I would be very excited for a woman to finally make it to the presidency. But I do not automatically think that just because Hillary is a woman that she would fairly represent my interests as a moderate income woman or the interests of other moderate income folks.

Take for example:

1) Social Security Preservation: Obama and Edwards (and Nadler, for that matter) had called for the lifting of the cap as a means of preserving it, so that higher income folks - in addition to moderate infome folks - pay their equitable share. But during a previous debate, Hillary misrepresented the Obama/Edwards (and Nadler) position as entailing a 'trillion dollar tax increase' or words to that effect. She would merely refer/defer the question of Social Security preservation to some commision, saying that this worked in the 1980s. Well for moderate/middle income folks like my mom, neither the 1980s commission results, nor the Clinton 'tweaking' of Social Security had been helpful.What would have been helpful and equitable would have been the lifting of the cap.

2) Health Care Access/Financing: Hillary had her chance while part of the Clinton Administation to come up with an equitable and workable plan at a time when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Not only did she fail to do so but the lousy plan that she finally did come up with was arrived at through closed-door meetings in which no consumer reps were even invited. How was that helpful to moderate income folks-including moderate income women? Let me say that while I think that Hillary's current plan-a cut & paste from Edwards' book - is better than what she came up with before and better than Obama's health care plan, how do we know whether she would again revert to closed door meetings that exclude consumer representatives? Obama has at least promised to have open-door meetings on health care financing that could be televised on C-span