Hillary Clinton’s Gender Argument

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton calls on women to support her to be the first female President, but all Americans should look carefully at her record advocating bloody, neocon “regime change” wars, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

Not race nor gender — nor any other innate characteristic — should be the touchstone in voting for President of the United States. Yet, as I have traveled the country these past several years, I have been amazed at how many Americans have no qualms in stating that their support for President Barack Obama is based solely – or mostly – on his being black. Equally amazing is the unabashedly indiscriminate support I hear voiced by highly educated women for Hillary Clinton – “because she is a woman and it’s our turn,” as they put it.

Five years ago in Atlanta, I sat down with Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, then 90 and a legendary leader of the African-American-church-led struggle for human rights in the South. We met in an historic building used 50 years before by the courageous young leaders of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

I had been a longtime admirer of Dr. Lowery, who acted very much in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when Lowery chose the occasion of Coretta Scott King’s funeral (Feb. 7, 2006) to admonish a captive audience that included Presidents Bush-41, Bush-43, Carter and Clinton.

“We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there [in Iraq]. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here,” Dr. Lowery said. “Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!”

So I was pleased to meet with Dr. Lowery in early May 2011 and felt comfortable enough to voice disappointment at how Barack Obama, despite his rhetoric, seemed to be pursuing the pro-war/pro-Wall-Street policies of his predecessor. But I was brought up short when Lowery reacted quite strongly.

“Obama is one of us,” he said. “We will support him no matter what!”

Sensitive Topic

I am aware of the delicacy involved in saying these things and the criticism one can expect. Granted, I carry the proverbial knapsack of white/male privilege. I do make a constant effort to reflect on the very real implications of that reality, rather than give it mere lip service. I have been working at a black-led nonprofit in inner-city Washington for the past 18 years; I worship at a predominantly African-American church, and just this week I was “Best Man” at the marriage of black friends.

If that sounds a little like “some of my best friends are black,” well, they are. I do try hard to divest myself of the knapsack of white/male privilege that is mine by accident of birth.  Recognizing that unearned privilege will always be part of my DNA, I feel all the more conscience bound to put those unmerited gifts to good use. Often this means risking opprobrium attached to telling it like it is – or, admittedly, like I think it is.

Twenty-five years ago I earned the epithet “radical feminist” (not a good thing in Catholic circles) to which I proudly plead guilty. Rather than take the chance that our three daughters end up with the idea that they were second-class citizens, and not having any better idea, I stood up in silence in the middle of my parish congregation for the entire Sunday Mass for almost five years. It was a witness to the reality that the Catholic liturgy itself is flawed with fundamental injustice when women are barred from presiding. From time to time other “radical feminists,” women and men parishioners, joined me.

But for many it was a most unwelcome reminder — a disruption. I was treated like a leper by some of my most “progressive” co-parishioners, until I left the parish after those five years (1991-96) of standing. (Catholics in Crisis, a book by Jim Naughton centers on the bitter controversy sparked by what came to be known as “The Standing.”)

Gender and Justice

In the midst of such witness, there seemed to be signs of some progress – at least in the secular world. In 1993, I rejoiced that our country was getting a “two-for” with Hillary Clinton as a new kind of First Lady, essentially a partner in governance with her husband. And just four years later, another breakthrough, Madeleine Albright became the first female Secretary of State and the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government.

But, alas: as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Albright had justified the brutal effects of the sanctions imposed on Iraq (later branded “unconscionable” by the U.S. Catholic bishops). When asked in May 1996 about the U.N. finding that the sanctions had taken the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, Albright told CBS’s Leslie Stahl, “We think the price is worth it.” Albright displayed not only callousness, but entitlement.

In February of this year, while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire for former Secretary of State Clinton, Albright condescendingly chided and challenged women, especially the young who were rallying to Sen. Bernie Sanders: “You have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Washington, DC.

Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Washington, DC.

Hillary Clinton is clearly expecting the votes of many women who believe she is entitled to become President because “it is time.” While I agree that it is well past time for a woman to be President, I disagree that it should be Hillary Clinton. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that people should not be judged by external factors (whether the color of their skin or, in this case, their gender) “but by the content of their character.”

Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary of State makes it unmistakably clear that – like her hawkish predecessor Albright – she lacks the level-headedness, vision, and, yes, compassion without which the country’s top diplomat or (even more importantly) the commander in chief can be outright dangerous.

If there is a Hell, I could visualize a special place for both men and women who operate with the cold-blooded, unfeeling cruelty toward victims of American power. What brought this to mind was the way Clinton exulted shortly after getting word that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed.

The Libyan leader had been flushed out of a culvert hiding place, tortured, sodomized with a bayonet and murdered. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose to rejoice with undisguised glee, using a riff on words attributed to Julius Caesar, “I came; I saw; I conquered.”  Hillary said: “We came; we saw; he died!”

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Chaos now reigns in Libya and, according to Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule, Clinton broke it, so she now owns it. And Obama has just conceded publicly that if he could get a do-over, it would be Libya. He recently expressed open regret over the aftermath of the U.S. military involvement championed by Secretary of State Clinton, calling it the “worst mistake” of his presidency.

In Lock-Step With Neocons

Frankly, it is hard to distinguish Clinton’s foreign policy from the neocons’ “regime change” obsession. Like the neocons, Clinton expresses full support for whatever Israel does and applies the same step-by-step approach toward dragging the United States into more “regime change” wars against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line.

Currently, she’s pushing for the U.S. military to impose a “safe zone” or “no-fly zone” in Syria, nice-sounding phrases that mean in reality a direct U.S. invasion of Syria, requiring the violent destruction of Syria’s air force and air defenses. It is the same ploy that Clinton used in beginning the disastrous “regime change” in Libya: start with sweet phrases like “responsibility to protect” and “no-fly zones” and then escalate to another “regime change.”

Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter will participate in Teach-ins regarding the foreign policy positions of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at Judson Church Assembly Hall, 55 Washington Square South, New York, from 7-10 p.m. on Sunday, April 17, and at SUNY Purchase Multicultural Center at noon on Monday, April 18.

Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter will participate in Teach-ins regarding the foreign policy positions of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at Judson Church Assembly Hall, 55 Washington Square South, New York, from 7-10 p.m. on Sunday, April 17, and at SUNY Purchase Multicultural Center at noon on Monday, April 18.

President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers pulled a similar stunt in drawing the United States into the Iraq War. Bush insisted that he simply needed the authority to use force to pressure Saddam Hussein to surrender his WMD; then U.S. troops were deployed to the region to show that the U.S. meant business; then, U.S. “credibility” would be impaired if the troops simply had to wait around until the U.N. weapons inspectors searched for the WMD, so the invasion began.

Clinton has consistently been onboard such neocon bandwagons, famously voting for and supporting the Iraq War as a U.S. senator. She also has favored coups and wars to remove troublesome leaders whom she demonizes much as the neocons do, understanding the importance of propaganda and “perception management” to bring a sometimes reluctant U.S. population along for the blood-soaked ride.

As Secretary of State, Clinton supported the 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a relatively progressive president who had offended powerful corporate and oligarchic interests. Also in 2009, she joined hawkish Republican holdovers inside the Obama administration to push for what turned out to be a pointless but bloody “counterinsurgency” escalation in Afghanistan.

In 2011, Clinton tipped the balance in convincing Obama to support the Western invasion of Libya. And in seeking another “regime change” in Syria, she advocated arming Syrian rebels, even though many fought side-by-side with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Clinton also has voiced excessive hostility toward Iran, heightening the confrontation during her years as Secretary of State and threatening to renew it if she becomes President. With Iranian hardliners already questioning the value of Iran’s accepting extraordinary constraints on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief (when much of that relief has not materialized), it’s not hard to imagine how a President Clinton-45 might push Iran into renouncing the deal, thus reopening the “bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran” option favored by the neocons.

Only the blindest supporters of Secretary Clinton could fail to acknowledge that there is little or no daylight between her and the neocons.

Army veteran and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, standing in protest of a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

Army veteran and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, standing in protest of a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

Full Disclosure

I should note that five years ago as Secretary Clinton began a major speech at George Washington University on the imperative of respecting dissent (in Iran), she did not miss a syllable as “security” officers brutally assaulted me and hauled me away directly in front of her. My crime? Standing silently with my back to her.

Clinton’s confidant Sidney Blumenthal sent her a quick email, telling her that I was well known in the U.S. intelligence community, where I had long served as a CIA analyst, though since then I had “become a Christian antiwar leftist who goes around bearing witness.” He added, “Whatever his views, he’s harmless.”

Harmless or not, I ended up with cuts and bruises, far less than the slaughter and maiming of the millions of victims of Clinton’s misbegotten policies. Her gender does not excuse her for that suffering nor does it mean that we should ignore her judgment when deciding whether she should be elevated to the most powerful office on earth.

Ray McGovern is a former Army officer and CIA analyst. He prepared the President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the morning briefings, one-on-one, of Reagan’s most senior advisers. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

66 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Gender Argument

  1. April 17, 2016 at 12:57

    Given that gender seems to be the criterion on which one’s vote is to be based, I only regret that I never had the opportunity to vote for two of Ms Clinton’s more illustrious colleagues – Margaret Hilda Thatcher and Lady Macbeth….


  2. Daniel
    April 16, 2016 at 16:44

    Great article. We have got to move away from ‘clique’ politics, the domination of the two-party system, and closed primaries. Because, as it is, people don’t feel they can stray from the party/identity line, even in the face of a Hillary candidacy, which, if you removed her name and gender from news reports, would by any measure be quickly identified as one of the worst candidates in the history of candidates. (Her debate performance the other night was appalling for its obnoxious, megaphone-hogging lies and distortions. She should be ashamed of herself.)

    But here we are, with a media who spins fiction from fact and dares us to look outside for the truth; and for all of it, those who seek and find the truth – which you cannot come back from – are ostracized, ridiculed and demonized. Why? Simply for not towing the state line and offending the mean-clique herd mentality of our out-of-touch ruling elite.

    Finally, for all those who place gender at the top of their list of important traits in voting for a president in 2016, I urge you to vote Dr. Jill Stein over Hillary. That’s what I’ll do if Bernie doesn’t make it (and doesn’t break away himself). Hillary should never get the vote of free-thinking people.

  3. Bruce Dodds
    April 16, 2016 at 14:27

    I’m old enough to remember heads of state like Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher who were as warlike as any male politician. Anyone who counts on a peace dividend based on gender is mistaken, unfortunately.

  4. J'hon Doe II
    April 16, 2016 at 12:01

    This new world order requires militaristic leaders. The deep state wants Ms. Clinton — it knows she is eager to please them.

    I’d love to see Bernie as president but that would require a complete reversal of the dominant imperialist/neocon/Israeli warfare agenda.

    Only a “Divine Intervention” will prevent the coming Madam President… . (God forbid we get a Trump or Cruz!!!)

    • Brad Owen
      April 16, 2016 at 15:29

      Divine Interventions happen (at least Gideon believed so). The Ancient Polytheists knew it. That is why they wrote the Gods and Goddesses into their war narratives. Monotheists prefer to call them Angels and Demons and such. Moderns prefer to call them Outer Space Aliens. They are what They are; just what THAT is, hardly any of us know; but a change of “Zeitgeist” (the Spirit-of-the-Times) seems to be afoot. Too many Crop Circles and Sky Spirals going on; the Divine Interventionist “Forces” seem to be communicating Orders for Executing “The Plan”, whatever THAT may be. And no, I don’t believe in Second Comings or Armageddon. Maybe Klaatu and Gort (The Day the Earth Stood Still) are planning to show up?

      • J'hon Doe II
        April 16, 2016 at 15:54

        Okay, Brad Owen — substitute the word ‘miracle’ in place of “divine intervention”
        — the US political gods have their chosen one in Ms. Clinton… .

        • Brad Owen
          April 16, 2016 at 17:20

          Yeah, but the US political Gods are very small potatoes in the Pantheon. I wasn’t kidding. The mills of the Gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

          • J'hon Doe II
            April 17, 2016 at 16:59


            a domed circular temple at Rome, erected a.d. 120–124 by Hadrian, used as a church since a.d.
            (lowercase) a public building containing tombs or memorials of the illustrious dead of a nation.
            (lowercase) the place of the heroes or idols of any group, individual, movement, party, etc., or the heroes or idols themselves:
            to earn a place in the pantheon of American literature.
            (lowercase) a temple dedicated to all the gods.
            (lowercase) the gods of a particular mythology considered collectively.


  5. onno
    April 16, 2016 at 06:25

    I wonder how an American voter could ever vote for Hillary Clinton, her track record while in the her husband’s BIll White House was already a failure with her attempted universal healthcare plan. Then came the Monica Lewinsky affair and oral sex is NO sex statement on TV. Lying was a household name for this couple and motivated only by making as much money as possible. They initiated wars because the defense industry was their biggest sponsor plus of course large banks.
    Electing once a Clinton in the White House is like the saying goes: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

    April 16, 2016 at 05:11

    FWIW: Has anyone reviewed “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, former research fellow at Stanfod’s Hoover Institution?

    Promo blurb: “But who else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign governments while the other charted American foreign policy?”

  7. Shirley Smith
    April 16, 2016 at 00:51

    I am a woman who is not for Hillary Clinton. I have also heard a group of women talking about how they would vote for Hillary because she was a woman. I thought how ignorant. Do they not know anything about her. Hillary says what she thinks the public wants to hear at the time she is speaking. The Clintons made a lot of money after being in DC and they love the politics and being in the public.I just want them to retire, go away. They had their day.

    • Zachary Smith
      April 16, 2016 at 01:26

      I am a woman who is not for Hillary Clinton. I have also heard a group of women talking about how they would vote for Hillary because she was a woman.

      In my part of Indiana Democrats aren’t people a person ordinarily encounters much, so I don’t have any kind of a ‘base’ for comparison. My family now runs more to Democrats than Republicans, and I don’t know of any of the women who would vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Oddly enough, a couple of the men might because they profess to be afraid of Trump.

      This fall’s election promises to be a genuine mess. With Trump painted as the Latest Hitler, and when people like Laura Bush hint that they’re going to vote for Hillary instead of him, there is no telling what will happen.

      On the Dem side, there is currently a rather large number of folks (myself included) who declare they won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances they can imagine. From a recent article in The Nation:

      It has become accepted orthodoxy in establishment circles to view Trump as an authoritarian race-baiter who poses a uniquely grave danger to the United States and the world. While he is all of those things, this characterization obscures the fact that Clinton is also a threat to world stability, and that, unlike Trump, she already has the blood on her hands to prove it.

      That’s about where I am. Unlike the person I’m quoting, I can’t actually vote for Trump unless he eats his words about Torture. A relative told me that he’s probably just blowing hot air about the matter, but even if that’s true, I’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and Torture is the place.


  8. April 16, 2016 at 00:44

    This is time for Hillary….we need global peace Congo Drc Iraq South sudan Syria etc

    • dahoit
      April 16, 2016 at 09:27

      Jesus Christ,its because of her and Obomba,that the world is in flames.Iraq,Syria a nd Libya are her direct responsibility.

  9. Joseph R. Colgan
    April 15, 2016 at 23:57

    The most revealing exchange of last night’s debate, for me, was Burnie’s standing up for the Palestinian people … and then Hillary’s response.

  10. incontinent reader
    April 15, 2016 at 22:58

    Well there is a woman who would get my vote, especially if she were VP on a Sanders ticket, and that person is Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. She is no armchair harpie or chicken hawk, but someone with Iraq War experience who is as level headed with domestic policy as she is with foreign policy. That would be a good team, and the Vice Presidency would provide a good path to the top position after a few more years of experience, if she continues to do the job she’s done and implements the policies she has espoused. As for Hillary, its time to condemn her to the trash heap of history if not to Guantanamo in an orange jumpsuit.

    • Skip Edwards
      April 16, 2016 at 10:43

      Thanks for keeping her name, Tulsi Gabbard, alive in our minds. Speaking truth to power and backing it up with her action of resigning from her role in the DNC says a lot about her.

    • David Smith
      April 16, 2016 at 15:24

      The National Review thinks Tulsi Gabbard is amazingly great.

      • incontinent reader
        April 17, 2016 at 08:48

        I know what you are saying (see, for example, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416313/meet-beautiful-tough-young-democrat-whos-turning-heads-challenging-obamas-foreign), but she has been undogmatic and clear headed about analyzing foreign policy and realistic in her narrative and understanding of the facts on the ground- and not afraid to speak about it, even where it has meant bucking the established line.

        • incontinent reader
          April 17, 2016 at 11:05

          An additional point\: Gabbard’s s military service was as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company, and her experience is informed by the effects of the carnage in Iraq.

  11. Bill Bodden
    April 15, 2016 at 19:35

    Perhaps Hillary is more neoliberal than neocon or maybe both:

    “Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us: An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities” by Paul Verhaeghe – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic


    “There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won’t really be noticed.

    “It’s important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you’ve got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That’s why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.”

    Also check the link on this article to “Neoliberealism.”

  12. Carol Murry
    April 15, 2016 at 17:41

    Yes Ray! And, in addition, she has seen her ascendancy to power as being a free pass to accrue campaign funds from whomever has the deepest pockets, no mater their crimes.

  13. Andrew Osborne-Smith
    April 15, 2016 at 16:20

    I would go one step further and discuss a major domestic policy failure of hers. Hillary Clinton was the principal architect behind her husbands new health care program, largely put together in secret and then when it was introduced to Congress it got trashed by everyone.

    I cannot think of one domestic or foreign policy she has championed during the years she has been in politics that was successful. Being articulate, smart and a wife of a former President doesn’t cut it.

  14. Sergio Weigel
    April 15, 2016 at 16:16

    Ray, I admire your work, thoughts and articles. But after three paragraphs of white/male guilt complex and apologetically bowing down to feminism of all (sexist) things, I cannot find myself finishing this article, sorry.

    I know that you are from a much different generation than I am, therefore I am not accusing you. But having to live and having had to live with what feminism has done to our society and my “role/place” as a white male (not in the USA, but Germany – same thing though), I simply can’t stand this spiel anymore.

    I am sure what you have to say about Hillary is down to the spot. I have experienced what this gender bias means when Angela Merkel came to power in Germany. Everybody around me was “yay, finally a woman, it’s gonna be great.” I could only shake my head.

    When Schröder said no to the Iraq war, she was an opposition politician but flew directly to Warshington to let Uncle Sam know that she would have participated, of course. That was the most pathetic kowtow I have ever seen and I knew then that she means trouble. When I reminded people of that episode I just gathered puzzled looks. I was the party pooper. It took most Germans years to realize what kind of a woman she is. Actually, until last year.

    I always let all my American friends know: Vote for Trump, if Bernie doesn’t make it. Please!

    • dahoit
      April 16, 2016 at 09:24

      Merkel is an insult to Germany.Sending a comedian to the dock for insulting foreigners?
      Imagine here in America sending all the anti Putin propagandists to jail?Cool but Unconstitutional.
      Yahoo;Is that an insult?I hope so.

  15. LEE LOE Grandmother for Peace
    April 15, 2016 at 15:38

    Many thanks, Mr. McGovern, for this heart-felt clear-eyed appraisal of Hillary and her womanhood! One thing to add: when Albright spoke in1996 about 500,000 children’s deaths being okay, it was really 500,000 children UNDER 5-YEARS OF AGE! About 4,500 children a month were dying because of sanctions and the bombing of Iraq. Dr. Peter Pellett, 5 years with the UN FAO, 2 years leading its inspections in Iraq, told an audience in Houston, TX that the US bombed “isolated fish tanks” in Iraq. We also prevented their having electric pumps and desalination equipment to provide clean water to the Iraqi people. I still ask “Why!” And Bill Clinton bombed on Dec. 16, 1996 (i think that is correct) in spite of the inspection teams’ saying the Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction. No more warmongers as president; and that means we will have to work on Bernie on this, although he has said that he is not in favor of endless wars, that the peoples of other countries can handle their own problems. Both of these comments are huge for our respecting other peoples and understanding of the wages of endless wars, both on our own country and the world. And wars foster the changing of the climate!!! Nonviolence or nonexistence!

  16. Vicki Walker
    April 15, 2016 at 15:26

    Thank you Ray for your faithful witness to the truth.

  17. Helen Marshall
    April 15, 2016 at 15:01

    Hillary IS a neo-con…She chose as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs the repugnant Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon Robert Kagan), now famed for her conniving with the US ambassador to pick the next Ukrainian prime minister – as soon as she arranged for the overthrow of the existing government, considered too favorable to Russia.

    I will not vote for her regardless of who may be the Republican candidate. The lesser evil is still evil.

    • Helen Marshall
      April 15, 2016 at 15:12

      PS which does not mean voting Republican!

  18. Erik
    April 15, 2016 at 14:54

    It is remarkable that the first candidate from a previously-unrepresented group is Always a right-winger.

    The progressives never try to fool the right wing with a progressive candidate from a previously-unrepresented group, because they know that the right wing doesn’t care about those groups or anyone else but themselves.

    The first black senator or president, the first woman SecState or candidate for Pres, is a rightwinger because the right wing are engineers of ignorance as their primary means to power. If Hillary was running as a Repub she might win as the least-looney among them, but would have much less effect upon a true progressive running as a Dem or independent.

    So progressives must be very careful about these Judas-goats who look like themselves and lead the way to the slaughter house, but will be in privileged places when the killing begins.

    I would vote gladly for any female progressive versus a right-wingnut. Very gladly.

    But I don’t see why we should have only the option of voting for Jewish candidates like Stein and Sanders. More than a little suspect. Elizabeth Warren is fine. Maine’s Sen. King appears to be fine. No doubt many others.

  19. Zachary Smith
    April 15, 2016 at 14:41

    Hillary Clinton is clearly expecting the votes of many women who believe she is entitled to become President because “it is time.”

    The arrogant woman not only believes she’s “entitled”, but that all others of her sex ought to agree. Just because she’s a woman.

    One wonders if Hillary voted for Sarah Palin back in 2008 – the “logic” is exactly the same – because as VP Palin would have been only one heartbeat from the Presidency, and would have also had the inside track on the job in 2012 or 2016.

  20. Regina Schulte
    April 15, 2016 at 14:16

    Yes, it is past time for the U.S. to have a female president. But Hillary Clinton is not the one
    to be first. To vote for her merely on that basis is irrational. From my informed point of view,
    she presents a danger to the nation and the world. Plus, there are other very good,
    competent women “in the pipeline” and sooner or later they will come into prominence.

    On another note: I AM TOTALLY WEARY OF THE CLINTONS. They’ve been swinging this
    nation around by the tail for much, much too long. Another 4 or 8 years of
    that duo is insufferable.

    • Bill Bodden
      April 15, 2016 at 17:06

      Yes, it is past time for the U.S. to have a female president. But Hillary Clinton is not the one
      to be first. To vote for her merely on that basis is irrational.

      In a debate I had with “Katy” in 2008, she gave the gender vote a different spin. “Katy” said she wasn’t voting for Clinton because Clinton was a woman. Instead, “Katy” said she was voting for Clinton because she, herself, was a woman. Go figure.

  21. Alice Bsch
    April 15, 2016 at 14:06

    Your detailed analysis s first-rate. As a long/time feminist, I can boil it all down to one word: SEXIST. To vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman is just as sexist as refusing to vote for her because she is a woman

  22. Bill Bodden
    April 15, 2016 at 13:59

    One of the more absurd gender-based reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton came from Meryl Streep when she addressed a women’s forum. Streep was moved by three women from Central America who gave Hillary Clinton credit for saving their lives. Three women alive today (or at least then) because of something Hillary Clinton said or did. Wonderful!! But what about the millions of women who have suffered, in cases died, because of policies promoted and supported by Queen of Chaos Hillary? Atrocious working conditions while she was on the board at Wal-Mart. NATO aggression in the Balkans. Welfare reform. Loading up jails with “predators.” Sanctions and then war on Iraq. Regime changes in Honduras, Libya and Syria. Hundreds of thousands dead and maimed. Millions displaced as refugees. But she’s a woman, and it’s time a woman was elected president of the United States. That it is time is true, but not that woman.

    “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Democratic National Committee Chairwoman) calmly explained. – http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/

    • Bill Bodden
      April 15, 2016 at 18:52

      PS: To Hillary’s rap sheet add her approval of Israeli massacres and lesser colonial abuses of Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon.

    • rosemerry
      April 16, 2016 at 15:44

      Yes, we must ensure that democracy is avoided in the Democratic Party.

  23. Bob Van Noy
    April 15, 2016 at 13:59

    Thank you Ray McGovern. There is so much to like and to comment on here: I recently read “The Devil’s Chessboard” by David Talbot and came away horrified by the indifference and seeming “glee” Alan Dulles took with the overthrow of the Mossadegh Government in Iran. Then came Hillary’s “glee” and self satisfaction with the overthrow of the Qaddafi Government in Libya. The whole neocon crowd from George Bush to Rumsfeld/Cheney, to John Bolton, Richard Perle and the Kagans (and clearly Hillary is one of them); seem to me to be uniquely incapable of empathy. The Honduran coup d’état was particularly heartbreaking because I had assumed that America had “moved on” from that kind of thinking, but no, apparently with this neocon crew, there is never enough bloodshed… Hillary simply cannot be elected president; she should, like the other neocons, be on trial…

    • Skip Edwards
      April 16, 2016 at 10:32

      “The Devil’s Chessboard” is a must read to understand the deep, dark state which controls our so-called democratic form of government. That unelected association of power assuming psychopathic people “must be broken into a thousand pieces” and put on trial in a court of law for all their crimes. Only then will democracy here, or anywhere else in the world, stand a chance of survival. Hillary Clinton is merely another pawn on that Chessboard. A political revolution is a major step forward in our long march toward democracy.

  24. ms 57
    April 15, 2016 at 13:18

    Ray, I am not at all surprised to find you are a feminist. What greater proof is there than to treat Hillary completely without gender bias; to examine who she is, what she has done and what she will likely do without regard to her gender? I cannot tell you how often folks I talk to — men and women, but particularly the latter — say they will vote for her solely because she will be “the first.” But she won’t be the first, will she? She will be just another who backs the neo-con agenda of hubristic, tragic regime change (Syria; Libya; Iraq), militarism (Russia; China) and blind support of Israel. She is a perpetuation. She is a feminist conception — but in wolf’s clothing. How many innocents will suffer as a result?

    • Aggrieved
      April 15, 2016 at 20:33

      Very good analysis!

    • rosemerry
      April 16, 2016 at 15:43

      As for the first woman in charge in a nation- how proud is Israel of Golda Meir, or the UK of Thatcher? Some people were supportive, but not the real humans affected by their policies.

  25. Elliot
    April 15, 2016 at 13:17

    For the amount of times that Bernie Sanders has been asked whether he is a democrat or not, not once has H. Clinton been asked. Her record about her use of the military plus who supports her, wall street, oil, fracking, big pharma, and what treaties she supports, TPP, Nafta, clearly show she is a traditional republican without the gun, abortion, religious nonsense.

    • Abbybwood
      April 15, 2016 at 13:32


  26. Pablo Diablo
    April 15, 2016 at 13:13

    NO MORE CLINTONS. Hillary is a disgrace to the human race. Now, Elizabeth Warren would be a great choice when she runs. Or Zephyr Teachout.

    • Brad Benson
      April 15, 2016 at 22:25

      No. Sorry. Elizabeth Warren is a phony. She should have endorsed Bernie a long time ago, but she remains silent even today. Trump will be the next President because of her.


      • Ted Tripp
        April 16, 2016 at 08:02

        Brad, ‘phony’ is not even close to accurate or fair in describing Senator Warren. However, I am also puzzled by her reticence regarding Senator Sanders, and I also fear that a Trump v Clinton election would result in President Trump.

        • Brad Owen
          April 16, 2016 at 15:04

          We’re in a rare historical era, similar to 1860 (it’s another version of slave vs. free; corporate-fascist Empire of serf-like peons vs Constitutional Republic of sovereign citizens…could also call it Wall Street vs Main Street too). It’ll be a four-way race like 1860. It’ll be a Trump vs Clinton vs GOP empty-suit vs EITHER Sanders or (if he throws in with HRC) Stein election. And, like 1860, Establishment Parties will fall; Whigs in 1860, Republicans (already dead, just don’t know it yet) maybe Democrats too (if Wall Street INSISTS on owning it) in 2016.

    • Andreas Wirsén
      April 16, 2016 at 11:41

      Writing from Europe, I’d like you americans NOT to choose a government which expands the war in Syria and thus exacerbates the refugee crisis. M’kay?

      • eole
        April 17, 2016 at 05:49

        Being also a European, I fully agree with you Andreas Wirsén. It is puzzling that the US government always backs the wrong guys. What is that I Wonder?

  27. Brad Owen
    April 15, 2016 at 13:09

    If Sanders ends up throwing in the towel to HRC, I’ll be voting for the first woman Prez alright…Jill Stein.

    • jo6pac
      April 15, 2016 at 14:10

      Thank You

    • Joe L.
      April 15, 2016 at 14:48

      Wouldn’t it be something, if Bernie does not become the nominee, but instead of putting his support behind Hillary he then put his support behind Jill Stein. I am happy to hear your thoughts on Jill Stein since I have seen her interviewed a few times over and her answers are much more intelligent than almost all of the establishment candidates. It would be nice, if Bernie does not get the nomination, if all of Bernie’s supporters shifted to Jill Stein. I would love to see Jill Stein as the first woman President in the US, I think then the US would really see change rather than just being spoken about.

      • Aggrieved
        April 15, 2016 at 20:32


      • Ted Tripp
        April 16, 2016 at 07:49

        I like this idea! Imagine Republicans in disarray with either fascist Trump or theocrat Cruz as nominee, then Hillary rallying her base of older Establishment women. Jill could become President!

        • Andreas Wirsén
          April 16, 2016 at 11:38

          To vote for ANY Third Party Candidate is like voting for a pig in a horse race.

          To set up Third Parties to split the opponents vote is a tried and true tactic of PR Dirty Tricksters – some of whom might be represented above. The others are just acting the useful idiots.

          • Brad Owen
            April 16, 2016 at 12:53

            You would be right, in normal times. We’re not in normal times. Folks are waaay fed-up and disgusted with the two rotten Establishment Parties. Trump plans on splitting the Right Wing (part to go for him; part to go with the GOP empty-suit) to get his pal HRC into the White House (Perot did it last time for a Clinton). It will be a four-way race, like 1860. The time is past-ripe for rotten establishment Parties to be blown away, like in 1860 (Whigs bit the dust, Republicans moved in). The time is NOW for Main Street Democrats to abandon the Wall Street Democrats. Libs, Progs, SocDems, DemSocs, Independents will join them. If Bernie endorses HRC, his massive following will abandon him (he’ll be branded a turn-coat). Jill Stein had better suit up and get real…this is no drill, time for the ROT to be cleaned out, and the Wall Street CrimeLords will be busted up with Glass-Steagle…end of Empire. There will probably be civil unrest (Wall Street-sponsored provocateurs), I just hope we’ll avoid Civil War II.

          • John
            April 16, 2016 at 12:58

            To vote for a far right “Democrat” like Hitlery is to force the Republicans to openly espouse Fascism (see Drumpf).
            The only reason to oppse 2nd parties, like Jill Stein, is that one actually prefers the rise of the Mussolini style Corporatism that Hitlery is the poster child of, along with the warmongering and environmental destruction inherent to such corporatism.

            Even if Stein did split the vote, if she got 10%, it will guarantee future ballot access to the Green Party at all levels, and thus change could begin. We can not survive our current system of a single corporatist party with two faces. That’s not a statement of politics, but of physics.

        • rosemerry
          April 16, 2016 at 15:40

          There are millions of Americans who do not vote, as they see no point. If many of these could learn more about Jill Stein and the Greens’ policies -difficult, of course, with absence of any help from the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM-Ray McGovern’s term) -she would surge ahead.

  28. Paul
    April 15, 2016 at 12:54

    To essays like this, a one-word response is really all that is required. Amen.

    • Skip Edwards
      April 16, 2016 at 10:17

      I agree with you except for the following quote from the article, “the country’s top diplomat or (even more importantly) the commander in chief”.

      Why are we continually bombarded, brainwashed, into thinking the President of the United States is some kind of commander in chief. There has been no declaration of war declared by Congress since WWII! Maybe with such a declaration that would be an appropriate term. We, by acceptance of that term under false pretenses, have bestowed a crown on the head and a sword in the hand of a holder of office an undeserved title which the Constitution does not bestow.

      • Enels
        April 16, 2016 at 13:10

        Exaclty! Mission Creep. The dumb bastards think they are Supreme Commanders, and they’re not, She needs to Declare War so then she can be Coronated… The term Commander in chief should be retired. Then we’ll talk about Coronating old ladies for POTUS positions, on an as need basis…

      • David Smith
        April 16, 2016 at 14:45

        Skip, didn’t you post a similar erroneous and absurd comment on a previous article? Did you not read my reply? Maybe you did because you write “the Constitution does not bestow”. Skip you are wrong. The Constitution does give the President ultimate command of all US armed forces and his title for that function is Commander In Chief. Sound Political Philosophy holds that the military must always be under civilian control. In the ancient world, the King held ultimate command of the army, similar principle. If you need examples of the problems that can occur with even the near autonomy of an Officer Corps, look at Germany and Japan between 1870 and WWII. Skip, reading the absurd language of your comment, I don’t think you understand the system you are advocating.

      • Peter Botterill
        April 17, 2016 at 00:43

        What ever Clinton’s official title may have been, or may be in the future, I am sure that there are many who will associate her delight shown in her remarks at the manner of Gaddafi’s death as worthy of a mentality akin only to that of “Vlad the Impaler”.

        That is how I shall always remember her, and I expect that if she achieves the Presidency then many more will have cause to reflect on her regrettable attitudes and already very frequent regrettable actions.

        As a Brit, I thank Ray McGovern for his article and his actions.

        • Shafiq
          April 18, 2016 at 05:04

          Physicians for Social Responsibility, a respected Nobel Peace Laureate medical group, says, “This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.” (1)

          Now add 1.7 million killed by Bill Clinton’s Iraq sanctions (1), 575,000 of whom were children <5 (2), which Mrs Clinton supported, and 470,000 to date in Syria (3). The Libyan intervention and its aftermath have cost another 50,000 lives (1). That comes to approximately 3.5 million deaths as a result of policies Mrs Clinton supported, which puts her well past Pol Pot. I believe, as international law asserts, that officials should be held accountable for the foreseeable consequences of policies they support. Furthermore, one gains insight into the values and judgment of politicians by considering the very real and devastating effects of their policies.
          1. http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
          2. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html 3.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/11/report-on-syria-conflict-finds-115-of-population-killed-or-injured

    • eliza
      April 17, 2016 at 15:58

      Race and gender shouldn’t affect electability, but given that Obama is the only president thus far who has not been a white man, this is obviously not the reality. It’s difficult to hear that gender doesn’t matter and that women shouldn’t be influenced by their desire to elect a female president when women are so poorly represented in our political system. America credits itself with being far more of a progressive leader than it actually is and many of the countries we call out for being less evolved or having antiquated sexism have elected far more female representatives than we have. It’s frustrating to be told to think of Sanders as the revolutionary and progressive choice when he has the luxury of inhabiting a space that a female candidate could not. Hillary’s entire image and career has been crafted such that she is almost the antithesis of how our society perceives femininity. She is extremely detailed and logical (the emotionality of Trump and Sanders would have likely been dismissed as hysteria or lack of judgment rather than strength), she is extremely qualified and well supported within the establishment (harder to question her ‘ability to lead’ or handle pressure) and she tends to be more hawkish (which I don’t find comforting at all but does make it difficult for anyone to describe her as soft or weak). I get she doesn’t embody the qualities generally associated with women and femininity, but to think that is a coincidence rather than a calculation would be foolish.
      So, it’s difficult to be told that creating a space and precedent for female leadership is not something that should matter to voters.
      For that to happen female leadership needs to be a reality not an idea or a hypothetical situation. When female representation is less of an aberration, female politicians will have to put less effort and consideration into conforming to a masculine ideal of leadership to appear electable or capable. As a woman it’s definitely something that matters to me. It’s certainly not the only aspect I weigh when considering the candidates but when (typically male) Bernie supporters try to explain that we have evolved to the point where gender is irrelevant to politics and that I shouldn’t care that Hillary would be the first female president it’s pretty insulting. Politics have evolved and changed a great deal over the course of our nation’s history and so has what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican. However, one thing that’s remained an unchanging constant is the gender of the leader. To think that shouldn’t matter and that our present is somehow a completely separate reality than our past and history seems astoundingly short-sighted. Policies and parties have changed while prejudice has stood firm, maybe it is our time.

Comments are closed.