When critics hold mutually contradictory opinions on a subject, it’s a sure sign that at least some of them, and probably all of them, are full of shit.

If that’s “incomprehensible,” sorry. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension skills.

Actually, the Constitutional amendment says nobody can be elected President more than twice, so if Bill was elected VP, and something happened to the top spot, Bill would be free to serve as President, as long he didn’t stand for election as President again.

That’s what that amendment says, but the 12th says anyone standing for VP has to be eligible for election to the Office of President.

I was looking at it, and I think that if a former president was the Speaker of the House, Pres. Pro Tem. of the Senate, or held an appointed office; in the order of succession, it could be argued (though USC 3, 19(e) of the federal statute on succession makes it a hard sell, and almost certainly one the courts would use to negate the accession to the office of one who was previously, twice elected, to office.

As for the “if you mean it about being a feminist you have to vote for Hilary,” no, I don’t.

I don’t like her voting record, I don’t like her policy stands, I don’t like that Edwards had to chase her (and Obama) back to Washington to do their jobs.

She ought to have been lobbying Reid to honor Dodd’s hold on FISA. She ought to be saying, “where the hell are Bolton and Meiers” she ought to be doing her job, and part of her job is oversight.

I don’t like a candidate who isn’t fond of oversight; and I am certain, given the way she was treated when Bill was in office that she is going to be hard to keep an eye on, and that interest in perpetuating those aspects of the present administration give me great pause.

That she tried to rig the vote in Michigan (which looks to be planned; since she could have done as Edwards and Obama did, and stayed off the ballot) bothers me. It shows a lack of respect for the people.

If she gets the nomination, she gets 110 percent of my support, but right now, she’s not the top of the list for me. I am not a single interest voter (though some, like reproductive rights are deal killers… if you aren’t for them, I’m not for you; you may be the lesser of two evils, and so I will vote for you, but you will see me trying to find a better candidate, and holding your feet to the fire, but presidents’ feet are hard to grab).

Would I like to see a woman in the office? Sure. Would I want it, just because she’s a woman, and nominally qualified? No.

The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues.”

That’s bullshit. ‘Women’s issues’ aren’t limited to suburban women. There’s more to the movement than abortion, equal pay, day care, and family leave.

Hillary likes to say that serving as First Lady has prepared her to be president, so you really have to count Bill’s legacy as hers, just as you would if she’d been a member of the cabinet. That was the administration that cut off welfare benefits for millions, and that pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act.

Health care is also a women’s issue, and Hillary has been and continues to be one of the single biggest roadblocks to a single payer health care system.

In short, Hillary’s been middle of the road on women’s issues. And in the areas where she’s strong, Obama is generally in agreement with her.

Also, I don’t think it’s correct to say that she’s a dream candidate who would be a shoo-in if she were a man. She’s relatively new to the Senate, her highest-profile stint in the spotlight was her failed health care initiative, and she has the unique ability to inspire the opposition, while leaving Democratic party activists in the doldrums. I still think that she’ll win if she’s nominated, but that will have more to do with the political winds being at the Democrats’ backs than it will have to do with her being a great candidate.

You seem to support Hillary for reasons that have to do entirely with identity politics. Frankly, I think that’s a silly reason to support any candidate. It’s just the flip side of the sort of thinking that inspired the “I love country music” T-shirt.

When Bill was president, he wasn’t married to a former US president.

Hillary would be. I still don’t see what bumper stickers have to do with your incomprehensible dismissal of the potentially troubling issues here.

The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues,

In what sense is that true? She has a vagina, therefore she can’t possibly throw women’s issues under the bus for political expediency?

How well has that assumption worked in the past?

My point was that when Bill was president, Hillary was seen as this pernicious influence on him. Now that she’s running, he is this nefarious influence on her.

So which is it? Critics of the Clintons can’t have it both ways.

Why not? Haven’t you ever heard the expression, “those two are bad for each other”?

But if we’re taking these concerns in historical context, it was conservatives who complained about Hillary during Bill’s term. I still don’t understand what their complaint was, unless it was as simple as “she’s a woman and so mustn’t be given power”, which I suspect it was.

Now, at least as far as I am aware, it is progressives who are worried that Hillary will be as bad to us as Bill was, regardless of whether Bill is hanging around the Oval Office, or on some diplomatic appointment and out of Hillary’s hair, or back in Arkansas with a comfy chair and a stiff drink.

I really don’t think those concerns are historically comparable.

Given that this blog post essentially asked a shitload of FEMINISTS

… many of whom happen to be progressives as well …

Given that no other woman in this thread has been required to state that they weren’t talking about ol’ “Mussolini with tits and a pearl necklace,”

No one else appeared to be suggesting that feminists have to either vote for a hawk and a surveillance state, or turn in our feminist cards.

Margaret Thatcher was a demon, but she voted for the Abortion Act. She was not a demon on reproductive rights. Which of your criteria does she fail to meet?

The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues,

… if women don’t care about the Patriot Act, or Real ID, or their families and their own selves getting slaughtered in Iraq and soon Iran.

She is the best left-female candidate we are ever going to get, period;

Well, I’m a pessimist too, but I don’t share your view on this one.

if we don’t back her, we don’t WANT to be part of the process for real. Period.

It sounds like you’re telling me I have to either be a feminist (which for you means a vote for Senator Clinton) or a progressive (which for me means a vote against Senator Clinton in the primary and maybe for the Green in the general). I just don’t agree with that; I think it’s a false dilemma.

1) Given that this blog post essentially asked a shitload of FEMINISTS about which woman they’d like, and

2) Given that no other woman in this thread has been required to state that they weren’t talking about ol’ “Mussolini with tits and a pearl necklace,”

I didn’t feel the need to specify that. I should have been a bit more remedial, apparently.

The fact remains, Clinton is the fucking dream candidate for women’s issues, and if women can’t get behind her,then I simply don’t want to hear any more of them whining about why their health insurance doesn’t cover their birth control pills or why we’re left out of the process. She is the best left-female candidate we are ever going to get, period; if we don’t back her, we don’t WANT to be part of the process for real. Period.

So which is it? Critics of the Clintons can’t have it both ways.

Because it’s true?

If your bumper sticker example was meant to prove something, I missed it. Can you elaborate?

Can someone please explain to me why, other than being the establishment’s choice ala John Kerry … “Hilary would be a shoe-in if she were a man”?

I’m going to venture that there is no other reason. Hillary is the top DLC candidate. The DLC runs the party these days.