In keeping with the theme of the thread, the more one reads about Clinton, rather than start another Clinton thread.

In this morning's National Journal there is an article by Molly Mirhashem about the feminists movement in America from one's eye.
She and the person she is writing about state there are many differences in what feminism means to each person.

Here is a quote from the article describing her thoughts on Clinton's view of feminism:

"And Hillary Clinton came to look like the symbol of an older generation of women more concerned with female empowerment—in particular, with white, middle-class, American female empowerment—than with broader issues of social and economic justice."

How accurate is that? 100% based on some of the reactions on this forum!

I look at it this way. If Clinton was half of what some say she is....or if she was really better than most of what she is accused, there would be an abundance of writings about it. But there is not. The reasoning is obvious. What is being said about her is over whelmingly true.

If the feminists want to put another notch on their pistol it is too bad they elected to use a loser.

This is what happens when money and power lead the rank and file instead of the rank and file making their determination of who they can be proud to represent them and have confidence in their candidate.

Clinton will not be their candidate (thank GOD).