By WeNews Staff
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Susan Feiner's Women's eNews commentary last week on the economic legacy of Bill Clinton and how it reflects on Hillary Clinton's presidential agenda ignited an intense reader reaction. Read more by the author, her grateful fans and outraged critics.
Those Opposed Say . . . (cont'd)
While the natural progression of Clinton's formula actually may end up with spending cuts in government subsidies, that is because her job stimulus program, particularly things like her green bonds for green jobs, will provide more jobs, paying people more money, getting them off of welfare and other programs.
This is a good thing, not something to fret about.
Since you have so thoroughly researched for this article, can you tell me what other candidate in this Presidential election has any plans at all for wage overhaul?
Are they all in favor anti-wage discrimination laws?
Yes, Hillary may refer to the 90s, as it was a much better time for this country than the 2000s, however, she is a different person than Bill Clinton.
They are not conjoined, though many would have us believe that. Of course, that's it. Most men, and apparently, a number of women like yourself, believe a woman cannot think or act on her own without a man.
In your opinion, what fuels so much Hillary-hatred?
I enjoyed learning from the Feiner article, facts about the Clinton era and Robert Rubin. Just a reminder though: the Clinton years were good ones. We had aneconomic recovery that was fooling people into thinking business cycles were a thing of the past. We went from the huge Bush I deficit to a surplus that Bush II got handed over to him (his original
rationale for the tax cuts for the wealthy).
If Hillary's health plan had succeeded, we wouldn't be in this big crisis that makes even McCain have to deal with it. I would love to see Professor Feiner write an analysis on that topic some time.
--Pat Caplan Andrews
I find your recent article about Hillary Clinton extremely offensive . . . . What is most offensive is her assumption that a woman takes on the ideas of her husband and loses her ability to act independently when she gets married.
I believe that Hillary Clinton has shown real leadership capabilities and would serve as a testament to women everywhere. Please use your editing discretion more carefully in the future.
I appreciate the comments you have made. I think you have brought up some important issues. I'd just like to comment though on the fact that you seem to be blaming the extent of our nation's ills on President Clinton's policies.
First, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. To believe so is like asking you if you are of the same mind as your husband or significant other. It's a preposterous and antiquated notion to believe that a woman must be an extension of 'her man' in all things. Baloney.
You do make a good point in asking that Hillary speak to how she differs. I agree on that.
Secondly, after eight years in office, Bush has done so much damage I'm surprised that anyone can see through that to ferret out the actual pieces attributable to Bill Clinton (NAFTA may be the exception to that statement). You must be extremely knowledgeable on economic philosophy, and I freely admit that I am not, so I won't try to argue about that with you. I just find it curious that you expend so much energy, ostensibly writing about the issues that currently plague us, only to dig into the Clinton administration, which, while not perfect certainly seemed to me more responsible, productive and fiscally sound than the last eight years of the Bush Administration has ever dreamed of being.
Are you secretly a Conservative shill writing for a feminist newspaper? Or are you an Obama supporter posing as an objective journalist? Well, perhaps you are simply being hypercritical and maybe you are right to do so. But I certainly take issue with your laying all blame at the feet of Bill Clinton.
I believe that you are speaking at cross purposes when you bring up the needs of the working class versus welfare reform. Of course some of the population was put on welfare to work programs which re-define that segment as lower income working class, but there was an existing working class that Hillary has been turning attention to, because it has been sorely trashed and left for dead by the current administration. As jobs have been outsourced and manufacturing has become a distant memory of our American past, working class people haven't been getting by. Gosh maybe they got unemployment, thank you Mr. Bush!
The problem with looking at women being in the very lower tiers of wage earners really has nothing to do with the eradication of our work structure here in America. It has to do with a continued sexist ideal that is firmly entrenched in our culture and reinforced by authors who trash women who dare to try and change anything, i.e. the mainstream media and the mind-bogglingly vicious tenor with reference to the subject of Hillary Clinton in the past months.
Ms. Feiner, have your say and ask the important questions. I truly appreciate your educating me and alerting me to areas in which I need further study. But don't jump on MSM bandwagon and trash Hillary. Why would you even assume she is her husband?
Oh, and after living in radical North California for 30 years of my adult life I am a staunch believer in the need for the welfare reform that took place during the Clinton years. We need to have job programs and training for low income and those who are living on the edge, not a handout. It does not help people, nor our society, to continually support those who could make a contribution if they had the skills or know-how and the requisite need to contribute.
I have just read Ms. Feiner's commentary on Hillary Clinton and I am so disappointed that you would include such inaccuracies and sexism in your journal.
Her use of the term "Billary," suggests that once married, men and women lose their ability to think and act independently.
Do you have an inkling of the sexism and misogyny that the Obama campaign has unleashed during the primary season? And to that, you add more? I am very disappointed and discouraged that you have joined the ranks of women hating women.
Whether your writers support her as the Democratic nominee or not, it is your duty to at least acknowledge that Hillary Clinton has inspired and worked for women and men for decades.
--Leanora Olivia, PhD
I am stunned that Womens eNews has added its voice to the choir of misogynist voices on the Internet who can't discuss Hillary Clinton without stooping to sexism. Despite the author's other arguments, some of which may have merit, in the one paragraph (see below) where she speaks favorably of Bill Clinton's administration, she uses the epithet "Billary" to show her real angry sexist feelings.
I thought that at least of Women's eNews we would be above joining a woman to her husband as if she was not a separate person. It's really quite shocking.
I know it's very upsetting to certain shrill female writers that Hillary is doing well now. I am used to them turning up the heat on Hillary every time Obama stumbles which is often and continuously. I expect the din on cable TV to be dimwitted. But I expect more of you and sadly you have let me down. I hope you will endeavor to rectify the situation.
A close look at exactly where all of these Obama millions are in truth coming from would be a good start. Does the cash from nuclear energy and sub-prime mortgage lenders bother you? It certainly troubles me.
--Diane L and Simon
Who needs Republicans or right-wing commentators when we have feminists like you? At least you stopped short of telling Hillary to drop out of the race. "But Hillary and Bill are both "deficit hawks" who believe in "pay as you go," or cutting government spending to the point where it equals government revenue."
What's wrong with paying as you go? It is safe to say that most Americans are over their heads in debt and this does nothing but prop up the credit card companies.
For me, the worst part of your opinion piece is the insinuation that Hillary is not her own person.
You use Bill's record as an argument against her. In fact, you use the name Clinton so many times, it was impossible to know whether you were talking about Hillary or Bill.
Do you see them as one person?
Nor did you back up your arguments with sources for your information.
What kind of things are you looking for in Hillary's Senate record to prove your point?
There is so much negativity and criticism of Hillary Clinton that your article just sounds like more of the same. It's very discomforting to know that in addition to the far right, the far left and the mainstream news media, we now how feminist economists bashing the first elect-able female president (imperfect as she may be).
Source URL (retrieved on 2014-04-07 23:38): http://womensenews.org/story/campaign-trail/080504/readers-ignited-essay-hillarys-economics-0