how can one not wince at the idea of the country's most prominent feminists turning on the country's first viable female presidential candidate only to find themselves eating their words if she wins the primary?

Not much to worry about there. FIrst, Clinton is far from a sure thing and second, there is a long history of folks getting behind candidates they criticized during a primary. The one who is currently "eating her words" is Hillary, as regards her pro war stances and votes of the past four years. Actually, it's very empowering and feminist to look past a candidate's gender and talk about his/her stands on the issues.

Given Hillary's positions on the war, her pandering towards a flag burning amendment, her stand on the Schiavo matter, her two faced talk regarding choice, her constant finger-in-the-wind political blathering and a host of other issues, if the Senator from New York was a man and not named Clinton no one would be taking this candidacy seriously. Michelman, Fonda and Steinham, iconic and brave feminists all, deserve lots of credit for understanding this.

I find this wording objectionable. To suggest that these feminists are "turning on" Clinton makes it seem that they have supported her all along, but now they decide to "turn on her" and support someone else. For some, this isn't a sudden about-face. Anyway, everyone who supports a candidate who doesn't win the primary will be in this position (and always has been) to start supporting a person they had not championed.

Hillary Clinton has been a disappointing leader in the eyes of many feminists, so why should we have to deny that now that she's declared her candidacy? If people want to champion another contender on merit, then they should have every right to do so without being told they're "turning on" Clinton and will have to eat crow if she wins the primary.

how can one not wince at the idea of the country's most prominent feminists turning on the country's first viable female presidential candidate

Actually, it's easy. I'm a lifelong liberal feminist, but I will not back Hillary Clinton, because I simply don't trust her. Not, of course, because she's a woman, but because she has shown herself to be pandering and opportunistic. People seem to think of her as a trail-blazer, but I can see no evidence of that whatsoever. She voted for the Iraq war without batting an eye, for one thing. And that video-game thing...ugh. That was really unsavory. And of course there was the way she abandoned the issue of universal health care as soon as it became politically uncomfortable for her. I just don't feel I can trust anything she says anymore.

Nope, not only will I not back her, I'll cast my vote with a clear conscience. The day we have a viable female presidential candidate who does more than pay lip service to feminist issues, I will gladly cast my vote. Until then I will, like Steinem, prefer to vote for whoever shows evidence of policies that I can support.

I'd much rather have a candidate that will get the US out of Iraq and the government OUT of our bedrooms. Clinton's stances on the issues most near my heart have not and will not win me over. If she gets the nomination, I guess I'll go back to Nader and talk about President Brownback.

As a life-long feminist, I cannot support Clinton for the nomination. It is far too late in my mind for her to credibly repudiate her Iraq war vote and her support for the war. Of course, should she win the nomination I would vote for her over just about any Republican.

"steering them clear of their true choices in favor of those they believe can win". Perish the thought. And as the comments so far on this article attest, we liberals are apparently not tired enough of the current Administration. I mean, Nader????

or someone who actually might possible represent me; regardless of whether or not s/he might actually get the chance to do so. The dems have abandoned me; I'm not asking that they choose someone with whom I agree on every issue but this woman should run as a Republican! I've had it with the way the political system works in the US; it's almost like those who homeschool or unschool for lack of better options for their children. I might just unvote next time.

there is way too much assumption about the womans vote and the feminists as the gatekeepers. no , michelman does not speak for me. and we can see the trouble edwards got into today with his two feminist bloggers. no matter what he says he looks bad here. i would suggest that this idea that somehow one group represents women be dropped. neither edwards nor clinton has any womens vote sewed up. this is the first time that i am aware of such a certainty . i will cross party lines to vote in 2008. please deal with the issues.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards... These are our choices this time around? Strong and charismatic leaders able to capture the public imagination while simultaneously supporting things like universal health care and poverty relief? I'm in. I'm with Gloria on this one, for once just thrilled NOT to be looking for the lesser of two evils.

It is a step in the right direction for feminists like Steinmen to reject rubber stamping female candidates. Now it's time for feminists to go all the way and admit it is wrong to even "give points" for gender. Because all things being equal, it's still clear that most feminists would strongly prefer a woman.