Thank you, Gloria Steinem

Is Senator Clinton the perfect candidate? No more than Barack Obama--but seriously, no less, either. And no less than Edwards, either. Let's face it -- we're lucky to have so much depth on the bench.

But I have to say that the media's treatment of Hillary has been appalling and ... typical. Gloria Steinem has got it right -- if you haven't yet read her column in the NY Times and you consider yourself a fair person, then it's a must:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised at how angry I was following the results of the Iowa caucuses. A lousy 200,000 people vote and suddenly the press is asking how Hillary will bow out -- after she has dominated the polls for months. The exultation of taking down a powerful woman. In the follow-up debate in New Hampshire, the two boys ganged up on her. Nobody saw that as less-than-dignified behavior. But look at the headline when Hillary shows a hint of emotion and confesses that the campaign is wearing: "Hillary feeling stressed before the New Hampshire primaries." Another stressed-out woman. And did you see the photo on the website of the Washington Post? All we see of Hillary is her stiletto heel. When she's not stressed out, she's a cold, calculating...well, you know.

I'm far to the left of Hillary, as she stands publicly on the issues, and have been frustrated by her acquiescence to the Bush administration outrages. I don't know where she stands in private. But what would people say if she had a Dennis Kucinich stance on Iraq? Be honest -- it wouldn't fly, coming from a woman. Let's just imagine how far she (or any woman candidate) would get with a folksy Mike Huckabee approach. I guess that's where I disagree with Gloria Steinem: unfortunately, Hillary DOES have to prove her masculinity, and in a big way -- yet, she can't prove it like a man because that's unwomanly. In short, there is really no way that Hillary could possibly behave, as the "rules" stand today, that would allow her to be womanly and strong and "presidential."

When I think of all this, it makes me respect Senator Clinton for taking that on, even though she is plenty smart and plenty experienced enough to know exactly what she was getting herself into. You call it bald ambition? Well, why not? You fault her for calling her years as First Lady 'experience'? It was a trial by fire -- wanting desperately to exercise her intelligence in a position that called for her to be a mere decoration. And besides, how else could a smart, ambitious woman get to the White House? Hillary is not the only one to have tried to carve a meaningful role out of the vacuous position of First Lady. And they say that Vice President is the most meaningless role in government.

Hillary is not perfect, but you can bet that she can stand up to whatever people hurl at her. You can bet that she will be prepared for every meeting, and that she will study and understand the issues. You can bet that she will speak in coherent paragraphs. And if we let her, she may even show her human side, too.

It wasn't so much the results of the Iowa caucus that bothered me -- it was the crowing that went with it. My deep disappointment came from realizing just how far we still are from accepting women on the same level as men in positions of power.