Okay, Anne Applebaum, have you ever thought maybe Bill Clinton wouldn't have been president if it wasn't for Hillary? Or George W. w/o Laura? JFK w/o Jackie? Who do you think help all these men be president? When was the last president who was elected that didn't have a wife there to support him? So what's wrong w/ Hillary's husband out there supporting her? You don't think all these men use their wives to say "Hey look at my personal life! I have a great wife and great kids! Look at well adjusted I am". So okay for men to use their wives to parlay a message that they have great personal lives but not okay for Hillary to use her husband's former presidency to say she knows how to create a good gov't? Hypocrite.

Good, someone finally pointed that out.

And I would even say that Hillary was more important than Jackie or Laura in her husband's election. Doesn't anyone remember the "2 for one" campaigning, or all the talk about them as a political team? Laura just makes Bush look slightly less evil. I won't comment on Jackie since I wasn't alive at the time.

now, if we could just get you females to work, you know, creating and building everything you use and see around you, from your buildings, roads, homes, schools, electric plants, water plants, you get the idea...its not called "man-made" because females made it.....fair turn is fair play, and we wouldnt want to be sexist now, would we........

I'm just waiting for someone on XX to point out that men in politics use their wives and children all the time to highlight their personal lives but women can't use their husbands the same way in professional life. That somehow, as Applebaum suggests, that women have to go it alone in order to be authentic. It's a double standard and if it isn't then why? Discuss XX! I used to believe I was the type of feminist that I wouldn't just vote for woman just b/c she's a woman but I see that women won't be judged fairly until we see more of them in power and now I'm at the point that I doubt I'll ever vote for anyone other than a woman. I'm also wondering why when Elizabeth Dole ran for president she didn't encounter this accusation about parlaying her husbands successes into her own? Was it b/c no one really thought she had a chance in winning?

Surely you're not really that bigoted- just because there are jerks out there. Lot's is wrong with both Hillary and Obama- same goes for my candidate, Edwards. We're settling here- make no mistake- these people are tied hand and foot by their allegiences to business and to the rich and powerful. Nevertheless they are far far better than the fearmongering authoritarians on the Republican side. Hillary is the Establishment candidate. She is being supported by Rupert Murdoch, for pity's sake! If we are to have an ounce of chance of an independent leader I don't think she is it. I like the fact that you are fighting back against the chauvinism against her- but go after the real enemies- those conservatives who hate her for her independence and her role as a feminist.

NY Scribbler

you're right NY, I would still vote for the most qualified, and I just so happen to think that Hillary is, not just b/c they're a certain race or gender or whatever. It just gets my back up that there seems to be this double standard w/ Hillary, and not just by republicans either, that almost forces me to defend her as a woman. I'm just wondering how many other women feel the same way and why we can't be critical w/ being hypocritical.

It can help you or hurt you. Obamas wife has already used the race card. I heard it on the sound bite yesterday. She said it is very scary for Obama to just go down to the gas station to get gas and wonder if he's OK because HE IS BLACK. Sooo be careful what you wish for.

I haven't heard that story and I just googled it and nothing shows up so maybe you should post it. Aside from that there's nothing wrong w/ pointing out a double standard, gender bias, or racial bias so I'm not sure what your cryptic beware is about.

what show was it on? accusations without specifics are usually untrue (like the 2004 e-mail that claimed edwards was responsible for all health care lawsuits - total bunk).

women do build roads - they're called engineers.

John Edwards was not responsible for all health care lawsuits. He was responsible for many in North Carolina where he became very rich suing amongst others, OB/GYNs, for birth "injuries." These were jury trials where the more ingorant the jury, the more money he made. Now about one thing I'm not sure, but I've heard. The climate Edward's created in N.C. has caused there to be a shortage of doctors willing to deliver hi-risk babies. Now that's a classy guy, don't you think?

Okay, and that's relevant how? This is 2008.

Amy Az interjected a factoid regarding e-mails and I commented.

But since you pointed out that it is 2008 and what does it matter, I find myself agreeing with you. This is Obama's point, is it not? It is 2008. It really doesn't matter what you've done, it's the potential you have. Hillary Clinton often speaks of her experience that really is that of her husband, and ironically only that which now is considered "good" enough to get her votes.

Funny that NAFTA and Welfare reform never get mentioned. Present for all the good, never the bad. How convenient. HOW HONEST! What a truly remarkable woman who is soooooo honest.

Reality check msmandam. Her most crucial decision as a Senator was whether or not to authorize Bush to go into Iraq. Guess what? The perenially wronged, ubervictim, picked on by everyone ( and now a Black man named Obama) HRC got it WRONG!!!!

First, I really like Obama, it just so happens that we have alot of really good candidates running for president of both sides b/c I also have a knee jerk reaction to cheer whenever I see John McCain do his straight talk express. Having said that, I completely support Hillary in this primary, if Obama wins, then I'll vote for him the general election. However, this whole Hillary voted to authorize Bush to go to war is a moot point. She's said that she wouldn't vote for that measure knowing what she knows now and how can you compare that to Obama when he wasn't in the senate and more importantly when asked by Tim Russert in 2004 that since he's not "privy to senate intelligence reports" he's unsure how he would have voted. Or later in the show he says, "“There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” You can read for yourself <link>

Now did I personally wish she had voted against it (along w/ everyone else) absolutely. It sent my brother to the Pacific theater and sent my childhood friend to Iraq (and not the nice part). Do I blame her? No, blame Bush, he misled congress. Knowing what she knew at the time I absolutely can understand why the senator from NEW YORK, where the terrorist attacks took place not 18 months prior, voted the way she did. She doesn't have to apologize to me or my brother or my friend or anyone else. I wonder why Obama supporters want to spend their time bashing Hillary instead of discussing all the reasons they like him.

It is nice to hear that Obama is your second choice. I suppose nothing I say will change your mind, but I'm going to try anyway.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of policy-speak or experience when it comes to who I've voted for. If you must know. 1984-Reagan, 1988- Bush, 1992 - Clinton, 1996 - Clinton, 2000- Bush and in 2004 neither. Anyway, Obama isn't great, he merely represents the promise of greatness. I don't believe HRC does.

Her Iraq vote is indicative of my belief. You were right when you said that the reason she voted the way she did was because of 9/11. In addition, she remarked on the Senate floor that she knew about weapons of mass destruction not only from the Bush admin. but because she was privy to intelligence matters as First Lady during Bill Clinton's admin. Somebody (Bush or Clinton) is lying or both are telling the truth and the war after all was justified. Personally, I think they both were lying and I'd like to see an end to all that. Hillary is not a new beginning - a change. She is a shift to another route heading to the same destination of a more mediocre nation. I think we can do better and have the chance right now to do so if we put Obama in the White House.

I see, but the problem that I have w/ Obama supporters is that their only so eager to throw Hillary under the bus w/o actually differentiating too much between the two beside this idea that Obama is for change and Hillary isn't. What we democrats have to understand is that any democrat is going to change 8 years of Bush mis-management (and why isn't the first woman elected president consisdered change?) and what about talking about the good things about our candidate instead of trying to rip each other to shreds? I'll never call Obama, Edwards, Richardson names b/c I'm saving that energy for the Republicans. Here's a thought for the XX Factor, why can't you use your time as first lady on your work resume if it's not really that discernible from previous candidates who were once V.P.? Until Cheney, the Vice President's only official capacity is president of the senate and entertained and visited heads of state. I would argue that people have generally accepted a V.P. credentials b/c they were an active part of the administration and were in close proximity to the President. Is that so much different than being former First Lady?