It would be easier to back HRC if she actually WAS a feminist. But she's not.

[Ken Burch]

Feminists are supposed to be rebels, not insiders.

Feminists are supposed to stand with poor women and women of the developing world, not with globalization, which only benefits rich white men in corporate boardrooms.

Feminists are supposed to be anti-militarists, since war only benefits, once again, rich white men. You can't be a feminist and support a Scoop Jackson foreign policy.

Feminists are supposed to speak truth to power, not get campaign donations from the powerful.

You aren't a feminist when you sit on a corporate board and bring home a six-figure income. Then you're just another part of the status quo.

The first serious female presidential candidate should've been a Shirley Chisholm or Bella Abzug type, or a Mother Jones type. A REAL feminist. Not a millionaire.

Yuppies CAN'T be feminists. Corporate lawyers can't be feminists. Class always trumps race and gender. The rich are never victims of any form of bigotry.

This is why I'm not impressed by the "you OWE it to women to nominate HRC" meme. Women are owed a FEMINIST nominee, not a

[kevinmc]

1. "Hillary was the First Feminist .....Ever"

[Lyric]

2. Who made you the Decider of what a feminist is "supposed" to be?

You have a seriously warped vision of "feminism". According to you, Gloria Steinem, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry (all "millionaires") are not feminists. I realize that there is some debate over whether or not men are capable of being feminists, but I believe that being a feminist only requires making the choice to promote and support the goal of true gender equality--a choice that doesn't require a vagina to be valid.

It's also naive and misguided to think that only those who take a loud stand on women's issues in every possible arena can be feminists. Part of being a feminist politician is gaining power--something that is needed in order to initiate legislative change. Feminists aren't stupid. We realize that there's a time to be vocal, and a time to tone it down. If we were all burning bras and screaming women's issues 24/7, it would take a hundred years or more to win an election. The American public loathes one thing more than anything else, and that thing is being informed that they have committed a moral Wrong. They'll do practically anything to avoid accepting such a pronouncement. Why do you think Obama caught hell for the Wright thing? Paranoid DU'ers want to Blame Clinton (gee, where have we heard THAT before?) but the truth is that listening to Rev. Wright made America uncomfortable. America didn't want to hear what Wright said, because America doesn't like to be Morally Wrong, and if what Wright said is true, then America is undeniably guilty of being Morally Wrong. Obama knows this, which is why he went out of his way to let people know that he disagrees with Reverend Wright--at least officially. Hillary Clinton knows that this is also true of feminism; it makes sense for her to walk softly in regard to women's issues, because she knows that the American public is going to be hyper-sensitive about hearing that stuff from her. The first black candidate with "serious contender" status must tread carefully in regard to racial issues if he wants to win, and the same is true for the first female candidate with "serious contender" status.

Short of armed revolution (which no sane person wants) there are only two ways to change the nation: the first is to change hearts and minds, which is what on-the-ground, nameless feminist advocates strive for on a daily basis. The second way is to change through the system--and THAT requires obtaining power via election. We need both kinds of change. We need the vocal, brash, in-your-face feminist who tells Americans the things that we *need* to hear, even if we don't *want* to hear them, and we need the quieter feminists who temper their voices in order to get the power to change laws. One without the other is pointless. We need a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama (quiet feminists working through the system) every bit as much as we need the Gloria Steinems and Margaret Sangers, who give us hell without having to worry about electability and polls.

What you're advocating would lead to the loss of the ability to change the system from inside. The Gloria Steinems of the nation do not win national elections, save for the rare case where they are representing a progressive district in the House of Representatives.

You'll notice one important thing about women like Shirley Chisholm, Linda Jenness, and Evelyn Reed. They all ran for the Presidency...and they all lost. We need a woman to WIN. The Presidency is the biggest glass ceiling of all. We need to break it hard and well, for the sake of the more vocal feminists who will come later. They deserve a chance to Win--not just to run in the primary as an "issues" candidate like Kucinich.

[Berry Cool]

3. I'm agreed that the OP's idea of feminism is warped.

I, too, believe that being a feminist only requires making the choice to promote and support the goal of true gender equality--a choice that doesn't require either a vagina OR a commitment to poverty in order to be valid.

I also believe gaining power and feminism are not mutually incompatible concepts.

I also believe changing hearts and minds and effecting change through the system matters.

We do need a woman to WIN, to break the biggest glass ceiling of all, hard and well.

Only thing is, I don't believe Hillary is the woman to do it.

[Ken Burch]

4. Will you at least agree that HRC has stopped being a feminist if she increases defense spending

And cuts social services once in office?

Clearly war can never be feminist and can never again be to the good of women. And bombing Iran and maintaining the embargo in Cuba only hurt the women who live there, all of whom would lose if the current regimes were replaced by "pro-American" ones.

(Remember, there is no such thing as a feminist in post-communist Eastern Europe or in Nicaragua. Women have lost forever in those places.)

[pnwmom]

6. Feminists are not required to be pacifists.

If we had had a female President during World War II, should she have stayed out of the war? Would that have been the only way to stay true to feminism?

[Ken Burch]

7. World War II was the last just war in history.

We all know there will never be another worthy of non-reactionary support.

And we also know that the military is a permanently reactionary and barbaric institution that stands for nothing positive in the modern world.

[pnwmom]

10. We "all" know nothing of the kind. n/t

[Ken Burch]

12. You know as well as I that there can't possibly be a war in the future

that non-reactionaries could support.

World War II was the last one. The age of the "good war" is gone forever. Why not admit it?

Wars of national interest are always right-wing and pointless, since the national interest is just another word for the interest of the rich.

[Ken Burch]

5. Everyone who ever walked softly on an issue while campaigning

Governed softly on it once in office. Power can't be used radically or progressively if it's gained by using conservative rhetoric. Incrementalism can't lead to progressive change.

[pnwmom]

9. Yes, incrementalism CAN lead to progressive change.

That's exactly what we've been seeing in the gay rights movement -- no massive demonstrations, no sudden national catharsis, no revolution. But, over the last twenty-five or thirty years, steady, incremental change.

But it's not coming from the government -- IMHO, it's largely being propelled by TV and the movies. People's hearts and minds are being changed, and shows like Will and Grace, and stars like Ellen and Rosie deserve a good deal of the credit.

None of this is to justify the current state of affairs -- we obviously have quite a way to go still. But it wasn't so long ago that being gay was a criminal offense, and then regarded as a mental illness -- and it's been a series of incremental steps that have gotten us this far.

[readmoreoften]

8. I don't think either candidate is a feminist.

And neither will represent anyone but the rich--speeches, promises, votes, and position papers aside. When it comes down to it neither candidate will do what really needs to be done.

[Ken Burch]

11. Unless we make them.

We will have to spend the next four years, if either of them win, constantly demonstrating and holding them accountable. And if that winner still has us in Iraq at the start of the 2012 campaign, that winner will HAVE to be denied renomination, as any wartime Democrat will inevitably be totally right-wing on domestic issues or at least so fiscally conservative on domestic programs that they will be governing as a Republican anyway(as LBJ did after 1966, for example).

Change can ONLY come from below.

[IndyHatedByBothSides]

13. Would a real feminist have tolerated her attack dogs bullying of Nancy Pelosi?

Fortunately, Nancy had the courage to stand up for herself.

[Ken Burch]

16. There's that.

And HRC never opposed signing the racist welfare bill, which was mainly an attack on women. Poor women. Y'know, the kind rich "moderate" women never show solidarity with. It was fine to throw them under the bus. And if she did it then, she'd have to do it now.
Conservatives never stop being conservative.

[pkz]

14. Whiner

Real feminists do not call the "but it's the guys club" card.

The is old school thinking anyway.
This country is way past the feminist cause, that was our Mothers' cause and they championed it, didn't they?

[cooolandrew]

15. I think that probably could of been worded a little more sublt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. I believe Hillary is a feminist.

Feminism doesn't mean being adhering perfectly to an ideology. In my own life I make compromises to my feminist values every day. I can't imagine the kind of pressures a feminist politician faces. That said, I don't believe that electing Clinton president will be a feminist act, nor will it impact the lives of women in the world in a significant way.

When it comes to our first woman president, I've always believed that she will be a Republican. Socially conservative and a warhawk. Think Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I'm sorry, but that's just what I foresee.

[TBF]

18. Actually Kay Bailey Hutchinson is not so bad -

we like girlfriend down here in TX - she's not as bad as some. And, personally, I'd rather see her on the top of the ticket than Hillary Clinton.

My problem with Hillary started way back in Bill's administration when she made that sarcastic comment about how she could've stayed home and made cookies but instead she wanted to work. I don't fault her choice, what I fault is that she had to put down all the women who made a different choice. Just as bad as Phyllis Schafley in the 70's - flying around the country telling all other women that they should stay at home.

We need feminists who lift up women and encourage them to make their own choices. In my view Hillary Clinton is not a feminist.

[blogslut]

19. Speak for yourself

Ms. Hutchinson ain't no love of mine.

[redqueen]

20. Seconded. (nt)

[Ken Burch]

21. And we need women who defend the feminist movement against all right-wing attacks

HRC never stands up to the Right on feminist-bashing or anything else.