Submitted by Marie, Mar 4, 2008 13:44

As a third generation feminist, I started this election cycle very excited about the possibility of a woman president . However, as the campaign moved along, as she claimed accomplishments of her husband, when, in fact, as first lady she largely served in the symbolic and low level diplomatic role of her predecessors, I became troubled. She is too firmly attached to her husband's shirtails; she would be better off if they were truly separated. As it is now, she will be forever viewed by other countries as Bill's surrogate, and huis non-profit work and international "consultations" will have a semi-official tone if she is President.

Her own experience as a lawyer, non-profit advocate, and Senator are more than enough for her candidacy. Claims that she had something important to do with Irish negotiations, refugee agreements, etc. are very suspect especially as those ambassadors and higher ups responsible for the deals are polite about her being there in a symbolicv role, but clearly say she did not participate in the big stuff I believe these folks as she has openly admitted as first lady she never had any security clearance --something that surprised me when she was claiming all these important international achievements that require such confidential standing.

She is not being clear or true. either to herself or to the electorate. Gradually, it has been Senator Clinton's own words and deeds that have turned me away from her candidacy. And I am one who would love to see a woman become President. I feel it will happen soon. Senator clinton has taken what was a possibility off on the horizon and mad it something that will likely happen in the next decade or two.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.