You (well, your linked proxy) says we should judge her by her record. I do, at great length, pointing out that the record is inadequate, while reiterating that it is not her gender that is lacking, but her preparation for the job. I do not make jibes at her femininity, her emotional control or lack thereof, or her marital stamina - I focus purely on her actual, paper-thin, record.

Please explain how this is missing the point. I am accepting your challenge and doing exactly as you ask everyone to do - you need not agree with my analysis, of course, but it seems disingenuous to pretend that I am doing something other than what you asked.

It is not beneficial to our daughters to give a female candidate hell for sexist reasons. Nor is it beneficial to our daughters to present a person who is unqualified for the job she seeks and to say “ooh, this is history”. That simply teaches them a new use for their gender: a mask to conceal inadequacy. If I were a woman, I would be ashamed that the first credible candidate for President of my gender was such an unaccomplished lightweight.

The truth is, I have been nothing but thrilled that not only is Hillary running but that the conventional wisdom seems to be that, all else being equal, Hillary Clinton stands as much of a chance of becoming the President as an African American or a certain old rich white man.

The prospect of Hillary actually becoming President ought to hinge (and I think for many it does) on her record and the progress of her campaign (which, to me, has been an utter dog’s breakfast, to be polite about it (how can anybody expect me to think otherwise?)).

Sexism is a long way from being conquered in this society (as is racism). But for what HIllary has done in campaigning, good or ill, I think she’s finally smacked down the Neandertal notion that women can’t be President, which I, for one, never have believed.

Seriously, I think for some people the need to bash Clinton has surpassed the willingness to actually do what the article is arguing for, and the willingness to provide our daughters with an optimistic future for themselves as girls.

But Hillary Clinton specifically? She is grossly unqualified to be the chief executive of the country. No executive experience. No military experience. No private-sector leadership experience. A relatively insubstantial legislative career. She has great political experience and contacts - but that isn’t enough. You don’t have to have all of those things to be qualified for the Presidency, but you have to have something. “Had sex with Bill Clinton at least once” is not a sufficient resume item; if it were, we’d have had a much larger primary field. She’s never fired a shot in anger, never met a payroll, never built a business enterprise, never led men and women in an organizational capacity. My dad is better qualified - and he isn’t even close to being qualified.

She is better qualified than Obama, that I’ll grant you - but whisper-thin-marginally and mostly due to the biographies of other people. She’s got executive experience the way Kerry had money - none of her own, some illusorily reflected by proxy. (Kerry, while also thin, at least served in the military, and at least was in the Senate for a long time.)

McCain by contrast isn’t terribly well qualified for the office, but he at least has military experience and a lengthy legislative history. Historically that’s enough; I can think of decent presidents who had less. I can’t think of ANY modern President with a resume as thin as hers. Bush would be close, but he edges her across the board.

So I’d be leery of supporting Hillary Clinton’s presumptive right to run for the office. Governor, absolutely. VP, a stretch but perhaps if she were yoked to a strong Presidential candidate. The Big Chair? Hell no.

As for fair and equal treatment for all candidates, including the lesser-known ones, I’m all for that, but I don’t know that I want to put my energy into a Sisyphean endeavor if there ever was one. The media are unfair to all kinds of candidates in all kinds of ways (anyone remember Chris Dodd?).

As for promises to exit Iraq, I don’t see that happening at least not any time soon even if the *right* person gets in to do so.

I think I can support Clinton, the notion of her but Clinton, the candidate still repulses me.

And yes, she deserves “fair and equal treatment”, as do all the candidates running for election but you know what? If you want to really examine that aspect of the elections, why not look at the unfair and definitely unequal treatment given to candidates outside the Big Two parties?

I mean, she’s not even the only female candidate in the election race and Obama’s not the only Black one. But in a way I guess, yes they are because that’s how it’s portrayed in the media.

I’ve been trying, on a feminist forum, to make other self-described feminists realize that they don’t have to like Hillary or even vote for her to believe she is entitled to fair and equal treatment.

However I do feel like there’s some chatter, and I can’t really point to word for word sentences so I’m probably opening myself up for criticism, which forgets that believing she’s entitled to fair and equal treatment does not mean you have to vote for Hillary or even like her.

I’m not planning to vote for her in the upcoming Oregon primary, for reasons related entirely to positions, policy and record. But if she’s on the general election ballot, I’ll happily do so, without holding my nose even slightly.

I’ve been trying, on a feminist forum, to make other self-described feminists realize that they don’t have to like Hillary or even vote for her to believe she is entitled to fair and equal treatment.

They say she is “Playing the victim.” This is exactly what the he-man woman-haters club has always said about feminists who demand fair treatment, and it is so wrong for one feminist to be saying about another.

You can be a feminist and not vote for her, or even like her. But you cannot be a feminist and believe it’s OK to treat her unfairly because you don’t like her or intend to vote for her. When you do that you’re saying it’s OK to treat any woman unfairly because she is a woman.

You could be next. Or your daughter, your sister, your lover, your mother.