To further clarify, I didn't intend this thread as an attack on Mrs. Clinton (though she deserves attacking), so much as a comment on the less-than-feminist nature of her candidacy.
And it's not just that she became a household name and a viable Senate/presidential candidate because she was married to a successful politician. If you listen, it's not uncommon to hear people say that they're voting for Hillary Clinton, not because of her qualifications, but specifically because her husband was a good president. Or they say things like, "She may have such-and-such flaws, but Bill Clinton will be there." How empowering for the liberated woman, to have Bill Clinton's wife, carefully guided by Bill Clinton, elected president on the strength of Bill Clinton's allegedly good presidency.
True.
I actually agree with you. It's ironic to say the least.
But you have a few things at play here, that make the acceptance of Hilary as a feminist icon something of non issue in this race.
First of all, she is not a feminist icon to the current generation of so called feminism. Most of that crew is in Bernie's pocket.
Hilary represents the feminism of the past, which is passe and has plenty of hypocritical crap of it's own. Most of the "feminist" who are her supporters also have husbands who pretty much bend over backwards to provide for the "independent" woman they married. These are the choice feminists who wore huge padded shoulder blazers when they were working their way to the top. Some them may have actually worked. These voters don't see Bill as doing anything other than what a proper husband should do for his wife.
Second, is Obama
really a representative of the majority of the black population of this country? We know what W's claim to fame was. When it comes to politicritters, it's not who they actually are, it's the image they can sell. Hilary sells her -naughty word- like Obama sold his color and she married it when W was born of it. She's just like her predecessors, just with a slightly different spin.
