The Fallacy of Hillary's Sisterhood

Of late, the media is fond of referring to Hillary's "Sisterhood" -- those women who fanatically back Hillary because, well, because she's a woman--at least biologically speaking. (The fact that she seems to be the worst kind of woman -- one who is attempting to emulate the worst, most selfish, most dishonest, most divisive qualities of her male counterparts, doesn't seem to enter into their equation.)

My own view is that no election should be decided on the basis of race, gender or religion, but rather, by determining who has the leadership skills necessary to change the country in the most productive and positive ways. Who has a vision for change, articulated in an honest, inclusive, inspirational message backed by solid, relevant policies? And who has an old school Washington destroy-your-opponent political strategy (lies, smears, swift-boating) to win at all costs (dividing the party and the country) for his or her own political gain at the expense of uniting and inspiring the country to change for the common good?

To me, the choice is pretty obvious. One candidate understands that American's are sick and tired of the divisive, corrupt, power-hungry Washington politics of the last 16 years (where the political promises of both Bill Clinton and George Bush were almost entirely unrealized) and has done his best to raise the bar along with our hopes. The other has become the negative embodiment of everything she professes to want to change. Tough choice? Given that their polices, with minor differences, are nearly identical, I think not.

The following post comes from a fellow political fanatic with some strong feelings on Hillary Rodham Clinton. She makes some points worth noting:

Why This "Middle Aged" Woman is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton

"I am ashamed of my peers.

I used to be a Hillary Rodham Clinton fan, back in the 90's. Incensed at what was being said about the Clinton's stirred me to my very soul. I became more and more activated and vocal about the "raw deal" that the Clintons were handed in the 90's. The 2000's have been a nightmare during which I have seen things that really disturb me to the point of wanting to become one of the 'silent majority'.

So many Dems voting for the Iraq war, (including HRC, and her excuse about being persuaded by Bush and the threat of WMD really is a hoot considering that HRC was in the White House with access to 8 years of information about Saddam. For her to be fooled by Bush when I, who wasn't in the White House and wasn't privy to all of the info and people that she had access to is pathetic.) Hillary's subsequent votes and stances were very hawkish and she really never admitted that going to Iraq was a horrible mistake until years after we were in, when it was quite obvious to anyone with an IQ over 100 that it was a horrible, horrible decision) followed by her hawkish, identical-to-Iraq vote on Iran and her missteps on the Bankruptcy Bill.... Sure, everybody makes errors, but combining those errors with the media announcing that HRC would most certainly win the Democratic nomination-- two years before she even committed to running--set off alarm bells.

Why would the media do that knowing full well that in politics things can change overnight? Why did practically all of the pundits say this over and over again for 2 years? What did they know that we did not? Where was their information coming from? Before one Primary was run, before HRC announced her candidacy, the media had her running and winning the Democratic Nomination for President? How the heck do our votes count with that being rammed down our throats for years? Were they trying to get us all used to the idea? Much like Bush sold us Iraq? Were the powers-that-be driving this news story to get us all over sticker shock? I mean, haven't the American People accepted all kinds of atrocities since Bush got in office? We must all be on valium (maybe put in the water) by accepting all of the blatant infringements on our rights without rioting in the streets. They know how to get us to "accept" things that we ordinarily would never have accepted a couple of decades ago.

Then there is Bill's new buddy Poppy Bush, golfing together, doing humanitarian things together, sitting together at wakes and I ask, where is Jimmy Carter? Isn't Jimmy Carter a Democrat? Don't we get crucified on this board [Democratic Underground] and sometimes thrown off for "appearing" to promote or accept Republicans? But when Clinton somehow strikes up a new friendship with Poppy.... not Jimmy Carter, we all say, "isn't that nice?" While his son the POTUS is responsible for taking us to war on false pretenses, destroying our economy, taking away our rights....

Hillary's behavior since Obama's candidacy started threatening her chances to merely waltz into the White House has pushed me completely over the edge. I don't care that she could be the first woman in history to become POTUS. She would be as much an embarrassment to my sex as she is presently an embarrassment to my sex. Why? Because I thought that we would be better than that. I thought we that we were as capable if not more so than any man to be POTUS. Clinton has changed me from being a supporter and admirer in the 90's to being embarrassed and angry with her in 2008 -- no small task, believe me-- this is one change of mind that I didn't anticipate....

Bush and Clinton, Clinton and Bush - come on, I didn't just fall off of a turnip truck, I wonder though, why did so many of my peers?"