Here’s an insightful essay written by Ariel Gatfinkel, a sophomore at Mt. Holyoke College:

The epic struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama reveals strong fault lines between some older and younger women, first underscored by no less than Gloria Steinem who scorned those of us supporting a male over a female. Women of my generation venerate Steinem for her pioneering leadership but tend to reject her insinuation that the Democratic primary winner must have a body like our own. Beyond the importance of race and gender, we believe this election should be about a vision for the nation, leadership style and basic political values.

On the style side, the contrast could hardly be more evident. As the media endlessly ran clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, suggesting somehow that Obama was responsible for the extremes of his minister (a scrutiny, by the way, not applied by the media to the provocative spiritual advisors of John McCain), Hillary ducked to let the circus continue. Failing to show true leadership by denouncing one pastor’s views as fair game in evaluating a presidential candidate, Hillary sat it out apparently hoping the focus on Wright might injure Obama. While missing her own principled moment, Hillary was left to watch Obama rise to his.

As the media, perhaps correctly, noted that by remaining in the race, Clinton might be jeopardizing a Democratic White House for four more years, Obama stood up to say that Clinton has every right to remain in the race. How easy it would have been for Obama, even coyly, to have egged on the calls for Clinton’s withdrawal. In fact, he came to her defense, showing both a difference in style and principle. Ironically, it was the male candidate rather than the female who exhibited one of the values of feminism, the unwillingness to accept the old style politics played by men for decades.

That some older women accept such displays of un-feminist leadership on the part of Hillary Clinton may be due to their understandable and long-desired election of a woman. But we should remember that feminism is not about women only but about changing the values and style of discourse in the nation. On this count too, Clinton comes up far short by exhibiting much of her husband’s tendency toward the old politics.

These politics and their perverse values have been the norm in the Clinton campaign. Paramount, perhaps, is Hillary’s willingness to condone racial divisiveness as a tool to win the nomination. It began with Bill Clinton dismissing Obama’s impressive win in South Carolina as unimportant because it was a Black win, a race “even Jesse Jackson won.”

As if to underscore that this reach into the racial gutter was not a mistake, Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro, a paragon of feminism gone awry, offered up her own race-based dismissal: Barack Obama is ahead only because of his skin color (did Ferraro really wish to open the door to people saying the same about Hillary because of her gender?). This was not simply an ignorant rendering of the nation’s racial history, but an attempt to fan division in a most “old boy” way. And Hillary’s sitting out the Jeremiah Wright controversy simply added icing to the Clinton campaign cake of racial division.

What I don’t understand is why so many of us feel we have to get so polarized over the choice between Clinton and Obama. Is the news-for-profit industry fueling this division?

Gender and race do matter. I went to the precinct caucuses flip-flopping between the two and ultimately will be delighted to elect either in November. Hillary is good enough to be President, so is Barack.

-50 year old white guy

I was very much pro Hillary from the beginning of the campaigns. I still very much like her policy positions, her speeches, her personal enthusiasm, her energy, and very appealing projected cheerful positive personality.

There is not that much difference between her underlying positions and Obama’s.

However over time, and a deeper reading and review of Obama’s many positions, speeches, anecdotes and reviews of Obama’s leadership capabilities, mental and strategic insightfulness and adaptability, and underlying personality, I have come to believe that Obama is much much more substantial in all qualities as a presidential candidate.

The last straw of disappointment came with the unforgettably repeated Bosnia whopper and the subsequent attempts to dismiss questions about it. I worried that it might be the tip of the iceberg. There are several possibilities each of which is not good:

1. Does she really miss-remember? If so, what does that say about the acuteness of her Presidential mental tools? I.e., we are in trouble.
2. Does she fantasize and develop an extremely detailed fantasy of the events and then believed her embellished fantasy? If so, what does that say on how we can trust her in forming the foundations of her judgments in the future as a president? I.e., we are in trouble.
3. Does she deliberately and consciously lie and in detail, to further herself? If so, does that show an underlying weakness towards using that type of a crutch in critical pressure situations either to steam roller others or to hide a position or worse? I.e., we are in trouble.
See also, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists

Looking further into this concern, I now believe that she really does have a repeating pattern of lapses in personal integrity. I still like her positions and presentations. However I think she is not electable. I don’t think she has the fantasy of a chance against John McCain, the straight talking express, and his team, and the Republican Swift boaters. Hillary’s character is like an iceberg, and her campaign is a ship like the Titanic.

There are several specific instances noted below.

Her boss on the Nixon impeachment team, Jerry Zeifman, the General Counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, a life long democrat, says her pattern of deception and unethical behavior goes back much further; he says -

He fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation, “Because she was a liar, …. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” http://www.jzeifman.com/
He “regrets” that he “had not reported her to the appropriate bar associations. …. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut
Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. …. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, her boss Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. http://www.jzeifman.com/

In the Whitehouse Travelgate firings, she denied having any involvement in the firings. An independent counsel grand jury investigation took sworn testimony from many people working with her, and elicited that she had directed the firings, and the independent counsel concluded that Hillary’s testimony was factually false. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp

Does anyone really believe that she, with no prior or subsequent experience of stellar success to show in stock and commodity trading really believe that out of the blue she was able to earn 10,000% in one year of commodity trading ($100,000 of profits after starting with $1,000, or eighty times George Soro’s best year) with the biggest gains on short selling, on her own after spending some time perusing the Wallstreet Journal as she says? That was unquestionably an assisted trading favor in the shade of under the table compensation (and at worse, a bribe through fraudulent transactions). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v47/ai_16709018

There are numerous other anecdotes on the web.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFDC1339F93BA35752C0A960958260&scp=5&sq=william+safire+blizzard+of+lies&st=nyt

How can we have such a person be President? She would have to be dealing and negotiating with multiple foreign leaders, domestic leaders, many different constituencies, all having different agendas. Would she be agreeing to or promising one thing after she had forgotten prior promises in another direction? Would she be saying one thing, while working behind the scenes to do something else? Would she be fabricating fantasies to support her positions when such positions are unfounded and have no popular support? Who can trust her? We had a problem with President Nixon’s integrity, working surreptitiously behind the scenes at Watergate. We have a problem with President Bush’s character, fantasizing about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and fantasizing about Saddam’s support for Al Queda. How could we have taken such huge risks electing Presidents who are so flawed in their underlying integrity and character? I am sad to conclude that Hillary’s pattern of ethical lapses reveal a fundamental tragical weakness that simply makes her not electable, no matter how otherwise appealing she may seem to be.