I am a 31 year old woman and yes I do consider myself a Feminist - a strong Feminist. However, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton and to me that is a testament to true Feminism. Why would I vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman? I would never have voted for Elizabeth Dole. I am a Democrat, and I like Barack Obama. I feel inspired by him and he makes me feel hopeful when I haven’t felt hope in 8 long years.

Now, what angers me about this election is the fact that the criticism Hillary Clinton does receive is typically sexist. Things like her crying, her haircut, her outfits – and the not so subtle nagging women stereotype. This to me shows how much sexism is still rampant and acceptable in this country. The reason I won’t vote for her is because I don’t feel like I can trust her. She is pandering and she hasn’t denounced this catastrophic war.

I am 31 and do not consider myself a feminist. I was raised in a "mixed household" with one Democratic parent and one Republican. I have never joined a party, although I am politcally active and have been involved in campaigns for candidates in both parties.

However, I do feel that voting for a woman or a man of mixed race is an important choice. If only one of them were running, I probably would feel an obligation to vote for them on the basis of the "ceiling" they would be breaking. It is both wonderful and heartbreaking that we have two qualified candidates who inspire their constiuencies. I don't see them as being equally qualified, and that is why my vote would go for Hilary if I was allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't see breaking my refusal to join a party for the last 13 years now.) If she is the Democratic nominee I will vote for her in the general election.

I will feel much more torn if Obama and McCain are running against each other in the general election. I don't consider Obama as good a leader as McCain, and I feel pushed by the media to vote for him because it would be "historic." I personally hope that a ticket with Hilary as President and Obama as Vice-President will be an option. That is a ticket I could vote for without hesitation.

Before this LONG nominating process began I didn't like Clinton and had I read Obama's books with enthusiasm and told my daughter about him. I thought I would be all for him, but his behavior toward Clinton during some of debates changed my mind. (I don't think he "gets" what racism and sexism share in common!) Clinton has impressed me with her resilience and total command of the issues of substance. Obama has been eloquent but not as informed as Clinton. (But as politicians they are both "spinmeisters" of the highest order. Obama is just smoother at it than Clinton.)

Anyone who thinks that discrimination against women is a dead issue is as naive as anyone who thinks that racism is a dead issue. You don't have to go far to see that both prejudices are alive and well in the new millennium.

As a news junkie who listens avidly to OPB and NPR I have heard countless pundits compare Obama to JFK, but I have never heard one of them say the obvious: We cannot compare Clinton to any former president because we have never had a woman elected or even get within smelling distance of a nomination! We haven't even had a woman V-P.

It's interesting that the difference in race between JFK and Obama does not deter such comparisons. Yet if Obama were a tall, mixed race, inspiring FEMALE presidential candidate, would anyone be comparing Obama to JFK? I doubt it. As my mixed race daughter told me when I was musing about all this, "Mom, don't forget that Black men got the vote before women. Men belong to the club of male privilege. Some men are more privileged than others but they will let in another man before they let in a woman." But having made that observation, she's voting for Obama. (She doesn't like Clinton because "she did a Tammy Wynette and stood by her man" and hasn't watched the debates because of a hectic schedule.) I will probably vote for Clinton.

It would be great if Clinton and Obama could work together on a joint ticket, but I cannot imagine that happening. Not because of generational differences but because of gender--he would try to patronize her as he did during some of the debates and she would never go for being patronized.

Hillary may be an example of success and achievement for some women.
However, as a Caucasian, working, college educated, registered Democrat, over 60 years old, mom and grandmother, I will not be voting for her.
Here are a couple reasons for my “no” vote.
I was and remain concerned about her professional and ethical handling of real estate matters in Arkansas before and after her husband’s election.
She was non-compromising while working at health care reform after her husband’s election.
I am very concerned about examples of when “we” were in office! If she were elected will “we” be the president?
How quickly forgotten are the Clinton administration nightly bombings of Iraq, and his political policy that allowed continued persecution of the Iraqi people but kept the oil flowing.
I feel that her handling of the Monica situation is a poor example of how a successful leader would face a crisis, deal with it and move on. She lost, she did badly, and Bill’s unique smirk ness, continues on the current campaign trail to rub her and our noses in it.
She is a successful woman, but is still heavily harnessed by the glass ceiling and has comprised and taken the easy road to get that success.
Not the person I want as the president.

Saying that you won't vote for someone because you would have dealt with infidelity in a different way seems VERY sexist to me. I dealt with it in a different way, but I would never blame a woman who decided that her spouse was working on their marriage enough to stay. Suggesting that there is something wrong with a woman who makes her marriage work, even under the scrutinary of judgemental people like yourself, is a tribute to her.

I also wanted to point out something that made me laugh from your post. You first say, "She was non-compromising while working at health care reform after her husband’s election." You then go on to say later in your post that "She is a successful woman, but is still heavily harnessed by the glass ceiling and has comprised and taken the easy road to get that success."
So, she is non-compromising and compromising, and that makes her a bad choice for president?

In reply to MeMe, how sad that we remain so swayed by media, old paradigms, and fear. Can you be more specific about her handling of real estate matters, apropos of the current situation brought on by our current leaders? How do you know she was she non-comprimising, when any efforts she made where broadsided? Wow about the oil, don't even know what to say about that. And what would you do if you understood that your husband made foolish personal decisions? Divorce, like bankruptcy, has become common place in this country. So sad.

As much as I like to see equality in our nation, I do not believe that parts of our world is ready for a woman to be president of the United States, the strongest nation on earth. Foreign affairs are one of my reasons to elect our next official and in no way am I trying to discredit senator Clinton however in our world today, in Muslim nations, women do not get the respect they deserve. Women are not allowed to drive cars or show there faces or ankles in some places and unfortunately these nations are the places that I think we need to make the most efforts in patching up bad relations that the current administration has formed. I think it’s horrible that these conditions exist but the fact is that they do and I do not think that we will get the respect that we deserve from them if we elect a woman as our leader. At this point, we have too much to loose on a global level to elect Hillary as our leader no matter how qualified, experienced, or electable she may be.

I also think that Hillary has shown her true colors trying to get Michigan and Florida’s votes counted when she agreed to have them omitted. I also think that if Obama said that he had experience in birthing children because he was there when his kids where born, like Hillary has experience in running a nation because she was there when her husband was the president, every woman and most men would think he is crazy.

I am amazed at the level of sexism that exists right here in our own country. Why would the bad behaivor of other nations make it okay for us to be sexist? Would you say that other countries should also not elect women to leadership roles until all countries will do it? Would you like to go back to Apartheid and slavery because there are those who still believe in it? Or maybe we could go back even farther and take away the rights of everyone who doesn't own land?

If we are not willing to move forward, we will go back. Hillary is just as capable of making global relationships work as the idiot currently in office who has bungled just about every one. The Middle East will care more about the US doing the right things, and the policies of the next president than their gender or race.

In response to Beesee, I just returned from a trip abroad, one of many I make yearly, and this country does not realize how much respect the Clintons garner. Obama is a curiousity, Hilary Clinton is seen as a world leader, much like Merkel of Germany. Stop falling for the obvious.

I am a 29 year old woman and will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primary, much to the dismay of my friends and boyfriend, all Obama fans. Much of my support for Hillary is because I feel it is my duty as a woman to support the first viable female presidential candidate the U.S. has ever had and might have in a long time. But, I also feel she is the better candidate and brings much more experience and knowledge to the table than Obama.

I have been appalled at the blatent sexism I have seen in the media and among friends and co-workers, male and female alike. I have heard comments about her appearance, body, and even sexuality that have absolutely nothing to do with her ablility to be president, and I feel equivalent comments about Obama's race would never be accepted.

I never thought of myself as a strong feminist, but seeing the way Clinton has been treated has made me more aware of the pervasive gender discrimination that is not far beneath the surface in my own life. I have also been disappointed in the reactions of my female friends, some of whom have judged her even more harshly because she is a woman, such as refusing to support her because she never left Bill or saying that she is not "feminine enough".

I truly believe Hillary Clinton would make an excellent president if given the chance. But, I also worry that if she were elected, her actions would be scrutinized and judged far harsher than those of a man. It saddens me to think that an intelligent, powerful woman is still such a threat to "the establishment" that they will do anything to bring her down.

Being a feminist, in my mind, has little to do with voting for a woman just because you are a woman. Many prominent men are staunch feminists, like Alan Alda (Hawkeye Pierce of M.A.S.H. fame). My son would easily rank among men who are strong feminists, yet he is supporting Obama, while I am supporting Hillary. Which brings me to an interesting question...

I'd like to know how many adult Obama supporters are still living with (and benefiting financially due to it) their Hillary supporting parents? My son got to college greatly due to his Pell grant, which was a Clinton program. The low interest loans he was able to obtain were likewise Clinton programs. I wonder sometimes if he truly realizes the amazing benefits he received as the result of the Clintons occupying the White House. Well, I do, and I want them back.

Um, I got Pell grants and low interest student loans during the Johnson administration. Those are old programs, like me. It's Bush who has destroyed these long standing programs.

The idea of hope is so intoxicating to people that they are willing to trun a blind eye to the realities that exist in this country. Black men had the vote before any woman, black or white. Pin your needs on an anecdotal idea of hope, and the cruel facts of inequality that make up the very fabric of this country are overlooked. We live in a gender unequal race unequal, economic unequal society. At least Hilary Clinton doesn't pander to the patriachal structure tht got us there in the first place.

I am a relatively young feminist, and I'm voting for Obama because I feel he's the better choice. He's more electable and seems more genuine. (With good reason, some loyal Republicans are switching over temporarily in order to vote for Hillary in primaries--Obama is much more of a threat.) I don't want to be a part of handing over another election to the Republicans. I'd love to see a woman become president, but now doesn't seem to be the right time. Soon, hopefully.

Folks,

Our hope is to move away from a focused discussion of Clinton, Obama, and the 2008 election by 9:30 at the latest -- and to start talking more about how your own experiences (at the workplace, at home, on the ballfield, in the supermarket aisle) have shaped your political and social views. We might circle back to talk about the election, obviously, but you shouldn't feel that the show is limited to a Clinton-centric discussion.

I hope to see more men writing in, too!

How very, very ironic that you are even having a show on this topic. I challenge Think Out Loud to a show on the racial divide and whether people feel the "need to elect a" black man "as president just to prove equality." The standards of OPB and NPR are egregiously hypocritical on this issue. Anyone asking whether Obama is receiving support because he is black is immediately censored on NPR as a racist. This absurdity and lack of critical thinking is deplorable.

This shows existence answers your questions. Thankfully feminists are at least honest enough to admit that Hillary's underdog status is some part of the attraction.

NPR really should be ashamed - it's "dumb objectivity" on this topic, on this show and others, is debased and pathetic.

-Portland, Oregon

I'm a guy who became a feminist. I worked with a woman who repeatedly told me how she wasn't a feminist, so I became one to make up for her stupidity. There are few things worse then women who go around declaring they aren't feminists. All women reap the benefits from the sweat and tears of the pioneers and revolutionaries of the past.

Perhaps these abstainers think you have to be militant or angry to support the rights of women? Who would dare declare in public that they didn't support the civil rights movement or the rights of racial minorities?

-Portland, Oregon

Bravo, scottmil.

Those who follow pioneers in most forms of endeavor - such as the liberation of women in the U.S. - are usually impatient of, and lack understanding of the trials of those who have achieved what the younger are taking advantage of. This is frustating to the older folks, but are natural.

They are totally unaware of the idea that girls do not study math, science, etc. They cannot become lawyers, doctors, vets, whatever. On a more humorous side, they do not understand that girls cannot run the length of a basketball court, so in a girl's basket ball game, there were 3 forwards and 3 guards, neither of which could cross the center line. As a girl who grew up on a farm and was considered to be my father's oldest son, I frequently found these ideas ridiculous and frustrating - but I sort of did my thing (athletics, math major, etc.) and survived.

Women's Lib, as it was caused, does have one large area where the current and future generations may lose out. That is the area of abortion. While I never considered an abortion (even when becoming pregnant a bit early - no pills yet), I definitely consider having the choice to be critical. No one else's religious beliefs should infringe on the rights of my daughters, granddaughters or anyone else's.

As far as Hillary is concerned, the U.S. has never had a woman as president or vice-president. Other countries - Germany, United Kingdom, Liberia, Chile, New Zealand, India even Pakistan have had female leaders. I am probably missing some. The U.S. has not achieved that objective. Isn't it time?

It is unfortunate that this election has the possibility of two earth shattering possibilies - a woman or a black. Either would be amazing achievements.

Another real problem I have with the 2008 elections is the number of Hillary or Obama backers who say if their candidate doesn't obtain the nomination, they will either not vote or will vote for McCain. I cannot think of anything more immature and self defeating.

This election is not about Hillary or Obama. It is about the future of the United States. Our country and its democracy has been terribly damaged by the last 7 years of conservative control - not leadership. It is problematical that we can survive another 4 - 8 years of conservative control and may easily end up being being just another very large banana republic. McCain doesn't even believe in birth control, for God's sake.

Personally, even though I was formerly a Republican, I will vote for which ever Democrat is nominated. That is how anyone who truly cares about the U.S. should behave. There should not be any of this "take my marbles and go home" attitude.

As a strong, independent woman, it irritates me that women are still singled out as anomalies for achieving statuses such as Hillary Clinton's. Every time that the media or the public comments that it is unusual for a woman to be president or a CEO, it is sending a message that this is not the status quo. I would like to see gender become a non-issue, and that women of all characteristics exist as the norm in our society.

It is sad that the USA follows (rather than leads) other democracies in electing a woman to its highest office. The UK, Israel, India, and Pakistan come to mind as leaders in this regard.

Hillary Clinton is provably more experienced and better qualified than Barack Obama. However, Obama has neutralized racism by defining himself in a way that promises benefits even to racist Americans. Hillary must neutralize sexism by defining herself in a way that promises benefits even to sexist Americans.

I think it's way past time we see more women in positions of power in politic - such as the role of President. However, I don't feel particuarly good about this woman (Hilary clinton.) She would be so divisive. The mouthy conservative talk show hosts certainly don't need the fodder. We need someone who can bring the country together. I'm female, but I just can't see voting for a person simply because of their sex. They need to be a good candidate as well. I just don't see that with Clinton. Also, the aura of entitlement she projects mostly just turns me off.

I don't understand why everyone says that Hillary is so divisive. I don't think most people know why she is so divisive other than that the media keeps telling us that she is.

Republicans dislike the Clintons as much as Democrats dislike George Bush. We have had 20 years of "love him" or "hate him" presidencies and that is why the country has become so divided. America needs a change so that we can move away from this 2 family control. As an example my 76 year old Wyoming Republican mother said she would vote for Obama, but would like to leave the country if Hillary Clinton is elected. The same response many Democrats had when George Bush was reelected. If anything is going to bring out the Republican voters it will be the chance to vote against Hillary. Why do you think that Rush Limbaugh is wanting her stay in the race?