Two women are running for the highest office in the land and only one has the support of liberal feminists. Despite her
overuse of the gender card, Hillary's devotion to the feminist cause is largely unquestioned by her following.
The conundrum is an interesting one to observe. How do feminists justify supporting one woman over another in an arena historically delegated to men?
Hillary believes
she's owed the White House, has served her time, and now the public ought repay her with the Presidency. She is pro-abortion, and has accomplished little outside of being elected to office or appointed to a cabinet position. Her resume is full of impressive titles but has a deficit of accomplishment. Clinton seldom, if ever, stands toe to toe with her opponents much less holds her own.
The opposite is true of Fiorina. She's tough, accomplished, and has said repeatedly she hopes to earn voter support and ultimately, the White House. She
doesn't see being a woman as a meritorious occurrence, nor a reason to garner votes. Preaching women are not "an interest group" in need of puffy pandering, Fiorina has even gone so far as to
denounce modern feminism as a version that is "no longer working."
And yet, liberal feminists aren't quite sure what to make of her.
The
New York Times explored the perplexing phenomena Monday:
