<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Feminism and Clinton]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>A reader writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t even know where to start with your &quot;<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/dissent-of-the-.html">Dissent of the Day</a>&quot;. I&#8217;m sure they would dismiss me as &quot;tone-deaf&quot; on Hillary too, but objectively, I can&#8217;t grasp what is so special about an ex-president&#8217;s wife running for president. I would also love to see a woman president, but not one that owes her prominence to her man. And that is the bottom line with Hillary &#8211; without the exposure she got as First Lady, she would not be a Senator or a serious contender to the presidency.&nbsp; Sorry &#8211; it is your &quot;dissenter&quot; that is tone-deaf &#8230; and apparently blind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hillary Clinton had a chance to pioneer feminism. But she preferred her own ambition to her alleged principles, and when it really came down to it, she deferred to a man. Bill came first, however brutally he humiliated and used her. But she knew her place &#8211; and coped by trying to leverage it for more power. A profile in feminist courage she has never been. Too risky. When it comes to feminist pioneering, she&#8217;s less Margaret Thatcher than Cory Aquino.</p>
]]></html></oembed>