"On The Fence" by 'Nuff Said / LJWorld.com

Blogs home 'Nuff Said

On The Fence

It is Monday before Super Tuesday and I'm waffling. Me an admitted feminist! It's not that I don't think that Hillary is right for the job. In spite of the rhetoric from those who oppose her; she is qualified and ready to lead. And I believe that we desperately need a woman president. Not just to break the glass ceiling. I believe we need more women in power to balance out the confrontational nature of our current male leaders.So why am I waffling? I am inspired by Obama's ability to engage young voters. The enthusiasm of these young people gives me hope that America can be great again. For the first time in awhile I feel good about handing over the reigns to the younger generation.Lately it seemed that people had forgotten that our government is of the people, for the people, by the people. Obama seems to embrace this. Perhaps that is why so many youth and others are becoming engaged in the political process this election.What do you think?

By Virginia Rigney

February 4, 2008

'Nuff Said

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

4 February 2008
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…

Ginny,

I agree that it is a tough decision between Clinton and Obama. Not you specifically, Ginny, but I think it is interesting that in the press people tend to refer to Hillary or Obama. Why use the first name for the female and last name for the male candidates? It seems less respectful or somewhat diminishing to refer to the female candidate by her first name while traditionally we've referred to all the other Democratic and Republican candidates by their last names. At any rate, what a nice luxury we have to choose between two good candidates in the Democratic party. My question is who is more likely to win in the general election. I don't know the answer to that. In the past, I've resented that Kansas democrats haven't really had a choice in the primary elections or caucases. Now that we do, I'm undecided also.
4 February 2008
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Wow! I didn't even pick up on that subjective reporting, “Why use the first name for the female and last name for the male candidates?” But I think you've hit on a subtle not so subtle - sexism there. Obama definitely is picking up the Neo-Kennedy mystique, and Kennedy himself was not very experienced when he hit office. Okay, so we almost had an atomic war with the Soviets, notwithstanding. Anyway, I'm glad this election has broadened the playing field into diversity. Whatever the outcome, whatever the party, we broke the race and gender barrier, finally.
4 February 2008
at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

angell (Marlo Angell) says…

As a feminist who would also love to see a female president, I was in a similar place a few months ago. Since then, I have jumped off the fence to the Obama side. There are differences in policy (I prefer Obama's healthcare not being mandated, for example), but ultimately, I went with my heart on this one.

I don't think the use of Hilary instead of Clinton is sexist. She herself uses “Hilary 08” on her signs, not “Clinton 08” to differentiate from Bill (hey, I would do the same thing, especially in light of his recent comments on South Carolina). Most of us say Sebelius, not Kathleen, so I don't think using a female candidate's first name is a strike against our womanhood.

I think the country is ready for a female president- we just need the right one.
4 February 2008
at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

I would be most happy if Obama won the nomination, and asked Hilary to be his running mate.
4 February 2008
at 9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Charisma and rhetoric is not be enough to be President of the most powerful nation on earth. John Kennedy learned that in the Cuban missile crisis, nearly stumbling into a nuclear holocaust. Even non-super powers aren't pushovers as he learned at the Bay of Pigs. Under the Third Reich the German people learned that charisma and the ability to inspire must be guided by wisdom to know where to lead your adoring masses.

If I were a Democrat and had to choose, I too would be on a fence. Ms. Clinton with all her baggage or Mr. Obama who is an inspirational choir boy by comparison? The youthful fresh faced newcomer, or the somewhat more mature head of the most powerful and well funded political campaign organization this year?

Either can “out liberal” the liberal Juan McCain which Republicans leadership mistakenly believe can lure Independents or more “conservative” Democrats, all 23 of them. Romney can't match (even with his personal wealth) the cash and organization that Ms. Clinton brings to the table, and nobody in the world has the charm and charisma of Mr. Obama, least of all someone with a first name of “Mitt.”.

If goal is to simply win the White House the choice is easy, flip a coin and call it in the air. Heads you win, tails you win. If you want a charismatic leader who will seduce the country towards greater socialism, Obama is the man. If you prefer a silk gloved iron fisted tyrant to bludgeon the country towards greater socialism, vote for Ms. Clinton. It is all just a matter of personal style.
5 February 2008
at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I enjoyed your coments, Sigmund. I feel Hillary is the person for the job - I also don't feel calling her by her first name is in anyway a slight.

I did not like Obama pulling the chair out for her at the last debate though. As a woman I have been capable of taking care of my own doors and chairs for a very long time. It is difficult for me to fully understand his thoughts about doing this act at that time - kindness, peace gesture, gentleman - showing that she is a woman and of the weaker sex? Only he knows that.

I do feel Obama is no where close to the brains and experience that we get with Hillary. He is a nice man, probably a caring man, but any young man who is a good debater is equally good at stirring up a crowd of voters.

We live in a society where daily headlines include pregnant mothers being murdered by their husbands, young and old women are still being abused by their husbands, fathers, boyfriends, women still earn less on the dollar to men, women in other countries have led (and done so very well) for many years. Until we have a woman as president, we will continue to think of them as somehow less equal to men.
5 February 2008
at 10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

alia and david - marlo is right, ms clinton has deliberately marketed herself as hillary to differentiate herself from her husband. remember that women are expected to change our names to that of our husbands when we marry.

i ran for state rep in 2004 and only then did i realize the challenges of a woman running for office. for example i grew up in the next small town over from where i now live. growing up, people knew me as virginia kierl.

sigmund - unfortunately, there are probably people in this country who would make a better president but as evidenced by the current president - connections matter. also, it seems that the president isn't actually the one leading. there is a power structure working behind the scenes (corporations, etc.) that ignores the will of the people. I believe that government works best when citizens are educated and involved in the process. obama looks like the one person running who can get that done. is it a gamble? maybe. but more of the same is not an option for me.

ronda - i agree with you and i do believe that hillary would be a good president. for the above stated reasons, i am considering passing up - potentially - the only chance i may have to vote for a female president in my life-time.