The latest Newsweek has a little sidebar listing 10 people who changed the way we think:
1. Steve Jobs (Apple)
2. Jon Stewart (news done as comedy)
3. Larry Page & Sergey Brin (Google)
4. Karl Rove & David Plouffe (campaign managers)
5. Biz Stone & Evan Williams (Twitter)
6. Michael Pollan (“locavore movement”, books on food and plants)
7. Malcolm Gladwell (inventor of new genre of nonfiction: engrossing books about ordinary things like ketchup)
8. Nick Denton & Arianna Huffington (new media)
9. David Chase (makes TV like movies)
10. Hillary Clinton (made female president normal to Americans)
Newsweek says history will record Hillary Clinton as the person who made it possible for America to have a female president.
When we first started campaigning for her in Iowa in 2007, it was strange to many of the people we met to think about voting for a women as president. We heard that a lot in Dubuque, Waterloo, Des Moines, and parts in between in those days. But, Clinton’s 2008 campaign changed that forever.
We believe, from now on, there will be a woman running for president every four years. Sometimes she’ll win the nomination of either party, and sometimes she won’t. There will be years when a woman is on both sides of the ballot. There will be a time when a woman occupies BOTH spots on a ticket, and maybe even all FOUR spots on the ballot (with female presidents and vice presidents nominated on both sides).
We wish more than anything that Hillary Clinton was our president today. We want her to run again in 2012 and/or 2016.
But, no matter what happens, we’re happy to see Newsweek give her the credit she deserves. We hope Hillary Clinton does become our first female president, but if she’s not, then Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Diane Fienstein, Sue Lowden, Meg Whitman, Liz Cheney, Chelsea Clinton, or whichever woman ultimately puts that final smash into the glass ceiling will owe Hillary a world of gratitude.
AS DO WE ALL.
December 11, 2009 at 4:44 am
I can actually think of one positive result of Hillary’s loss of the nomination – this blog. :-)
Thanks Guys.
December 11, 2009 at 6:10 am
Jon Stewart? He’s hardly a pioneer… have they ever heard of a little-known show called Saturday Night Live?
December 11, 2009 at 7:14 am
There are of course other woman contenders for the presidency that you should list, and the first I think of is Martha Coakley.
December 11, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’d also like to tip my hat to the first female candidate for president, Victoria Woodhull (1872) and to Shirley Chisholm (1972). But it was Hill who made female candidates viable. Thank you, SOS Rodham-Clinton!
December 11, 2009 at 11:30 am
Hear! Hear!
Shirley Chisholm went through some serious crap during her quest for the Presidency and I always think of her when I think about Obama and Hillary vying for that title. Shirley helped make it possible for both of them to have a serious run.
December 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I’d like to add that she did more than make it females viable, she was often referred to as ‘inevitable’. That made way too many people panic and turn to the lowest of lows. The worst of which was marc rudov? I can’t quite remember his name but he was the most vial voice during the primaries.
Hillary (just being a woman) showed the horrible, detestable side of people that was beyond shocking. That is what I learned. It’s one thing when a woman runs, but when it seems inevitable the subhumans rear their ugly heads. Will this happen whenever a woman basically has it in the bag? Will the media and the ‘bro’s before ho’s crowd, and the ‘iron my shirt’ bunch come out and stop at nothing to make sure it never happens?
December 11, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Yes, they’ll try…but we won’t let them do it again!
December 11, 2009 at 10:13 am
As a conservative voter while not always agreeing with Hillary in the political policy realm, I carry a great deal of respect for her and always have. Her run was “Historic” and unfortunately the history of that has not been acknowledged as it should be. All of the “Historic” rhetoric now belongs to the ridiculousness in the white house now. Hillary won that election, should have been the nominee, and being here in MI. I remain appalled at the Democratic party, as well as the percentage of Michiganders for voting for Dr. Utopia in the election. I will always repeat, Hillary won the votes here in MI during the primary, the One was not even on the ballot here, and he fought to take those non votes he received… and succeeded. He stole the election from her pure and simple….. and stupid me? I thought FL and MI would go to McCain because of it…. How wrong I was.
December 11, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Me too! I would have bet money that the people in those states would have ‘grudge voted’, or at the very least stayed home. I realize Hillary campaigned for him, but I thought the people who voted for her knew that she ‘had to’. I’m certain the loyal diehard Hillary supporters stayed true, but there were just too many fools who bought into the whole mess.
December 11, 2009 at 10:36 am
I agree w/jana66. Stewart’s no pioneer. Have the writers ever heard of SNL, SCTV, “Not Necessarily the News”?…
December 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Yep, especially that Stewart once blamed the news for defending Bush, and he’s doing the same thing for Obama.
Hypocrite.
December 11, 2009 at 10:40 am
Agree with the sentiment about HRC, but in the main Newsweak is best used to clean up spilled motor oil, start fires, etc.
December 11, 2009 at 10:44 am
I KNOW YOU LOVE HILLARY CLINTON, AND SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR BETTER THAN OBAMA.
HOWEVER, ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT SHE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND SUPPORTS THE AGENDA OF ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?
THEY SAY OUR PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS CHOSEN BY THE CFR AND THE TRILATERALISTS(MY “FAVORITE” “ZIBIGS” BREZINSKI).
SARAH PALIN MAY BE OUR BEST HOPE TO ELECT A PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT A PUPPET OF THESE ONE WORLDERS.
FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA, I HOPE SHE CAN BE ELECTED. WE ARE LIVING IN VERY DANGEROUS AND TROUBLING TIMES.
A WEBSITE, EURO-MED, SHOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN EUROPE, AND GIVES US A VIEW OF WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING FOR THE USA.
WAKE-UP AMERICA OR WE WILL LOSE THE FREEDOMS THAT WE HOLD DEAR.
December 11, 2009 at 11:14 am
There’s nothing wrong with belonging to the Council on Foreign Relations. Eisenhower belonged to it too. And your affirmation that HRC supports a single world government agenda is absurd. Besides, the US initiated the League of Nations and then the United Nations and participates in organizations like the OAS.
I like Palin, and intend to vote for her in 2012 if she runs against Obama; but she is simply no match for HRC.
December 11, 2009 at 11:44 am
Just one correction, if you don’t mind.
The US didn’t initiate the League of Nations, Wilson did. It didn’t gain the approval of congress and the US was never a part.
FDR got us into the UN with the help of the democrat majority and the Rockefellers. I wish we could get out of that cesspool.
December 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Ditto on the UN being a bad bad thing.
December 11, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hillary Clinton should be on that list. She definitely has changed the way people think. She’s a national treasure. The work she is doing around the world on human right right now is amazing.
I think Palin should be on that list too. She is changing the way people think about politics, about feminism, about women’s roles and stereotypes. People are buying her book like crazy and standing in the snow for hours just to catch a glimpse of her.
December 11, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I agree, Sarah should be on the list, but it’s shocking enough that newsweak added Hillary. Too little too late, if ya ask me.
I honestly believe that Sarah can win. It’ll be amazing to see it, and a bit heartbreaking as well to we loyal Hillary supporters. Bitter sweet, I guess that explains it best.
December 11, 2009 at 11:28 am
Amen, guys! There’s a nice article about Hillary in Dec. 10 issue of CS Monitor concerning her foreign policy vs. Obama’s. It’s also on Real Clear World page. Media is finally recognizing what a great person she is. (I think they knew it all along, but were so hellbent on electing Obama, they pretended not to notice). I hope we do have a woman president someday. I especially like the suggestions of Sarah Palin and Martha Coakley.
December 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Over at the Daily Beast today is an op-ed entitled “Hillary Was Right:”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-11/hillary-was-right/
Of course I think the author really soft-pedals it, but it’s a start.
December 11, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Please,not Diane Fienstein look what happen to California.
I say the only one is Hillary Clinton period.
December 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2767377/Wifes-quit-call-to-Tiger-Woods.html
Off topic, but I thought I would share this article which shows that Tiger cheated with impunity, allowing himself to have his photos taken with his mistresses. This proves to me that he KNEW the MSM wouldn’t ever write anything bad about him.
Poor Elin.
December 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Good reading to go along with this over at Stray Dogs That Amble In blog spot.
HEADLINE: Burn, Baby, Burn and
Rise, Hillary, Rise (The Implosion of the Obamacrat Party and the Rise of the Phoenix.)
….Why couldn’t the Kennedy-Obamacrat party cram Capuana down the throats of the people of Massachusetts, you ask? Well… there’s this little matter of ongoing Race Baiting in the Obamacrat party. And the voter intimidation cover-up at the DOJ. Not to mention the the supreme distastefulness of Mr. Obama’s minions in the press.
Somehow… the Obamacrat party has seriously misread the American people. Their little White House frat party is going up in flames…..
“President Obama’s meetings at the Senate on Sunday, much like his visit to Copenhagen this week, are not indicators of inevitability; they are portents of panic. The reports coming out of the closed door, Democrats-only, meeting of internal divisions that are still irreconcilable, despite the high rhetoric of historic moment, only make the point more vividly: can you say ‘desperation’?”
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/12/burn-baby-burn-and-rise-hillary-rise.html#comment-form
December 11, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I wish the fact that Hillary changed people’s attitude toward having a woman president gave me any comfort, but it doesn’t.
December 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Elizabeth Dole? She ran for the GOP nomination in 1996. Lest we forget.
December 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’d certainly feel much safer if Hillary was president.
December 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
If Hillary would have been the DEMS nominee she sure as hell would have picked her closest rival as VP: Utopia. Utopia, in his arrogance throw her under the bus thinking McCain would pick Romney and He would have had a landslide anyways(40 states) over the two boring white men.
December 11, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Never. She would have picked a loyalist as a running mate, not this inexperienced nobody. I tend to think she would have picked a Governor.
December 11, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I agree. Maybe Evan Bayh.
December 12, 2009 at 10:06 am
Yeah, he would have been a great choice. I would actually love to know who was considered.
December 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm
One thing about Hillary: she takes terrorism seriously. I do not think Dr. Utopia does at all.
I am a Republican, but I would feel much safer if she were in the White House instead of Obama.
I also respect her for her campaign and how hard she worked and how she never gave up.
December 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm
i am a conservative, voted mccain, thoughts of hillary as prez did not sit well with me. however, the worm turns, and oh how i wish it were so!
if the 3am call were to come, i’d feel safer with her than with the chicago hoods making decisions of life and death.
“Clinton’s stinging attacks on Obama’s relative inexperience infuriated the insurgent candidate’s supporters, who damned the Clinton machine for its savage bullying. Yet there was an obvious truth behind Clinton’s rhetoric”
yes there was!.
December 11, 2009 at 6:05 pm
What killed the Hill campaign was the over confidence. She seemed like she was going to get it anyways. Utopia capitalized with his racial and anti Bush campaign bringing most minorities and leftists with him. But hey, that is in the past.
2010 and 2012 are the FUTURE.
December 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm
What killed her campaign was the cheating.
December 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm
EXACTLY! I don’t know what part of OBAMA AND ACORN AND SEIU AND THE DNC CHEATED AT THE CAUCUSES AND THE RBC MEETING people don’t understand. It shows they didn’t pay attention.
HILLARY GOT MORE VOTES THAN UTOPIA!!!!
December 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Boyz…I have learned to question the timing on everything. Why things are released at a certain point (and I don’t just mean White House ‘dumps’ on a Friday evening of a holiday weekend…) no. The timing of everything.
Could it be (Santa, are you reading HillBuzz) that Hillary will be making her ‘move’ soon out of the State Department (“I held on for as long as I could, I can’t support and be a party to the decisions THEY are making…”) and that there are (some) still Clinton friendly media (or media who are awakening from their KoolAid induced fog) to see what is really happening? Because right now, there is a bumper crop of really nice, thoughtful ‘Hillary’ stories.
Just a thought.
December 11, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Could be…My take is that the “thoughtful Hillary” stories are writing themselves of late, since we’ve had nearly a year under King Utopia and even to us conservatives, it is now plain enough to see that she would have been the “much lessor” of 2 evils from that side of the aisle…not that our side had a lot to offer last year either:
Romney was ‘too Mormon’, Huckabee was too “Huckabee”, Ron Paul came off as a kook (like Dean to the Dems), Fred Thompson was too lazy to run hard enough (wanted to “be president, without having to *run* for president”) so we ended up with a liberal wannabe/RINO in McCain – hardly a conservative base’s 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice. Palin gave him a spark, and some false hope…which is why a lot of us conservatives wanted Hillary to win the Dem Nom…We saw through the hopenchange fakeness, saw Obama’s flimsy (and highly progrssive) political record and hoped upon hope that Clinton would win the Nom. When she didn’t, we knew then, as we do now, that we were doomed to a 4 year experiment in socialism – see, some of us Reps actually read Obama’s “books” – the clues were there for those without blinders…Here’s hoping that it is ONLY a 4 year experiment and we can readily undo after 2012, what is being done now. Then we need to go after their money, Soros et al, and keep them at bay for at least another generation. We need to leave the ’60s blind idealism (hopenchange) dead, back in the 60s, where it belongs. It has no place in the real world.
December 11, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Personally, I think the thoughtful Hillary stories are for the benefit of the press, themselves. They see the falling sales, and realize that the people who kept up with politics are sickened. The Obots don’t pay attention to the msm or magazines now that they did their deed. Most of them aren’t paying attention to what is going on. They voted, and are now back to their psIII’s and reality shows. The press, msnbc, the nytimes, the weekly mags have lost big time because we gave up on them. We nearly have them beat, so they are trying to get us back by hailing our champ. Too little, too late.
December 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Some on this sidebar list confound me. Jobs/Apple? A graphical operating system that was mouse driven was on the way long before the original Macintosh was invented (ask Xerox since that is who Gates and MS stole “Windows” from). Do we really think that Jobs was responsible for the iPod or iPhone? I don’t. Jon Stewart? Puh-lease…Rove and Plouffe? Good lord, does Newswreak really think everyone is so political that 2 campaign managers have “changed the way we think”? Maybe inside the “Beltway” but not down here in the middle class American trenches.
And Google and Twitter? I don’t think any differently now than before these 2 silicon giants were even ideas. This is why Newswreak is a rag that is not on my reading list – and hasn’t been since I turned 18, could register to vote (and be drafted), and have been conservative ever since. Who writes these “lists”, their 19 year old interns?
Hillary should be on there indeed – she’s the closest we’ve had to a Prez nom that is female…but we cannot forget the first nearly-executive branch woman that I can recall, who was also not elected, Geraldine Ferraro. She proved it was possible to become a VP (and by association, a Prez too) as a woman back in ’84, whether you like or dislike her. I remember it like it was yesterday. When she and Mondale got the nom, I knew then that a female president was going to be a reality one day. I thought (hoped) Hillary was going to be it in ’08. Sure, I’m conservative, and for now, a republican still, but she is head and shoulders better than what we ended up with – no question. I knew it last year, and still believe it this year.
So Hillary may have changed the way some ‘younger’ people think, but I’ve known since 1984 that a female VP or P was not only possible, but more and more likely with each successive presidential voting cycle. That we had 1 VP nom, and 1 nearly P nom this past cycle alone does agree with your prediction that there will be at least 1 in each camp for the foreseeable future…just PLEASE do not let any of them have the Pelosi surname…Clinton, fine. Palin, fine. Bachmann, fine…But not the skel of a lib from Lib-town named Pelosi (or her daughter).
December 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Very well said Hillbuzz!
Even though several women have run for US president and even one has been nominated by an irrelevant party, Hillary Clinton made the thought of a woman US president a completely normal and possible thing.
If we have a half Kenyan with dubious Christian background male in the White House, why not a woman?
Sarah Palin is in the mind of millions in the United States and the whole world as the possible woman that can become US president. Even the left is scared of this thought. Less and less people think a woman cannot be nominated or elected US president.
December 11, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Sorry to be off topic but I just read this at Don Surber’s blog:
The most popular politician in America is…
Let me clarify that headline. The most popular living politician in America is…
I mean everyone likes a politician when he or she dies. Death is when most of them stop harming us.
The Fox News poll found the most popular living politician in America is…
Not Barack Obama. His approval/disapproval numbers are 50%/44% according to the Fox News poll.
And it is not Joe Biden. He is at 38%/35%.
And it is not any member of Congress. That body of legislators is, on the whole, at 33%/59%.
Although she was not in the survey, Sarah Palin is far from the most popular politician in America. At best, her numbers are equal to Barack Obama’s numbers.
No, the most popular living politician in America has an important job but has kept a low profile — forced in part by President Me Me Me.
The most popular living politician in America has had a remarkably controversial, roller-coaster and even soap operatic life in the public spotlight for the last two decades.
The most popular living politician in America is perhaps the biggest outside obstacle to a second term for President Obama, should she challenge him in the 2012 primaries.
Yes, the most popular living politician in America is Hillary Clinton.
Her approval/disapproval numbers according to Fox News are 66%/22%.
Who would have thunk it a year ago?
I suppose there is a lesson there. Lowering her profile has served her well.
The Fox News poll is here.
December 11, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Wow–talk about delayed gratification! That was some post! Thanks! HIL-LA-RY!
(Even Sarah appreciates her. To me, that shows good judgment on Sarah’s part! I will defend Sarah in the same way I’ve defended Hillary.)
December 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Pdx…I saw that poll as well!!! Most excellent news!!!
Hillary, IMO, has become ‘Thatcheresque.’. The country is waking up (finally!!!) From the Utopian fog.