Clinton is best choice for women

A few weeks ago I spoke to a woman who had just decided to support Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "I couldn't stand it when Hillary cried in New Hampshire," the woman told me when I asked her to explain. "We can't have a weak president."

I almost laughed. Hillary Clinton, so often attacked for being too strong, too cold, too masculine, sheds a barely visible tear and suddenly she is "weak."

On Feb. 15, the Seattle P-I printed two op-eds arguing that "Obama is women's best hope" and "Women won't lose anything with Obama." If Obama had the strong feminist record that Clinton does, I wouldn't have a problem with the columns. I will always vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender.

But in comparing the records of the two Democratic candidates, it seems that women will lose something with Obama. We'll lose our chance as feminists -- ostensible supporters of the meritocracy -- to support a woman who is also the most qualified candidate for president.

Clinton's record speaks to the best of feminism: the fight of the suffragettes to create equal political rights for all, and the quest of subsequent generations, including our own, to create a world of opportunity where women can achieve our career goals, own our own bodies and protect ourselves against domestic and sexual violence.

As a lawyer, Clinton ran a legal aid clinic for the poor and helped establish legal guidelines for the treatment of abused children. As first lady, she declared in Beijing, against the wishes of the Chinese government, that "women's rights are human rights," inspiring women all over the world. Working with Washington's Sen. Patty Murray, she fought for three years to get the Food and Drug Administration to allow the "morning-after pill" to be sold over the counter.

It strikes me as insultingly shallow that syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe considers the "metrosexual" Obama to be "more of a woman" than Clinton. Clinton is enough of a woman to have dealt, every day of her adult life, with the constant hyper-criticism that stems from our collective ambivalence toward women in power. But as she said at the debate in Texas, her much-publicized crises have been nothing compared with the struggles of those who do the most work for the least money and status in our society: nurses, teachers, parents and especially mothers.

Clinton's candidacy is not a cult of personality. How could it be? What female leader could be strong-yet-vulnerable, feminine-yet-unemotional enough to earn Obama's idol-like status? But it's a candidacy based on values that, as a woman and a feminist, I embrace.

Yes, I would love to see a woman in the White House. But more important, I want to see a president who will work toward an America where all young girls have the opportunities to achieve their potential and reach greatness themselves.

That is why I support Hillary Clinton.