be shared by white males of their class.

[Prometeo liberado]

"How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?"
This is how I feel every time someone asks whether this or that Democrat will be different from all the those that have come before. How long oh lord, how long until we learn our lesson?

[Bea Arthur]

If Hilary Clinton becomes president in 2016 (the idea of her becoming president has been hyped up for decades, but its never happened) will it be a victory for feminism and for women? Or will she just be another fascist puppet (like Barack Obama) to make it seem like discrimination has died when it really hasn't.

http://www.thefelicefiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/HILLARY-clinton.jpg

I think her presidency might warm the hearts of the average liberal (as well make redneck conservatives shit their pants), but I know there is always something brewing behind the scenes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

There is at least one moderator on this forum who claimed that Obama's re-election was a victory for leftists. I am guessing that he, and probably a chunk of other posters on this forum, will view Hillary's victory the same way. Unless they are sexists.

Voting is generally a way of getting workers and oppressed groups to cast their lot in with their enemies. Better to avoid it altogether.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

There is at least one moderator on this forum who claimed that Obama's re-election was a victory for leftists.

Agreed. Obama isn't perfect, but Romney was a bible thumper, and so was Paul Ryan.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003130239/200290776_tumblr_m9ai1nvAqN1rduqafo1_400_xlarge.jp eg

[synthesis]

Agreed. Obama isn't perfect, but Romney was a bible thumper, and so was Paul Ryan.

Really don't think that was her point.

[Halert]

As it stands now hillary has to best chance to win.
minority groups are getting larger. unlike last time with obama, hillary doesn't have a a high negative. the "moderate" republican still can't get rid of the tea party and thus their candidates will have to move so far to the right to win primary that they haves no chance with independents in general.

That being said, Hillary is just as much a capitalist and imperialist as Obama and all other presidents before him. Nothing will change if Hillary is elected.

[#FF0000]

Nothing will change if Hillary is elected.

Kinda hate reading this because it isn't true. Like, yeah, obviously things will be different in one way or another. It's just that, you know, neither of these candidates are gonna change the realities of capitalism or do away with capitalism.

[Halert]

Kinda hate reading this because it isn't true. Like, yeah, obviously things will be different in one way or another. It's just that, you know, neither of these candidates are gonna change the realities of capitalism or do away with capitalism.

What is Hillary going to change if she is elected?
Yes you are right, there are difference between a liberal and a republican president.

[adipocere]

I seriously never understood the whole "victory for feminism and women" argument with regard to Hillary Clinton, even from the angle that it's purely "symbolic". The only reason Hillary Clinton has the potential to be a serious contender for the presidency is because of who her husband is/was. Not that I buy into the whole idea that getting more 'independent women' into the bourgeois state makes any difference at all for working class women (it obviously doesn't). But even if you believe that it does, I don't see how it applies in Hillary Clinton's case.

I was with you until the whole "who her husband is/was" part. Hillary deserves the guillotine, and that being said, she has earned every one of her dubious honors. She's not riding her husband's coattails.
There are so many more accurate things you could say about her, but instead you pull that tired sexist card that's only purpose is to belittle women. The statement is facile and it reveals more about you than anything else.

[adipocere]

I didn't mean it like that.

I know what you mean. Hang in there B-Sickle. ;)

[Lily Briscoe]

I was with you until the whole "who her husband is/was" part. Hillary deserves the guillotine, and that being said, she has earned every one of her dubious honors. She's not riding her husband's coattails.
There are so many more accurate things you could say about her, but instead you pull that tired sexist card that's only purpose is to belittle women. The statement is facile and it reveals more about you than anything else.

In what way is it sexist? The fact of the matter is that she came to political prominence by virtue of her role as 'the first lady', both when her husband was Governor of Arkansas and then when he was president. There are plenty of influential female senators and congresswomen with long political careers whose spouses aren't former presidents; none of them have been serious contenders for the presidency. My point (where I presume you are misunderstanding me) is not that women are 'not as good as men' and therefore incapable of rising to the necessary level of political prominence on their own; on the contrary, there are obviously political and structural reasons preventing them from doing so (which is quite apparent, regardless of the fact that I frankly couldn't care less about the 'plight' of bourgeois women). The fact of the matter remains that Hillary Clinton would not be a serious contender for the presidency if it weren't for her husband. I also don't think she would be a contender if she had divorced him following the Lewinsky thing. That isn't a statement about my own prejudices, that is a statement about the way that the deck is obviously stacked.

So here we have the wife of a former president who loyally 'stood by her man' after he humiliated her in the most public way humanly possible. Really "empowering"... Even by bourgeois feminist standards, that is so lame.

[Bea Arthur]

In what way is it sexist? The fact of the matter is that she came to political prominence by virtue of her role as 'the first lady', both when her husband was Governor of Arkansas and then when he was president. There are plenty of influential female senators and congresswomen with long political careers whose spouses aren't former presidents; none of them have been serious contenders for the presidency. My point (where I presume you are misunderstanding me) is not that women are 'not as good as men' and therefore incapable of rising to the necessary level of political prominence on their own; on the contrary, there are obviously political and structural reasons preventing them from doing so (which is quite apparent, regardless of the fact that I frankly couldn't care less about the 'plight' of bourgeois women). The fact of the matter remains that Hillary Clinton would not be a serious contender for the presidency if it weren't for her husband. I also don't think she would be a contender if she had divorced him following the Lewinsky thing. That isn't a statement about my own prejudices, that is a statement about the way that the deck is obviously stacked.

So here we have the wife of a former president who loyally 'stood by her man' after he humiliated her in the most public way humanly possible. Really "empowering"... Even by bourgeois feminist standards, that is so lame.

If you knew anything about their biography, you'd know that Bill came to political prominence by virtue of the work and sacrifices of Hillary. Instead of learning about their biographies, you just cram them into a sexist framework where the woman's labor and constant sacrifice are ignored or degraded.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi there Bolshevik: Both parties are neoliberal capitalists (Not even state-capitalist parties), which means that under both parties large corporations will still be owned by the private sector, not even by the US government, so people will still be oppressed under Hillary Clinton as president



If Hilary Clinton becomes president in 2016 (the idea of her becoming president has been hyped up for decades, but its never happened) will it be a victory for feminism and for women? Or will she just be another fascist puppet (like Barack Obama) to make it seem like discrimination has died when it really hasn't.

[Lily Briscoe]

I do know about their 'biographies', actually. Unless Hillary was a governor and then the president, my point remains. But please, please keep accusing me of being a sexist (that's actually a self-hating gender-traitor, for the record)--when people with your sort of politics say that type of thing, it makes me a bit more confident in my opinions.

[Bea Arthur]

I do know about their 'biographies', actually. Unless Hillary was a governor and then the president, my point remains. But please, please keep accusing me of being a sexist (that's actually a self-hating gender-traitor, for the record)--when people with your sort of politics say that type of thing, it makes me a bit more confident in my opinions.

And my point is that, without Hillary, Bill had almost no chance of becoming either. Saying that Hillary owes her political existence to Bill has things the wrong way round. Not surprising, though. You're not the first sexist to stumble upon the forum, and I am sure you won't be the last.

[adipocere]

In what way is it sexist? The fact of the matter is that she came to political prominence by virtue of her role as 'the first lady', both when her husband was Governor of Arkansas and then when he was president. There are plenty of influential female senators and congresswomen with long political careers whose spouses aren't former presidents; none of them have been serious contenders for the presidency. My point (where I presume you are misunderstanding me) is not that women are 'not as good as men' and therefore incapable of rising to the necessary level of political prominence on their own; on the contrary, there are obviously political and structural reasons preventing them from doing so (which is quite apparent, regardless of the fact that I frankly couldn't care less about the 'plight' of bourgeois women). The fact of the matter remains that Hillary Clinton would not be a serious contender for the presidency if it weren't for her husband. I also don't think she would be a contender if she had divorced him following the Lewinsky thing. That isn't a statement about my own prejudices, that is a statement about the way that the deck is obviously stacked.

So here we have the wife of a former president who loyally 'stood by her man' after he humiliated her in the most public way humanly possible. Really "empowering"... Even by bourgeois feminist standards, that is so lame.
You are assuming a lot of things. You assume that Bill would have been relevant without Hillary. You assumes that Hillary genuinely cared that Bill was fucking around, conflating the humiliation of a pitched media circus with personal humiliation, and assuming that she "stood by her man" out of womanly duty rather then her own ruthless ambition.
Hillary has no plight. This is not a defense of Hillary, it's a rebuke to you for making an absurd piggish argument that diminishes one of the most powerful and dangerous women on the entire planet.
Nice caveat about bourgeois women, btw. I had actually thought you might just be uninformed...

[Lily Briscoe]

You are assuming a lot of things. You assume that Bill would have been relevant without Hillary.I don't know whether he would have been or not. It isn't an assumption I made one way or the other, and has nothing to do with my argument (which, by the way, you and 'bea arthur' seem to have not taken the time to actually understand, since it's easier to just shout about sexism).


You assumes that Hillary genuinely cared that Bill was fucking around, conflating the humiliation of a pitched media circus with personal humiliation, and assuming that she "stood by her man" out of womanly duty rather then her own ruthless ambition. Right, why would I assume that someone would care that their spouse was outed on national television cheating on them.

I'm not making any assumption about why she 'loyally stood by her man', merely noting that she did. It may well have been out of personal ambition, but it isn't relevant one way or the other.


Hillary has no plight. This is not a defense of Hillary, it's a rebuke to you for making an absurd piggish argument that diminishes one of the most powerful and dangerous women on the entire planet.
Nice caveat about bourgeois women, btw. I had actually thought you might just be uninformed...Cool, if anyone here wants to have an actual discussion, then by all means. I'm really uninterested in continuing to discuss with people whose side of the "conversation" consists of calling me a sexist and questioning my motivation, though; not just because it is ridiculous but because, as someone who has been on the receiving end of actual sexism often enough, it is personally insulting. And I am absolutely positive it isn't how you would treat someone you were talking to face-to-face.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If Hilary Clinton becomes president in 2016 (the idea of her becoming president has been hyped up for decades, but its never happened) will it be a victory for feminism and for women?
A victory for bourgeois feminism, most certainly, but not for revolutionary feminism or working class women.

[Brotto Rühle]

It won't be a victory for "women", but for bourgeois women. The proletariat female will be no further ahead. Only liberals suggest otherwise.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The Clintons are a political power couple, there is no sense in trying to dissect their relationship as neither of them would be much of anything without the other. That's the point of those kinds of relationships.

[Radio Spartacus]

What is "the white male ruling class"? There are women and non-white people among the ruling class in the US... they don't act in the interests of some "white male ruling class", they act in their own class interests, which of course happen to be shared by white males of their class.

I mean to imply that the integration of non-whites and women into that (predominantly white male) ruling class does not benefit the majority of non-whites and women (especially when we're talking about members of the proletariat).

Now, we could argue that all of these identities are socially constructed but the distinctions have value when talking about and promoting the struggles of oppressed groups.

[Red Commissar]

Conservative fixation on Hillary Clinton seems to've died down after Obama got elected, though you still have vestiges of it here and there. The 90s seemed to encourage an interpretation that Hillary was some frothing at the mouth radical who was the true power behind the throne during the Clinton White House, and was trying to create a socialist government in the US. That popped up again during the 2008 primaries but beyond some old relics of the 90s (Limbaugh) that doesn't come up much.

Question is- why does Hillary get hit by this so much? It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi in the sense that they get universally hated by right-wingers for being some radical nutter, though for most of them it's because that's what they hear in the media. Honestly as far as Hillary is concerned she's a product of the "third way" turn the Democrats went through in the 90s, she would disappoint progressives in the Democrats as much as Obama did. I mean this is the lady who served within the Walton Family company (even on the wal-mart board).

When conservatives were pushing hard to get her college thesis public (since they love trying to find politicians in the Democratic Party who're fashionable radicals), it was ultimately an ambivalent overview/critique about Saul Alinsky that disappointed them.

I feel that it'll be like Obama's election in the sense that people'll be claiming that we've entered a "post-racial" era, and handwave allegations of racism being a problem still. Likewise we'll get the same condenscending stuff over womens' rights like the glass ceiling- ex if Hillary could get elected president you have no excuse :rolleyes:

[Sendo]

Conservative fixation on Hillary Clinton seems to've died down after Obama got elected, though you still have vestiges of it here and there. The 90s seemed to encourage an interpretation that Hillary was some frothing at the mouth radical who was the true power behind the throne during the Clinton White House, and was trying to create a socialist government in the US. That popped up again during the 2008 primaries but beyond some old relics of the 90s (Limbaugh) that doesn't come up much.

Question is- why does Hillary get hit by this so much? It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi in the sense that they get universally hated by right-wingers for being some radical nutter, though for most of them it's because that's what they hear in the media. Honestly as far as Hillary is concerned she's a product of the "third way" turn the Democrats went through in the 90s, she would disappoint progressives in the Democrats as much as Obama did. I mean this is the lady who served within the Walton Family company (even on the wal-mart board).

When conservatives were pushing hard to get her college thesis public (since they love trying to find politicians in the Democratic Party who're fashionable radicals), it was ultimately an ambivalent overview/critique about Saul Alinsky that disappointed them.

I feel that it'll be like Obama's election in the sense that people'll be claiming that we've entered a "post-racial" era, and handwave allegations of racism being a problem still. Likewise we'll get the same condescending stuff over womens' rights like the glass ceiling- ex if Hillary could get elected president you have no excuse :rolleyes:

I think targeting the most conservative Democrats is a brilliant tactic. If you can make your base froth at the mouth at people like Obama, Pelosi, and Clinton, people who are slightly to the left of the GOP, then you've won a great ideological battle. The goal posts have moved once again. The left wing of the Dems has been excised (McKinney? Kucinich? Huh? Who are they?) and the real left in the workplaces and in the streets is even worse off. Now the left wing of the debate is Pelosi and Clinton, the right wing is the Tea Party, and the moderate Republicans form the centre.

Stopping global warming? Let's continue with the status quo of course! Carbon taxes and international treaties are radical leftism and rolling back existing efficiency requirements is Right-wing nuttery (off camera a rational person can be faintly heard saying a system based on infinite expansion cannot be sustained)

Let's follow this to the logical conclusion...

"Stopping the Holocaust? Killing 6 million Jews is for Nazi nutcases, but the people saying Jews are perfect equals and calling for war crime trials for the NSDAP are radicals. We need to come together as one German people! Surely we can manage with deportations of Jews and only killing 1 million of the really troublesome Jews. And don't tell me there aren't any greedy Jews out there! Don't be so naive."

The media is preaching centrism and cutting off progressives shortly (the MSNBC of just five years ago is a far cry from it today) instead of examining the actual issues. The right wing of the Dems is the radical left and the right wing of the GOP is the right. The new NYC mayoral candidate is practically Stalin!

I remember watching Alternative Views (a 80s/90s Texas public access show that got carried nationally) and especially liking the quotation about how defining the alternatives to the status quo frames and limits the debate. If Bob Dole-care, I mean Romney-care, I mean Obama-care is the left wing option and doing nothing the right wing option, then regulation of prices, abolishing the for-profit insurance system for single-payer, or instituting non-profit medical care and instituting truly socialized medicine become impossible and are not even up for discussion. The whole debate centres on "obamacare: y/n?" With "nay" being defined in mostly attacks from the right.

[Tifosi]

If Hilary Clinton becomes president in 2016 (the idea of her becoming president has been hyped up for decades, but its never happened) will it be a victory for feminism and for women? Or will she just be another fascist puppet (like Barack Obama) to make it seem like discrimination has died when it really hasn't.

http://www.thefelicefiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/HILLARY-clinton.jpg

I think her presidency might warm the hearts of the average liberal (as well make redneck conservatives shit their pants), but I know there is always something brewing behind the scenes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Stop using the word "Fascist" to describe anything you don't like please. It makes it a meaningless word.

[#FF0000]

And my point is that, without Hillary, Bill had almost no chance of becoming either. Saying that Hillary owes her political existence to Bill has things the wrong way round. Not surprising, though. You're not the first sexist to stumble upon the forum, and I am sure you won't be the last.


If you knew anything about their biography, you'd know that Bill came to political prominence by virtue of the work and sacrifices of Hillary. Instead of learning about their biographies, you just cram them into a sexist framework where the woman's labor and constant sacrifice are ignored or degraded.

damn son it's always crazy when a troll account comes out with a political post that's actually factual and on point.

[Sea]

Hillary Clinton supports justice for women just like Obama supports justice for brown people.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Stop using the word "Fascist" to describe anything you don't like please. It makes it a meaningless word.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________



Fascism

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Fascism - Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)


No, I never use fascist outside of it's proper context.

[Sea]

No, I never use fascist outside of it's improper context.


Fascism

a tendency toward or actual exercise ofstrong autocratic or dictatorial control
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Fascism - Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)yeah you do

[RedHal]

heh, I mistyped bourgeois on google search, it will give you the correct spelling and also the "definition" from merriam-webster dictionary:

": relating to or belonging to the middle class of society
: having qualities or values associated with the middle class : too concerned about wealth, possessions, and respectable behavior"


this is what we have to deal with.....

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If she became president, does this mean the snuke would become a real and legitimate revolutionary weapon against teh bourgeoisie?