A feminist for Edwards

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign's resurgence, I still don't buy Clinton as the women's candidate.

I'm a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn't a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.

If you are a feminist you would, of course, support Edwards for president. Who is the most feminine of the three? Women can relate to Edwards. They know how hard it is to choose hair care products. The joy of a pedicure. Botoxing those age lines around the eyes.

So if you are a woman, Edwards can feel your pain. If he would just cry and show his softer side during his next public appearance, the other camps would just fold up.