History Is Made!
By NoQuarter on January 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM in Clinton, Women and Children
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first woman in U.S. history to win a presidential primary.
History is indeed made. You can tell your daughters, granddaughters, nieces and grand-nieces that you witnessed a historic win by a woman.
From a wonderful diary at MyDD:
… I also think, as bored as the MSM was with Clinton’s long Q&A sessions, they had an impact. We saw her at one and it was impressive in a completely different way than Obama. It was inspiring because she took an incredibly wide-range of questions on issues ranging from Bolivian stability (no, really) to her first 100 days and her depth of knowledge on almost everything was stunning. After almost eight years of having a president that can’t pronounce nuclear, it was - yes - inspiring. What can I say, I’m a geek at heart. And I don’t care what the MSM said, the crowd liked it. I think it definitely turned some voters. We saw a couple of college-aged women there who came in probably leaning Obama, definitely not Clinton, you could see it in their body language. Then Clinton talked about getting Plan B and they nodded. When she said she’d sign the stem cell research bill and reverse the gag order immediately upon taking office, they clapped and looked at each other like “hey, she’s pretty good!” I don’t know if they voted for her, but they came in pretty closed off and left open to her candidacy. (One of the other things I learned is that young voters have absolutely no idea of what Clinton has accomplished and old voters know nothing about Obama’s pre-campaign experience. It’s kind of weird given all the info that’s out there on both of them.)
Which brings me to the biggest thing I learned in NH. I tend not to romanticize politicians. I don’t think any of them are perfect. And even I, a Clinton supporter, fell for the MSM (and some bloggers like Yglesias’s view) that Clinton doesn’t have a passionate base of support. That could not be further from the truth. I cannot tell you how many older women invited us into their homes to see news clippings of Clinton displayed everywhere. Who told us how much they loved her. And it wasn’t always older women or even just women.
We met a single mother in her 30s, clearly struggling financially and in other ways, she had only voted once in her life and that was for Bill Clinton. She got a Christmas card from Hillary (how they found her, I have no idea because she wasn’t registered to vote in NH, having not bothered after moving there and we just happened to run into her on the street when she saw our shirts). All she could talk about was that Christmas card and how much Hillary had helped children and how Bush had cut Head Start. (BTW, I cannot tell you how many people invited me in to see the Hillary Clinton Christmas card - best investment of money ever.) I often see political talk as spin or sloganeering, but to this woman, Clinton’s talk about seeing people who were invisible rang true. She said that Clinton was the only one who had ever shown any concern about people like her. I told her that she could register the day of voting and pointed out her polling place within walking distance, she said she’d consider it (she seemed intimidated by voting, like she was afraid she’d screw it up). I would give anything to know if she voted or not. …
Read all. He was on the ground in New Hampshire, and it’s a fascinating story.
Taylor Marsh, as ALWAYS, nails it here: “Iron This.”
Go Hillary! You already have made history! Keep on making it.
Indeed History has been made!
But here is what really scares me about the New Hampshire vote
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176
What terrifies me about the results of the New Hampshire vote is that the two war candidates won.
Senator Clinton and Senator Mc Cain who sang “bomb Bomb Bomb Iran” with delight a while back both voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment in October….which Senator Webb described as “tantamount to declaring war on Iran”. The “cakewalk in Iraq” zealots who have been repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran for the last four years have not stopped pushing for military action against Iran. We recently witnessed the MSM turn an event in the Straits of Hormuz into an inflamed event.
Justin Raimando of Antiwar.com writes “The commander of one of the U.S. warships has been quoted as saying that they were “a heartbeat away” from opening fire on their Iranian tormentors, and that just about sums up the chances of an armed conflict breaking out – we’re an incident away from going to war with Tehran, and there is every indication that the administration is marshaling its forces, political and diplomatic as well as military, to launch an assault before Bush leaves office.”
I am deeply worried by this vote in New Hampshire. I do not want to witness the U.S. attack Iran based on unsubstantiated claims.
I have not heard Hillary or McCain talk about focusing on diplomacy in regard to Iran. Our invasion of Iraq has destroyed the Iraqi peoples lives. This vote in New Hampshire for the war candidates has me worried about the Iranian peoples lives.
I’ve heard Sen. Clinton stress diplomacy innumerable times for Iran as well as every single country in the world. Over and over. Trust me. She specifically has advocated the “carrots and sticks” approach to diplomacy with Iran — lots of rewards along with, if appropriate, firmness to show them we mean business.
Mean business about what? Bringing them into compliance with the empire’s wishes?
They aren’t doing anything to the United States.
They aren’t doing anything with their nuclear program that they are not perfectly entitled to do under their agreement to the non proliferation treaty, they have every right to develop nuclear power, and it makes eminent sense to do so for the present, and even moreso for the future of their economy.
Despite all the barking and yapping about it, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are doing anything in Iraq to harm Americans. There i no evidence that they are doing anything but jockeying for political influence, and can you blame them? And then there is the spectacular hypocrisy of the United States complaining about ANYONE interfering in Iraq’s business.
Iran has zero history of aggression, and there is no reason to believe that is about to change. Furthermore, there is a strong and growing democracy movement in Iran, leaders of which have BEGGED the United States to butt out because its interference is damaging the movement.
And then there is Hillary’s vote for Kyl-Lieberman and her completely flabbergasting claim that it was about diplomacy. If that is her version of diplomacy, I sure as hell don’t want to see her version of the other thing.
And her intention to increase the size and budget of the military remains a huge concern for those of us who want to see the end of the American empire - something that you simply cannot put on the head of George Bush, because it has a looooooong and continuous history - and the beginning of America as a well-behaved member of the world community.
Shirin
I wholeheartedly agree with you but you and I know that blinded-by-the-light-Hillary-supporters on this site DO NOT want to hear the truth about Hillary as you so eloquently described above and and I believe again below in this thread.
Well as Yogi Berra once said “it ain’t over ’till its over.”
But if Hillary regains enough momentum to “win” on Super Tuesday then it IS over because she cannot win in November. As I and others have pointed out time and time again, the Democratic candidate the Republicans want the most to galvanize their base is Hillary no matter who the Repug nominee is. If Mr Bomb bomb Iran would get it then its even better for them because John the old loyal war horse hero will get up and say all the right stuff and probably has less skeletons than any of the other front runners.
It may be a great day in history for a woman to win a presidential primary but it will be a dark day in history in the history of the Republic when the Republicans still control the WH this time next year.
Thanks, Bill.
I don’t know whether Hillary or Obama can win in Nov. (there were some studies a few weeks ago that showed Edwards way ahead of both of them them when pitted against any of the possible Republican candidates). It’s all really crystal ball gazing anyway, and I don’t find it a useful exercise to speculate. But as it stands now unless Edwards can pull off a miracle, we are screwed one way or the other. It’s just a question whether we want brazen, in-your-face war mongering all over again, or a more cleverly quiet, less in-your-face approach to world domination and empire-building. All roads lead to the same place, anyway.
As for me, I intend to vote for the candidate who comes closest to sharing similar goals and principles to mine.
Great.
Republicans are, indeed, breathing more easily this morning:
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, know why the GOP wants to face Hillary in November. It’s not because they like the Clintons, but because the Clintons unite the Republican base like no other Democrat — and perhaps like no other Republican. Hillary will star in thousands of mailers, television ads, and websites, all cajoling Republicans to open their wallets, organize, and get to the voting booth.
And — it will work. Even in a year where the fractures among the Republican coalition have been painfully evident, everyone will unite to keep the Clintons out of the White House. While Obama may have won some moderate Republicans to his side just based on his personal appeal, none will endorse the Restoration. Fredheads, Log Cabins, evangelicals, small-L libertarians, and hawks will all find a truce to battle Hillary to the last vote.
If it’s McCain versus Clinton, I start looking to support the Republican again. I’m not the only one.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
cee i think your last comment sort of says it all for me … your tepid support of democrats is rather revealing. let me make a couple points if i may:
first, claiming hillary is as much as a war hawk as mccain is ridiculous. mccain has already said he would support the continued ocuppation of iraq for a thousand years … hillary will call for an operational plan of withdrawal within the first week of taking office.
finally, need i remind you why the gop hates the clintons so much. cause they dont lose to them in elections … a rather ovious point when you think about it isnt it.
Hillary is certainly NOT as much of a hawk as McCain! After all, she has not been seen or heard dancing around gleefully singing “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb eyeran”. However, her record along with her statements as a candidate do demonstrate a disturbing fondness for the use of military force as a means of imposing the American will on other countries.
Her stated intention to significantly increase the size and budget of the military should be special cause for concern if not alarm. Why would she need a larger military if she intends to make a full withdrawal from Iraq and refrain from invading and occupying additional countries (and by the way, Obama is right in lockstep with her on this one, and overall might be more hawkish than she is what with his continued talk about attacking Pakistan and all)?
As for her intention to “call for an operational plan of withdrawal within the first week of taking office”, the devil is in the details, and the details reveal that her definition of “operational withdrawal” includes leaving an estimated 40,000-75,000 troops in Iraq - enough to keep those permanent - excuse me, “enduring” - military bases that Bush built well populated, and to continue Bush’s imperial project there. And by the way, based on her own statements, the troops that would remain would have to include combat troops, so listen carefully to what she says and how she says it (it kind of depends on what the definition of is is). I don’t believe she has ever said she intends to withdraw ALL combat troops, and if she did, based on the rest of her plan, she was lying.
In her own words, she intends to continue the “military as well as political mission” in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Last September on ABC, she stated that “we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. We have to protect our civilian employees, our embassy that will be there.” That means a “continuing”, if scaled down, occupation - or imperial presence if you prefer - with no specific end in sight.
Oh yes - and then there is that so-called “embassy”. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is sufficiently naive to really believe that is an embassy. I think she is very well aware of what it actually is.
And just as she supported her husband’s murderous, criminal policies in Iraq with utter disregard for the lives and welfare of the men, women, and especially the children who lived there - she whose heart lives in women’s and children’s rights (although apparently VERY selectively) - she utterly disregards the lives and welfare of the vast majority of Iraq’s people, and their clear wishes to be rid of the violently-imposed American presence that is destroying their country and the very fabric of their society.
Edwards is the only one of the three top candidates who has stated he would make a nearly full withdrawal (he would only leave a handful of troops to guard the “embassy”), and who has given a specific time frame for the completion of that withdrawal. That is not good enough, but it is a damned sight better than Hillary and Obama , who have more or less the same plan for Iraq - indefinite occupation (read imperial presence if you prefer) imposed, if necessary (and it WILL be necessary) by force of continued massive, deadly, destructive violence.
And that is why I will never cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. I want no part of their imperial plans.
PS I completely forgot to note Hillary’s full-out support of the 33 days of hell Israel put Lebanon through in 2006. I guess her heart does not live in the human rights of Lebanese women and children.
And also her ongoing support of the terrible, terrible, crime against humanity that is Israel’s medieval siege on Ghaza - I guess her heart does not live in the human rights of Palestinian women and children either. As I mentioned before, I believe, I have two very close friends in Ghaza, each of whom had a girl baby born last year. Where is Hillary’s “heart in human rights for women and children” when it comes to those baby girls and their mothers. I guess her heart just isn’t in it for Palestinian women and girls.
Shirin writes: Edwards is the only one of the three top candidates who has stated he would make a nearly full withdrawal (he would only leave a handful of troops to guard the “embassy”), and who has given a specific time frame for the completion of that withdrawal.
First, quantify the term “nearly full”.
Second, quantify “handful”.
Third, specify the date on which, according to Edwards, all troops will be out of Iraq.
I don’t believe you can.
As you consider this, recall that you berated Hillary for having the good sense to refuse to be held to specific numbers on any of these, and further stating that even a President with the best of intentions couldn’t possibly guarantee any of this.
At the time you were engaged in this beration, by way of reminder, Hillary’s fellow candidates had so far escaped this question. Now they have been subjected to it, and their responses are remarkably similar to Hillary’s and you are furiously beckpadaling your criteria to include them and exclude Hillary.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so, how shall I say this, pathological.
As a matter of fact, I can. Edwards has stated that he would begin withdrawal immediately, and he would include in the withdrawal even the “trainers” who are supposedly “training” the Iraqis to subdue and kill each other (my characterization, not his). Within 16 months, he has said, the only troops that would be left in place would be those needed to guard the “embassy”, which would be, according to people who know about these things, a few thousands at most (that sounds like more than are needed to me, but what do I know about military matters, and what is needed to guardi a Regional Imperial Command and Control Center the size of the Vatican?).
Hillary’s (and Obama’s) plan, on the other hand, would, according to people who know about these things, require and estimated 40,000-75,00 troops, and based on what she said the troops would be doing there, some of them would have to be combat troops. This is not what I call a withdrawal, it is a scaled-down occupation, and one way or the other it completely violates the clear will of the vast majority of Iraqis, including, by the way, most Kurds, who are by now royally sick and tired of the Americans.
Let me clarify three things:
1. That would be an estimated 40,000-75,000 troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely with no end in sight.
2. I am not a supporter of Edwards, but of the top three democratic candidates he is the only one who has stated his intention to withdraw down to a minimal number of troops for a specific purpose that does not involve dominating the people of Iraq.
3. You can insult me all you want, and you can engage in your ludicrous armchair characterizations of my mental condition, but you will never - NEVER - shut me up.
Shirin defends her view: Within 16 months, [edwards] has said, the only troops that would be left in place would be those needed to guard the “embassy”, which would be, according to people who know about these things, a few thousands at most…
And Shirin further substantiates her claim: Hillary’s (and Obama’s) plan, on the other hand, would, according to people who know about these things, require and estimated 40,000-75,00 troops…
Apparently unnamed “people who know about these things” are your sole authorities for the data you cite. Oh well, they’re shy.
Gee whiz, can’t argue with people who know about these things, and I think like most I envy you your acquaintance with them. Introduce us to them sometime, won’t you?
Thanks!
Chris,
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Shirin writes: You can insult me all you want, and you can engage in your ludicrous armchair characterizations of my mental condition, but you will never - NEVER - shut me up.
I’m not trying to shut you up, I’m actually trying to get you to talk– to back up your argument. Trying to characterize it as an attempt to stifle expression is simply–
And then, Shirin writes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hmm. Oh dear. Well, let me put it this way:
Oh, somewhere in a fascist land,
The mouths are all clamped tight;
The citizens are full of fear
That speaking won’t be right;
Each citizen denied the chance
To speak or scream or shout;
That ain’t what happened here, my dear;
You talked shit and struck out.
With apologies to Ernest Thayer.
You asked me for specifics, I gave you the specifics you asked for.
You know, Chris, your rantings are oddly reminiscent of the way the Bush cheerleaders used to rave and wave their arms about whenever I pointed out the facts about Iraq. They came off terribly defensive - almost as if they knew I had reality on my side.
Those aren’t Edwards’ numbers, and those aren’t Hillary’s numbers, though, are they? They are numbers supplied by unnamed people who wish to sell you a narrative– which you bought of course, for reasons we’ve already discussed, and are dishonestly attempting to sell here.
And that’s the problem: Although you’re quickest to point out the willingness of folks to succumb to “received wisdom”, it’s increasingly clear to everyone but yourself that you’re no more immune to it than those you’ve lectured.
In truth, any one of the democratic candidates will get us out us Iraq, and each at roughly the same rate, because it is actually circumstances that will determine that withdrawal rate– not the lollipops being handed out on the campaign trail. Edwards can’t promise specifics. Neither can Obama. Hillary, who has been pressed far harder than any other candidate on this for no other reason than the fact that she is Hillary, is well aware of this, and she is simply being honest with herself and us–
Even if you aren’t.
bama,
Those aren’t MY comments. However, I do agree that Hillary is as hawkish as the rest.
The above comments are just one example of the thinking of voters that will not vote for Hillary.
Let add that my ideal candidate of those running is Kucinich.
What a pity that a man like him stands no chance of taking the White House.
Cee: Bill Bennett looked a whole lot more worried at the end of the evening than he looked at the beginning of it.
She is incredible. I have known this for some time. And if the media blockades and shrieks and screams and refuses to allow that message to be seen, then we and she will simply take it to the voters ourselves.
Thank you, New Hampshire, for your fecking glorious common sense.
Since Larry is a self-proclaimed Edwards supporter, I trust we will soon be seeing a link on the front page that will allow people to make contributions to his campaign as well?
Fair point, Shirin. I had 10 minutes before my transport picked me up for physical therapy and someone had mentioned to me that she is the first woman to win a presidential primary, and I was like — WOW! — that is SO important! So I rushed — did a fast screenshot of her thanking New Hampshire — and tossed it up. I wondered about the contribute part, but didn’t have time to zap it, and hoped people would not interpret it as a request for donations, which wasn’t my intention.
THAT said, anyone can contribute to John Edwards — it must be http://www.johnedwards.com .
I am so glad he’s in the for the long haul. MSNBC just featured him speaking today in South Carolina! Glad he’s getting media notice.
Slightly OT: My daughter and I talked on the phone last night. She said, while Elizabeth Edwards was introducing her husband (and I love how she always does that), that Elizabeth looks different. She does. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it’s from medication or treatment. Do hope she’s alright.
Hey, there’s John Edwards again on MSNBC. GOOD!
Yes indeed, no matter how I feel about the prospect of Hillary for President, it is an important historical event.
What I have heard about Elizabeth Edwards is that she could survive well for a long time with this particular cancer. I do wish her well for her sake and that of her family.
OT sibel getting lots of phone calls from media around the world. From inside the bubble 0
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5527
Good news! The bombshell report on the front page of London’s Sunday Times on charges made by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has finally led to press coverage by the mainstream media!
Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s response to Hillary’s win in New Hampshire
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html
The vote was hacked by Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by LHS Associates.
All the polls were dead on, save this one race. There is a discrepancy between the hacked vote and the hand-counted vote.
Any Proof of this? Don’t get me wrong…but someone posted the reuslts from Brad Blog? and I saw some anomolies but did not see the problem.
…Oh yea, I forgot to add - they will hack the other way in the general election
Don’t be silly, Jesus.
Always wanted to say that. >;)
Congrats to Hillary, would not suprise me if she went one step higher and became the President.
Bill Bennett looked worried last night because he bet 100K on Obama to win, Clinton to place.
He’s not getting enough money from CNN to cover the vig.
-GSD
LOLOLOL!!
I think Robert Scheer put this into perspective in the SF Chronicle. He begins by saying he hopes that the viewing Senator Clinton as an agent of change because she is a woman sends a “…more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher’s ascent in England.”
He goes on to note “What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the Bush administration is engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course.” Ending by saying “What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate.”
“what we need more than a change in appearance is one of perspective” you can say that again.
And a change of Plans and action….Not more warmongering strategies put forth in the Kyl Lieberman amendment that Hillary voted for.
Serious topic but some laughs in the comments at Emptywheel
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/09/are-we-faking-it-again/#comments
Thank you for pointing out what not a single droid of the MSM even noticed - that Hillary just made history! Yes, she is the first woman to ever win a primary for the nomination of President.
They were all too quick to anoint Obama for making history without even bothering to vet that frame. If they had, they might have noticed the pesky little fact that Jessie Jackson won 7 primaries and 4 caucuses in 1988. In other words, Jessie Jackson is the one who made history. Mr. Obama has not come close to that point as of yet.
But, of course, these days the press doesn’t have to be right. They’re basically just the Right Wing Propaganda Machine, so they get to decide what is history and what is not.
But I’m beginning to understand why that is. They can’t possibly talk about the historical implications of Hillary’s candidacy. It would be too compelling a topic, it would be too attractive. So they must instead distract us all by insisting that Obama’s is the historic candidacy, not Hillary’s.
Good points made. Jesse Jackson’s speech at the ‘84 convention was great.
While Big Media is just another form of Big Business and obsessed with profits, they have a challenger. Hard to imagine how different it was not so long ago before the internet and cable. Even with my slooow ISP, text downloads quickly. And the worldwide sources that are available is amazing.
ABC is trying to compete somewhat with the Facebook stuff. Nonsuperficial reporting of material that is not compelling to the wealthy media owners may never happen.
As far as South Carolina goes, I don’t think the black vote automatically goes to Obama. Blacks are sophisticated politically, and my sense that one of their own with flashy oratory but a thin resume will not fare well when the alternative is an experienced person who can actually deliver the goods when elected.
I wonder about how much Obama’s McLurkin rally affected the black vote. For me, as a straight white gal who is gay-friendly, the McClurkin thing is what finally, and totally, turned me off to Obama. Plus I’m sick to death of all the pandering to Christians that goes on.
I doubt much. I heard someone say that most of the male choir directors in Black churches are gay.
And yes, regardless of my presidential preferences, Clinton’s win was historic and cannot be dismissed as otherwise.
That is awesome.
Some blacks are not very happy with Obama:
The Pale Reflection: Barack Obama, MLK and the Meaning of the Black Revolution
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=1
….
A Black presidential candidate who spends much of his time denying the significance of race in U.S. society, cozying up to Big Business, and assuring imperial interests that he will expand U.S. military capabilities, captured the often diametrically opposed imaginations of millions of Blacks and whites. African American “media leaders” reached full-throated supremacy over real, grassroots leaders.
….
Paul Street has written often [...] of Obama’s political charade: his impudent posing as the “Joshua” to succeed Dr. King’s “Moses Generation,” while supporting none of the fundamental social transformations sought by King; his fawning praise of the same U.S. “free enterprise” system that King thought was incompatible with racial justice and peace; Obama’s ridiculous and statistically baseless declaration that Blacks have already come “90 percent of the way to equality,” inferring that his election would provide the final ten percent [....]
Much more here:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=34
Some of Obama’s statements are considerably more hawkish than Hillary’s. This summer she rebuked him for saying he wanted to move some US troops from Iraq to “the right battlefield in Pakistan and Afganistan.”
Yes, some of Obama’s statements ARE more hawkish than Hillary’s.
But it’s kind of funny that she has rebuked him both for saying he would talk to “adversaries” undconditionally, AND that he would move some troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Hillary made herstory in New Hampshire.
-fyt
Ron Paul beat Fred Thompson! & he almost beat Rudy.
Ron Paul beat Fred Thompson!
Yes, so did all of the write-in candidates. [laughing]
What I feared from NH is that Hillary, the first plausible woman candidate, would go down humiliated, gang-banged by male candidates, hectored by media jackals. That would have sent an awful message to American women about what potential they have in our society. Thankfully, the women of NH rescued us from what would have been a really bad situation.
[...] History was made in New Hampshire. Clinton is the first female candidate in US history to win a presidential primary. I think that is something we should all take note of. I’m glad to see it happen, regardless of where she sits on my ranking of preferable candidates. Without considering the implications this win could have on the nomination, I view this is a good thing for women everywhere and our country, in general. [...]