A lot of contradiction in this piece. You talk of the necessity of vetting candidates, but then go on to say:

“If Clinton is someone’s choice, don’t tear that down. If a gay person says she’s the candidate for them, don’t scream she once believed in “traditional marriage”. If a pacifist says she’s the one, don’t shout that she voted for the Iraq War. If a woman says she wants to see a female president in her life time, don’t discount her as the establishment. Don’t qualify my admiration.”

Isn’t the very definition of vetting, in a political sense, comparing ones rhetoric and promises with their actions, what they’ve delivered? Many politicians, left and right, often make exorbitant promises and claims that are more often than not in stark contrast with their track records. This is true of Clinton, which you even recognize. Why wouldn’t you call out people repping a certain ideology for supporting a candidate who stands in opposition to their claimed principles? Are you not allowed to call out peoples inconsistencies anymore?

If a “pacifist” supports one who was a fervent advocate of the Iraq War, then in the factuality and intellectual honesty it only makes sense for one to correct to them. When leftists (funny enough, be they white, black, brown, male or female) critique Hillary’s record on civil rights issues (especially relating to her support of “tough on crime” measures and mass incarceration) or gay rights (you know this one, as you reference it in the quote I mentioned) they are waved away as whitesplaining Berniebros! We’ve reached a bizarre intellectual moment in the U.S. at which criticizing a white, heterosexual candidate for being insufficiently supportive of minority and gay rights is denounced as racist and homophobic.

Ultimately, electing a female leader is not *intrinsically* good - it all depends on the policies that they plan to implement. Were British feminists mobilizing for Maggie Thatcher in the 80s, or US feminists for Palin in ‘08? On the policies, as you even hint at yourself in the article, Hillary isn’t up to snuff.

“Every meme comparing her to Sanders, every attack on her liberalism, every time Chris Christie says he’ll “beat her rear end”, we’re seeing not only a vestigial of a sexist society, but one that’s libeled her into mass hatred. Yes sexism, I said it, it’s there. No, you’re not anti-feminist for being for Bernie, but the vast majority of attacks against Clinton, not in meaning, but in rhetoric and delivery, find their roots in a system stacked against powerful women.”

So you’re conflating Sanders supporters (or anti-Hillary leftists more broadly) criticizing Clinton for being insufficiently liberal with Christie promising to “spank” Hillary - and you insist that leftists doing so is resultant from misogyny! Really? Memes unfavorably comparing her to Sanders, scrutinizing her record from her left flank are sexist?

By all means, the political debate can get brutish and nasty at points, something I take care to avoid. I’d be interested in hearing your response to my counter-arguments.