Hillary Clinton is a poor candidate for President. She's a flip-flopper, a waffler, and a political opportunist. She voted for the Iraq War and never apologized. Now she's against the war...because politically its ok now. She lacks morals as a Democrat - she accepted campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch. I don't think Democrats, or women, will be fooled by her facade. Women should be cautious of supporting her, don't do it just because she's a women. She was former First Lady...but does that qualify you for a Presidential run? I say no.

So it seems insane to me that so many feminists seem to contradict their own principles when they apply them to other women, and specifically, Clinton. Also, some on the author's short list of interviewees leave much to be desired -- remember that when Hillary Clinton was toiling with Marian Wright Edelman to establish child protection services, Susan Sarandon was busy defending a serial killer she helped set loose, then naming her unborn child after him AFTER he killed again. That alone ought to banish her from ever being asked her opinion about anything.

And Clinton's savvy partnering with Newt Gingrich is precisely what the country needs to move forward on healthcare reform -- smart people agreeing that there's got to be some middle ground for the rest of us to crawl up on before we drown at the edges. So why don't these feminists froth at the mouth when Bill Clinton and George Bush Senior get together to drink scotch or help Katrina refugees? Feminist sexism, I guess. A Senator's job is to compromise and move positions forward through horse-trading. They don't get to wear capes and prance around doing good deeds. Get over it -- as you seem willing to do when the Senator in question isn't Hillary Clinton.

What sickens me is that both my left-wing and right-wing friends seem to despise Hillary Clinton for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with her actual record of stellar political accomplishment. It seems that what those at both extremes are really uncomfortable with is a woman being a politician, and a brilliant one at that.

Traister does a good job of pointing out the inconsistencies of those who claim to be feminist liberals while trashing one of the most effective feminist liberals of all time, but I wish she'd hold the mirror to their faces a little longer (say, until they see Ann Coulter staring back). It says a hell of a lot that conservative demagogues in the Senate have asked forgiveness for hating Hillary while so many self-proclaimed feminists can't seem to do the same.

Looks like you are seeing the light, Rebecca. I'm pleased. But what about Obama?

I've read some of the responses to this article, and I am astonished by the assertion that "Hillary has no experience." Opposed to the current president, who only had, what, 2 terms as governor of Texas, and doesn't even have a law degree? We expect our executive branch to execute the law, and we elected someone who doesn't know the law. Irony?

Second, I'm going out on a limb and saying that we shouldn't really worry about those who say Hillary isn't "left" enough. Statistically, liberal bloggers are the minority. There just aren't enough of them to make a real difference in an election. Exhibit A: Howard Dean. Sorry.

Third, even if there are an awful lot of them, the 18 to 30 year old group doesn't vote. They just don't. My point in all this is that Hillary has to move center. The people who actually do vote want a centrist candidate.

we vote a politician into office not an ideological saint. she has conducted herself well here as far as i am concerned. but i will never vote for her. dont even ask. it goes back to highschool and women and she embodies a certain type for me. but what disturbs me about feminist in general is that they really do not honor women at all. other wise how about condi rice, she is black and she is powerful, yet where are the honors here? i remember femininsts saying they are for all women no matter what their political orientation was. well, that little statement has no valence whatsoever. and jane fonda - forget her vietnam caper, she married ted turner, stood with him making the chopping motion at games when indians protested, then apparently got bought off by him to keep her mouth shut about the marriage. she has had extensive plastic surgery , including her famous boob job. this is a role model? so the feminist voice has been stilled for me now for a long time because i look before i pledge allegiance now. it is so much better to use my brain that way.

I am pround to say I AM a feminist.

I am SO tired of women saying "welllll, I'm not a feminist (appologetically), but I do believe in equality."

And What I want a candidate to look like is a WINNEr. Sadly, or not so sadly (it's really a moot point), HIllary does NOT look like a winning candidate.

So lets stop pushing losers. Move on and find us some wINNING CANDIDATES!@!!!

stop making points. And start making winners.

that is why democrats lose and republicans win. We keep trying to make "points". And they keep trying to win. And so they do.

one way or another I hope things change

When one party votes for a lot of the same things another party does, the former party becomes more like the latter. That is why I suggested rising up against BOTH.

The Republicans are running things anyway, RIGHT NOW. And one reason they're able to do so is because so-called liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton enable them.

I heard that in Venezuela, before Hugo Chavez took over, there were two "ruling" corrupt political parties controlling the country. He was able to become president and lessen their influence anyway.

because if they rise up against republican-lite then republicans will rule indefinitely. If you really think that it doesn't matter, fine, but you can't have it both ways: either there is a difference or there is no point in objecting to the repubilcans specifically rather than just "the system".