Top Menu

GOP War on Women Starts Hillary 2016 Talk

It’s the way I end my book. It was the only place the story of Hillary’s 20-year history could go. But it wasn’t actually an ending.

Thinking, wondering, and trying to game whether Secy. Clinton, after taking a long deserved break and maybe even starting work on her own international women’s foundation, will turn to shaking U.S. history one more time.

“Game Change” authors Halperin and Heilemann were asked about it today.

Maureen Dowd has pondered this out loud today.

Women who assumed that electing Obama would lift all minority boats are beginning to think: Maybe he’s not enough. If the desire of these conservative male leaders to yoke women is this close to the surface, if they are perversely driven to debase women even though it could lead to their own political demise, then women may require more than Obama.

If women are so vulnerable, they may need one of their own.

Is she inevitable?

We’ve been down the inevitable road before and there are still plenty of people who believe her foreign policy ideas have a military foundation to hawkish. But that’s who Hillary is. She’s not going to change, so she’ll never convince some. It depends on if they’re the minority and after the Republican war on women they just may be.

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh tried hard to weave the fantasy that Obama’s birth control mandate had hurt him with women. Of course, the only source he could cite was on the right.

Reuters brings reality today:

Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republicans’ rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.

More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll — including almost 70 percent of women — say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11.

America will elect a female president the next time a candidate looks like she can handle it and it cannot be someone who doesn’t believe in women’s individual freedoms. It can’t be a Republican, because they’ve boxed themselves out and believe we don’t.

It’s quite possible that when the time comes to really think about 2016, it won’t be so much about whether Hillary will decide to make another run at the presidency, it will be how can she not?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 Responses to GOP War on Women Starts Hillary 2016 Talk

  1. StrideHyde March 14, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    I’m certainly not going to listen to Maureen Dowd when she discusses anyone with the last name Clinton. She helps create the misogynist atmosphere for female candidates, or she certainly did last time.

    • Taylor Marsh March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am #

      No doubt about it & it’s why I posted the link. It’s always interesting when people with CDS make the pilgrimage to the other side.

      Chris Matthews finally did it, too, to save his own reputation.

      When the “Hardball” team found out my book had been published they asked for 2 “expedited” copies. I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, we never heard back.

      • Lake Lady March 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm #


    • AliceP March 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

      I used to read her columns all the time. After Hillary’s run for the nomination I quit reading Dowd and NEVER click on her article.

  2. Joyce Arnold March 14, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Dowd: “Women who assumed that electing Obama would lift all minority boats are beginning to think: Maybe he’s not enough.”

    A lot of women, and men, aren’t just “beginning” to think this way.

    Barring some major event of epic proportions, Obama willl be re-elected. The GOP wannabe’s are doing an excellent job of helping make Obama a two-termer.

    Hillary Clinton: whatever she decides, to this point, she’s still the one identified by many when envisioning the first woman being sworn in as Prez of the U.S. And whatever she decides, she’ll play a role in making that happen (beyond what she’s already done).

    • Taylor Marsh March 14, 2012 at 10:31 am #

      That’s absolutely true, Joyce.

      Since Hillary is healthy as many women younger, though she’s obviously bone weary, which is what I hear from everyone who knows her well, why would she want to do the heavy lifting for someone else, when she’s already done the same for herself?

      The quotes from James Carville & Ed Rendell at the end of my book will be in the air until the moment to decide comes.

  3. StrideHyde March 14, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    I’m not sure I buy the idea that either Dowd, Matthews or a number of other Johnny/Jenny Come Latelies have really recovered from CDC. I think they like jumping on whatever cool narrative bandwagon happens to be passing by. Very lazy, intellectually, if you ask me.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter March 14, 2012 at 10:56 am #


    • Lake Lady March 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

      Both nutcases if you ask me. :)

  4. LiberalJoe March 14, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    As the father of a daughter I can’t and refuse to trust any man in politic’s today to protect womens’s rights of any sort. That’s just plain truth. I also wouldn’t trust any of the “progressive” women Dems in Congress to protect womens rights either-see the Stupak debacle in passing the ACA with Stupak in it. And truth be told Pres Obama may not be enough as Maureen Dowd says, so far I don’t think he is on any host of civil rights issues. One of the most effective ways to demonstrate that commitment is via Judicial appointments and Pres Obama does not appear to have any fight in him for those appointments and as such Harry Reid doesn’t either.

    I don’t know if Hillary will want to run in 2016 but her position on womens rights of all types will be very important to me because of my daughter. Quite honestly looking out at the 2016 political landscape right now I can’t see anyone with her stature man or woman who could really bring it to the Repubs (yeah I know 2016 is an eternity away and things can change).

    I’d vote her again-I voted for her in the NYS Presidential primary in 2008.

    • Taylor Marsh March 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

      That’s what’s worth counting.

      How many people would vote AND GIVE MONEY to Clinton 2016?

      • Lake Lady March 14, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

        I would work for her, give her money and vote for her as many times as I can!

      • AliceP March 16, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

        Absolutely. She will be even more effective as President since she has spent the last four years networking with heads of state all over the world.

  5. guyski March 14, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    The soul purpose of what anything Dowd writes is for self promotion only. Now in politics there are no rules. So using a person/politician/public figure even if they are not running for office or are not on a ticket.: I guess, is fair game.

  6. Taylor Marsh March 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    I disagree on Dowd, I think the war on women has really had that big of an impact.

    • Lake Lady March 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

      I agree Taylor, that’s why I want to say , Well Duh, McDoo!

  7. Sagacity March 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    Life isn’t fair, and though Hillary has paved the path for a woman president, I think it’s very unlikely that she’ll be the one. Someone like Kirsten Gillibrand will be the beneficiary of her Hillary’s work. Kirsten will be around 50 in 2016, and Hillary will be 69. In America, we don’t really like old people, especially old women (I am one, I know).
    Women definitely need one of our own. I hope I get to see it.

    As for Obama “may not be enough”…please…he has been far from adequate on women’s issues. Despite his whole family of women, it seems those are always the most negotiable concerns for him.

  8. Lake Lady March 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    I think 69 would be fine for Hillary. She will be physically and mentally sharp for years after that, never has our country needed the wisdom that comes with age more. Hillary has always been far more hawkish than I am but I trust her. She knows a hell of a lot more than I do on the subject and I think she wants to keep us safe.

    I think this is the link for Mery Streep’s recent introduction of her…wonderful!

  9. angels81 March 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    For me I’m not sure I see Hillary as the answer for the first women president come 2016. Unlike some I don’t and have never seen Hillary as the left wing progressive that some see. To me she has always seemed a lot like her husband, more middle of the road democrat. I hope we can find a new face, who is truly a progressive left of center women to run in 2016.

    • jinbaltimore March 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

      The powers that be in the D party weren’t going to allow a left-of-center candidate in 2008, and they aren’t running one in 2012 either; no evidence points to a change of strategy for 2016.

      • angels81 March 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

        I think what you are saying has more to do with us progressives and liberals then it does about the democratic party as it stands right now. We have the power to change the democratic party if we work hard to make it so. What we have seen in stares like Wisconsin and Ohio shows what we can do when voters and progressive fight back. To blame the party is a cop out.

        • jinbaltimore March 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

          When you have leaders of the D party regularly “punching hippies in their pajamas” (see Impeachment of Iraq War Liars and Single Payer Health Care being taken off the Table), it’s becomes difficult ot lay the blame at rank-and-file democrats. “Progressive” is a meaningless term as far as I can tell, though I suppose it does manage to give those uncomfortable with being labeled “liberal” cover.

          • angels81 March 14, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

            I have to ask you, who elected these so called leaders of the democratic party? As far as the terms progressive or liberal, I for one wouldn’t demean someone who happens to call themselves a progressive and wouldn’t presume they are uncomfortable with the term liberal. I find that kind of elitist.

        • jinbaltimore March 14, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

          Who elected them? Wall Street. Big Pharm. Big Defense.

          I guess I need assistance on what “progressive” means then. Didn’t intend to sound elitist, only trying to fathom a purpose for the term.

  10. angels81 March 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Sorry, meant states not stares.

  11. angels81 March 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    For all you people who think there is know difference between the two party’s when it comes to the war on women, take a look at the bill republicans in Arizona are about to pass.

    The bill would penalize women who use birth control for anything other then a medical issue. For a women to get her employer to cover birth control pills, she would have to show her employer her medical records, showing that she had a medical need to be taking the pill, and not just using it for birth control. If she was found to be using the pill for birth control and did not notify her employer, she could be fired.

    There is only one party out there that is attacking women and trying to take their rights away, and this should be a wake up call for all people who care about the freedoms we have all fought for.

    • jinbaltimore March 14, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

      Republicans and Democrats (hello Bill Maher!) have been waging a war on women since at least R v W, not only since 2012. Amazing how the Democratic Party only seems concerned in election years. But it works on some, so who can blame them?

    • jinbaltimore March 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

      But you’re right about wake-up calls. Those alarms are sounding.

  12. angels81 March 14, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    God! my spelling sucks today. Know should have been no.

  13. Cujo359 March 14, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    I’m not all that excited by the idea of Hillary Clinton in 2016. I wasn’t excited about her the last time. When I think about all the things that President Obama has done that annoy or scare the crap out of me, I can’t think of much that Mrs. Clinton would have done differently. Maybe she wouldn’t have gone as far as to assassinate American citizens openly (she seems to have a little more humanity in her than Obama does). That’s about it, though.

    What we ended up with as ObamaCare was pretty much HillaryCare 2008.

    Clinton chose her economic advisors from the same shallow pool Obama fished his out of.

    The expansion of the security state and the War On Terrah would have continued unabated. Clinton’s response about that issue, when she was asked during the 2008 primary, was that she’d have to study the subject. If you believe that Hillary Clinton needs to study up on an issue like that, you have less respect for her mind than I do.

    So, I don’t see much difference that matters to me. I doubt she would have done much more for women, either.

    I think we should try to do better. If “better” ends up being a white heterosexual Christian man, or an atheistic Asian lesbian, I’ll be equally happy to support him or her, as long as I can convince myself that this person will actually try to do what’s right for us as a country.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong