In a recent NY Times editorial,Gloria Steinem begins by affirming that she will be supporting one of the three Dem candidates regardless of the nominating process outcome. With Considerably less grace, Kissling says she also will be voting for one of the three front runners. I believe this is the stance of a wide spectrum of Democrats. Unlike Steinem, however, Kissling goes on to a relentless critique of Hilary Clinton, a critique that smacks to me of her generation's having drunk the kool aid.

Hilary's branding by powerful, patriarchal media has sadly stuck for a generation of young women who want to believe either that we now live in a post-feminist age or that their mother's brand of feminism is merely quaint, and certainly not fierce enough to suit the post Title IX gals.

How else to explain a critique that applies only to Hilary's record on "Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard"? Hilary's record on Iraq is no different than Edward's--both there, both voted for. Obama not there; no vote; just a strongly stated opinion. Admirable opinion, but not the same thing as a vote. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton all voted for the original Patriot Act and both Obama and Clinton voted for the recent compromise bill, both noting that it was anything but ideal.

I too decry Hilary's vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. She should have listened to Biden and Dodd. But Edwards wasn't there, so, again, his response is free of the political baggage that actual service loads on. And Obama was on record as supporting the terrorist label, opposing the vote, but not being there for it when push came to shove. Again, why is Hilary singled out for castigation?

Kissling goes on to note that "Clinton is to be respected for her intelligence, knowledge of the issues and consistent work for social justice." However, Kissling doesn't respect her. What could possibly garner Kissling's respect, I must wonder? Though Clinton has behind her a life of service during which she has consistently worked for social justice, policies to improve women's health, employment, education, and children's rights, Kissling finds "no evidence that Clinton's feminst history currently influences her thinking about women." Hmm...So Ms. Clinton has wiped her brain slate clean, you think? And two men who talk a good game seem preferable, more convincing because. . . .Well, why, exactly?

Kissling faults Clinton for not using the bully pulpit to advance feminism. Kissling hangs out in her feminist bubble too much. Those of us who have tried to advance feminist causes in the real world find that backlash is a powerful reality that must be negotiated at every stage, that is, if you want actually to make change, rather than shout that you demand change or chant "Yes, we can."

Finally, Kissling faults Hilary for Bill's record. And here is where the kool aid has done its best work. Bill Clinton was indeed a flawed man, who presided over a flawed presidency. And does this description not characterize many of the great presidencies of our history? He was relentlessly pursued for his sexual appetites, a prurient exercise which distracted the American public from the realities of his achievements (a booming economy and surpluses that should have insured an expansion of the social safety net, full funding for a real education transformation, and any number of other societal benefits). Instead, he was crippled, and we have what we have now. But Hilary didn't do that. Bill, a foolish and wrong headed media, Americans who allowed themselves to believe that a soap opera was critical to America's well-being while ignoring a widening income gap, world wide teorrorism, and corporate greed--we all did this together.

On a final point, I do agree with Kissling. She notes that the traditional women's movement did not hold the Clinton presidency's feet to the fire on its issues. As I note above, we citizens did not do our part, as we have not done our part in opposing a disastrous war of choice and on demanding that the current administration be held accountable for clear incidences of "high crimes and misdemeanors," real ones about the dismantling of the Constitution rather than who is having sex with whom and in what room of the White House.

I believe we are about to see a sea change. Beaten down as we all are by the Bush years, we are ready to vote for a progressive agenda. I believe we will get that agenda from any of the three candidates. But if we do not elect Hilary, we will not see a woman in the White House for another 20 years, and that just seems wrong to me. And it seems wrong for all of the women whose issues must be so carefully couched in the prevailing hostility of an undeniable partriarchy. Ms. Kissling believes that Obama and Edwards are men who can speak better for women than a woman can, and that is the oldest story there is and the one that has gotten us right here where we are today.