You know, I've heard people express qualms about Hillary because they don't like the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession. But the only reason that it's not Bush-Clinton-Bush-Rodham is because of patriarchal social tradition where women take their husband's name.

I'm just sayin'. Lady wasn't born a Clinton, she just had to become one because to choose otherwise would have gotten her even more smeared (which, I think, is one reason she dropped the usage of "Rodham" as her middle name; it was wasn't worth the misogynistic grief it brought her).

"And it's safe to say that Andrew Sullivan -- endorser of Ron Paul -- may not have the best handle on what it means to be a feminist."

yup...that pretty much sums it up right there...

that was a great article...thanks for the link, ann!

Hillary actually went by "Hillary Rodham" without any Clinton at all until Bill's second campaign for governor of Arkansas. Of course, then it just continued and went all the way from Hillary Rodham Clinton to just Hillary Clinton.

I wish she would've kept her name. I realize the political implications, but it would be easier to seperate out her and her husband that way. And it will sound bad that the states go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton back to Bush. (You know W's nephew is going to run. I'm pretty sure of it. He's George P. Bush, son of Jeb, and they've been grooming him that way, it seems.)

This reminds me of the time some guy started talking about "feminazis" and I corrected him... only to have him very solemnly explain to me that some feminists were bad feminists but because I agreed with him I wasn't. The idea was that since he approved of my particular brand of ladypositivism, I shouldn't get my panties in a twist when he went and designated himself the kind of the feminists.

King, that is.

I think it would be so awesome to have a feminist in the White House. One who really cares about women and girls. On who has no interest in bowing to the boys club.

But I don’t believe Hillary is the right woman for the job. I think she is self-serving and does not give a damn about women except when it makes her look good.

We need a woman who instead of only thinking of herself will set out to undo hundreds of years of male domination

If the feminist police are in town ... Could some of you please arrest Helen Fisher and lock her away somewhere dark and damp?

He has "endorsed" Ron Paul on the Republican side, but he is mainly an Obama supporter. Being a conservative writer, he also spent more than his fair share of time bashing the Clintons (at times even admitting his dislike of HRC is irrational). Given this, his opinion on anything relating to HRC should be ignored. Sullivan is far more tolerable when he isn't on a crusade, like his current "Obama can end the culture wars" kick.

But here's a cute post from Sullivan's blog, a SC voters email about voting with her daughter.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/why-one-south-c.html

It does bother me that Hillary Clinton is running on the accomplishments of her husband. It would be like saying Mr. Thatcher or Mr. Boxer (if there is one) had experience because their spouses held office.

She herself doesn't seem that great. She panders endlessly to the pro Israel lobby and really did make a mess of health care reform.

It does bother me that Hillary Clinton counts her husband's term on her resume. I wouldn't want Mr. Boxer (if there is one) to count "Senator's spouse" as political experience either.

Also, Hillary Clinton is not such a great Senator. She panders in a big way to the Israel lobby and really did make a mess of health care.

How many women do you know who have taken their husband's names? And how many men take their wives' names?
I was out of the country for 14 years, came back to the backlash of feminism. Most women I know and know of take their husband's name. It's the new social pressure, as one told me, "I did it so we could feel like a family". So if most women are doing it, of course a woman running for president has to.