i now support bernie. it would be nice to have a woman president but to vote for hillary because she's a woman is not right for me. if she's the nominee she will get my vote.

be interesting to see how other women respond to this post.

I won't vote for her in the primary. I will vote for Bernie because I believe in his message.

the worst reason to vote for her - especially given her strong track record of policies so destructive to women....The policies of perpetual war, reforming welfare to name but a few, consistently represent male hierarchical systemic flaws within the socio-economic system. One only has to look at Britain's first female Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for a classic example of how a woman who has made it within this structure and abuses her power.

I am female and certainly will not vote for Hillary over Bernie just because she is a woman. i will (reluctantly) vote for her if she is the democratic candidate, but do not hold her or her shape-shifting tendencies in high regard. do i even know what Hillary REALLY stands for?? Even after all these years? There is no question what Bernie stands for! He has integrity and has ALWAYS had the cohones to tell it like it is without concern for votes or PAC money. Go Bernie Go.

Hillary Clinton will NOT be that candidate that will have the public wanting many more women presidents in the future! Unfortunately, Obama, with his pushing Fast Track and the TPP now amongst other things will make it HARDER for other people of color to be elected president in the future with his template of what a person of color would do when elected.

I think you're vastly underestimating how soon a woman could be president if someone like Sanders gets the nomination and the presidency. I think it could be as early as 2020 that we might have a president Warren, if Sanders picks her as his running mate, and steps down after one term perhaps because of his age to allow Warren to step in and be the next president.

Warren would be a woman president that WOULD set a good template for us to get many more women presidents in the future, AND would help us continue reforms that someone like Sanders would start in 2016 that fix our country, and the world at large when we finally tackle things like climate change, etc. We could have an era of change that she becomes at least partially responsible for that might be held as high a regard as FDR could be. This is a very possible future, and we shouldn't let the corporate media try to make us feel otherwise, which seems to influence the feelings of this OP.

I felt we were intentionally given Obama vs. Hillary in the last election so that one of these two candidates would get elected to break two different "glass ceilings", and ignore the fundamental problems that are in our country now, which unfortunately Obama has been doing which is evidenced by many problems like prosecuting Wall Street crime even less than the Reagan administration did, and pushing CORPORATE legislation like the TPA and TPP now too far more than he ever tried to push a public option or single payer in health care reform negotiations, which leaves us with a health care system that though helping people is still too expensive when not taking out the LEECHES of health insurance industry the way they should be.

We were intentionally having the liberal votes siphoned over to John Edwards who was left in until Super Tuesday as the candidate concerned about traditional left values, and then the PTB I believe (probably knowing from a lot earlier that he had legal personal baggage) then just "pulled the plug" on him so that no other candidate could be in the mix between Obama and Clinton, who corporate America both controlled.

With Bernie Sanders closing in on being the candidate that contends with Clinton this time around instead of Obama, the corporate big wigs want to try and "end" the nomination process as soon as they can and just crown Clinton as the winner to avoid someone like Sanders being the Democratic Party choice in the general election which is their nightmare. As I note, a Warren VP selection would allow women to vote for the us getting the next president as a woman who will help women far much more down the road to be considered for the presidency than Clinton as president would now.

is not the reason that women, et. al. are not supporting Hillary.....IT'S HER POLICIES!!!

Sexism is being used/exploited to get people to vote for Hillary - which makes her candidacy the epitome of and reinforces the sexism that you supposedly are appalled at.

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

I am new to this forum and am not allowed to start a new thread, so am jumping in here.
where is this "I am for the Fringe Candidate image coming from?? Its GREAT. I love it. I have been searching for an 'appropriate' bumper sticker for Bernie for months. No one has come out with a "Feel the Bern" sticker, and this "I am for the Fringe candidate" image would also make a great bumper sticker. I would add "Feel the BERN !! " and "2016" and it would be perfect. i would have some custom made if i could use this image- but also need a 300 dpi version. Does someone own it? If yes, PLEASE start making bumper stickers! or release a version with higher dpi.
Go Bernie!

Sadly, he passed away on June 11th:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=5052

Every woman I have talked to about Bernie either will vote for him after I said who he was or already wanted him.

We women are smart enough to know it's more important to have a president that will support our beliefs and families than have a woman who will let them take more away from the little we have now.

I found it interesting at fathers day brunch my step daughter 28 not only knew who he was but says shes going to vote for him!

and Bernie is NOT the only liberal in the race: Martin O'Malley's a strong liberal leader.
Among other issues:

Katrina vandenHeuvel: Martin O'Malley speaks powerfully about crisis few willing to confront

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026854442

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/21/finally_a_democrat_who_calls_bullst_martin_omalley_drops_a_profane_truth_bomb_on_gops_deranged_economic_policy/

As for your candidate, he is solid and I am glad he is in the race.

THAT, of course, is no reason to NOT follow him. He was to be on Morning Joe today.

He is at a disadvantage b/c he is not actively serving in politics right now through
no fault of his own. But that should not matter....I want public funded elections
so bad, I can't say it enough.

We've got such strong, good leaders in our party. He is one of our brightest stars...

I was among 3 women and 5 men. The women talked the most despite being unseen and heard or whatever. I will not vote for someone based on their race or gender period full stop. I don't play division politics, this is the UNITED States and we have more in common than we have differences.

Being opposed to her is not based on sexism--at least for me, it's not.

I do not vote for people based on either their sex or on their skin color. They have to have the right ideas, and I don't believe she has them.

We need the RIGHT woman, and I don't think she's it.

different from her rhetoric and I fear she cannot be trusted..

there's a bit more to it than gender. I've lived this long without a woman president and I will wait for the right candidate. And I do resent the incessant threats coming from her camp.

I'm a feminist, would love to see a woman as POTUS, but it has to be the right woman with the right agenda. I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but I'll vote for Bernie in the primary and hope he's the winner.

Which is very possible looking at her past performances. She is not very good at diplomacy, she does say the most ridiculous things sometimes and she loves to wave that tough war fist too much.

Now THAT would set back another womans chance for President, if Hillary screws up.

This is the way I see it. Save the spot for a woman that sounds more like Bernie. I could go for that.

for the right woman to run and vote for.

it's nice that she liberal on social issues, it's not so nice that her stance on issues must be messaged. Can't upset her backers.

I would never vote for a woman because she's a woman--I remember flipping my lid when a non-political lesbian friend was initially supportive of Sarah Fucking Palin...fortunately, she was non-political and she did sour on the idea--but I digress.

Personally I think women ought to run the planet, but one thing I don't want is a woman candidate who is only progressive on social issues and unfortunately I think that describes Hillary. I don't think she's progressive on economic issues (haven't heard anything more than lip service so far) and I'm darn sure she's a hawk. It is long past time to have a woman president, but for me, this is not the one.

I hope there will be. But I'm not going to vote purely on race, gender, etc. I'm going to vote for the best candidate. My hope is that Sanders will win the nomination and find the right progressive woman as a VP and then step down in 4 years.

But maybe our ages are disparate!

I'm not a big Hilary fan, with the reasons well-limned above. But it pains me to finally have a woman candidate properly lined up, leading all the freaks the other party's dysfunctionality has attracted by a mile, and yet . . .

Hillary Clinton isn't that candidate, never has been, and never will be. Her best chance was in 2008 and she ran a very poor campaign with the message of inevitability. Here she is 8 years later doing the same. The Republicans are setting themselves up for a bigger failure than in the last two elections with the candidates they have lined up. Trump is going to suck all the energy out of the Republican primary if he actually files with the FEC (he has 180 days from when he announced, so technically he could change his mind). Even if Trump doesn't stay in the race there are so many on that side that will end up causing distractions.

HRC is the only hope for 1/2 (+) of the population?
The single woman capable of shattering the chains?

No pressure there.


I like to think President Obama was elected because he was the best choice put forward two cycles in a row, not the color of his skin. I really like to think Ms. Clinton is being presented as a choice because she is a good candidate not because she is a woman.
If the only reason for her to run is her gender, than she is a poor candidate.

I respect Ms. Clinton. In fact I respect her more than I respect her husband. I am concerned about her more centrist stance and close ties to the uberwealthy. The fact she is very skilled in working a corrupt system makes me wonder if she can undo the corruption; can she, will she, take it all the way? Before I decide, I want to hear the debates. I want to hear her ideas put out in plain language. Is she the one do undo the failed policies of the last forty years? Currently, I favor Mr Sanders.

Civil Rights Activist Ella Baker said "strong people don't need strong leaders". I have no doubt women are strong. I see it everyday in my wife, daughters, and mother. No matter who Hillary Clinton is, was, or can be; she is not the sole possible savior of the half of the population capable of child birth.

That being said; Rock on Ms. Clinton

with instead of the best one. So as a Hispanic, I should vote for the Hispanic candidate. That would be Marco Rubio for me. Doesn't make sense does it?

... and a Hillary supporter.

I support her because I think she's the best person for the job. Her gender and "glass ceilings" were not even a remote consideration in choosing to do so.

To feminism.

Women are more than capable of leading, as long as they can genuinely articulate the right ideas and, thus, lead the country in the right direction.

but I also will not vote solely based on gender. I vote based on the candidates stand on the issues, and not a johnny-come-lately liberal point of view. Bernie's been fighting the good fight for decades. He is the real deal and the President we need. When the right woman comes along I will vote for her. This election cycle I am voting for Bernie.

To say that he "isn't doing enough" for women is disingenuous, on par with the "he doesn't care enough about people of color" nonsense.

If HRC is the best candidate and runs a better campaign then she should get the votes. All of the candidates who are running no matter what party are applying for the job. It is up to us to decide who among them comes the closest to what we believe and up to them to present their ideas for the future of this country. This is not about a candidate's gender, race or what have you, it is about their ideas and their track record.

and I am fully backing her now and will continue to do so through the primaries.

It is only when we have an actual Dem nominee that every liberal should fully support the candidate. If that candidate ultimately is Hillary and self-styled liberals will not support her to the point that they would risk letting any GOPer win, then so far as I am concerned, they are not liberal at all.

Bernie himself would not want that. And neither would Martin. So if you are truly a non-Hillary supporter at this time, I can understand that and I support your right to support your chosen candidate. If a non-Hillary candidate wins, I will support that candidate to the best of my ability.

Any "liberals" who do not support the Dem candidate in 2016 certainly will have no credibility whatsoever with me, whether they are currently in a "blue" state so that believe that their vote will not be missed or whether they are in a "red" state where they don't believe that their vote will make a difference.

One's vote is one's voice. If you don't use it, you lose it. You must take a stand one way or another. Period. If only to be able to say truthfully that you did. If you don't, you have forfeited the right to complain, IMO.

strong advocate for women's issues not only in the US but around the world, children's issues and education, worked as an advocate for children's issues and has worked for the working Americans through pushing minimum wage increases and very concerned about wage disparity. She has been where many of working Americans have been and are still living.

I need her to be a suitable, GOOD candidate. Women: We can do better than HRC. Much better!

I am glad to see our culture has progressed enough to see her taken as a serious and likely candidate. However, I am convinced she is not the best candidate for us. I don't subscribe to the false notion that any fish is a good fish to eat. Fool me once...

As for the glass ceiling:

As a woman I want to see a woman president in my lifetime, but if Hilary is it I would be very amazed. Her shelf life is sort of past due.

... then I guess I guess your argument holds a certain element of internal validity.

think of any female heads of state.

There is Indira Ghandi - and look how her time in office did so much for the women of India!

demand for the Presidency of the US. You later make a better case claiming that she is the best qualified.

As to the generic comments, they work only in the abstract. For instance, using your "white man coming into a room" comment -- it depends on who is in the room and who the white man is. In Clinton's case, let's call the room the Senate and consider whether she or a random JUNIOR Senator would have gotten the most attention -- starting in 2000. HRC has been in the most elite circles since 1992. That, not the fact that a random white man might have it easier than a random non white person or a woman, is more pertinent.

At this point, it seems almost certain that she will get the nomination. I hope that all the things you state about her abilities are true because we need a Democrat to win.

PS adding that in speaking of Obama, attributing that - even in part - to being black gets perilously close to comments that angered many at Clinton surrogates in 2008. Obama won IN SPITE of being black, not because of it. If HRC wins, it will be because she ran a good campaign that convinced enough people that she was the best person (not the best woman) to be President.

A candidate's character is what I look for, character and ideas and integrity. I do not vote for chromosomes.

Say it's Bernie vs Fiorina in the general?

The glass ceiling is certainly an issue worth considering. But I'd say it's a minor issue compared to everything else the candidate believes. It makes sense as a tie-breaker when the candidates are equal.

Of course, "human rights" encompasses women's rights as well. Oh, and also let us know when the Clinton Foundation returns those tens of millions of dollars from countries which treat women like less than second class citizens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chelsea-clinton-dodges-question-about-foundation-donors-terrible-womens-rights-records_927957.html

Chelsea Clinton Dodges Questions About NYTimes Report, Foundation Donors With Terrible Women's Rights Records
9:01 AM, Apr 23, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER

Chelsea Clinton was asked about the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation taking money from countries with terrible women's rights records. Clinton was also asked about the New York Times report today on shady payments to her family. She dodged the questions.

Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Not too long ago, I read in some book about a young British MP who someone said would never amount to much because of her high, shrill voice. She then lowered her voice an octave. It was Margaret Thatcher. The reality is that for a woman to win in a sexist society, she generally must be a bigger jerk than most men. She has to constantly prove that she's tough and decisive. Elizabeth Warren, who I'm proud to say is from my state, is a great candidate, but I don't think she could win. She would be called meek, too schoolmarmish, etc. Hillary cannot easily be labeled with sexist stereotypes. In that way, she exudes feminism. She stands for the strength of women; her male opponents will not be able to surreptitiously or subliminally promote many sexist stereotypes.

If she is not the next president, then I think the first woman president is more likely to be a Republican, because a Republican woman has the testosterone-driven philosophy of their party to create the illusion of strength and toughness. Hillary in all her roles has been anywhere liberal to moderate. The battle against Wall Street will not be won in the current environment. My view is that we need to secure and expand our gains on social issues, which is our best chance of creating a groundswell that will lead to serious reform of Wall Street and our military policy.

As far as what Bill did, his bad behavior was discovered as a result of a $40 million taxpayer funded investigation. That is what the Republicans are trying to do with Benghazi, Hillary's email, and the Clinton's wonderful foundation. I would guess that most people could not stand the scrutiny of that kind of investigation, but the fact is our mistakes and flaws do not define us. Overall, Bill Clinton was a good president, despite his sexual dalliance. Consensual sex and marital relations are a private matter between couples.

According to the sexual harrassment laws passed and supported by Democrats, crude workplace propositions by powerful people in an organization are the business of the employer. In the case of Bill's sex in the Oval office and the propositioning of Paula Jones while he was governor, the employer in question was the people of Arkansas and then the US. If it was a purely private matter, Bill would never have wagged his finger into the camera and told the people "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I don't believe in any way, shape, or form, that expanding our gains on social issues will lead to "creating a groundswell that will lead to serious reform of Wall Street and our military policy. "
Sounds like a pipe dream to me. I'm not willing to shrug and say it's not possible to take on Wall Street now. If the Democrats can't put forth a candidate willing to take on Wall Street and fight for working people, they should close up shop and get out of the way for a new party willing to work for us.

There is nothing the Clinton foundation could be doing that would make it OK to me that it is accepting money from evil regimes like Saudi Arabia. I don't want to vote for anyone that is so buddy-buddy with the Saudis that they receive gifts of money from them. I won't be defending that Foundation, and it's a millstone the Democrats don't need in attempting to retain control of the White House.

is fine, but isn't good enough. Any candidate I vote for must also be progressive on fiscal issues or people will continue to suffer financially. I do believe having a woman President is a noble cause; HOWEVER, I do not believe it warrants throwing the poor and elderly under a bus to achieve it. Perhaps Bernie will select a female VP who will go on to take the WH after Bernie vacates it.

I believe that she is not the best person to move this country in the correct direction, to get our economic policies back on track, or to help grow our middle class. It is not about a glass ceiling. It is about the Presidency of the United States and We, The People.
Or should we just declare now that Hillary gets the prize for her sex, then do we give it to a Latino? Or should it be a Native American? Maybe a Hindu? Or perhaps we go out ona limb here and say it's Bernies turn because we've never elected a Jewish president?

...has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman. This from a woman!

that is

You do a disservice to WOMEN when you state it will be years before there will be another qualified female candidate.

Just curious - if I am supposed to vote based on genitalia, how do I choose between two male candidates?

* Wife of former President Bill Clinton.

I think the truth is the total opposite of what you are arguing.

There are good, solid, liberal, progressive women who could be running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America right now who have 'made it on their own'.

Hillary's candidacy sets back the cause of more women in elected office.

* US Secretary of State

But please go ahead an minimize her some more...

I don't think she is that smart.

I don't think she has a very good presence.

I don't think she is a very good campaigner.

I don't think she is very highly principled.

I do think that she is mostly where she is because she married very fortunately.

I do think she has come to love money and power excessively.

I will take Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Patti Murray, Kristen Gillbrand -- independently accomplished women -- any day over Hillary Clinton.

and dirty campaigning may actually be the cause of many good women NOT running for Presidency.

I will vote based on the candidate's record
I will vote based on the candidate's position on important issues
I will vote for the candidate I feel is most likely to advocate for the middle class
I will vote for the candidate I feel will best benefit this country

who isn't a foreign policy hawk and joined to Wall Street at the hip.

And Bernie is excellent on women's issues - always has been.

I care about voting for the best person for the job, I don't care what sex, color, or religion they are.

to be President someday. Neither of them ever said they want to be first woman or first black president.

Neither of them are quitters or unwilling to work hard for years & years, towards goals. Both of them support womans equal rights by words and actions. Including Senator Sanders.

Lets at least hear the platforms the candidates all want first. We'll all back the candidate nominated at the Convention later.

That would push Hillary more to the left.

As far as I can tell, around here, Hillary's negatives come from her moderate Democratic approach. Progressives don't think she's 'left' enough. I believe them, the Clinton family has never been progressive, and have always been calculated and triangulating. They're also really good at selling themselves. None of which translates into progressive politics or progressive policy.

But having Warren on the ticket, would be awesome. Not only because it would be a woman/woman ticket, and America is ready for it, but also watching Wall Street freak out over a pro-Wall Street Clinton and a not-really-pro-Wall Street Warren as the other half of the ticket, would be way too much fun to watch.

Whomever is the Democratic nom, they've got my vote. If its Bernie, I'm showing up. If its Hillary, I'm showing up.

I will not, however repeat the 2008 snark fest that was the Democratic primary. That was bullshit.

As the father of two daughters, I really want her to win

But hey, what do we know? Each of us a lifelong, politically involved Democrat - 3 bachelor's degrees & 5 graduate degrees among us. Highly successful in our respective fields (law, govt., finance).

You would do a better job as a dad if you based your selection of preferred candidate on their DEMONSTRATED, UNWAVERING and, most importantly, EXPLICIT commitments and actions in behalf of progressive policies, and who had not sold their soul to corporate lobbyists/campaign donations.

Hoping for a career in the military or working for weapons manufacturers for your daughters? HRC's the candidate for you! We're talking endless war - that's HRC's ticket!

All three of my children including both daughters are supporting Hilary Clinton and I would be happy to match their educational achievements against your children. Two children are lawyers and each graduated with honors and were editors of their law journals. The third is still in school but if she goes to law school, she will make one heck of a litigator.

All three children are active in Democratic politics and one daughter worked very hard on voter protection/voter id issues here in Texas.

Sanders supporters are hurting their candidate with these rather stupid attacks. Do you really think that this was a good argument to win support for Sanders?

I am supporting Hillary Clinton for a host of reasons including worrying about control of the SCOTUS. I guess that you are comfortable letting a GOP president pick three or four SCOTUS justices and letting the GOP control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation. I like Sanders but his supporters are turning people off of Sanders. I am truly not convinced that Sanders is a viable general election candidate and I fear that we will have a repeat of 1972 if Sanders is the nominee. Control of the SCOTUS is too important to risk on a candidate who will not be viable in the general election and is not doing that well in the polls for the GOP primary process.

You gave no reason for supporting HRC except that you had 2 daughters.
I did NOT attack your qualifications as a father. I did criticize your simple, unadorned statement that you supported her because you had daughters. I attempted to point out to you that the smart thing to do is choose whom to support for president based on their policies and past actions, and NOT on their genitalia. Specifically, I wrote:

I am living with the consequences of the SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act and the voter suppression laws that were allowed to take effect due to the Shelby County opinion. Running a weak general election candidate in this cycle is really a bad idea given the fact that three or four SCOTUS slots will becoming open. Citizens United and the Shelby County case (the decision gutting the Voting Rights Act) are both due to Bush being given the election in 2000 by Nader. Further GOP control of the SCOTUS risks loss of Roe v. Wade.

Here is a chart that explains my concern



Again, your post did your candidate a great deal of harm. It was really stupid to attack my qualifications as a parent and the fact that you think that your post was justified is really sad. I like Sanders pesonally and like many of his positions but his supporters are really hurting his cause. Your attempt to defend your attacks really did not help your case other than convince me that you do not care about winning the general election and will be happy to see the SCOTUS become a conservative political organization for the next generation. Roe v. Wade would be the next target for such a court but that is evidently an acceptable loss

I really wanted Elizabeth Warren but alas...

My daughter will vote for the first time for this election and she supports Bernie too.

I will vote for Hillary if...etc. but to drink the kool-aid that OP is selling seems like extortion.

"Good liberals would do this...not that...."

Nope, I supporting who speaks for me and Bernie it is.

I want a progressive President. If the Democratic nominee is a centrist, corporatist elitist, well, I may stay home. I'd prefer Hillary over Jeb!, but the difference between them isn't that significant.

Bernie offers a real chance for fundamental change in how wealth is distributed among the citizenry. We can eliminate poverty if we have the will to. There are certainly more poor & middle-class Americans than there are rich kleptocrats. Bernie gets it. Hillary? She's trying to talk a good game, but her record certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

They said Obama didn't have a chance, until he did.

Bernie 2016

We're not voting for any history but for that which will benefit the People the most. Hillary Clinton isn't that.

the gender of the president. Women can be best served by getting rid of all the abortion restrictions and by forcing equal pay for equal work and by providing childcare like the civilized countries do.

pretty liberal for the most part (aside from a few issues like the war), and that was before Bernie Sanders stepped into the spotlight. Other than that, I agree. All the D candidates have their faults, but I still like them. I see the importance of voting for the nominee in 2016, and am looking at things in the big picture. It's likely that we'll see a few SC justices step down during the next term, and anyone who is poor, a minority, or both would be even further up a creek without a paddle with a Republican winning (and with them controlling one or both Houses). All of the Republicans running for president are the same in my book. None of them want to conserve the safety net, or truly care about protecting people's rights or the environment. They all want the opposite agenda of Democrats.

Certainly I will support Hillary if she is nominated, but I am far to her left, so Bernie is my preferred candidate.

I do think Hillary is admirable in many ways, but I worry about her (and Bill's) close connections to big banks and about her past support for a hawkish foreign policy and for free trade policies that harm American workers.

Voting for her because she's a woman is no reason to vote for her, says this woman.

The best person for the job is Bernie.

It has nothing to do with gender, and it's alarming that so many people are on her bandwagon just because they want a female president.

Make history with the right woman, not just any woman.

I could not care less that Hillary is a woman.

If she's such a strong candidate, winning it -and earning the support of liberals on the merits of her candidacy and not just her gender- should be no problem for her.

Conversely, if she's NOT that strong of a candidate, it's ludicrous to suggest she's the "only chance" to get a woman in the White House. We could run Liz Warren in 2020, or Kamala Harris in 2024, etc etc

She can work the party machinery but if she wins what is there for her to do besides the obligatory appoint the right people to the courts?

I Won’t Vote For Hillary Just Because She’s Running and Female, She’s got grit.
The question is: are there enough of us willing to consider what she could bring to the office?

[link:http://www.thewrap.com/i-wont-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-running-and-female/|

besides, we have way too many problems that need to be addressed that affect all of us. and if those issues get addressed by someone like bernie, the odds of women advancing in politics (or anywhere) are increased.

In 2008, I supported Hillary and I had a TON of progressive friends that supported Obama. I also have a lot of black friends who supported Obama, and none of them were afraid to say that (among other things) the MOST important thing for them was that the US finally elected a black president. They saw what that meant for them as a group. NO ONE lectured them on it. Not ONE of my white liberal friends, whether they supported Hillary or Obama, ever took one of them aside and said "Listen, you can't just support him based on his skin color..."

Yet with Hillary, it's totally different. Saying you support her BECAUSE she is a woman is seen as ignorant. While white people would NEVER tell black people not to vote based on skin color, many men have no trouble telling women not to vote based on gender. Likewise, while black people happily supported Obama and had no trouble with other black people supporting him solely for race, women tear each other down for the exact same mindset.

Why the double standard? Women have been discriminated against just as much as black people, and having the first female president would be just as historical. When Obama took that oath of office, millions of young blacks in our country looked up to him and for the first time thought that they could be anything they want to be....why is it so wrong to want the same experience for every young girl in America?

And I find the "Vote for HRC! She's a woman!!" arguments sexist.

As a rabid liberal who has volunteered for elections since I was 9 years old, I will not vote for another Republican in Democratic clothing. Bill Clinton did terrible harm to the middle class and so will Hillary. Perhaps if all the liberals stay home in 2016 (except to vote for true liberals), the party will finally get the message that there is no such animal as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative--at least not a true Democrat. We need to fire every "Democrat" that voted for TPA and will vote for Fast Track.

Obama has been a huge disappointment and so will Hillary. She has already enlisted the help for former Monsanto executives to get herself elected. At least if the president is a Republican, we can unite as Democrats against him or her.

Her campaign rhetoric regarding women's issues is certainly inspiring, but how does one reconcile that rhetoric with her official actions in office?

She was an enthusiastic backer of Obama's intervention in Libya, to the point that she gloated on national television afterward: "We came, we saw, he died." Ms. Clinton, many, many people have died as a result of our actions in Libya, and we have helped turn that country into a hellish nightmare. Who suffers most from the depredations of war and anarchy? Women and children. Feel good campaign rhetoric doesn't undo the actual suffering that results from warmongering policy.

She was one of the crafters of the TPP. When that trade agreement kicks in, it will undermine the position of working women in the United States, and women and children in the workplace abroad. It's estimated that the TPP will affect 800 million people, well over half of which are women and children, all of whom can expect fewer protections, longer hours and worsening working conditions. Ms. Clinton's involvement in the TPP directly contradicts what she claims to favor in her campaign speeches.

It was the same story when she sat on the board of directors of Walmart and helped quash the unionization of Walmart workers. Her actions then directly impacted the lives of Walmart's female workers, and not at all in a good way.

Feel-good rhetoric doesn't cut it. We need real action, and Ms. Clinton, and you've shown in the past that you're not going to take it.

support that candidate, then you're right.

It will be at least 8 years.

I'm a liberal, and I'm a woman. I clearly recognize that we are not in a post-sexist time.

I'm not voting for a candidate based on plumbing or melanin.

I'll vote for the best candidate on issues every time.

It's too rare an opportunity to pass up the chance to nominate a candidate who gets the issues right. We haven't nominated the best candidate on issues in my lifetime.

has absolutely no bearing upon my candidate consideration.

No more corporate shills!

It's more than clear we will one day have a woman POTUS. It may be Hillary, it may not be. I'm more concerned with who represents the interests of the commoners.