"Why This Socialist Feminist is for Hillary"
The reason that electing someone like Fiorina wouldn't further feminist causes -- unlike Hillary -- is simple. Fiorina isn't a feminist. Hillary is and always has been.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-this-socialist-feminist-is-for-hillary/
At first glance, you’d likely guess that I would proudly don a “Feel the Bern” T-shirt and make a generous donation to the democratic socialist firing up the Democratic Party. Born to leftists themselves born to leftists, I am what is known in some circles as a “red-diaper baby”: progeny of left-wing activists, often but not always members of the Communist Party. I was raised by a mother deeply committed to social justice, an activist first and foremost in the civil-rights movement but later engaged with feminism, anti-war activism, and the vast panoply of progressive issues that ebbed and flowed through our national politics of the past half-century. My mother’s immigrant Jewish parents met in the Lower East Side of New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League (we called it YPSL) and I grew up more familiar with the words to labor anthems than “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
SNIP
Shattering glass ceilings can have broad and rippling consequences. The election of Obama did not usher in an era of “post-racial” accord. However, it brought to the surface the enduring power of racial animus and the equally enduring struggles against it. The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, may have come into being without his presidency, but surely the very fact of this man, with this history, with this body, with this skin in the (very, very) White House opens up space for discussions, debates, movements that are critically important. Obama took it upon himself to explicitly defend the work of Black Lives Matter and school the nation on police violence during an October White House forum on criminal justice where he insisted that “it’s real and there’s a history behind it and we have to take it seriously.” His earlier comments, after the murder of Trayvon Martin, that “this could have been me 35 years ago,” may not have sparked the growing movement against racist police violence, but it surely did give it legitimacy and official voice.
This could happen with Hillary. No, the stalled revolution for gender equity won’t be won by simply installing a woman in the White House. But it may help animate conversation, instill fierce female pride, and inspire young girls the world over. With our campuses roiled in debates about how to address rampant sexual assault and our reproductive lives seemingly constantly in need of controlling by over-reaching politicians; with our wages still unequal, our domestic labor undervalued and childcare still too expensive; and with our political representation still woefully disproportionate to our population, the effects of having a woman in that very male White House may just trigger some needed discussion and stir social movements.
Hillary may not be the (radical, intersectional) feminist that activists fantasize about seeing in power, but she’s some kind of a feminist for sure and would no doubt foreground the centrality of gender equity to social justice in ways we have not seen at a national level. While Bernie’s redistributive economic policies might—in the long run—aid women more than Hillary’s more conservative ones, it is unlikely that most of them would ever make their way through a Congress beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests. And it is not at all clear to me that a gridlocked leftist vision would be better for women than the value-added of actually having a woman (with an agenda that shares much in common with this vision)—after all these years—in the Oval Office. Hillary in office will not usher in some profound realignment of US priorities and politics. But no mainstream, electable candidate is likely to do that in any case (see Obama’s legacy on that if you have any doubts). But she just might help us remember that “feminist” is not an epithet but a badge of honor.
= new reply since forum marked as read
of Hillary is that of a "Corporatist" as evidenced by her Corporate Board membership early on with WalMart, speeches for 100's of THOUSANDS at a pop for Goldman Sachs et al.
The thoughts conveyed in this post are not in any way compatible with the history of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'll take the honest, thoughtful old white guy who is younger physiologically than his MSM anointed "front runner" female counterpart. 
Think about it, please? 
Which is fine, hey, that's an opinion. But it doesn't take a whole page of text to say.
It also doesn't mean the author would vote for ANY woman, but again, her whole argument for HRC is predicated on "she's a woman".
I happen to think we're overdue for a woman as POTUS, too. But it's not the only or even the main factor driving my primary considerations.
I also think the people -some of them seeming a bit over-identified with the whole deal- who have hung all this cultural expectation baggage on HRC (and I don't mean sending a message to girls "you can be president", that's great and again, overdue) are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
