Well argued. I really appreciate this perspective. I am glad to see there are so many people that are beginning to articulate the ways in which you can respect Hillary and the entire Clinton legacy without wanting her to be President.

Yes, she could be the first woman president, but is she the woman we want? That's the question it ought to come down to and upon reflection my answer is no, for many of the reasons you have noted.

I believe, as you say, that the people united cannot be defeated. And I believe we have evidence that Obama mobilizes huge swaths of folks -- many of whom have never participated before. People who will remember this election as the time when they not only made a historical difference, but also learned to care about politics and to be engaged citizens. That's just good for democracy, full stop.

Obama makes people who dare to believe that a change in tone and expectation might create a change in political possibility, that they are more than political operatives, but rather, they are American patriots. I think this ability to make people feel apart of the process, which is so profoundly evident in his on the ground organizations, is what gives Obama the credibility to claim that he can unite the country despite the deep partisan (and many other) divides that exist. It's an undeniably powerful thing. And as real as it gets.

I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective. For me, neither Clinton nor Obama are as progressive as I would like, and I am realistic about what either could accomplish. The enormous gap between what most Americans want (universal health care, environmental protection, functioning public services) and what the corporate powers want (none of those things), cannot be bridged by a single Democratic administration. What is needed is a less cynical, more participatory electorate that will push for a more progressive vision of America, during the next four years and beyond. So for me, whoever can build that movement, inspire the most people, and bring more power to the people, will get my vote. I believe Barack Obama is that person.

It is a fact of history that we only know Hillary because of Bill. She would perhaps have become involved in Illinois politics without him, but her route went through Arkansas and the White House before going to New York.

All arguments about whether she is dependent on Bill for her accomplishments are unresolvable. The certainty is this---Bill will be part of her White House. If she had a more independent identity her campaign web site would be titled "Clinton." Instead, it is "Hillary for President." (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/)

Whether she feels independent or not, she acknowledges her connection by using her first name to distinguish from Bill. Not the best feminist position.

Barack Obama’s campaign is unique in modern American history in that it is much more than a political campaign for high office. He is building a viable mass movement of folks, like myself, who are mobilized, energized, and actively working to reinvigorate the Democratic party so that it once again represents the public interest. He/we have already demonstrated what this means: (1) millions of dollars can be raised to go toe-to-toe with the corporate donations received by the Clinton machine, and (2) voters can be turned out in huge numbers, sufficient to win where it counts, at the ballot box. This is the true meaning of grassroots democracy, and it represents real political strength. Obama, if elected by this mass uprising of a newly energized electorate, will have a true mandate to change the system. For real. A Congress that doesn’t go along will find itself replaced by a new generation of Obama Democrats, because our movement will have proven that it can formidably win elections against corporate-sponsored candidates.

It's always interesting to hear from those who weren't around for the Reagan revolution, and who assume Obama is such a ground breaker. Reagan with his distain for government was a disaster for this country, and Obama will be too.

Yes, a real feminist can support Obama. And a real civil rights activist can support Clinton.

These are great candidates, guys. We win no matter who wins.

But... vote Hillary.

Just kidding.

But that's what I'm doing.

It is so said that the Obama movement is based on a person who behaves like this:

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator,Barack Obama, took up their cause.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money."

Nor is Obama in any sense a feminist:

. Page 224 " When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations -- whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

He has no sense the women have the right to make their own moral choices .

Nor does he have any interest in the position of women in the world. There are exactly three cites to women's issues in his book The Audacity of Hope -- none of which concern his own take on these issues. He then refers you to the cites for family.

So, engagedbuddha, did you read his book before you started supporting him?

An ambitious female lawyer of Hillary's generation did not go to Arkansas and certainly not if she was interested in politics. Far from riding on Bill's coattails he was a hindrance to her independent development. But they were a political team -- many women of her generation had a great deal of trouble geting their non-traditional experience recognized and Hillary has a lot of non-traditional experience. Think of her as a senior advisor to Bill Clinton where he had the final say. In her Whitehouse, Bill Clinton would be a senior advisor but she would have the final say and Bill has acknowledged a number of instances Ruwanda in particular where her judgment was better than hers.

The excitement of a flourishing campaign is delightful I only wish your candidate were worthy of it.

While this discussion clearly needed to happen, it's still a bit discouraging somehow. I guess I had naively convinced myself that we were past it. I like to think that women have won so many social victories over the course of the past few decades that most questions of gender can be safely set aside. And yet the demons of division have once again been called up to challenge and shame Americans who, by some accident of birth, were endowed with two X chromosomes instead of an X and a Y. And these demons tell their fellow XX Americans that to support an XY is the dishonorable act of a traitor. Toss them back to hell, I say. If there's some proof that a woman is more able or more inclined to fight for human rights and equality than a man, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think every American ought to be able to support anyone their heart and their mind leads them to, and no ignorant, genderist bigot should dare to raise their voice.

I agree with Foxx, it IS sad to see a feminist so naive. And to all those who assume women are voting for HRC just because she's a woman, you have a lot to learn about feminism.

It seems the Kool Aid doesn't work on everyone. And if it doesn't work on you, you're left wondering where is all this charisma and charm so many people are talking about. Let alone substance. If you're not swept up in the personality cult, there just isn't much there.

As to BO's campaign funding purity, well. like the rest of his act, it's not so pure...

From an article by Dan Morgan in the LA Times:

WASHINGTON While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital.

Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

"Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

"He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."

Why does every person who calls herself a "feminist" feel the need to confess, justify and rationalize their support of Obama?

You spelled Hillary wrong. Like nine times.

No confession, rationalization or justification here: I'm a feminist and I support Obama. Period.

And maybe you can answer this, Bev: Why do some Clinton supporters insist that feminists have to support her?

I happen to live in the black community and there is OVERWHELMING insistence to support Obama. Any other issue is pretty much off the table.

Does anyone think that the civil rights movements would have succeeded if only black people were marching? Would the women's movement been effective if only women were involved?

What we want to elect is someone who can get the majority of Americans involved to right the wrongs of the past 8 years and improve the country for everyone going forward. If I thought Hillary could do that I would back her 100% but in this year, in this election it is Obama who has that ability.

I'm so glad to hear that there are feminists out there that are willing to vote for Obama because he's the right choice. I just read an article that although well written and touching, is about voting for Clinton solely because she's a woman. I can't understand that one track way of thinking. It's like voting based on one issue.

This is the statement -

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

It clearly says that supporting Obama over Clinton is they ultimate betrayal of women. I did however get the author wrong and owe Sonia Ossorio an appology. It was Marcia Pappas.