Clinton To Make Gender Issues Key to Presidential Bid

[jasenj]

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hillary-clinton-women-presidential-2016/

"As Clinton takes another shot at becoming the country’s first female president, it is already clear that this time around, she plans to put women’s issues front and center in an attempt to appeal to female voters. Among the many Americans profiled in the video, the majority are women, from working mothers to expectant ones, signaling that Clinton plans to make issues of gender inequality, which she has been working on since stepping down as Secretary of State in 2013, key to her campaign."

Will she campaign for top-free equality?

[nudeM]

Not wishing to make this a political issue, but I think another possible Clinton/Bush ticket would not be feasible. We are already encountering missteps by Clinton, many of which are still unresolved and Bush is already having issues. Sure, the name is strong, but I don't think I could vote for anyone who has had another namesake that has already held office. The ghosts of the past will surely rise and take center stage. Clinton, as we have seen in the past, will just about say anything to get elected and I don't see Hillary supporting top-free equality. Just my opinion.

[Naturist Mark]

It is ridiculous to say Clinton will bring gender issues into the campaign. Everything she will do will be examined in the light of gender issues - indeed everything she has done in the past has been. She won't be able to avoid it. Everybody else will be forcing her to confront gender issues. Just like Obama can't avoid talking about race - even though he very seldom brings it up, he has been forced to address it regularly. "But ... but ... but ... she Exploits it!" . Right. She can't duck it, so she will deal with it in the manner she judges will be most beneficial to her. You expect her to handicap herself? - well yeah, a lot of people will say she should, people who are dishonest about their own agendas. Clinton is a skillful politician and far smarter than anyone else even thought to be considering running. Her opponents will get nowhere whining about her exploiting gender issues, she will crush anyone foolish enough to try that (I'm looking at you Cruz). Being as smart, and politically skillful, and competent as Hillary Clinton is, that doesn't mean she is the best person for the job. I certainly wish there were more good choices. Jeb is the only one on the GOP side who isn't embroiled in scandals or stuck in a clown car, but ... meh. The only Democratic challengers are hopeless long shots, or basically just running as sparring partners for Hillary to sharpen her up for the main campaign and to nudge her toward adopting more progressive positions - which Bernie Sanders has more or less copped to.

Which is to say, NO, Clinton will not be publicly supporting top-free equality during the election, not a chance. That would be blown up into a huge (but manufactured) controversy, and her job for the next 19 months is to just not screw up.

But if elected? All bets are off.

[Guest]

Have to agree with you Mark on Clintons approach to the election. She has way to many scandals going against her to overcome as it is...she will not consider adopting any platform issue that does not pander to her political...or funding...base. From the competition, there are many items to overcome but I would not consider any of the committed candidates to have any scandals, just ideological issues to be overcome.

[jasenj]

IMHO, Clinton has a closet full of skeletons which would bring her down if she were not the media's darling. The establishment will fawn over her while those criticizing her will be branded extremists. I don't see any adults on the Republican side, just grandstanders. Rand Paul is mildly interesting, but he stands in his father's shadow & the establishment will never embrace him. Elizabeth Warren would make the race very interesting, but I think she is smart enough not to go up against Clinton. Maybe some scandal of Clinton's that is so bad it can't be ignored will turn up and Warren will step in to save the day. But, like Paul, I think she is anti-establishment enough that the purse-holders & power brokers will not allow her to win.

Neither of the big political parties interests me much. Both are on the leash of big money, just slightly different big money.

And with that, I'll try to hold my tongue/fingers.

[Naturist Mark]

Clinton 'scandals' or 'skeletons' bringing Hillary down? LOL

If Hillary could be brought down by scandal it would already have happened.

The right has literally spent hundreds of millions and over two decades trying to bring Hillary (and Bill) down. And got nothing.

The idiots who pursue her just make her stronger. They need a stronger candidate to beat Clinton, not more hysterical scandal mongering to backfire on them. The only Democrats I see who could possibly knock Hillary out of first place is Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden - and both are apparently allied with her. Warren won't run (but might be a running mate) and Joe looks like he is only ready to jump into the race if Clinton bows out for some reason. Bernie Sanders has basically admitted he is only running to shape the issues in the election and to make Clinton a better candidate - he says he won't be a spoiler like Ralph Nader. O'Malley and Webb are actually pretty good, but not likely to break through. Senator Sherrod Brown is a populist longshot who could possibly run the Democratic primaries like Obama did, but probably wouldn't have enough appeal outside of the progressive wing of the Democratic party - Brown is unlikely to enter the race, and will instead position himself as an ideal running mate should Senator Warren not be chosen.

I don't yet see any Republican who can beat Hillary in the swing states. It doesn't matter how badly they can beat her in the red states. The closest is Jeb Bush, but damn, they don't even like him in Florida. The establishment Republicans want a grownup who isn't Chris Christie. (By 'grownup' they mean non-tea party). They will settle for Bush, but they are making noises about getting former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels or Ohio governor John Kasich. But Mitch doesn't seem interested and Kasich is an extremely unpopular governor. I guess that forces me to circle back - running against Hillary by scandal mongering, a proven ineffective strategy, may be the only choice in the absence of effective candidates.

My dream election would be Mitch Daniels vs Elizabeth Warren - it would be a close hard fought campaign between candidates with well defined contrasting visions. But we'll probably get Bush vs Clinton ... meh

[Naturist Mark]

From the competition, there are many items to overcome but I would not consider any of the committed candidates to have any scandals, just ideological issues to be overcome.

Rick Perry is under felony indictment.
Scott Walker is an unindicted co-conspirator in a series of prosecutions and convictions of many of his former close associates and aids as a county official prior to becoming governor of Wisconsin. He is also under investigation for illegal funding of his campaign during the recall election.
Chris Christie has state and federal investigations hanging over him of a number of possible crimes stemming from 'bridgegate', misappropriation of Hurricane Sandy relief funds, obstruction of justice, and blackmail (or as they call it in New Jersey 'politics').

[Guest]

Which of these candidates is in the race?

While Perry was a great governor of TX, his "indictment" is a purely political attack from a convicted state appointee that has little merit and no chance of success. I guess Walker's action make Hillary look like a regular Girl Scout. Regarding Christie....he may run but has no chance on a national level because he has no appeal to anyone outside of his home turf.

I would suggest everything you mention is just political jockeying that will have minimal impact on any national appeal...call it Chicago Politics which I have no taste for.

I have little familiarity with Mitch Daniels but believe that Warren is about as honest as a politician can be.

For my vote, the next President, and anyone running, needs to run and plan to lead on a constitutional level, and look to unite...not divide and conquer regardless of the national interest.

[Bob S.]

If this gets more into politics, it will bed moved into the Open Conversations section.

As for the original topic, are feminists even into topfreedom now?

Bob S.

[Agde]

Of course, gender issues are not a new theme for presidential-Hillary. She has been a leader internationally since the Beijing Conference, and has been working actively on women's issues through No Ceilings and Data2x (with a certain Michael Bloomberg) even when USA partisan politicians weren't the central concern. Her positions on gender are all rather sophisticated and well-thought-out -- perhaps a political minus as Professor Obama discovered. The difference this time around is that gender equality has matured as an American issue and, with so many prominent women around, there is no longer any reason for Hillary to run on the basis of gender-blind executive experience.

[jasenj]

If this gets more into politics, it will bed moved into the Open Conversations section.

Feel free. I didn't mean for it to turn into a "serious" discussion of the presidential race.

As for the original topic, are feminists even into topfreedom now?

Some certainly are. See #freethenipple, there are women protesting against Facebook's and many other photo sites censoring of top free & breastfeeding pictures, Chelsea Handler has been outspoken about top free equality, and on and on. Body acceptance & desexualization of women's (nude) bodies does seem to be a trending cause of some feminists.

Once again, however, the major nudist organizations are nowhere to be seen. Yes, it is the same message naturists have been saying for a long time. But when a celebrity or story catches the attention of the mainstream press, the naturist orgs ought to be chiming in to coattail on the publicity - but they don't.