I would like to add some points to "What women see when they see Hillary," and admit at the outset that I'm a male. The article ends with what I think most feminists would agree is their ultimate goal in the quote from Frank Luntz, "Put gender aside. Just treat her like you would any other candidate." And so I will.

It didn't take long after the mid-terms for the Beltway to return to its one-party system, that of the professional politicians. And so it has been with great dismay that the woman who has acheived the highest rank in US politics, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, has defused any excitement over her benchmark by mirroring her centrist counterpart, Hillary Clinton. By taking impeachment off the table and helping to push through free trade bills with Panama and Peru, Pelosi has looked more like a compliant centrist than a fed-up Democrat.

By not supporting impeachment, it appears that Hillary doesn't want to just be President, she wants to be The First Female President. By taking impeachment off the table, it's as if Pelosi doesn't want to take the shine off Clinton's candidacy and the special interest appeal to women. By not pursuing impeachment, both fail to lead and undermine national security.

Clinton and Pelosi are so worried about looking like über-bitches that they're not being appropriately aggressive to the task at hand, which is holding the Bush Administration accountable. They look like pink softies so happy to be there that they're willing to take a cut in pay.

Since the Clinton Administration, Republicans have taken the gloves off and been fighting like they're the ones who are right. It's time for these Democratic women to show their claws. We'd respect them more if they did.

Scott Tyner

Hattiesburg, MS

Over the years since 2000, I have come to view Hillary Clinton as just another corporate hack with the will to mow down her own grandmother if it would help get her elected. I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances.

My viewpoint has nothing to do with her gender per se and everything to do with her corporate ties and political viewpoints--especially on the Iraq war. She would probably be a competent President, which would be refreshing in of itself, however I abhor her Republican-lite policies and her vaunted tough broad personality so much that it eliminates her as a contender for my vote.

I expect a Hillary Clinton presidency would be more of the same anti-"middle class" policies put forth by her husband. Women, education, science and technology and the working class (labor) will suffer under another Clinton presidency and I just cannot vote for that probable fate under any circumstances.

I do not have a candidate in mind that I could support at this time, however it won't be a republican and it sure won't be one of the many Republicans masquerading as a Democrat.

Elizabeth Williams

Miami, Fl

Like US gentlemen, they abhor and are heartsick over the results of her repeated, ruthless bombo eruptions. Raise the Child; Raze its Village? You and Eye for an Eye? At long last has she no sense of humanity; her, at long last ... ?

Victor Bruce Anderson

Eagle Lake, FL

Its simple; Hillary is "perceived" not to be credible and "likeable" enough.

Paul Amigo

Pennington Gap, VA

I can't understand why the real Hillary problem isn't discussed here on the left. It's this: Hillary Can't Win.

Is there another public figure as despised by so many Americans as Hillary Clinton? It seems to me that the people who hate her on the right hate with a burning intensity far beyond what anyone on the left had, or even has, for GWB. Recalling some of those savage anti-Kerry tactics of 2004, is there any doubt that there are long lines of rabid Hillary-haters all aquiver with anticipation of taking her out? Perhaps some of the more sophisticated will begin by recalling her nepotistic post--and failure--as Health Reform Czarina. I would.

I like her. I voted for Bill Clinton in his first election because I thought his wife was brilliant, and figured any guy she would marry had to be brilliant, too, and he was. If not for her, his feeble stand on gay rights would have prevented me from supporting him. Sure enough, we got "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" out of the deal. The next chance I had, I voted for Nader, figuring it was a safe enough protest vote.

With the exception of her Iraq war vote, I think Hillary has been an excellent senator, and the NY seat makes a great bully pulpit. If she weren't campaigning and therefore being as centrist as possible, she could re-liberalize herself a bit, too.

I hate waste. The thought of all the $$ that have gone into her campaign already makes me sad--and the thought of what could be consigned to oblivion if she's the Dem candidate makes me mad.

Maria Jette

Excelsior, MN

Remember back in 1994 when Hillary, Bill, Al, and all the Congressional Democrats were at the National Prayer Breakfast attended by Mother Teresa, the world's best-known missionary, and Mother Teresa denounced abortion to Hillary's face?

Mother Teresa explained: "I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because Jesus said, `If you receive a little child, you receive me.' So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus."

Oddly, though, this compelling rebuke of abortion in President Clinton's presence by Mother Teresa was not publicized widely. Only two newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times covered it, not one of the networks did.

Interesting how Hillary, a woman that fervently supports all abortions, forgot all about this incident, isn't it, and made the purely political decision to use Mother Teresa's image and stature to better her own in her 2008 bid for the presidency?

The national Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis announced yesterday they were successful in forcing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to remove a photo featuring Mother Teresa from a campaign video narrated by Bill.

Did Hillary think because Mother Teresa is no longer living she could get away with this?

Evidently, Hillary believes she can get away with anything. How sad for Hillary. In every way.

I have a problem with someone who will exploit anyone and anything for their personal (or political) gain. Hillary using Mother Teresa's image in her campaign, in an effort to have people believe she's always had Mother Teresa's support, was completely deceitful and egregious and agreed upon by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

This is how I see Hillary.

Clementine Turnipseed

Long Beach, CA

Hillary doesn't have a "woman's" problem as much as she has a "man's" problem. One in four claim they will vote for her. Women have been emancipated but they have not taken full advantage of it until recently. So while feminists beat themselves up over whether she is the perfect candidate or a "true believer" in their agenda, they will get nothing better from any announced or unannounced candidate.

Hillary's support from lower income and lesser-educated women should be very enlightening to this discussion. While educated and fiancially secure women talk about and around her, Hillary talks directly and in very clear language what she hopes to do for them. This is very threatening to the male ego as well as "professional" women. Hillary allows these women to move from the shadows and the sidelines to being in the political spotlight. Good for Hillary and good for them.

For those who lament that Hillary's healthcare failed forgets that healthcare was first attempted by Harry Truman. The country wasn't ready for it then and it wasn't ready for it in the early nineties. Business and labor are trying to compete globally. They now realize something has to be done. Business, the medical profession and most of the country have finally come to the realization the status quo is unacceptable.

As for me, I don't need an "altruistic" candidate that doesn't have political savy and the stones to fight for what is right. Even if the policy changes implemented are incremental. The country has to come along willingly as they can gain confidence in those changes.

History is replete with grand ideals that couldn't pass presidential, legislative and judical muster. Even the great FDR couldn't lift the country out of the Depression. It took a world war. JFK, for all his eloquence, wouldn't support much of the voting rights and civil rights agenda until he was faced down by Marting Luther King. But it took Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, two old political infighters, to get the legislation enacted.

For all Hillary has been through I definitely think she can do the job.

Allen Kagel

Newark, DE

'She (Hillary) is the first woman to be the frontrunner for her party's presidential nomination--with the blessing of the old boys' club, i.e., the Democratic Leadership Council, no less.'

That's why I don't support her. It's time to create a coalition of the disaffected, apathetic and the truly committed. It's time to put together a third party. If that fails, maybe Wes Clark will finally emerge from the shadows. I sure hope so.

Richard Riewer

Montreal, Quebec

First of all, if the author of this piece thinks that Barack Obama's lack of experience isn't being challenged every five minutes, she obviously hasn't observed the experience of being black in this country. It's getting questioned--a lot.

Secondly, I worked on the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996 and would really like to give Hillary my vote in 2008. But thanks to her votes for the USA Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, I can't, just as I couldn't vote for any man who supported those two things.

I don't think that anyone should automatically get my vote because they share my gender. You have to do more for me than just say what you think I want to hear. As an African-American woman, I've heard quite enough of that from both Mrs. Clinton and her husband over the years to last me a lifetime.

I know that Hillary will probably end up being the Democratic nominee because the DLC and their syncophants will make sure that she does. But it'll make it rough for those of us who don't want to vote for a Republican, but who wouldn't vote for her if God himself came down and told us to, to participate in the 2008 election.

When, oh when, will I be able to walk into a voting booth and not have to choose between the evil of two lessers?

Denise Clay

Philadelphia, PA

Why is it that I feel, as a woman, that I am being played as part of a campaign strategy to corner the votes of a target group? There are, and have been, many impressive women in politics whose significance transends gender--it was what they stood for and advocated that mattered. The article strains credibility in suggesting that Clinton should be rewarded with the position just to break the barrier. Condoleeza Rice, like Clarence Thomas, does not serve the aspirations of African-Americans or women when she is revealed to be incompetent or subservient. Surely Shirley Chisholm puts that claim to shame.

It undermines the purpose of feminism to focus on token representation at the expense of meaning. Why would women rally around a woman that used her husband to achieve her aims when other women fought to make it on their own merits? What kind of role model stands by her man after such public humiliation and deception--or actively seeks to discount the testimony of abused women to cover up her husband's acts of sexist exploitation? What kind of feminist blurs the line on abortion--a hard-won battle and dearly protected right? What kind of message is it that in order for women to achieve they must emulate the worst charecteristics of male arrogance and war-mongering? What kind of shift is represented by a politician willing to sell out on everything and everyone just to get her foot in the door?

That does not represent feminism to me. The way I see it is we lose if she wins--and we are not some marginalized radical left-wing minority as the author attempts to paint us. She should be reminded that the majority of the country opposes this war and the policies of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. The Clintons' fifteen minutes are up, they should get their claws off the Democratic party as their own personal vehicle for ego gratification and let it be a relevant force for real progress and positive change again. Clinton represents the slow erosion of the New Deal in the Clinton realignment of the "New Democrat" and I, as a feminist and a citizen, do not support that regardless of all other considerations used to rationalize supporting Clinton simply because she is a woman.

Raphaelle del Vecchio

Trenton, NJ

"It's the Character, Stupid." I'm not a feminist, last time I looked. I've had issues with my mother for 40 years, but she's a tough, independent survivor at 80, struggling with the few ups and mostly downs of old age with courage and fortitude. She's got enough character for ten people, woman or man.

I intensely dislike Hillary's public persona. She may be great at private parties, but for the past 17 years or so I've been aware of her as a political animal, she's succeeded in turning me off bigtime. Let me say I don't think Howard Wolfson or Mark Penn give a damn that a white male dinosaur like me, pushing 60, prefers any other Dem candidate to Hillary. I'm not their target audience. But if they're selling character and "authenticity," they're pushing the Edsel of 2008.

It's not about gender. I'd vote for Elizabeth Edwards, if she were running, in a New York minute. I'd like to see Condi Rice demoted to regional supervisor for the DMV, a job she's much more suited to than Secretary of State. I'm a native New Yorker, and I always deeply resented HRC moving here simply to run for the Senate, like New York state was a coke line offered for her pleasure at some elite private weekend Hamptons shindig.

Pat Moynihan, whom I considered an Olympian peering down at all hack politicians, and a thoughful, brilliant intellectual, couldn't stomach her. I still wonder what cynical alchemy it took to get him to publically endorse her at his upstart farm back in 2000, and stand with her for a photo-op? Kind of like Cheney's energy meetings in the White House...another standing mystery. Maybe Pat saw the future Bush Administration in his private "8 Ball," and decided Hillary was the lesser of two evils, re Rick Lazio. OK, fine, but President?

If we turned Teddy away in 1980 because Chappaquidick stuck in our craw, shouldn't the same fate at least befall this carpetbagger, this cynical "Democrat" triangulator who counts as her key political advisor a guy, Mark Penn, who is simultaneously CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a PR giant advising global corporations how to sidestep accountability for their essentially right-wing business agenda? Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

How about her single-handed setback of universal health care for 10 or 20 years, due to hubris and incompetence that rivals even the current Bush crew? And of course the Iraq vote she defends to the death...of someone else's father, son, brother, daughter, mother, while her daughter spends her time club hopping in Manhattan after a tough day at McKinsey and Co.?

Lastly, there's something profoundly ruthless about her decision to remain Mrs. Bill Clinton, not only during and after the whole Monica mess, but even long before it, when he was bouncing off extra-marital trysts like Don Juan of Little Rock. That same ruthlessness is to a greater or lesser degree what drives anyone, man or woman, to want to be President, to put up with the grueling process and invasion of your privacy. For Hillary, it's become a piece of cake. The "virtue" cited by Fay Wattleton is exactly the opposite, more like the female Cardinal Richelieu fictionalized by Joe Klein in Primary Colors. We know who he was writing about.

If you want ruthless, deceptive, plastic political theater, full of triangulation and Republican Lite empty promises, signifying nothing, go with Hillary. Only one question: Aren't these the qualities we've been tortured by the past 7 years? Aren't we supposed to be running for the hills to get away from this package? I thought so.

Stewart Braunstein

Port Washington , NY

I'm a guy, but still a feminist, so generally I feel okay responding. As to the last "bletter," politically a divisive person like Hillary Clinton is trouble, and the other two have "plans" too. Each in their own way, they to have an ability to bridge the gap, being less divisive to a chunk (just politically, fairness doesn't reckon in here) of the country who simply dislike (to be nice) HC. I also simply don't want two families in power for over twenty years.

As to the general issue, I reckon there is the matter of expecting more when it is one of your own (this pops up in various places, right?), and the simple fact that--yes--Hillary Clinton has various qualities that should make one uncomfortable. The first bletter suggests the drill. Said "qualities" aren't just sexist in nature. The progressive leading feminists therefore are uncomfortable with her. It isn't just some "double standard" thing.

Since I think Edwards and Obama are politically more acceptable, have plans to offer a change, believe in trying to actually unite not divide while still being passionate about their public service, and have been active in doing good in public service, I support them. I know Clinton is in the same boat in some ways, but again, she has problems. I'll support her if she wins the nomination. I don't want her to.

BTW, Susan Estrich herself turns off many people (including women) thus her support for Clinton really is part of the whole problem, in a fashion.

Joe Paulson

New York, NY

As a woman, I prefer Obama to Hillary as our President simply because to me, Obama is a stronger candidate and in my view would be a better President. Obama possesses integrity, intelligence and natural leadership qualities, while Hillary radiates a sense of entitlement. Plus, I do agree with many people's observation that she will do anything to get elected. I don't want another jaded Washington insider to preside in the White House. In short, my choice is to decide who would be the best President, not who can make a history as a female or black President.

May MacGregor

New York, NY

As a feminist who has been wary of Hillary Clinton's presidental bid, I would agree with Lakshmi Chaudhry in her statement that the conflicting views toward Hillary represent larger divides within feminism itself: "What do we liberated women want: to join the clubhouse or burn it down?"

As a progressive feminist (I think it is unfair to say that feminists in general are disappointed with or opposed to Hillary--because, really, there is nothing general about feminism. It is a splintered, multifaceted movement in which each seperate faction makes and lives its own definition) I, too, would like to see more from Hillary in terms of taking on controversial issues, especially the war. However, it is unfair to hold her to a higher standard because she is a woman. Let us not forget, she is also a politician and a very good one. To beat the game, you have to play the game.

Purely feminist interests aside, Hillary is the best person to lead this country. While I admire the idealism of Barack Obama and the liberalism of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton is the one with the plan. This was especially evident in the last series of debates. She presented strong, clear policy and yes, she was cautious, but she was firm.

Maybe people are right in describing her as a centrist--but, I think that's really what this country needs right now. America is a great nation because its broad constitutional provisions allow for a diverse culture to flourish. The laws themselves (though certainly not the enforcers) allow for many different types of people with many different types of views to co-exist peacefully and constanly re-weave the cultural fabric of our society. In the past seven years, our country's ideology has swung so far to the right that the best person to guide the pendulum back to the left is someone in the center.

Right now we should, as a nation, forget about gender, or race, or religious views and focus purely on politics. If we do that, it's clear that Hillary is the woman to lead.

Caroline Carpenter

Hartford, CT