"That link you gave refers to Hillary's work with the UN Conference on Women in 1995. That is reaching a bit I would say in order to call her devisive. Over fifty percent of what is referred to in the link involved reproductive rights and medical access connected with reproductive rights."

Are you saying that page is not an active attempt to address women's issues, which was my main point ?

"Do you oppose reproductive rights? Are you anti-abortion?"

No, and no. But I certainly don't vote on that issue.

"Another small part involved micro lending. I think micro loans are great. Why because as a small business woman and sole proprietor who helped others become self-employed I am aware of the kinds of loans banks prefer to offer businesses. Anything less than $50,000 dollars are not worth their time. However microloans internationally may be as small as $100. Both women and men I worked with sometimes secured microloans and government funding of as little as $500 dollars here in the U.S. I can go into more detail if you would like, but let me assure you that by law, every opportunity in that particular arena was as available to men as to women."

That's nice, not interesting to me.

"From what you have said previously, I would guess that you would object to the following:

Hillary is leading the charge in the Senate to strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women. She introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the penalties associated with wage discrimination, to ensure that the federal government sets a higher standard, and to increase oversight of employers."

I don't know the particulars about this legislation, but I know that the 77cents on the dollar line is BS. Again, clearly a women's issue.

I am not sure why you think wage discrimination is something a decent society should appreciate. It seems to me that combatting wage discrimination should be something that Americans who desire fairness would appreciate.

I don't believe in wage discrimination. As much as I have read, wage discrimination may be a couple of cents, if that.

"Could you comment please on why you think this is devisive?"

I think it is divisive to actively pursue the votes of one gender, while ignoring the other. It may be a winning strategy, but only time will tell.

I suggest you go back and re-read the article. This is on Hillary's web site with a banner that says Hillary for President. The title of the article is "A Champion of Women". Only the first paragraph quotes something from the UN speech in 1995.

I have many reasons not to vote for Hillary, not the least of which is the image of her riding around Baghdad with John McCain talking about her support for Bush's war.

My comments about her courting female voters and ignoring male voters is something that is strictly just an opinion as I have no idea how all men think, but I think polling bears this out. Standing with NOW for their endorsement, telling her friends at Wellsley that the all girl school prepared her for the all boys presidential club and complaining about all the boys ganging up on her at the last debate will not earn her any male votes.

The only thing I feel privileged about was to be born into an American middle class family. Everything else I earned.

I will not vote for Hillary because she lacks conviction. I would think the war example would be enough, but I suggest you view this => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

If it came down to Hillary and Rudy, I can't say at this point what I would do....I might not vote. I don't think Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination so I haven't taken a good look at him.

Anyone who thinks they're anonymous doesn't understand how the internet works....I notice the women suing remain anonymous. My guess is Doe1 or Doe2 is enrolled in law school but makes her money running a man-hating web site, natch. Lots of irony here.

That think divorce in this country has created many social ills. You folks should get out more often, I may be a democrat for only a bit longer, but I recognize the radical feminist views posted so regularly here represent a small fraction of the what the rest of the country thinks. "Your living in your own private Idaho"

I was censored for wondering if I am the only one that detects misandry in everything Rebecca writes. Joan, your coddling of your protege is more obvious than your Hillary pampering.

Maybe I should sue ?

"I got mine, now let's change the rules".

There is some truth to this, but more like "I got mine, now let's NOT change the rules". As a middle aged middle of the roader, I think my drift to the right is more likely due to the special interests that Democrats have come to embrace. It is now the party of single motherhood. Somehow I don't fit in.

So what ? The bigger problem is she is not likable. That's worse. You don't need to be hot to be president, but you do need to have some charisma, or more than the other guy....err person.

People don't vote for intelligence, that should be clear from our last two elections. I don't think intelligence in women is sexy either, so sue me. It's not that it is unsexy, to my apparently devolved genes, it's more of a positive personal trait. Sex appeal, not so much.

An unpleasant woman. See female form of dick. All feminist wankering aside.

Don't worry, our leading Democratic candidate, HRC, has already criticized this approach for how irresponsible it would be.

Would be my guess. Could you imagine a presidential candidate calling his wife stinky in the morning ? Has RT written anything on Barack, or does she only handle the wife beat ?