BlogHer - clinton - Comments

Loved the show

Southerngirl — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:02:24 -0500

I too think I have found a new show.

Not really sure what makes a wife "good" but I would say It is very subjective. A good wife would be someone who not only gives their partner what they need but what they want as well. BTW I am divorced!

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Intrigued

Tina Lane — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:20:00 -0500

I am super intrigued by your post and I am not normally one to chase TV shows. I would hope what makes a good wife is the same as what makes a good husband, but that would be naive of me. www.floridagirlmidwest.blogspot.com

Good wife yeah what is that? I bet I know the real answer there!

Eitherinloveornot — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:20:09 -0500

Yeah, you thought I was probally a guy huh?

A good wife is the wife that is in love with her husband and he is in love with her.

They find themselves treating each other the way they would want to be treated.

With respect and love. Thinking of not themselves everyday but the other half of them.

Is this impossible? Well yeah when temptation runs wild and selfishness and a lack of spirituality with the Lord himself living in you it certainly is.

Adding my voice

Maria Niles — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:51:23 -0600

To the chorus of kudos and thank you's. As in previous years, this is an excellent round up and look back. Thank you also for including a link to my post, as well.

Here is to a 2009 filled with amazing positive news on the gender and feminism front.

BlogHer Contributing Editor
PopConsumer
Beyond Help

What A Great Look Back

Megan Smith — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:25:34 -0600

Hi Suzanne,

Thanks so much for this great look back at the year in feminism and for including my observations.

I hope that all women, conservative and liberal can learn from the lessons of this year's election and move forward emphasizing what we have in common instead of our differences.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Thanks for the love!

PunditMom — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:12:27 -0600

I'm honored that you'd include me in this most fabulous list and post! There is so much food for thought as we move into 2009 and a new administration.

PunditMom
Politics & News Contributing Editor

Ugh!

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:06:39 -0600

I'm trying not to think about that. I'm hoping to start the year on a better note, like with Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act being signed into law, and all the evil new HHS rules being reversed (is that like unsigning?). But, I suppose fodder is fodder.

Thanks for all your great posts this year, Jill!

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Wow!

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:55:34 -0600

This is a great reminder of where we've been this year, Suzanne. Thank you very much for including it. Thank goodness if Rick Warren hangs in there as the invocation speaker, you know you'll have something to start off 2009 with!

Jill Writes Like She Talks

Obama, ACORN, and voter fraud

socrates — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:29:56 -0500

socrates Good evening, Cooper,

I would be quite surprised if Lynette Long were not a member of PUMA. You note that the objections to Obama's tactics were coming from the Hillary camp.

Obviously you don't care for Hillary, and that is your choice. I trust you would agree, however, that she and her supporters had a right to a fair electoral process both in the primaries and the caucuses. They were entitled to not having ballot boxes stuffed. Not having voters brought in from out of state. Not having "voters" registered multiple times. Not having Obama thugs intimidating Clinton supporters.

Please note that Ms. Long was NOT the only person raising objection to the Obama / ACORN fraudulent and aggressive tactics. If you will reference back to the original story, you will find about a dozen other persons who have voiced concerns.

We ALL need to worry about the infusion of such criminal practices into our democratic electoral process. AND now it is coming out that Obama paid ACORN and its subsidiary CIS $832,598 for their assistance during the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Yes, ma'am, check that out at the Federal Election Commission.

I am wondering

cooper — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:16:06 -0500

Is this the same Lynette Long who is a psychologist in Betheda MD? They PUMA LADY?

This is the "study" she is referring to isn't it

I have taken several grad courses at this point in analytics and research and this is not a study.

Very simlar information has been availble via media for some time.

What so many don't understand, or ignore, is the fact that there was a very large faction of the Democratic party which did not want any part of the Clinton machine. As soon as Iowa went to Obama and it became clear he could win they started abandoning her. All is not what it seems. This is something the party really took into their own hands. The party in the people who really make those decsions - the people who always control the parties in this counry, those with the money.

The melodrama from people who seem not to understand how this system works is beginning to border on histrionics - if not hysteriia.

cooper

I think the issue is deeper than 3 to 4 inches.

TeacherCaryn — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:06:29 -0500

I agree with several of the other ladies who left comments. This is not about being a woman, its about what she supports. When you said that no one gave Hillary trouble about raising kids, I'm just going to suggest that's probably due to the fact that her daughter has long been grown, wheras Palin has little ones in tow. Personally, I don't think that would hinder a determined woman from doing a good job in anyting. That issue aside, Palin looks like a ditz compared to Hillary, not to mention I sided with Hillary's policies from the get-go. Perhaps I can proudly vote for her one day. I am very disappointed in McCain's sorry attempt to win women over just because he thinks we all stand behind 'Girl power! woohoo!" and would vote for someone just because she has a vagina. Sorry, McCain. Some of us actually read up on issues and have formed opinions based on that.

Another reason Palin scares the living daylight out of me:

http://www.blogher.com/rape-and-justice-wasilla-ak

Seriously?

cshayr — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:15:44 -0500

I have to say that I was completely stunned and insulted when the McCain camped pulled Palin out of their magician's hat. Why her? As you say, they both have vaginas, right? That was exactly McCain's thought... we'll get a female to woo the Hillary supporters away from supporting Obama.

Let me say this, I WAS on the verge of going with McCain right up until this stunt with Palin. I have never felt so insulted as a voter.

If you are going to go after the intelligent and wary female vote, you need an intelligent and somewhat experienced female to back up the candidacy. In my opinion, Palin is neither. I was screaming in frustration as I watched interview after interview of her making a fool of herself, McCain, and women in general. The vice presidential debate, while she made a decent showing of herself, did not prove to me that she was any more informed or able to present her own thoughts or views, but that she was able to be coached over a period of weeks to respond to questions that they knew would be coming.

Oh, and her "I may not answer questions the way (the moderator) or Senator Biden may want me to" was a cop out for "I may not know the answer to what you are asking me, so I will just say something that the McCain camp wants to get out". I am very upset that our first female in the highest executive branch in the land could be this particular one. There are so many other females who could have done so much better in this role than her. Why not Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas? Sentaor Olympia Snowe of Maine?Senator Sheila Frahm of Kansas? They are all republican and have dealt with these issues. And I am sure that they would be able to speak a bit more fluently on current issues and topics than Gov Palin.

I am sorry, but if the issue was soley whether or not someone has a vagina, then of course you would vote for the McCain Palin ticket. However, most of the women who were voting for Hillary were voting for her because of what she stood for, and Palin is far from that mark. It's comparing apples to rotten bananas as far as women's issues go.

Women's rights

RetroHousewife — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:12:15 -0500

I wholeheartedly agree with Lisse. I was and am a huge Hillary supporter and seriously contemplated not voting in this election after she ended her campaign. However, McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate will have me running to the polls to vote for Obama on November 4th.

I have heard very little criticism from the media about her being a mother, and if I did, I too would be appauled. The media are criticising Palin, and rightly so, about her lack of knowledge on everything from foreign policy to economics. Take a moment to watch her painful interviews with Katie Couric or Charles Gibson and you will see that when she is unrehearsed and unscripted she doesn't know where she stands on any issues.

The reason women's organizations aren't supporting her is because she does not support women's rights. She is a major step backwards for women in politics and women period. She doesn't support a women's right to choose, even if they are raped, even if the rape is incest! As mayor of Wasilla she charged rape victims for their own rape examination kits!

We should not support women simply because they are women. This would be a huge error in judgement. Just like all people, we should judge women based on their content, their character, and in this case, their ability to perform a job. It is absolutely silly and absurd to think I should support a woman and endorse her simply because we have the same equipment. We don't like it when men choose a man over a more qualified woman. I couldn't in good conscience support a woman who isn't qualified for a job just because we are "sisters".

Policy, not anatomy

Lisse — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:00:00 -0500

In attempting to sell Sarah Palin as a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton, the McCain Campaign played women for stupid, and Sarah Palin is out there proving McCain's point.

This is not just about getting a woman in office, it is about electing someone who will further women's stature on the national stage, not set us back.

This is about electing someone who will be a major proponent for women's freedoms and rights and opportunities, someone who will be an advocate for our needs and those of our families, not someone who will set us back.

I'm sorry that person is not going to be Hillary Clinton, but is it certainly not Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a walkin', talkin', winkin', flirtin', major setback with a hunting license. This is a woman who can not name the publications she reads, let alone, the names of major figures on the world stage. This is a woman who wants to force other women to bear their rapist's child. This is a woman whose party wants to limit women's access to birth control. This is a candidate who does not believe in science and whose party does not believe in equal pay for women.

This is not about anatomy, this is about policy. Let's hope the embarrassment that is Sarah Palin does not hamper the options for women for decades to come.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

It Makes Me Sad...

HeidiChick — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:21:37 -0500

Amen.

I am so saddened and disheartened by ALL the women's organizations who've sent a plethora of Hilary stuff to me over the years. And I'm ok with that. Even though I do not personally support Hilary, I never found it necessary to be "against" her and write negative things. To me, putting efforts towards positve and good things makes more sense. (I'll take a Sarah wink over a Hilary scowl any day)

But then when Sarah rolls around, not only does the support stop. But the hate emails start rolling in....from the "women's" organizations.

My favorite business book is by former CNN Exec VP Gail Evans - "She Wins, You Win."

Just seems to me like some of those folks from the Organizations Formerly Known as Supporting Women need to read something like that....