Clinton gives glimpse of how she plans to run as a woman

[webfact]

Clinton gives glimpse of how she plans to run as a woman
By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's passionate speech Thursday appealing for expanded rights and opportunities for women in the U.S. and around the world wasn't supposed to be a campaign event. But it might as well have been.

Addressing the annual Women in the World summit, Clinton made a forceful case for protecting women's health care choices and expanding paid family leave. The front runner for the Democratic nomination, Clinton criticized "those who offer themselves as leaders" but oppose equal pay for women or want to defund Planned Parenthood — a veiled reference to some of her Republican rivals.

The speech in New York provided one of the first glimpses of how Clinton will seek to tout her gender as an asset in the 2016 campaign. Her advisers have long said they regret downplaying the history-making potential of her candidacy during her failed 2008 White House bid and have vowed to not make the same mistake this time around.

Still, that doesn't mean Clinton herself will be talking explicitly about the prospect of being the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. She made only veiled references to her candidacy Thursday, including saying she had wanted to be at the event "regardless of what else I was doing."

In her first two weeks as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is instead letting her choice of events and campaign themes do the talking on the subject of a woman attaining the presidency.

During trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, that's meant casting herself as a "champion" for American families and focusing on issues that traditionally resonate with women, like paid family leave, education and childcare. Her campaign reasons that such issues are relevant to men with families, too.

Clinton's first events as a candidate have been small discussions with voters aimed in part at showing her softer side. She's peppered her remarks with references to her late mother, her daughter and her infant granddaughter.

And she's been talking directly this week, as she's done often over the years, about rights and opportunities for women. She did so Wednesday when Georgetown University honored recipients of a prize that carries her name, the Hillary Rodham Clinton Award for Advancing Women in Peace and Security.

At the Women in the World conference, which brings together female political leaders, activists and celebrities, she said she was optimistic that women were on the brink of making important progress.

"I'm grateful that there is now a new burst of energy around the rights and opportunities of women and girls," she said.

When Clinton first ran for president in 2008, she played down the prospect that she would be the first woman to run the country. She focused instead on her experience and grit.

That was, in part, an attempt to head off any voter concerns that a woman might not be tough enough to serve as president. It was also seen as a way to draw a contrast with Barack Obama, a freshman senator at the time.

Obama rarely talked about himself as the possible first black president during the 2008 campaign. But his supporters sometimes made that case and his team was adept at harnessing the enthusiasm of voters who were energized by his historic candidacy.

Some Clinton supporters say the former first lady may be able to do the same in the 2016 contest.

"For many voters, the chance to make history will be very important," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the longest-serving woman in the history of Congress.

Though women still trail men as political office-holders, women wield enormous power in national elections. They made up just over half of the electorate in the 2012 presidential election. About 55 percent of women backed Obama.

While Clinton will need to hold together the coalition of young people, black and Hispanic voters that also helped Obama win the White House, some Democratic strategists say she could offset some losses there by picking up a few more percentage points among women in key swing states.

To some Republicans, Clinton's projection of a softer, more family-friendly side is simply a political ploy and an attempt to avoid talking about her record as secretary of state. Among her fiercest critics has been Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is the only Republican woman expected to run for president.

"She wants to make it a gender-based campaign," Fiorina said in an interview.

Clinton's advisers say she is simply talking about issues that are important to the middle class, and not ducking her record.

"Hillary is focused on talking with everyday Americans about the issues that impact their lives, and our nation's future," said Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the campaign.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-24

[Emster23]

I would assume that she would run as a woman, being a woman and all. Maybe she thought about a visit to Thailand for a bit of "gender reassignment"?

[geriatrickid]

Wasn't Fiorina removed by the BoD at HP following the merger with Compaq? Despite loaning herself $1million+ to take advantage of campaign financing loopholes, and accepting large donations from the Koch brothers and the coal industry in an attempt to buy herself a senate seat, she was decisively rejected by California voters. And she criticizes Mrs. Clinton?

Note to the woman: Carly dear, please concentrate on your own ego stroking GOP nomination bid before going after the grown up, ok?

[Pimay1]

With Hillary it is "do as I say, don't do as I do". A real champion for women's equality as we see below.

An analysis by the Washington Free Beacon showed that during her time in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men. The report found the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men between 2002 and 2008, a gender gap of 28 percent.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Pimay1

[thousandpercent]

Get ready for two years of manipulative feminist propaganda. You are going to be mislead over and over until you believe the radical dogma, not unlike the racist politics of the 1940s and 1950s.

A few examples:

"expanded rights and opportunities for women"

It's true that feminists want "expanded rights and opportunities," even though women already have MORE rights and opportunities than men. They are going to tell gig they want "equality". This is the fundamental lie of feminism. Feminists oppose equality. Women are already far ahead of men by any measure, and they want MORE. The key words of feminist are "MORE, MORE, MORE, ME, ME, ME."

Women are about 50% more likely to graduate from college. Feminists don't want an equal number of men in colleges, they want colleges to reject more male applicants so that the seats can be filled by less qualified women. This is the policy at nearly all public and private universities.

In part more women than men graduate from college because of the hundreds of millions of dollars in scholarship money that is reserved for women only. Feminists do not want equality. They want MORE. Feminists do not want to make this money available to the most deserving students regardless of gender. It remains illegal for a scholarship to be reserved for the people with the least opportunity to go to college: men. That's how feminist want it.

Clinton made a forceful case for protecting women's health care choices.

Already women have far more healthcare opportunities than men. Government programs that provide or mandate conception control, cancer prevention and treatment, mental health services, and many other categories of healthcare are exclusively for women. No men allowed. Prostate cancer and breast cancer kill about the same number of people. The federal research budget for breast cancer is about 9 times as much as the budget for prostate cancer research. Clinton does not want equality. She fought aggressively and consistently for decades for rules that turn men away from healthcare.

equal pay for women

That women are paid less for the same work is a myth. The Holy Feminist Myth. The Current Population Survey tells us that women, on average, earn 77% of the average earnings of men. But it also tells us that women choose to work 25% less than men. So women earn 2% more than men for the work they do. But that measures only salary and wages. Women receive far more than men in perquisites, like pensions, health insurance, and vacations. So women get paid much more than men for the work they do. And receive much, much more in unearned income for doing no work at all. Clinton does not want equality. She wants MORE, MORE, MORE.

Clinton is not a champion of childcare, she's an opponent. The best childcare is two parents. Yet in about 80% of contested custody cases, the mother will be the only parent, and the father will be a "visitor". Usually allowed to see his child only about 60-70 days per year. Clinton opposes equally shared parenting laws.

"Though women still trail men as political office-holders."

This Holy Feminist Myth tells us that women somehow don't have "opportunity" to hold public office, that somehow they are held down by a glass ceiling and an old boys network. This is factually incorrect.

Women constitute the overwhelming majority of eligible voters in every state except Alaska. Women decide the elections of President, Vice-President, 98 of 100 senators, and 434 of 435 representatives. And almost every state, local, and tribal election in the country. Nothing stops women from holding any office except their own unwillingness to do public service.

When women do run for office, they are more likely to win than men. Women candidates for all offices win more than 50% of contests against male opponents. And of course 100% of contests against female opponents. The "patriarchy" is a manipulative myth. Just like the myth of the inferiority of black people that dominated politics in the 40s and 50s.

To some Republicans, Clinton's projection of a softer, more family-friendly side is simply a political ploy and an attempt to avoid talking about her record as secretary of state. Among her fiercest critics has been Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is the only Republican woman expected to run for president.

"She wants to make it a gender-based campaign," Fiorina said in an interview.

When women already have more rights and opportunities, more rights to small business loans and public contracts just because of their gender, more opportunities to get permanent residency just because of their gender, more opportunities for the most coveted military careers, more rights to free legal aid and housing, and on and on, Clinton will tell you she seeks "equality" while fighting for expanded first class legal status for women and second class status for men. This campaign will be about female supremacy in the same way campaigns of the 40s and 50s were about white supremacy. The question is, will you get tricked by the feminist propaganda?

[FangFerang]

I do not think for a minute Hillary can win, despite the mindless mob calling themselves feminists now. I generally lean Democrat, but I am not voting for Hillary. Strategically, they know they have to get the swing voters on board, and they both have not and will not.

She used her political clout to secure the nomination, or will in short order, and nothing on earth seems to stop the Democrats from losing -- this is like Kerry the Wooden Candidate all over again.

Strategic idiots.

[Thaddeus]

Clinton gives glimpse of how she plans to run as a woman

Both arms wind-milling and lips moving.

[winstonc]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

Edited April 24, 2015 by winstonc

[fred Kubasa]

There is a very long list of the Clinton's often suspicious activities but, in addition, she, desperately, needs to lose about 40 #, visit, for 3 or 4 days a beauty salon for emergency treatment and stop buying her clothes from Pakistani street vendors.

[h90]

I do not think for a minute Hillary can win, despite the mindless mob calling themselves feminists now. I generally lean Democrat, but I am not voting for Hillary. Strategically, they know they have to get the swing voters on board, and they both have not and will not.

She used her political clout to secure the nomination, or will in short order, and nothing on earth seems to stop the Democrats from losing -- this is like Kerry the Wooden Candidate all over again.

Strategic idiots.

I think it doesn't matter. It will be Hillary even if she loose....it will be the same Hillary with a different face. Maximum is a minor shift which part of the big industry gets some big money. The president is just some actor.....the candidates that are honest don't come into the big media.

[wabothai]

I hope this whole charade is not going to be about a woman's quest.

She is running for president and not for a woman on the barricades.

I fear !!!!

[willyumiii]

Since FDR, it has only happened one time that any party has won the office of President for more than two consecutive terms.

The one time was George H.W. Bush, who failed to win a second term ( another rarity )

It just doesn't happen.

She is the Democratic candidate.

The GOP has nobody to offer who isn't a very bad joke.

Added to the fact that the country/ world has not yet forgiven the GOP for the catastrophes created by the Cheney administration.

This could be the second time since FDR that a party wins the office for three consecutive terms!

[Ulysses G.]

The GOP has nobody to offer who isn't a very bad joke.

Nonsense. The Republicans have a number of perfectly acceptable candidates and Hillary is a lousy politician with very few accomplishments, other than being famous. The election is far from over.

[JDGRUEN]

Since FDR, it has only happened one time that any party has won the office of President for more than two consecutive terms.

The one time was George H.W. Bush, who failed to win a second term ( another rarity )

It just doesn't happen.

She is the Democratic candidate.

The GOP has nobody to offer who isn't a very bad joke.

Added to the fact that the country/ world has not yet forgiven the GOP for the catastrophes created by the Cheney administration.

This could be the second time since FDR that a party wins the office for three consecutive terms!

Since your viewpoint is only shared by less than 20 percent of the American electorate... the coming Presidential has a great chance of becoming a Republican win... It wouldn't matter who the Republicans ran for President - you would label them all a bad joke because you have a totally opposite political agenda. Of course to you they are all a bad joke ... but the American electorate is made up of much broader sets of viewpoints than your Liberal tunnel vision allows you to see. There is broad based Conservative populist movement going on in American and you have no idea it even exists -- because it is not talked about in the Daily Kos, Mother Jones, or other liberal/leftist media that you read or watch.

[JDGRUEN]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

In America - any party other than Democrat or Republican finds in extremely difficult to even be allowed on the voting ballot. The rules are constructed to keep third parties off the ballot - it is a very big hurdle to jump ...

Edited April 24, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[NickJ]

A women with an objective.....more money.....money money money......she is so non presidential she makes my toads look impressive......start at Whitewater and bury her heart at Bengazi Knee......

[Asiantravel]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

In America - any party other than Democrat or Republican finds in extremely difficult to even be allowed on the voting ballot. The rules are constructed to keep third parties off the ballot - it is a very big hurdle to jump ...

As a non-American I would like to ask do Americans believe it was the founding fathers intention that the chance for someone to become a future US President would depend on whether they were member of a particular family dynasty?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Asiantravel

[JDGRUEN]

A Deal that Hillary brokered ....

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[willyumiii]

Since FDR, it has only happened one time that any party has won the office of President for more than two consecutive terms.

The one time was George H.W. Bush, who failed to win a second term ( another rarity )

It just doesn't happen.

She is the Democratic candidate.

The GOP has nobody to offer who isn't a very bad joke.

Added to the fact that the country/ world has not yet forgiven the GOP for the catastrophes created by the Cheney administration.

This could be the second time since FDR that a party wins the office for three consecutive terms!

Since your viewpoint is only shared by less than 20 percent of the American electorate... the coming Presidential has a great chance of becoming a Republican win... It wouldn't matter who the Republicans ran for President - you would label them all a bad joke because you have a totally opposite political agenda. Of course to you they are all a bad joke ... but the American electorate is made up of much broader sets of viewpoints than your Liberal tunnel vision allows you to see. There is broad based Conservative populist movement going on in American and you have no idea it even exists -- because it is not talked about in the Daily Kos, Mother Jones, or other liberal/leftist media that you read or watch.

Interesting.

I have never read a single one of those publications.

See how well you know me?

I just don't believe the reasonable people of America are ready for another religious, right wing, homophobic, hate filled, greedy administration .

America's economy and foreign policy are still trying to recover from the last GOP administration.

Now, try again, what else does your imagination tell you I read and watch?

[Asiantravel]

A Deal that Hillary brokered ....

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

After all that has been written over the past few on this forum about how evil the Russians are, and then to find out that Russia controls 20% of the uranium in USA.

You just couldn't make this stuff up

Edited April 24, 2015 by Asiantravel

[willyumiii]

*Deleted post removed*

Hated?

Funny, I recall Obama being elected ( by popular vote, not the supreme court) two times!

Recent polls show him to be very popular now.

Something to do with a better economy and a popular successful health care program.

Restoring an economy devastated by the previous greedy administration can make people like you!

Clinton would do well to be as popular as Barry is now!

By the way..isn't making fun of her thighs a little childish?

You like the thighs on Jeb Bush, and Cruz, and Walker??/

Be careful..the GOP is homophobic!

[willyumiii]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

In America - any party other than Democrat or Republican finds in extremely difficult to even be allowed on the voting ballot. The rules are constructed to keep third parties off the ballot - it is a very big hurdle to jump ...

As a non-American I would like to ask do Americans believe it was the founding fathers intention that the chance for someone to become a future US President would depend on whether they were member of a particular family dynasty?

Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Madison, founding fathers were also adamant that no religion should ever be part of, or influence the government of the United States.

Look at what the republican religious right is doing to the government now with their christian country porpaganda!

The old guys are all rolling over in their graves now!

[Asiantravel]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

In America - any party other than Democrat or Republican finds in extremely difficult to even be allowed on the voting ballot. The rules are constructed to keep third parties off the ballot - it is a very big hurdle to jump ...

As a non-American I would like to ask do Americans believe it was the founding fathers intention that the chance for someone to become a future US President would depend on whether they were member of a particular family dynasty?

Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Madison, founding fathers were also adamant that no religion should ever be part of, or influence the government of the United States.

Look at what the republican religious right is doing to the government now with their christian country porpaganda!

The old guys are all rolling over in their graves now!

I find your statement quite intriguing because as an observer and outsider living in Thailand and just watching what is going on in America, I am left with the clear impression that the Christian religion in USA is being relentlessly attacked and unbelievably eroded right now?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

[Chicog]

A Deal that Hillary brokered ....

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

After all that has been written over the past few on this forum about how evil the Russians are, and then to find out that Russia controls 20% of the uranium in USA.

You just couldn't make this stuff up

That's your free market right there.

[chuckd]

Anybody notice Fox News is not the source of the latest scandal?

[Chicog]

Anyone notice Fox news is banging on about it 24/7 and the book's author is funded by the Kochs and a bloke who is bankrolling Cruz?

Another "scandal".....

[NeverSure]

A Deal that Hillary brokered ....

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Those Clintons are filthy, but what's really news is that the liberal NYT is attacking Hillary.

I have been waiting for the lame stream media to begin attacking Hillary, who they really hate, to open the door for someone else. I just hope it isn't the even bigger loon, Debbie Wasserman. From a personal attractiveness slant, Wasserman is a better candidate but again, a loon.

I hope Hillary gets the Dem nomination for two reasons. First she isn't as bad as some other Dems in her world view, and second she can be beaten in the general election.

[JDGRUEN]

Since FDR, it has only happened one time that any party has won the office of President for more than two consecutive terms.

The one time was George H.W. Bush, who failed to win a second term ( another rarity )

It just doesn't happen.

She is the Democratic candidate.

The GOP has nobody to offer who isn't a very bad joke.

Added to the fact that the country/ world has not yet forgiven the GOP for the catastrophes created by the Cheney administration.

This could be the second time since FDR that a party wins the office for three consecutive terms!

Since your viewpoint is only shared by less than 20 percent of the American electorate... the coming Presidential has a great chance of becoming a Republican win... It wouldn't matter who the Republicans ran for President - you would label them all a bad joke because you have a totally opposite political agenda. Of course to you they are all a bad joke ... but the American electorate is made up of much broader sets of viewpoints than your Liberal tunnel vision allows you to see. There is broad based Conservative populist movement going on in American and you have no idea it even exists -- because it is not talked about in the Daily Kos, Mother Jones, or other liberal/leftist media that you read or watch.

Interesting.

I have never read a single one of those publications.

See how well you know me?

I just don't believe the reasonable people of America are ready for another religious, right wing, homophobic, hate filled, greedy administration .

America's economy and foreign policy are still trying to recover from the last GOP administration.

Now, try again, what else does your imagination tell you I read and watch?

And that is what you think this coming Presidential election is about? ... As I said you are among the 20% whose lives are spent in Liberal issues and the manufacture of derision towards anyone not sharing your issues - not just difference of opinion but near hatred of anyone supporting traditional America. The election is about the RAPE of the U.S. Constitution... and tens of millions of Americans are very upset about it ... But you are not aware of those issues living in your tunnel vision.

[ABCer]

as stupid and selfish as that tw-at palin..and i thought us brits were bottom of the food chain when it comes to politicions....oh well you live and learn...there are more than 2 parties to vote for you know....or do ya..

In America - any party other than Democrat or Republican finds in extremely difficult to even be allowed on the voting ballot. The rules are constructed to keep third parties off the ballot - it is a very big hurdle to jump ...

As a non-American I would like to ask do Americans believe it was the founding fathers intention that the chance for someone to become a future US President would depend on whether they were member of a particular family dynasty?

No it was certainly not... but it has become to be that more and more ... actually it is more about money -- but known names - family names are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the political game... We call it bastardization of the Constitutional Intent.

Modified to add: I fully expect Hillary to be politically pushed overboard and Michelle Obama to run - speaking of family names.

Being equally non-American I think the choice for USA voters is clear - Hillary, Michelle or Monica!

[Scott]

A troll post, with unflattering comments has been removed along with numerous replies. Continued inflammatory trolling will earn suspension.