My problem with "most qualified" is that it's too much of a general and unspecific argument. Because Clinton was Sec. of State and First Lady? Because Sanders is just a senator and was a member of the house? Those arguments do not really add up to me. Look at Kennedy, arguable one of the best US presidents in the 20th century, he was just a senator and member of the house before his presidency. Woodrow Wilson (the first US president to have influence in European politics) was just a governor before his presidency, as was Bill Clinton. Madeleine Kunin does not elaborate enough.

Sanders marched on Washington DC with MLK Jr., his voting record is very impressive, look under the "sexual orientation and gender identity", "marriage, family and children" or "women". I do not think there is any doubt that Sanders is a feminist. He led his first political rally when he was 21. I think all of those are evidence that Sanders is qualified.

Ok, is Clinton a feminist/progressive? Well, she says so and her voting record is almost convincing enough (Her "Yea" vote on the patriot act and her "Nay" vote on gay marriage isn't exactly progressive). Sanders' voting record, I would argue, is more progressive and it is just as feminist as Clinton's. The policies he is promising (yes I know, he won't be able to deliver on all of his promises, but no one can) are very impressive. Free healthcare, free secondary education, clamping down on Wall Street, making the 1% pay, most importantly: not taking money from corporate America! The man is neck and neck with another candidate who is taking millions and millions from companies and corporations who undoubtably expect something in return.