>>The thing I don't get about Hillary, and never have, is why she is championed by feminists like Steinem. To me, a woman who owes her fame and reputation to her husband - and we would never of heard of her, a Little Rock lawyer and the governor's wife, if it weren't for his own New Hampshire surprise -doesn't inspire, however smart and talented she may be. I can see that there would be other reasons for New Hampshire women to vote for her, but because she's a role model for women? I don't get it.<<

Well. It’s hard to know where to start, there’s so much wrong here… honestly, I’m flabbergasted. Phew.

To suggest that Hillary Clinton would be absolutely nothing without Bill Clinton is one the more vile things I’ve recently read… How do you know what she might have become? Why does her marriage to a popular, two-term president negate her accomplishments?

These comments might not be completely despicable if Hillary Clinton was a dishrag, incompetent… a talentless idiot succeeding only because of her oil-baron father or nazi-sympathizing grandpappy (oops, wrong idiot), I mean two-term presidential husband. But clearly that isn’t the case. Hillary Clinton is whip-smart, tough and talented… too bad she married someone equally talented, apparently it lessens her in your book. If she had married Roger Clinton instead, you’d be on the band-wagon? It seems to me to be virulently anti-woman to suggest that marrying your equal somehow spoils your successes!

>>Imagine a talented man who falls in love while at Yale law school student and decides to follow his wife to a very provincial city - Little Rock, say - where he makes a decent but hardly national reputation for himself. Then he follows his more important wife to Washington, where for eight years he works as a full-time spouse. Is such a man qualified to be a senator, let alone president?<<

While we’re imagining, let’s pretend that this man had a law degree from Yale and that he continued to teach and practice law while raising a family and supporting his wife’s campaigns for governor and president.

Let’s imagine that while in the White House he helped craft legislation for Universal Health Care – something that roughly 60% of Americans now support? And maybe he was instrumental in passing the Family Medical Leave Act? Let’s imagine he was one of the most influential ‘first gentlemen’ in American history and was hated for it because it 'wasn't his place'.

Then, after a bitter end to his wife’s presidency, he ran for Senate and won in a landslide… then won re-election, again in a landslide, becoming one of the most popular Senators in the history of the largest city in America.

Exactly what, do you think, are the qualifications for running for Senate? Or for president? How does Hillary Clinton not fulfill these?

The comments by your fellow bloggers are equally depressing, suggesting a cartoonish understanding of "feminism" and a blatant double-standard. Is this really a womans' blog? I can't fathom it.

It all boils down to something you said:

>>How do you know what she might have become? <<

Not what she became, but what she might have become. Even your writing acknowledges that Hillary did not "become."

DeaH:

Not what she became, but what she might have become. Even your writing acknowledges that Hillary did not "become."

Completely untrue. She has become a two-term Senator. She has become the first woman to win a presidential primary. It goes on and on...

My point is that she may well have become those things even if she had never met Bill. Who's to say Bill would have ever been president if he hadn't met Hillary? It's sexist and stupid to say that her husband is the only reason she has the success she already enjoys.

And that's enough to make her the most qualified person to be President of the United States of America? You know, I always thought Bush was unprepared to be president, but you set the bar so low that he is more qualified than Hillary. Tell me, were you a Bush Booster back in the day?

Hillary Clinton is an incredibly capable person. But to understand why she is supported by Steinem IMHO you should look at who Steinem is. She is a victim feminist in the mode of Brownmiller and Faludi- these people will not lead women to freedom and power- achievers in the political world and business world are the models to be followed. Steinem spends all her time explaining why women can't succeed- this is the path to conservative "fear of flying". To follow her is to end up describing pornography as a "loaded gun" side-tracking women from strength and independence into fearfulness and side issues.