with the Dems ability to find a candidate who can win

Are Democrats really thinking she could win? That would start the conspiracy theories back up that the DNC and the Republicans are being run by the same billionaire group of CEOs who have agreed that the Republicans will own the presidency from now on.

If she gets the nomination, she will lose 70-30. Partly because she is a woman, but mostly because she is Hillary Clinton, one of the most fake, sold-out politicians since George Bush, with none of the charm.

Her candidacy does nothing for feminists because it hands the presidency to the G.O.P. Besides, Hilary stands for re-election, not for women's rights, no matter what any feminist assumes.

I got a questionaire from her this year. It had a list of national issues to rank in terms of their importance. Iraq was not on it.

If she's nominated, she'll carry Massachussets without my vote.

Since when does the Occupant have to represent all 250 million of his/her constituents?

We have a representative form of government, but that does not mean that any one public servant is a stand-in for every constituent. It's this thinking that has led us to the rise of sound bites in favor of true debate over issues that have no 'right' answer, just the best answer for the greatest number with the greatest need and the least power to get that need addressed.

I would argue with a number of Traister's points:

1." Hillary 'allowed herself' to be exactly the kind of powerless woman she had initially refused to the the public take her for." This verdict, because she didn't toss Bill out on his ass on the White House lawn? I wonder if Ms. Traister has ever been in a long-term committed relationship of any kind, to think that this answer is the only answer that proves a woman is strong and powerful. Perhaps Hillary made the decision that was right for herself (the freedom to do so which is, I thought, the very foundation of feminism). I fail to see how Hillary's choices in that very personal matter (not that I'm clear on what all of her choices were - I wasn't privvy to any of the tete-a-tetes she and Bill doubtless had over his philandering) make her powerless - they simply make her a human being confronted, through the mistakes of others, with bad choices and then making difficult decisions during a complex and trying time.

2. I don't see respecting anti-abortionists as a flip-flop or in any way reneging on the support of women's reproductive rights. I respect that some people have strong religious and moral beliefs that abortion is wrong, that it is, quite simply, murder. I do not share their beliefs. I do not wish to change them to my way of thinking. I will never change to their way of thinking. My mother is against abortion. I know that she wishes I thought like her, but also know that, if I ever had an abortion, she would help and support me. She recognizes that I, and I alone, will face the consequences of my decision in such a matter. I doubt Ms. Traister would condemn my mother for this respect of my choice. In the same way, Hillary's respect for those who don't agree with her should not be condemned.

3. Traister notes that "Hillary voted for the Patriot Act, thus voting in favor of stripping away the very civil liberties she was so keen to protect as a student."

How many of us are so untouched by life between the ages of 22 and 52 that we maintain the exact same political positions? Of course Hillary's pov on issues has changed since her *student* days - as well they should. Some terrorists killed a bunch of Americans five years ago, on American soil. It's a good reason to rethink your positions, don't you think?

I'm not clear that the Patriot Act strips away *all* of our civil liberties. There are parts of it that are doutbless necessary in the new millenium, given the very real threat posed by terrorism, and there are parts of it that doubtless threaten the democratic underpinnings of a free and open society. It's the nature of politicizing safety that compromises are made - it was true when the Framers wrote the Declaration of Independence and it's true now. I'm not totally conversant on the Patriot Act, but I know enough to be wary of the position that ANY support of ANY element of the Patriot Act automatically reduces one to sniveling Repbulican butt-kissing.

4. Who gives a flying fuck what Susan Sarandon thinks about anything? She's an actress. That's her job - to act. Where are all the articles on what Tim Robbins thought of Bill Clinton?

Finally: I don't recognize myself or my wants in the claim "women want a candidate that will represent them". I don't vote solely for my own interests. I do not judge candidates - male or female - solely in terms of how they represent ME or even women as a group. I look at the person entire and try to make an informed judgement about how well this person can handle the complexities of holding the highest political office in the land and the world -- his/her stance on the environment, foreign policy, state's rights, welfare reform, health care, education, civil rights/liberties, and a host of other issues. I do not believe that a woman as president will necessarily do any better of a job representing me, or women in general, than would a man, simply by virtue of her gender. I don't think a black president will do more for blacks than a white president. A black president *might* do more for blacks - but it's not a given based on his/her color, any more than it's a given that I'm going to agree with a woman because she's a woman or a man is going to agree with a man solely on the basis of gender.

When a man runs for president, he's not a man running for president - he's a person running for president. No one can possibly argue that any modern politician looks at every local, state, national and international issue through the lens of his gender, or race, or sexual proclivity for that matter. A gay governor isn't making his homosexuality the fulcrum upon which all decision are made, anymore than JFK made his apparently overactive libido the fulcrum upon which all of *his* decisions were made. To put this burden on Hillary is ridiculous. A woman as president is only a gender issue if we make it one.

Hillary is not us. To claim that she is somehow 'uberwoman', a simple mirror reflecting the feminine face of these political times, underestimates the ability and desire of each and every woman to make a fully informed decision about any political candidate.