Hillary Clinton worked on national presidential campaigns since 1968. Long before she met her husband. "Her husband's campaign machine" was also her own - she helped build it. (Did it bother you when Gore used that machine in 2000?)

She helped build the Clinton brand from the beginning. She's part owner. All that free work on campaigns and as First Lady? Yes, it counts as much as being a community organizer, don't you think?

"Her husband strayed, she stood by him, she was owed" - who writes your scripts?

Hillary moved to New York and convinced the people of New York to vote for her. Twice. Through hard campaigning, hard work and name recognition. (Like had Romney, Kennedy, Gore, McCain, Pelosi, McCaskill, Landrieu, Sebelius and other children or spouses of well-known people).

I've had enough of the Hillary smear game. Put it back in your bottom drawer with your other tawdry divisive comments.

No wonder I have been walking around the last two weeks so angry.

By the way, do you have a good source on the rape kit story? I heard it too, then heard it may not be true, etc etc. It's so horrible I think I just don't want to believe it.

I did watch the Palin interview tonight. I thought she looked like she was barely keeping it together in terms of her pre-programmed talking points. However, I am glad you didn't watch it because your poor tv would have definitely had a knife in it.

Thanks for sharing about unwed pregnancies in Ireland. And in this country, most young mothers suffer with little financial and emotional support, particularly from the men in their lives.

Sarah who?

read the post again desidero. we're all on the same party. we know who the opponents are. if we lose this election, it's because we're allowing ourselves to be divided.

You echo many of my own sentiments. Thank you. The Palin choice, in my opinion, has not moved the women's movement forward, it has set it back. She and McCain are using each other. What a lovely basis for a leadership team . . .

"Alaska has one of the highest per capita rape rates in the country, and most of these women are Native American and Alaskan Indian women..."

This is really nauseating, but this is consistent with her world view.

A great many Alaskans hate the minorities as we are reading, and toss off racial epithets routinely. She certainly does. Obama she calls "Sambo" and those Native American/Alaskans she calls "Arabs." What does she care if some "Arab" has to pay for a DNA test.

I told you it was nauseating, sorry.

Since the McCain team want to keep on expressing outrage at Senator Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark about John McCain's economic proposals, then shouldn't all "Hockey Moms" and women in general, be completely outraged at Sarah Palin?

After all, Sarah Palin, in a national TV address, declared that Hockey Moms were just lipstick wearing Pit Bulls.

Sarah Palin called a group of young mothers; "Pit Bulls".

Where is the feminist outrage?

Bless you, Kate! What a beautiful analysis and a great appropriate rant!

Plus, the amount of troll posting suggests you really hit a bulls-eye here. (maybe a bull with lipstick on it?)

♪ Didn't post the first time. Sorry if it ends up as a double post.

I don't work for any candidate and am not in politics, but as a Democrat I am ighly offended when other democrats take right-wing anti-Clinton talking points and use them against her int he primary (and continue to now).

The FACT is the only people complaining of carpetbagging in NYS were the Republicans. The NYS Democrats were begging Hill to move to NY to win a seat that otherwise would have gone to Giuliani. Enter the 2008 election season and Obama supporters use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary for helping the Democratic party.

Other right-wing talking points in your post: her leaving Bill & her only being where she was because of Bill.

I despise the GOP smear machine and the only thing I hate more is to see fellow democrats co-opting their tactics. It's despicable and you continue to do so in this very post under the "guise" of reaching out to Hillary supporters and attacking Sarah Palin. It's beyond transparent and entirely unhelpful to the candidate I'd like to see elected in November - Obama.

I appreciated Kate's blog and am surprised at the visceral response to it.

I'm a New Yorker who voted for Clinton twice in her two bids for senator, the second time more grudgingly because of how disappointing she was to me during her first term, but because I remained able to distinguish forest from trees, disappointing and limited from terrible. I did object to the carpetbagging but was hopeful, when Hillary ran the first time, that: a) she would win, and b) she would turn out to be more liberal than Bill. It's therefore NOT true that all of us who voted for Hillary did so because of her brilliant campaigning here.

The former came true, the latter not. During her first term I really came to dislike Hillary as my senator, in large part because she pandered to large interest groups in our state and did NOT stand up enough during the run-up to the war. Like our other democratic senator here, Hillary has capitulated at crucial moments and on crucial votes in her time as my senator, and I'm angry at both (perhaps more angry now at Schumer after his failure to vote against Mukasey).

For me the central problem with Hillary's candidacy continues to play itself out now in the general election: she IS a divisive figure. Like many, I feared the long-simmering, deeply-felt hatred of the Clintons would not play out well in the general election. Bill, after all, would probably NOT have won without Perot.

This year, when I feared that Obama would lose, however, I never ONCE thought to myself: damn their hides, I'll never vote for Hillary if she gets in. I'll just take my vote, write virulent posts about how racist the country is, and pout at home. I am old enough to accept that the candidate for whom I vote is not going to be the perfect candidate: I'll accept incremental change and middle-of-the-road democrats if I have to to succeed. If I have anger held deeply in reserve, it remains for Nader, who falsely claims that there are no differences where differences are plain to see. (It's particularly evil when smart people lie; dumb ones sometimes do so by accident.)

Now I find that Hillary has remained a divisive figure, in part because of some of her own actions and non-actions, but, far more important, NOT because of Hillary herself but because a significant (20%, 30%?) minority of her supporters have lost sight of how very important presidential elections are and how, often, one does not get to cast a vote with pleasure and enthusiasm.

And, like all presidential elections, the difference of a few percentage points in a demographic voting pattern will be the deciding factor.

The passionate response to Kate O'Hara's post is scary to me. Quite a number of the things she said bothered me about Hillary, but that didn't stop me from realizing she was better than Giuliani. So Kate never really wanted to vote for Hillary (and perhaps didn't have to make the choice to do so). Why must it be assumed that her reasons for doing so are merely a result of imbibing Republican talking points? Is it really an argument about unfair positioning of Hillary because of her husband to bring up Andrew Cuomo Jr. and Jesse Jackson Jr.? I regret the fact that nepotism plays such an important place in our politics, too, regardless of gender.

On the other side, the anger. Perhaps the greatest example is Ferraro's inability to reject the possibility of voting for Palin when she was interviewed on NPR shortly after the announcement (Ferraro, the female Lieberman, I suppose). It is the clearest sign of the depth of anger felt by women that a former politician, a former Democratic politician, wavered as she: is the anger so visceral that she is willing to risk the possibility of crazy, old McCain and crazy, young Palin getting in? How can that be? How does one justify that?

At this point in the campaign, why is it that some of Hillary's supporters are not turning their eyes toward what is NOW at stake. HRC has lost, and if Obama loses, too, and women ACTUALLY vote for her because she's the next best thing to Hillary, well, I can't even supply an apodosis that rises to the level of reality of the consequences.

I find the level of discourse among democrats sincerely interesting right now. Unfortunately, it is extremely telling. I commend Kate for having the Courage (with a capital C) to try to articulate what was on her heart. As for her detractors...have you done the same? Engaged rather than denigrate? Irregardless of her claims she exhibited her passion. I may not agree with her every point but I do appreciate her voice. If you do not agree with her...fine. But recognize her theme--that Palin is not Hillary and that Palin is a political ploy who would not have been chosen if Barack had in fact chosen Hillary (to whom I sincerely think is wonderful). I have literally laughed aloud at the women who have supported Palin blindly behind the mantra of "change". It is the height of ignorance--as in the lack of knowledge. She does not represent change, feminist values, CONSISTENT small town values, or even a new tone of veracity. What she does represent is a trojan horse spewing the same thing as another light choice before her...that she is a uniter and not a divider, a reformer, a change-agent. What she will change--the direction of the women's movement, foreign policy, and the economy. How? Palin will be the vehicle for the continuation of the politics of yesterday--her face and story will be used to get McCain in office wherein she will then be irrelevant and Bush's policies extended. Where I grew up we would call that a "nice con job". They fooled women and the disenchanted (with Obama) into voting for someone who is directly against their own self-interest. In terms of our short-term memories and the theme of her being a game changer...she is not even the first female VP pick...just the first to be chosen by Republicans. Disenchanged HRC supporters and Puma's please at least acknowledge that fact. Hillary's uterus did not make me a fan--a mind that rivaled or even surpassed that of her husband's did. I ask my African American friends after the first debate whether they "would support Barack merely because he was black". All of them have told me NO and THEN LAID OUT REASONS WHY HE IS THE BEST HOPE FOR CHANGE. As for his race--many of them have added that republicans have consistently peddled smiling black faces into their community peddling policies that would hurt them...so they have to know the policies and how it affects them. Sound familiar? Angry Hillary Supporters and Pumas who do not support Obama because he is wombless or not her--do you know the policies of the other that you claim to support now that HRC is out? If you truly value Hillary I ask you...what would Hillary do? I then challenge you to do the same.

I find the level of discourse among democrats sincerely interesting right now. Unfortunately, it is extremely telling. I commend Kate for having the Courage (with a capital C) to try to articulate what was on her heart. As for her detractors...have you done the same? Engaged rather than denigrate? Irregardless of her claims,she exhibited her passion. I may not agree with her every point but I do appreciate her voice. If you do not agree with her...fine. But recognize her theme--that Palin is not Hillary and that Palin is a political ploy who would not have been chosen if Barack had in fact chosen Hillary (to whom I sincerely think is wonderful). I have literally laughed aloud at the women who have supported Palin blindly behind the mantra of "change". It is the height of ignorance--as in the lack of knowledge. She does not represent change, feminist values, CONSISTENT small town values, or even a new tone of veracity. What she does represent is a trojan horse spewing the same thing as another light choice before her..."that she is a uniter and not a divider, a reformer, a change-agent". What she will change--the direction of the women's movement, foreign policy, and the economy. How? Palin will be the vehicle for the continuation of the politics of yesterday--her face and story will be used to get McCain in office wherein she will then be irrelevant and Bush's policies will be extended. Where I grew up we would call that a "nice con job" because they fooled women and the disenchanted (with Obama) into voting for someone (McCain--with Palin as his vehicle) who is directly against their own self-interests. In terms of our short-term memories and the theme of her being a game changer...she is not even the first female VP pick...just the first to be chosen by Republicans. Disenchanged HRC supporters and Puma's please at least acknowledge that fact! Hillary's uterus did not make me a fan--a mind that rivaled or even surpassed that of her husband's did. I asked my African American friends after the first primary debate whether they "would support Barack merely because he was black". All of them told me NO and THEN LAID OUT REASONS WHY HE IS THE BEST HOPE FOR CHANGE. As for his race--many of them added that republicans have consistently peddled smiling black faces into their community peddling policies that would hurt them...so they have to know the individual policies and how it affects them.

Does that tactic sound familiar?

Angry Hillary Supporters and Pumas who do not support Obama because he is wombless or not her--do you know the policies of the other that you claim to support? If you truly value Hillary I ask you...what would Hillary do? I then challenge you to do the same.

Hi Kate,
As a woman who went to college to be in systems analysis in the early '80's I know exactly where you are coming from. I do have one piece of advice for you even though you do not need it, I think you already know this dijamo & desidero are trolls and nothing more. They've been following the call of Rush and his ilk, to attempt to disrupt the process, to sow discontent among democrats, I do not think it will work anyway. I've been working voter registation booths and canvassing neighborhoods and all I hear from women is the following "John McCain thinks women are stupid".
We are not stupid. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin cannot be compared, no matter how much Sarah thinks they can be. Hillary is smart, didn't need to go to 5 colleges just to get a BA and was accepted to law school based on her own merits. She met Bill Clinton in Law school, he's probably always treater her badly in some ways, but she loves him, she can't help it! Most women know a little something about that, even if we don't marry that guy, it's happened to almost every woman I know. You love him too much and so he gets away with lots of crap. It is just that some women get out of that before college ends, some never do.
But don't worry about the trolls, they would not be here if they didn't know they were going to loose this election and loose it badly. Dem's have out registered Republicans in almost every state in the Union. I don't think those new voters will be voting for John McCain.

I find the level of discourse among democrats sincerely interesting right now. Unfortunately, it is extremely telling. I commend Kate for having the Courage (with a capital C) to try to articulate what was on her heart. As for her detractors...have you done the same? Engaged rather than denigrate? Irregardless of her claims,she exhibited her passion. I may not agree with her every point but I do appreciate her voice. If you do not agree with her...fine. But recognize her theme--that Palin is not Hillary and that Palin is a political ploy who would not have been chosen if Barack had in fact chosen Hillary (to whom I sincerely think is wonderful). I have literally laughed aloud at the women who have supported Palin blindly behind the mantra of "change". It is the height of ignorance--as in the lack of knowledge. She does not represent change, feminist values, CONSISTENT small town values, or even a new tone of veracity. What she does represent is a trojan horse spewing the same thing as another light choice before her..."that she is a uniter and not a divider, a reformer, a change-agent". What she will change--the direction of the women's movement, foreign policy, and the economy. How? Palin will be the vehicle for the continuation of the politics of yesterday--her face and story will be used to get McCain in office wherein she will then be irrelevant and Bush's policies will be extended. Where I grew up we would call that a "nice con job" because they fooled women and the disenchanted (with Obama) into voting for someone (McCain--with Palin as his vehicle) who is directly against their own self-interests. In terms of our short-term memories and the theme of her being a game changer...she is not even the first female VP pick...just the first to be chosen by Republicans. Disenchanged HRC supporters and Puma's please at least acknowledge that fact! Hillary's uterus did not make me a fan--a mind that rivaled or even surpassed that of her husband's did. I asked my African American friends after the first primary debate whether they "would support Barack merely because he was black". All of them told me NO and THEN LAID OUT REASONS WHY HE IS THE BEST HOPE FOR CHANGE. As for his race--many of them added that republicans have consistently peddled smiling black faces into their community peddling policies that would hurt them...so they have to know the individual policies and how it affects them.

Does that tactic sound familiar?

Angry Hillary Supporters and Pumas who do not support Obama because he is wombless or not her--do you know the policies of the other that you claim to support? If you truly value Hillary I ask you...what would Hillary do? I then challenge you to do the same.

Thank you for this post. I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, and also agree that this message should be shared. Great analysis, and clear writing. Sarah Palin scares the s*** out of me, and I'm surprised more women aren't appalled.

We are living in an age of media-generated candidates, and it is getting scary. Obama came out of nowhere the same way and was suddenly this golden boy. People flocked to his events from day one -- even when nobody knew anything about him. That's media hype, and it made me very uncomfortable. I believed more qualified candidates were eclipsed as a result, before the race even got started. I'm still uncomfortable with Obamas thin leadership record.

It's hard to know what we do about this, but like the Redford movie "The Candidate" you end up with someone getting elected that shrugs their shoulders and says, "what do i do now?".

Thanks KateO. Well said. If as an Obama supporter, I can see why someone would call him an opportunist (as all politicians are--period) then HRC supporters should be able to suck it up and see that ANYONE moving to another state and having the bucks to establish residency (i.e. buying ANOTHER house) to run for a senate seat would be considered a carpetbagger, whether you like them or not, Dem or Rep. As far as her dividing people, history supports it i.e. Hillary's way or the highway on health care reform during Bill's first term. Get off it people. Obama and Hillary are both human and have faults. As KateO so eloquently stated, my kids future is my concern, not some politicians career. Obama's it, his people out campaigned her people, let's stop bringing up the "Hillary got the shaft" lines and start focusing on getting OUR country back. My fantasy appointment--Hillary gets a lifetime (do the math--it's longer than 8 years i.e. two terms as President) Supreme Court appointment (yes, I support Obama). And Hillary says "Good morning Mr. Thomas and Mr. Scala--Bill say's hi."

That is not the case for Sarah Palin, who was plucked out of nowhere and who is being used by a group of cynical old white men to manipulate and fool the American people.

Bang on, Kate. Excellent and heartfelt OP.

I don't agree with your characterization of Clinton so much, but know that you came by your opinions honestly, as you actually worked in the Clinton administration. I haven't, and I respect your opinion. I have always felt that both of the Clintons do think about the little people, and sincerely try to help us, they may compromise more than I like, but that is what politics is.

As to your main, and larger point, I agree completely, and find the selection of Palin to be a cynical joke. The American people deserve better, especially American women. You are hardly alone in your outrage.

This does deserve wider distribution, and I admire your sensitivity o Hillary supporters in your stated intention to modify it.

You're a good person. Glad to have you working for us peoples.

I don't have time to read all the comments, but this post is exceptional and hits a lot of nails dead-on.

As the weeks pass, I really think we are seeing the death-fight of an extractive, corporatist culture that is desperate -- and so far, almost completing the successful subversion of -- the nation state once known as 'America'.

I've traveled in Alaska and spent time there -- and met Native American women who were afraid to take taxis in Anchorage, because the taxi-drivers assumed that they were hookers and automatically took them to certain locations in that town.

The utter cynicism of the GOP is more breath-taking than I can grasp. It's actually morphed into an international crime syndicate of some sort, although it's precise nature is still not fullly clear.

Extraordinary post.
I have seen and met women like Palin -- I can't imagine IBM, Microsoft, or a hundred other corporations allowing her into management. She clearly has an inflated view of her own abilities and knowledge. For those reasons, she'd be disastrous.

Except for those who are sure they can control her for their own interests. And they are formidable.

She'll either get McCain elected, or she'll inadvertantly be the end of his political credibility and career.

It's heartening to know another mom, wife, aunt, daughter, and niece finds Palin as scary and alarming as myself. Maybe it's something about having a science background... but if you've ever been asked to look at real data, you look at Palin and think, "Oh. My. Gawd. It's a political mutant!"

Politically, she's a Category 3.

Palin: Charges Rape Victims for own Rape Kit. I wanted to send this article that I found on Anchorage Daily News website (great resource on Palin). Please read about this outrage that makes my stomach turn, Palin is no champion of women (aside from the obvious).

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/522583.html

It's outrageous to think if a woman was tragically raped in a small town of 7-9,000 people and have the courage to report it but after the trauma the rape victim would be charged by Wasilla Police Department ($300-$1200) for the medical exam. Can you believe Palin would allow rape victims to be billed for what should be part of their investigation and doing their JOB. This charging of rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska State Legislature to pass a bill banning this practice!!

I completely agree, KateO. One of the best posts I've read here. Rec'd

I too am a white woman (Catholic) somewhat older than you (one of those types that some Obama supporters felt should not be allowed to vote/remember that?)and a Hilary supporter. I will happily vote for Senator Obama and I find the Palin candidacy unnerving but I find your post likewise.
I am a loyal, thinking Democrat and I have voted for my share of smucks for president through the years and I have always felt in the end I made the better choice win or lose. We will win this election if it is about the last eight years and not about the last 18 months. So suck it up, spare us the Hilary commentaries and get to work.

"Really, where is her fucking head?"

Man, I have a lot of answers for that, all scary. I guess it's the small town values kicking in that makes her do stuff like this.

Your reference to: "I live in Maryland, so I am in the Washington, DC media market...." and the name calling of McCain as "McCunt" told me everything I need to know about your perspective. Just another blowhole parroting the biased media.

Just so you know, KateO: there are many of us who look forward to your posts. We think you informed and courageous. If we cannot criticize our leadership, past or present, then we have willingly lost a vital component of what it means to be an American. No one is perfect. Seeing respective strengths while citing weaknesses seems to me to be perfectly fair.
The crux of your post, as I read it, was that Palin is no Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws of which you had personal knowledge. And Palin is certainly not what women of a certain age want, or have earned the right to expect from other women who choose to enter the fray of politics. Sarah Palin is an insult to us all. But more than that, she is a danger.
Thank you for your post. Please, keep telling us what you think.