I beg your pardon. I don't see any reason to applaud a person who felt the need to denigrate a formidable opponent in order to score points with voters. HRC| allowed race baiting and slurs related to Obama being unqualified in her attempt to win the nomination and after all was said and done the only victory she has is that she incited a lot of white women to publically state that Obama is unqualified and that he won the nomination because he is black. Having worked for over 30 years in predominantly white organizations, I have seen these tactics used more than once. It is common place to assert African Americans have been included in a selection pool or hired, or admitted simply because of they are black. It is a convenient argument to state that blacks do not merit the positions they attain.  HRC's hubris and underestimation of Obama’s skills and intelligence, along with her poorly run campaign, resulted in her loss. I do not celebrate her nor do I think Obama needs to be held hostage by her or by the white feminists who have just proved that the definition of a liberal is that they are liberal to a point. That point is tested usually when a minority group member moves next door to them or when an African American competes with them for a job. HRC’s behavior during the primary lacked integrity and her behavior called into question her character her temperament and certainly her conflict resolution skills.

When the fall is all there is, it matters how you fall. HRC choose to run up needless to bills with vendors and spew more innuendos when it became obvious she was going to fail. Her goal was to solidify her base of  white women. Now she wants Obama to pay for her ignoble fall. And we should give her credit? Sorry, I  cannot.  I choose my heroes with more care.

Eleanor -- well said, I completely agree.

Rebecca -- Why would you think Hillary (who I believe is now 60 or in her 60's) might have wanted more children?  I ask because it seems to me she is the type of woman who would have had more children if she had wanted more children (barring a physical inability to do so) and certainly not the type to look to children as a substitute for career related defeats.

Your question seems to suggest that children (plural) and children in particular provide a kind of salvation against life's defeats.  I would say that salvation comes through love relationships period -- and love relationships can manifest in many forms beyond just having children.  I even think it's problematic when people want children because they want someone who they know will always love them.  When we bring children into the world we need to be ready to meet their needs and not the other way around.  Children come into the world totally dependent and needy.  It's our job to be there for them, helping them become healthy happy human beings -- not vice versa.

In any event, the wonder working power of love can present itself in many forms.  It can be a husband, a wife, a friend, a relative as well as your very own child.  Fortunately for all the people who actually cannot have children and those who choose not to have children God has made it possible for everyone to experience love whether we ever have one child, 10 children or none at all.  It's my estimation it's about love and however it happens for you is the way it's suppose to happen for you.

I am also completely fascinated with what might have gone on in that meeting. Someone could do a fantastic play in 20 years.

Thanks to HRC, the Clinton Brand has probably forever lost my vote. Chelsea Clinton as well. HRC was irresponsible to the Democratic Party by allowing the race to go on so long after she was obviously lost. She played the female card over & over & over again. She is the worst and I despise the fact this liar may be returning to   NYC. Good Riddance to a terrible candidate who was only there for women anyway as SHE MADE VERY CLEAR. Obama may lose my vote for the same reason of late. Bleeeeccch!!!!!

Rebecca --

Thanks for your response.  I did read the last line in your 5th question, but I see more clearly now what you were getting at when you say, women in HRC's generation put off or minimized family in order to pursue their careers, and you're wondering how that's played out for them over time.

I still don't see the question as particularly appropos to "Hillary."  It seems to me she did not minimize family or put off having children in order to pursue her career.  From what I've read she actually put off her own political aspirations in order to follow Bill Clinton to Arkansas, marry him, have a child and then support his political career as Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas while raising their family.  I don't equate the fact that she only had one child and worked as a lawyer as representing a mentality of minimizing family in favor of career.  It would never occur to me to wonder if she wanted more kids in light of the fact that she just lost her bid for the presidency.

In my experience it has not been a matter of women minimizing family, but more a question of women wanting it all (spouse, children and an exciting career) -- wanting to do it all well and realizing it's very difficult if not darn near impossible (at least to do it all at the same time and do it well).

I'm inclined to think Hillary's answer to question 5 is she's perfectly content having had only one child.

Rebecca, I am always fascinated by your posts! My mom put her kids absolutely first in her life.  I always wondered why she had not "done more" career wise so I vowed to "do more" than she had by going for the big career...only to give it up promptly and do exactly what mom had done (teach public school) so I could be totally accessible to my little ones when they need me the most.  I soooo get it now!...By the way, after her kids were successfully finished with school, mom went back to grad school and got that big career I always resented (perhaps too strong of a word) her for not having.  You go, Mama!  Big shoes for me to fill...but I'll try!

Now... HRC just never gave me a warm fuzzy as a first lady, a senator, presidential candidate, a mother or otherwise, even pre-Obama.  Her campaign merely solidified what was a a fluid dislike for her to begin with.  

Your CNNPolitics.com commentary (Best Woman for the Job Could be a Man) was spot on. It was one of the best comments on the Democratic Primary that I have read or heard.  It's too bad that many of the folks who wrote in think you are a feminist Obama apologist.  I think that a huge part of Clinton's problem is that her politics are a generation too old.  It is a politics of division (women versus men).  Obama offers a vision of women and men working together.  Second, old school feminism continues to ignore its own internal racism.  It is very middle class and college educated.  One does not hear much from or about lower income, less educated, or women of color.  

All of this came out in the comments by baby boom feminists against you and Obama.  Your article (like Obama's rhetoric) publicly credits Clinton for her huge accomplishment.  You articulate a post-gender feminism of inclusion that the baby boom feminists -who are divisive- attack as apologist.  They lost because people who are different are into working together instead of apart.  Rather than consider your on time observations, those pro-Clinton, anti-Obama, pro-McCain feminists choose to cling to the 20th Century and attack you.  Remember the angry white male?  America, don't be confused.  The angry white female finally came out of the closet!

Wow this was a great dialogue. I am always amazed at the thoughtfulness that goes into the responses and it is as if everyone is using Parliamentary Procedures and speaking to the Chair first :)

HRC has really disappointed me for many reasons already stated. Clearly it was the notion of white privilege that kept her going, how dare anyone think she should bow out gracefully!!  Now that she has lost yes lost the nomination, she is not doing all that she can to mend the democratic party. But the most difficulty I have is that if you believed in a democratic leader, why would you now cast your vote for someone that believes we should stay in the war for another 100 years and all the other unthinkable things that McCain is sprouting? My challenge to that person is were you really a democratic supporter or just a HRC supporter?  If that is the case then I feel sorry for those people because clearly they had no depth to their politics.

On a different note, yes she needs some fashion consulting, no doubt about it and her stylist team should all be fired.

And finally, the notion of having more kids is always one that you rustle with as a parent. HRC had lots going on so she probable did not want to have another kid to slow her political train down.  I on the other hand, am entering that frame of thinking as my son just turned 2yrs old yesterday.

Yay!  I'm glad for this article.  I think Kimora should have been called in, absolutely

Moreover, I appreciate the womanist approach of this article, I think it is hard for women not to relate to Hillary as a woman on some level, even after all the privilege, status, husband, etc. come into play. She has been fighting ever since her husband "did not have sex with that woman."

I agree, it's a good story.

I applaud this article because you've been an outspoken Obama supporter, and this article matches the Senator's affability and professionalism.  

yay!!!

as far as the other comments on Hillary's subtle racism, she is who she is, a white woman whose aligned her cause with black civil rights for whatever reason. Her reward, barack obama, is precious irony, that people have to recognize before they can appreciate it.

Whether the writers on this site agree or disagree, it is such a relief to read comments that are entered by people who are thinking instead of screaming their capitalized words into the ether.  Please continue and maybe the calmer CNN readers will pick up on this.

I've wondered about #4, too.  Was it always a Clinton plan for Hillary to run for the presidency also?  Could they have really not considered that she might lose her quest?

eleanor, I fully agree with you.

I find it so ironic how during the campaign, HRC found it necessary to denigrate Obama and now she feels as though she should be invited to become the VP.  I think not.  I am sick and tired of people in general stating that Black America owes the Clintons so much.  Why? I don't remember either of them visiting my household and stroking me a check for anything.  Everything that Bill did in the White House, he was monetarily compensated. He did not serve as President without being paid.  

You have people who say that Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black.  Lots of whites didn't vote for him because he was Black.  What's the difference? Whites vote for whites because they are white.  

Now HRC feels that Obama should help her get out of debt.  Here is my plan for her:  Since she so eloquently speaks non-stop about her 18 million votes that she received, she should reach out to each of those 18 million people and ask them to send her $1.  That would be $18 million and she could pay off her own debt.  Wow, how brilliant!!

HRC lost because everyone could see through her BS.  She is a liar (i.e, Bosnia sniper fire), a manipulator who whines and uses her gender when it benefits the situation. Her husband is a loud mouth, non-thinking womanizer.  She got exactly what she deserved during this entire campaign.

If Obama could win the Democratic nomination against her, he can win the Presidential nomination without her as VP.  A new story will be told in November...

Rebecca, mothers who don't have staffs to take care of their children while they live in the White House are "public mothers", not HRC.  Talk to some women who juggled a career, husband, children and college without the assistance of a staff.  They are "PUBLIC MOTHERS".  Get a grip and untwist your thinking.