if you believe that clinton is the "most electable" in the gen. election ... polling data suggests you are very wrong. a consensus of many polls suggests mccain beats her handily. there is some evidence that the same could be true for guiliani or even romney. obama beats them all ... and is tied with mccain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

if you believe that clinton's policies will "save us from the right" then you are not paying attention to 1) her voting record in the senate that caters to the neocon agenda or 2) how many mainstream (ie, "centrist")democrats are equally at fault for the erosion of civil liberties. the point is ... she is establishment and establishment dems make amazing sound bytes around how they "disagree with xyz" ... but then vote in a neocon coddling way. clinton epitomizes this absurdity. /this/ is why people do not believe her when she say "i believe in ..." ... it has nothing to do with being a woman. the clintons have gotten a tough go with the press, but scrutiny of hillary's policies is smart ... not perfectionism. why elect someone who is part of the problem ... while /shockingly/ claiming they are about change. it's a snow job.

for the feminists who believe this is their only chance for a woman to lead: can you not see that this is the same calculated use of f.e.a.r. .... false evidence appearing real ... to muddy the waters. /why/ do you think you need to subvert one set of values in order to prop up another? /why/ is it foolish to want a different type of leader? can't you understand that mainstream politics ... on both sides of the aisle ... is generally lying and corrupt?

isn't it quite possible ... as many have noted here ... that some "feminists" choosing to NOT support Clinton do so /exactly/ because of Clinton's track record and experience. Not because of some she-stayed-with-Bill vitriol. doesn't your assumption that those who do not support her do so based on non-political, non-policy reasons insult the women ... the people ... you seek to enlist?

hi shellyq ...

i appreciate the tone of your response, which feels rare sometimes 'round these parts: cogent, kind, spacious, insightful. i think i understand your point.

i would like to further comment on your words:

Reasonable people can certainly disagree about her track record and it's impact on women. I wanted to point out that competence and pragmatism alone are valid reasons to support a candidate for president, as any policy proposal must go through the meat grinder that is the legislative process. Accomplishing less than a perfect policy because of compromise and trade offs is the way things get done in our system. Good intentions of all candidates can and do suffer in this process.

i agree with your premise, but not that clinton is necessarily a "competent" leader. meaning, specifically, this: nearly all of our elected officials might not be "competent." i found this definition: "having requisite or adequate ability or qualities." clinton is smart, articulate, savvy. most politicians are. She is also a woman who has accumulated great power. This is a good thing … except that voting for her rewards the establishment politics. if this is your only measure of presidential competence, i agree with you. but ... what if you also want someone who is transparent in who they are and what they believe in? what if presidential competence really means "has the ability and desire to radically change our direction?" if these "better" definitions ... wouldn't one also assume that because clinton is so wedded to the status quo democratic machine, that she is not a competent agent of change? we might disagree on the need for this, but saying all candidates and their intentions are essentially equalized through the legislative process is a fallacy, I believe.

this stuff is horrifying. do you have secret service protection too, glenn?

also ... i look forward to your thoughts on this:

And at least once, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation — the highly secretive and sensitive cases that allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies — "was halted due to untimely payment."

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

... which is too bad. i like the idea of supporting cancer research. i more like the idea of somehow exorcising puritanical values about nudity from this country. i think taking the "dirty edge" off of boobs, dicks, whateva ... would impressively benefit our extremely uptight society. i'm not suggesting no boundaries ... i am saying that the human body is both sexual and it is not. we seem to be fevered and schizophrenic with our attitudes.

it's like that simpson's episode (yes ... i know the simpson's get quoted waayyyy too much here in broadsheet) when ralph and bart get into chief wiggum's police closet of weapons and armaments. the chief finds them both, and says "ralph, what IS your fascination with my forbidden closet of mysteries?"

who think election rigging is possible: you tin-foil hat wearing, alien-seeing conspiracy theorists probably believe bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in iraq.

... oh ... that's right. never mind.