Not a lot to say here, but if you haven’t yet gone over to nataliedee.com, then you should. Are her creations amazing? Do both of these guys shit in the woods?

And her career there shows what a trail blazer she could have been for feminism. A skilled, cautious, pragmatic and constituent-focused legislator, she began to build a Senate career admired by many. But it became clear pretty soon that the Senate was indeed merely a stepping stone back to the White House. It also became clear that she had absolutely no qualms about using her husband’s former office, unrivaled party clout and acute political skills to advance her current, long-planned campaign. Bill was wielded as an attack-dog, in an unprecedented abuse of the prestige and honor of the Oval Office in the service of a campaign proudly dealing in blatant nepotism. It was an act of corruption by a corrupt dynasty fearful they couldn’t win re-election without pulling every lever they had.

Indeed, Sullivan has a point about Hillary Clinton – that she had an opportunity to chart her own political course through the dark waters that are Washington, but she opted instead to hitch her wagon to Bill’s rising star. Where Sullivan misses the mark is that he seems to believe that now – after Hillary’s tenure as first spouse during the Clinton presidency, after her move to New York, after her election to the senate and subsequent reelection – now is the time to question her feminism?

If Hillary had a Y chromosome instead of the second X, being “feminist enough” in the mold of Margaret Thatcher or any other feminist heroine would never be an issue. Clearly – nobody looks to any of the current Republican candidates – that small group of white males, two clones plus an android – and asks whether they’re feminist enough, or whether they took advantage of political opportunities when they presented themselves. Why is that? Because there’s no expectation of white male political candidates to be champions of women’s issues. Nope – Hillary Clinton is the only one that’s under that level of scrutiny; she’s the only candidate in history who we ever expected to run for president while making sure the shopping got done.

I agree with Sullivan’s take on political opportunism and corruption, but to single Hillary Clinton out for extra scrutiny because she’s not male enough to possess an acceptable level of ambivalence towards women’s issues is a bit cheap.