SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Who Cares if Hillary is Warm? I Care About Her Wars
Primary season is in its prime and feels familiar in almost every respect. Eight years on, it's the same candidate, the same point of contention. Is Hillary Clinton warm enough? I'm not debating that this is sexist stuff: all this focus on her warmth, her style, her smile.
Come on. Why do women always have to be warm anyway? Was Lincoln warm? Was Eisenhower? It's just another double standard. The partisan press corps is packed with macho creeps. I agree.
Jan 28, 2016
Primary season is in its prime and feels familiar in almost every respect. Eight years on, it's the same candidate, the same point of contention. Is Hillary Clinton warm enough? I'm not debating that this is sexist stuff: all this focus on her warmth, her style, her smile.
Come on. Why do women always have to be warm anyway? Was Lincoln warm? Was Eisenhower? It's just another double standard. The partisan press corps is packed with macho creeps. I agree.
When it comes to Clinton, it's not the warmth, it's the wars I'm worried about. I've actually read her books, both of them, and I don't think she's ever seen a bombing mission she didn't approve, going back to the 1990s, when the whole insidious "humanitarian" war idea took root with NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.
Bernie Sanders voted for that bombing too, so he should score no points from peaceniks on that account. Still, it really is pretty rich for Hillary Clinton to pose as the great anti-gun and anti-violence crusader when you think of how the humanitarian war idea's played out. Killing people to save people? Bringing democracy at the end of a rocket? Backing rebels we know next to nothing about. It's been almost unending intervention and war since the Clintons let that particular genie out of the bottle.
It was the wars on Yugoslavia that prepared the political ground for intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and every one of those has led to a bloodbath and, as of now a dangerous, failed state.
Clinton's coming on strong against the gun lobby and the NRA but US arms sales never did better than when she was Secretary of State. She approved what was at the time the largest ever US arms sale to scary Saudi Arabia, even as she acknowledged in Wiki-leaked cables, that that country was world's leading source of support for Sunni terrorist groups.
Warmth? As far as I'm concerned Clinton's shown way too much of it -- to wars and warmongers. And if what you're really worried about is machismo, ask the women of those failed states -- from the Taliban to ISIS - they've been the first to pay the price.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Laura Flanders
Laura Flanders interviews forward-thinking people about the key questions of our time on The Laura Flanders Show, a nationally syndicated radio and television program also available as a podcast. A contributing writer to The Nation, Flanders is also the author of six books, including "Bushwomen: How They Won the White House for Their Man" (2005). She is the recipient of a 2019 Izzy Award for excellence in independent journalism, the Pat Mitchell Lifetime Achievement Award for advancing women's and girls' visibility in media, and a 2020 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship for her reporting and advocacy for public media. lauraflanders.org
Primary season is in its prime and feels familiar in almost every respect. Eight years on, it's the same candidate, the same point of contention. Is Hillary Clinton warm enough? I'm not debating that this is sexist stuff: all this focus on her warmth, her style, her smile.
Come on. Why do women always have to be warm anyway? Was Lincoln warm? Was Eisenhower? It's just another double standard. The partisan press corps is packed with macho creeps. I agree.
When it comes to Clinton, it's not the warmth, it's the wars I'm worried about. I've actually read her books, both of them, and I don't think she's ever seen a bombing mission she didn't approve, going back to the 1990s, when the whole insidious "humanitarian" war idea took root with NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.
Bernie Sanders voted for that bombing too, so he should score no points from peaceniks on that account. Still, it really is pretty rich for Hillary Clinton to pose as the great anti-gun and anti-violence crusader when you think of how the humanitarian war idea's played out. Killing people to save people? Bringing democracy at the end of a rocket? Backing rebels we know next to nothing about. It's been almost unending intervention and war since the Clintons let that particular genie out of the bottle.
It was the wars on Yugoslavia that prepared the political ground for intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and every one of those has led to a bloodbath and, as of now a dangerous, failed state.
Clinton's coming on strong against the gun lobby and the NRA but US arms sales never did better than when she was Secretary of State. She approved what was at the time the largest ever US arms sale to scary Saudi Arabia, even as she acknowledged in Wiki-leaked cables, that that country was world's leading source of support for Sunni terrorist groups.
Warmth? As far as I'm concerned Clinton's shown way too much of it -- to wars and warmongers. And if what you're really worried about is machismo, ask the women of those failed states -- from the Taliban to ISIS - they've been the first to pay the price.
Laura Flanders
Laura Flanders interviews forward-thinking people about the key questions of our time on The Laura Flanders Show, a nationally syndicated radio and television program also available as a podcast. A contributing writer to The Nation, Flanders is also the author of six books, including "Bushwomen: How They Won the White House for Their Man" (2005). She is the recipient of a 2019 Izzy Award for excellence in independent journalism, the Pat Mitchell Lifetime Achievement Award for advancing women's and girls' visibility in media, and a 2020 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship for her reporting and advocacy for public media. lauraflanders.org
Primary season is in its prime and feels familiar in almost every respect. Eight years on, it's the same candidate, the same point of contention. Is Hillary Clinton warm enough? I'm not debating that this is sexist stuff: all this focus on her warmth, her style, her smile.
Come on. Why do women always have to be warm anyway? Was Lincoln warm? Was Eisenhower? It's just another double standard. The partisan press corps is packed with macho creeps. I agree.
When it comes to Clinton, it's not the warmth, it's the wars I'm worried about. I've actually read her books, both of them, and I don't think she's ever seen a bombing mission she didn't approve, going back to the 1990s, when the whole insidious "humanitarian" war idea took root with NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.
Bernie Sanders voted for that bombing too, so he should score no points from peaceniks on that account. Still, it really is pretty rich for Hillary Clinton to pose as the great anti-gun and anti-violence crusader when you think of how the humanitarian war idea's played out. Killing people to save people? Bringing democracy at the end of a rocket? Backing rebels we know next to nothing about. It's been almost unending intervention and war since the Clintons let that particular genie out of the bottle.
It was the wars on Yugoslavia that prepared the political ground for intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and every one of those has led to a bloodbath and, as of now a dangerous, failed state.
Clinton's coming on strong against the gun lobby and the NRA but US arms sales never did better than when she was Secretary of State. She approved what was at the time the largest ever US arms sale to scary Saudi Arabia, even as she acknowledged in Wiki-leaked cables, that that country was world's leading source of support for Sunni terrorist groups.
Warmth? As far as I'm concerned Clinton's shown way too much of it -- to wars and warmongers. And if what you're really worried about is machismo, ask the women of those failed states -- from the Taliban to ISIS - they've been the first to pay the price.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.