It seems like this subject just keeps cropping up - just the characters change. Latest incarnation was thanks to NPR, with a debate between leaders at NARAL and Emily's List. The recording of the show is here for anyone who is interested. I didn't listen, in part because I just don't have the intestinal fortitude to face it, and also because many users decided to comment on it, giving me a fair approximation of where the conversation went.
I've been stating for a long time elsewhere that Clinton was not the right candidate. As a feminist, it has been a particularly depressing campaign for me to write about, and the sporadic nature of my postings until recently bears that out. Clinton made history, but in the final analysis, it will be known not as a failed attempt by a good woman, but a failed attempt by a woman who probably shouldn't have run in the first place.
My problem with Clinton from the beginning has been my inability to muster even a small amount of trust in her. She reminds me of the women I'd see at youth sporting events who would scream the loudest at their kids on the field, and say the most scathing things about any women who didn't do the same. Clinton has that back-stabbing, smile in your face while telling everyone how horrible you are as soon as you walk away attitude about her. It has reared its ugly head in the form of fabrications about herself (like dodging bullets in Bosnia), and in her "do as I say, not as I do" attitude (like condemning Obama for links to activists while lying about her own past with them.)
In spite of any evidence that might be placed in front of them, the most infuriating thing is feminists who have started acting like petulant children, claiming that either they will not vote at all in November if Hillary is not the candidate, or worse, say they will support McCain. Seriously. This is something that has angered me beyond anything else that I've seen in 20+ years of political campaign and activism work.
Honestly, I would agree with the feminists wanting to support a woman candidate if that woman was qualified, at least a little honest, and just plain likable. I've heard it said many times before that the "likability" factor isn't real when it comes to voters at the polls, but I've also been around that block enough times to know that just isn't true. If voters don't like a candidate on a personal level, that spells disaster.
So, to the feminists out there who think they are being righteously indignant about what I have to say here, please ask yourself one question: Would you really want to vote for a woman 30 years from now who worked with you today in the trenches of the pro-choice movement(or any other feminist cause), but once she was on the ballot, denied she had anything to do with you or your "shared" cause? I don't know about you, but I know I wouldn't. Please, stop selling yourselves, and all women short. We can do better than Hillary.