“Actually, I can’t think of a better reason to promote her.”

I agree, Mitch. You can’t promote her:

For her honesty. (she isn’t)

For her intelligence. (She voted to enable, when a LOT of other democratic senators, for some bizarre reason, did NOT vote that way…and she has yet to unequivocally eat that vote and say that she made a mistake.)

For her loyalty to the democratic party.
(she’s climbed into bed with bush and Lieberman, time and again, and did it a few days ago, when she tried, in perfect Rovian fashion, to lay the blame for the bloody shitmire, on the Iraqis doorstep)

So I guess you guys will just have to keep peddling her gender to us.

(Psssst… a lot of us aint buyin… :o) )

IrishJim @ 56

Screw Nader. He is the reason we are in this mess with Bush.

Nader: Everybody Sucks but me so I might consider running again. Good Luck getting enough signatures to get on the ballot this time around.

I thought we were in this mess with Bush because:
1. The state of Florida illegally excluded voters from its rolls;
2. ChoicePoint fixed the rolls Florida used;
3. A gang of Hitler-like Republicans, including a future UN ambassador engaged in thug tactics to illegally interfere with the counting of votes in Florida;
4. The Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision based on faulty logic in a case where the Constitution, the highest law of the land, says that it has no place sticking its fucking Marbury nose in the first place, i.e. settling an election which is specifically reserved for the House of Representatives.

I’m sure loads of people would like to ignore the blatant reasons for the mess we’re in by assigning the blame to Nader, but he’s really a non-issue.

And I see people in threads here are already to tar and feather Mike Bloomberg if he DARES to enter the race and take votes away from a Democrat. At this point in time, there is NO viable Democratic candidate in the race.

Pleas stop forever with blaming Florida. Gore is an incompetent politician at the national level. That election should not have been close and Gore should have been able to carry his home state. You will just bring more of, more of. We really need to move beyond the Vietnam era of self serving careerists such as the Clintons, Kerry, Gore and Bush who pander to the corporate media. As for Hillary Clinton in particular, the people who run this particular site sees her as a gate crasher, ceiling splitter. I see her as an unimaginative, mediocre petty politician.

My point being: Until “We, the People” start evaluating Presidential candidates on their leadership substance and ability, minus all the labels, we are going to be caught in this same bush/clinton/bush/clinton wash cycle for fucking ever. Focus.

I would add that we should evaluate candidates on the specific programs they propose. And electability (which may refer to the same thing that you call “leadership substance.”)

I said a lot more than that. So did Rayne.

My point being: Until “We, the People” start evaluating Presidential candidates on their leadership substance and ability, minus all the labels, we are going to be caught in this same bush/clinton/bush/clinton wash cycle for fucking ever. Focus.

Hillary Clinton, as a Presidential candidate, has NO viable nor electable leadership qualities what so ever. Hillary Clinton is a leader in shapeshifting cronyism. How is that progressive?

I’m not willing to settle for an imaginary “broken glass ceiling for ONE person” when the future of our country and world is at stake. I want real progress and a real leader because that’s what this fine mess requires.

Hope this helps :-)

Next up is Hillary I see. Thanks for the tip on the subtlety. I’ve noticed the headline, “Who Will Stop Hillary” and remembered, “Who will Stop Dean.” When they get to Barack, it’s going to be bad. I posted to POLITICO my criticism of the lates on Edwards (it’s getting ridiculous) and the comments were hate-filled and really nasty, using all the latest slurs. Scarey.

It would be good to have an online place for us all to defend these nasty attacks on our Dem candidates – and go on the offensive against these smear merchants.

Take Beatrix Potter. It took 100 years for Britain’s Linnaean Society to apologize for the way they misogynistically rejected her pioneering scientific research in mycology and extend her the recognition she deserved. It took Hollywood 2 hours to withdraw the recognition and turn her into a sweet, blithering idiot who talked to imaginary animals.

Beatrix Potter’s brief but intense scientific career: Beatrix Potter was a talented Victorian naturalist, whose breakthrough studies of fungi put her well on her way to a career in science until she was shut out by the sexism, credentialism and orthodoxy of the Victorian scientific establishment. She became a great children’s book author and illustrator instead. In 1997 she received a posthumous official apology from the Linnaean Society for its treatment of her, exactly one hundred years after it had barred her from speaking.

But a decade later she was once again stripped of her scientific achievements by Hollywood, in the movie “Miss Potter.” The filmmakers dropped the science and simply gave us a lovably eccentric young woman. They came up with a typical, stereotyped Hollywood plot: charming girl talks to animals, writes kiddie books, gets guy, loses guy, buys farm to compensate, gets another guy and lives happily ever after. Why spoil that sweet, feminine story with a bunch of messy fungi?

Some things never change…

If you read the article, you see that there are men in the network, though it is mostly women, apparently.

Editorial choices were made to point out that this is a group of predominantly women leaders. I’ll believe it’s not sexist when I see as much coverage of all the campaign top teams that are dominated by men.

Pach, I’m in the camp of those who did not find the article to be sexist. Probably all other top presidential campaign teams in the past and present have been dominated by men, I would guess. That’s what makes this different and newsworthy. If America is ever to elect a woman to its highest political office, it will have to get used to the idea of more women in all sorts of leadership roles. I’m surprised that you seem so upset by an article that seems to me to describe a group of loyal, determined, accomplished, strong women. The only negative is the alleged insularity of the group. The rest is pretty positive.