One woman out of nine nominees is pretty poor, especially when this has been a year of very rich pickings. They could have chosen Michele Bachelet, the head of the new UN Women agency who has hit the ground running in the organisation's first year highlighting the need for women to be involved in the emerging democracies and working to stamp out violence against women.
What about any one of our three Nobel Peace Prize Winners, who won for their "non violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace building work".
What about Eman Al Obeidi, whose shocking disclosure to journalists in Tripoli highlighted the sexual violence and repression used by Gadaffi's troops?
What about Mona Eltahawy, the journalist recently arrested and sexually assaulted in Egypt?
I can't really argue with the presence of Bouazizi, Ai Weiwei, Nick Davies and Hacked Off on the list. Bouazizi's act, however, was one of desperation. Its consequence was the overthrow of some horrendous regimes in the Middle East, but if you are looking for a Liberal Voice, you have to go for someone with a sustained record of putting liberal values into practice. We want to find someone who works to prevent the situation where people have to take their own lives in such desperate acts because they see no other option. A View from Ham Common is supporting Bouazizi and certainly when he called for us to vote for him in the Time Magazine Person of the Year poll, I did so. He's not the Liberal Voice of the Year, though.
I find it extraordinary that, on this list with world leaders and globally recognised names, we find Mark Littlewood. Why, just why?
And I have real reservations about the Occupy Movement - I've heard reports of sexual violence and very unequal values in the running of specifically the Edinburgh camp.
I've never voted Tory in my life and, much as I love Ken Clarke, I'm not going to start now. I forgave him for his comments on rape and he has been very sensible on sentencing, but he's not a liberal.
Which leaves us with Obama and Clinton. I am not going to pretend for a minute that I am entirely satisfied with the human rights record of the US administration. However, if they tried to do the things that I think they should do, like get rid of the death penalty, they simply wouldn't be able to. The voices of opposition from the states would be overwhelming. That battle has still to be won. The administration's record is not perfect by any manner of means, but it's darned sight better than any Republican could or would have done. A phrase that keeps popping into my mind these days is that the best mustn't be the enemy of the good. Voltaire was right. Sometimes you just have to live with baby steps towards your ultimate goal.
It's Clinton, though, who has constantly striven to put women's issues front and centre of what she does. Sadly, we don't get the boys talking about women's rights, but Clinton is speaking and doing loads to make women's lives better. She's been working with UN Women, highlighting the need for a greater economic role for women, for more women in politics, putting together a joined up strategy for women's peace and security. It's all good stuff. And this is something she believes with a passion. 17 years ago she went to China and told the authorities there in no uncertain terms that that they needed to sort out women's rights there as this video shows:
Working for equality for women is a very liberal thing to do. Her actions could benefit literally millions if not billions of women now and in the future. That's why my vote instinctively went to her. I hope you'll support her too.