…

BTW: I love your posts and I always enjoy reading them, you're very thoughtful and respectful- thanks!

I have no problem with making observations and judging what you see. That's what we all do; it's how we live. As I said, I agree with most of what you two said.

My divergence comes when there is no caution in ascribing motivation to what you see.or in an exercise in mind-reading. I enjoy pretend psychological exercises myself. At times, they can lead to useful insights. I do object, however, when there is no discernible demarcation between the theory of a psychological assignment and the supposition that what someone theorizes is actually true-to-life. This is the diffeence between saying. 'X fits the profile of cleptomania' and 'X is a cleptomaniac.', I'm quibbling. I know, but when it comes to real poeple, quibbling is in order. It's horrifying to think what the children of famous people read and hear in the media along these lines.

STOCKBOY, the additions of your 'color' is noted and appreciated.

On femnism, it's funnly that two men are trying to give a lifelong female feminist (that would be me) lessons in feminism.

FYI, the only thing femnists agree on is what I said, i.e. the right to uncoerced choice. From day one, feninists have been splintered into various divergent groups.
It's not a matter of yesterday vs. today, in the least,, as neither then nor now, has there been a single model.
So, I follow the same rule on feminism as in oher areas: no streotypes.– not yours, not anyone's. Give the woman freedom of choice and let her choose
As a parallel, I refer to 'not black enough'.

I have never spoken with either Clinton, rather I make my decision (like almost everyone else in this country) based on what I see in her speeches and the legislation she supports in Congress.

On the issue of her supporting philandering Bill…. I have great respect for that. So many people walk out of marriages at the slightest sign of trouble. Having said that, I also acknowledge that one reason might have been a political calculation, but no matter, she still held the marriage together.

On the issue of feminism…. she is the product of yesteryear and somewhat out of step with today's feminism. She may not be the best but she's not the worst. On this I am neutral towards her.

Go Obama!

Perhaps some perspective would help. I have observed Hillary and Bill Clinton for 15 years. I have spoken to both, including a fairly long conversation with Hillary. I make my observations and my armchair psychoanalysis from long experience..

Hillary Clinton had a choice: More of the same bullsh*t or a new path. Her candidacy is sinking like a stone because the choice she made is not the choice a majority of Democrats and Independents wanted her to make. And doncha just love her statement that it would be just swell if 65 million Iranians were obliterated? Spoken like a true feminist.

Besides which, you need to get off of your high horse regarding Hillary's “feminism.” Hillary not only represents an absolutist old-school feminism, but she has even betrayed these sisters. It is not for nothing that most of her woman supporters are eligible for AARP benefits.

There will be a woman president but it won't be Hillary Clinton and it won't be any of her sisters. You miss the irony of the fact that it is Barack Obama with his style of politics and message and not Hillary with her politics of polarization of demonization who will make that happen.

Get over it.

Tthere are serious alternative subtexts to be considered.
The worst politician can simultaneously be totally wrong and, absolutely and selflessly devoted to what he/she believes to be in the best interests of the country.
Hillary really is a politcy wonk, and she is better at having data and specifics at the fingertips of her mind. Whether her hard sell or Obama's soft sell will turn out to be better at getting past the Republican blocade,can only be determined by the future. That's a judgment call, not an issue of ethics. Hillary could well just be making her judgment call

The subject of race, as odious as it may be, can not be wished away. .You can place a safe bet that race will be an even bigger issue in Nobember. Admitting it publically is no more racist than noticing the color of someone's skin. It is only realistic to try to calculate how that will play out.

Shaun may be right in a general way, but a little modesty would make the conclusions more credible to me. I don't trust simplistic caricature sketches.

Also, I can not forget the neurotic reaction to Hillary before she had the time to show what she was as a canididate in her own right. It's not as if her critics are free of serious and blinding biases.

My caution becomes bitter opposition when it comes to delving into the Clinton marriage. No one can know what the private relationship between other people really consists of. Imposing one's own preferance is no better than insisting that everyone have 2.5 children. Butt out!

When feminism is brought in, my opposition becomes rage. The goal of feminism is to have equality, which means having free and uncoerced choice. It does not mean having to live up to the stereotype in someone else's mind. Beware of the bigoty in stereotypical expectations!

Shaun, I don't think it's a matter of HIllary not knowing herself and what she stands for. I think Hillary is a dyed in the wool politician and she played the same game as most politicians do. She played to the audience du jour, trying on new identities and messages to find the winning match for the race.

This is what she (and McCain) do not understand about Obama's promise of change. What many American people hunger for is not just a change in policies (and party control), but many Americans want a change in tone, substance and style.

Obama's greatest strength is his authenticity (though he's not perfect in that regard, but he's more so than Hill or McCain). And I think Obama is authentic because he struggled with his identity and discovered himself and his voice years ago. Obama truly views government as being for the people (rather than as a reward to share with friend$). Obama has his beliefs and they resonate with so many Americans.

If Obama had not entered the race I would have whole-heartedly supported Hillary, but Obama showed us what is possible and next to his authenticity HIllary (as will McCain in the general election) look like the pandering, do-and-say-anything-necessary-to-become-president typical politician. This atmosphere of pandering politics is all she knows, unfortunately. I heard many of her speeches and was impressed by her. But I also didn't know what she was about. On the one hand I would hope politicians would grow and learn from mistakes, so changing one's position does not give me problems. But on the other hand there's changing one's positions because it's politically convenient. While I forgave Hillary her 2003 Iraq vote with no qualms, there are plenty of other instances where I thought she was just changing her position because that's the way the wind was blowing. Obama on the other hand took some unpopular positions and stuck by them. And was eventually proven right. It takes guts and courage to do that. But he is a clear thinker because he tries to understand the situation for what it is, rather than try to figure out how any given situation helps (or hurts) him and how to spin it.

So it's not that Hillary doesn't know herself (I think she does), it's that Hillary played the politician's game of changing her tune to fit the circumstance so much that in the end no one knows what she stands for.