Clinton is first woman ever to clinch US presidential nomination

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Clinton is first woman ever to clinch US presidential nomination

Young girls will see that a woman can be competitive for White House

United States lags behind other countries that have elected female leaders

Moment comes 8 years after Barack Obama became first black nominee

DEM%202016%20Clinton%20(2)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Long
Beach, Calif. John Locher AP


McclatchyDC
By Anita Kumar
June 7, 2016

WASHINGTON
No matter your preference of candidate, party or ideology, Tuesday marks a defining moment in our nation.

For the first time in 240 years, a woman – Hillary Clinton – has locked up a major party’s nomination for president, and is now within shot of winning the White House itself in November.

“I think we’re close to that moment where we are finally going to break that glass ceiling,” said former Vice President Walter Mondale, who as presidential nominee in 1984 selected the first woman to run for vice president on a major party ticket. “We should rejoice in that. It changes our society.”

Girls growing up today will see that a woman at the very least can be competitive when it comes the most important job in the most powerful country. Yet that change, which comes eight years to the day after Barack Obama broke another barrier by becoming the first African-American to clinch a nomination, has come slowly.

It took more than two decades after Mondale selected the late Geraldine Ferraro for a second woman to appear on a national ticket when John McCain tapped Republican Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

"We need to have women...to lay the groundwork. You have to have
a pipeline of women in position to run for president of the United States"


- Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY's List, which helps elects Democratic women who support abortion rights


A handful of other women have run for president but it wasn’t 2008 that Clinton became the first female candidate to seriously vie for the White House. In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann ran for the Republican nomination but fell far short. This year, businesswoman Carly Fiorina did the same but gained little traction in a crowded field.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has represented California since 1992, noted that when she was first elected to the Senate, there were just two female senators. Today there are 20. She said Tuesday’s result is “a historic milestone that deserves to be celebrated.”

“As the number of women holding office increased, it was inevitable that the public would recognize that we could also ascend to higher office,” she said in an interview.

Americans have gradually come to accept the concept of a female president, according to Gallup, which has polled on the issue since 1937 when only one in three said they would vote for a qualified woman. In 2015, it had expanded to more than nine in 10.

For those who have pushed for greater leadership positions for women for decades, a female presidential nominee has come late, especially compared to other countries. Many of them had began to wonder if they’d see a female nominee or president in their lifetimes.

“No doubt we’re behind,” said Barbara Kennelly, a former House member from Connecticut who says the highest point in her political life was being selected to nominate Ferraro for vice president at the Democratic convention. She recalls that women packed the floor to witness the nomination. Kennelly said this year feels different, though, because the polls show Clinton, unlike Mondale, has a strong chance to win. “We’ve really progressed quite rapidly, but this has been a little difficult.”


Isabel Peron of Argentina became the first woman president of any country in 1974. There are now 11 female presidents and seven females prime ministers in the world, according to the Worldwide Guide to Women Leaders.

“Oh my goodness, we are really late to the party,” said former Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, who explored running for president in 1988. “People are aware that most of the world has already done it.”

The first woman ran for president in the United States in 1872, well before women even had the right to vote. Since then, dozens have run but until Clinton none have gotten far.

Clinton, who has amassed nearly 13 million votes, secured enough delegates late Monday to win the Democratic nomination against her last remaining rival, Bernie Sanders, according to the Associated Press.

Hillary is a trailblazer. She will break that glass ceiling once and for all. She will make history and change history Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the longest-serving woman in U.S. history

But she downplayed the announcement and urged voters in six states – California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota – to go to the polls Tuesday.

“According to the news, we are on the brink of a historic, historic, unprecedented moment,” Clinton said in Long Beach, Calif. “But we still have work to do, don’t we?”

She reached the pivotal number of 2,383 with the help of superdelegates, Democratic leaders who can back any candidate regardless of how their states vote, Sanders argues superdelegates shouldn’t count until they officially vote at the convention this summer.

“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said. “She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then.”

When she ran the first time, Clinton avoided talking about her experiences as a woman, repeatedly saying that she was running because she was the best-qualified candidate.

This time, Clinton has shared more personal anecdotes about being a working mother and a grandmother and focused on issues that might appeal to female voters including equal pay, paid family leave, affordable child care and access to health care. Her soon-to-be Republican rival rival, Donald Trump, has suggested Clinton is playing “the women’s card” in the race. “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get five percent of the vote,” he said.

“I’m certainly very aware of how historically significant this is,” Clinton said in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune in April. “I’m not asking anyone to vote for me just because I am a woman, but I do think being a woman is a real asset. I think I bring to my political and public work an awareness of what it’s like to be a daughter and a wife and a mother and now a grandmother, and how we can support families that are facing so many tough choices.”

The march to equality is slow. Each woman who steps up to run is a role model for women who come behind them Barbara Lee, who founded a foundation, which produces nonpartisan research on women in politics

Clinton’s accomplishment likely will serve to inspire girls as Obama did for African-Americans. An oft-quoted line from Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, sums up the moment: “You can’t be what you can’t see.”

Mondale said that he has been surprised about the number of women from all walks of life – from Sen. Amy Klobuchar to his minister – who have told him that his decision to select Ferraro changed their thinking, and their lives.

The images children see matter,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “It changes the imagination. Girls could grow up believing they could be president of the United States. It changes that whole narrative.”


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article82200677.html#storylink=cpy


.
 

Hillary Clinton = Margaret Thatcher 2.0


this means if she wins the POTUS

● More U.S. military involvement in foreign wars to expand American Exceptionalism Empire and start a new 'cold war' with Russia - she has the endorsement of the Neo-Cons,

● Dramatic increase in body bags with dead young Americans arriving at Dover Air Force

● Extensive weakening of Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulations, allowing Banksters to speculate gamble with FDIC insured "John Q. Public" deposits again

● Net Neutrality laws will be weakened, slow lanes & fast lanes will be set up on the internet. If you want to get CNN.com full speed. If you want Democracynow.org slow slow slow

● Outsourcing of working class $25 an hour jobs will increase to light speed READ and watch the story HERE

● Israel & Saudi Arabia will continue their hideous barbarism against their "enemies" (Palestinians & Shia muslims) and the U.S. will be totally silent

● Black people will be marginalized since our political leaders ask for nothing despite delivering 95% of the Black vote, the HISPANICS will become the preferred "minorities"

● Young Americans massive college debt $$$$$$$$$ , by far, the highest in the world, Hillary will do NOTHING

● Capitalist gains tax will remain at 15% with the bogus carried interest loophole remaining intact

● Bernie Sanders policy idea that Public State Universities revert back to tuition free institutions (they were that way for 40 years) will never ever be discussed again

● and.......a whole lot of Corporatism that will increase corporate power, increase income inequality and further push the clueless American sheeple into neo-feudalism

feudalism.jpg





YSQkcMp.png



Hillary_Trump_2016.jpg



For the very, very, very, few of you peeps who want to know and understand how we got to this tragic political Kabuki condition in the United States of America watch the 2016 film documentary
‘Requiem for the American Dream’
http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/requiem-for-the-american-dream-review-1201740392/
it's on Netflix and ITunes

 
Props to Hillary Clinton. I hope that nothing happens from here til the inauguration date.

Extensive weakening of Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulations, allowing Banksters to speculate gamble with FDIC insured "John Q. Public" deposits again

How extensive is extensive? Any predictions?
 
below originally posted on June 7, 2016

Hillary Clinton = Margaret Thatcher 2.0


this means if she wins the POTUS

● More U.S. military involvement in foreign wars to expand American Exceptionalism Empire and start a new 'cold war' with Russia - she has the endorsement of the Neo-Cons,

Dramatic increase in body bags with dead young Americans arriving at Dover Air Force
...........

______________________________________________________


hillary_evil.jpg





An article below for the very very few of you that will read it, that is
NOT from the corporate controlled media who have ALL invested $$$$$$$$$$$$ in Hillary via the presidential campaign and/or the 501(c)(3) Clinton Foundation slush fund




the_intercept_logo.jpg


Hillary Clinton’s Likely
Pentagon Chief Already
Advocating for More Bombing
and Intervention



June 22, 2016 | https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22...advocating-for-more-bombing-and-intervention/


Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One calls “the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,” this week advocated for “sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.” In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy “said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.” She had previously “condemned the Obama administration’s ISIS policy as ineffectual,” denouncing it as “under-resourced.”


defenseone-540x612.png

Michele Flournoy



This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called “limited military coercion” to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called “limited airstrikes in Iraq” — and they’re still continuing almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created — “military coercion” — for creating a “no-bomb zone” that would entail “a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force. ‘If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets,’” she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is guilty of “inaction” in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising — which Hillary Clinton herself has previously advocated — would risk a military confrontation with Russia. Obama’s defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December that the policy Clinton advocates “would require ‘substantial’ ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces.” Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton’s defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action will be designed to “help Syrians.”

It’s long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far more militaristic path than even Obama forged — which is saying a lot given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders’s appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel and Palestine, with Clinton’s supporters taking an even more hard-line position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.

clintonnetan.png

READ: http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/



Her past criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy were based overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: “That Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. … She favored supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt during the historic protests in Cairo.”

sanderstoday-300x194.png


Pro-Clinton corporate media outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and misleading “scandal” (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact that Bernie Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his campaign against Hillary Clinton, is “costing the taxpayers” $38,000 a day. Maybe these same intrepid journalists could spend a little time calculating the “cost to American taxpayers” from the massive, bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns their favorite candidate is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones she’s likely — based on her “hawkish” history — to start. That might be worth doing given that the costs of Clinton’s military actions will be many, many magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders’ security protection that have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.

But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline, completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders’ Secret Service costs to Hillary’s kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they’ve invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to ensure they don’t have to talk about it. But now Clinton’s almost-certain defense secretary is already — months before she’s in power — expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy — at least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil — much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.



US Secretary of State Rice and Muammar Gaddafi 2007



Sen. John McCain promising US weapons to Gaddafi in 2008


President Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi in 2009



Hillary Clinton with Mutassim Gaddafi (Gaddafi's son) in 2009

article-2408805-1B9243FD000005DC-681_634x588.jpg


article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-829_634x509.jpg


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry & his wife Teresa Heinz pictured dining with Assad and his British wife at Damascus' best restaurant in 2009




The pictures above are emblematic of the hypocrisy of American Exceptionalism Empire. Both Gaddafi and Assad were “partners” with American Empire since 2000 – 2003. During the Cheney – BuShit occupancy of the White House, the U.S. “war-on-terror” was — sending victims via “extraordinary rendition” to be mercilessly tortured by both Assad and Gaddafi. Assad & Gaddafi at-that-time and continuing into the Obama administration were both called “allies” in the war against terrorism. During Obama’s term in office, Hillary and her neo-con allies, including Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s extreme right wing Likud party, lobbied fiercely to destabilize and destroy Gaddafi and Assad. Former republiklan defense secretary Bob Gates who stayed in the Obama administration for several years , told Obama that following Hillary’s advice “would be crazy”. Obama didn’t listen to Gates. If it wasn’t for Russia, our former “ally” Assad would be dead just like Gaddafi.

libya8_102111080529.jpg
libya9_102111080529.jpg


The last seconds of Gaddafi's life

nb-gaddafi-leiche-BM-Vermischtes-Misrata.jpg


http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy



 
Last edited:
Back
Top