Post-post-feminism

Post-post-feminism

: On Kudlow’s show tonight, talk turned to the apparently ever-more-scant possibility of a Hillary-v-Condi presidential race.

I said that the important thing about this talk is that we’re not in the token feminist era of Geraldine Ferraro: Wow, a woman can run for vice-president!

Nope. These are two strong, smart, capable, powerful women and no one is looking at them as the products of quotas or tokenism or condescension. They are politicians in their own right.

We’ve come a long way, baby.

  • http://cellar.org/iotd.php Undertoad

    These are both serious women and I would vote proudly for either of them. I tend to think that Hills has the thick skin and political instinct to survive a Presidential run. She has been a far etter Senator than I ever thought she’d be.
    Condi always seems a little anxious up there. She’s flat-out brilliant off script though.

  • Kat

    I watched an interview Sunday, and Condi was adamant that she would not run. I was disappointed.

  • http://www.oregoncommentator.com Timothy

    Couldn’t vote for Hillary, because I don’t like her politics…but you could put Condi on a ticket with a goat and I’d vote it. In an instant.

  • foo

    Timothy, you did.

  • Emil

    “Come a long way”, huh? As long as people still are being singled out as prospect nominees to the presidency just because of their gender, we havn’t come further than just peeking off the top of the sandbox. IMHO.

  • billhedrick

    E,il. you are not quite correct. If on a journey you can stop and say. “Look! we’ve traveled 150 miles! We’ve certainly come a long way.” You could not reasonably say that since you are aware of the distance you have traveled that you have not really moved from your first position. i.e., awareness of change does not negate the change.
    On the other aspect of your post, noticing the characteristics of a candidate does not necessitate prejudice. Frankly since the all of the presidents of the last 40 years have come from the southern part of the country, I would say that Condi should beat Hillary. Does my noticing that Condi is from the south make me a Confederate redneck? I think not.

  • Angelos

    Not these two…
    Hillary is unelectable. Even the Dems know that.
    Condi is incompetent. Everyone can see that.
    Any other women in the pipeline?

  • billhedrick

    why do you think Condi is incompetent?

  • Angelos

    Well, as National Security Advisor, she didn’t do anything, except, oh, facilitate the President’s ignorance of national security issues. And she was a good lying lackey when needed. Well, I guess that stands for success in this administration. Good lackey, here’s a biscuit.
    And she lacks any concept of diplomacy. Which makes her perfect for, Secretary of State? How do you figure?
    She’s useless. She was a failure at her first job, and unqualified for this one. She’s going to be president?!
    And also, let’s just fact facts. This is America. I’m not sure which president will happen first, black man or white woman, but black woman? Waaaaaaaay down the odds list. Shrill, hateful, deceiptful black woman? Ha!! Remember: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush? Other than being white men, they had CHARM in common. Hillary has none. Condi has less. Yes, that IS possible!
    Some choice items from Condi bios:
    Rice had all the qualifications for membership in the new Bush administration

  • Jim C.

    Jeff wrote, “These are two strong, smart, capable, powerful women and no one is looking at them as the products of quotas or tokenism or condescension.” I beg to differ on the last 2 with respect to Condi.
    Angelos: FACT – After the first WTC bombing, I distinctly remember some explosives expert on TV saying, “They were trying to topple the tower. They’ll be back to finish the job.” The Clinton administration had one or 2 occasions where someone offered to turn bin Laden over to them and they refused. They had 7 years to prevent 9/11. And you complain about the Bush administration not preventing it in less than a year? Try again.
    Angelos wrote, “Hillary is unelectable. Even the Dems know that.” They didn’t run her for the Senate in NY just for the heck of it. That’s why they ran Bobby Kennedy there. If she develops a credible and tough position on terrorism and national security, or if terrorism magically goes away, she’ll win.
    Also, I understand there was a recent article in Salon saying she would be the candidate. Or is that some kind of misinformation campaign? Or is it you who are part of some spontaneous misiniformation campaign? (Those last 2 sentences are pure speculation on my part.)

  • Angelos

    Jim – easy there, sport.
    “And you complain about the Bush administration not preventing it in less than a year?”
    No, I said no such thing.
    What I said was that in her capacity as National Security Advisor, she was a dismal failure. She didn’t convey any sense of urgency about security issues. She didn’t inform (or advice, if you prefer) the president of anything. He continued his blissfully ignorant existence taking photo-ops with tumbleweed, while his underlings dropped the ball. In the first 8 months of the Bush administration, terrorism was given little if any attention. FACT, as you like to say.
    Also, “The Clinton administration had one or 2 occasions where someone offered to turn bin Laden over to them and they refused.” is a myth, by the way. Remember, just because Hannity says so doesn’t make it true.
    Some FACTS for you:
    As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger wrote in the July 13, 2002 Washington Post: “Although less was known about Osama bin Laden in 1996, when he left Sudan, than has been learned since, U.S. officials pressed the Sudanese to end their support and sanctuary for bin Laden. But no senior Clinton administration official — from the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department or the National Security Council — is aware of any offer by the Sudanese to turn bin Laden over to the United States…”
    A Fox “reporter”, Mansoor Ijaz, claims he brokered a deal. OK, that’s credible.
    Berger adds, “…that he (Ijaz) was not used as a channel of communication by the U.S. government to the Sudanese reflects the disinclination of any administration to use self-appointed diplomats to conduct official U.S. business — given uncertainties over motivation and interest. Indeed, other governments complained to U.S. officials that Ijaz represented himself — incorrectly — as acting on behalf of the U.S. government.”
    Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, the Clinton administration decided to attack the camps bin Laden used with cruise missiles. The missiles were fired on August 20, 1998. According to the 9/11 report, bin Laden was missed by a few hours.
    The 9/11 Commission report shows the administration did take action against terrorists, and describes the Clinton Administration as being “obsessed” with capturing bin Laden.
    Hillary – she’s Senator of a Democrat-heavy state. Big difference between that and winning the Presidency. My gut feeling is that she will not be the candidate. “Misinformation?” Calm down buddy. I expressed an opinion. I don’t work for the DNC.
    It doesn’t matter if I like Hillary or dislike her. I still don’t think the country as a whole will vote for a woman. When I’m proven wrong, so be it. But my opinion on this is – I’ll believe it when I see it.