Two columnists this week have treated Senator Clinton unfairly, to say the least:I wrote about this at a bigger blog but Michael Kinsley's oped about how long it takes Hillary Clinton to get ready in the morning and isn't it unfair that women's looks count more than men's...please. Some readers didn't see a problem with this article but here's my take: there is NO reason to bring up the makeup issue in the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Kinsey is writing a piece on fluffy gender differences rather than political realities because he hasn't a clue. Painting it over with the "life is unfair" conclusion does not excuse the intimation that Senator Clinton will lose valuable sleep because her LOOKS matter more than the other candidates. Why didn't they tell that to Golda Meir and Maggie Thatcher?
I think this is an area, particularly in terms of media analysis, where reasonable people can disagree. But I don't trust that Kinsley was making a straight statement about media fairness where Senator Clinton is concerned. He was bringing up issues of looks and vanity and image handling to infect the discourse, in my opinion. I'm not a Hillary supporter, and this article struck me as pandering to sexism.
Then there's Maureen Dowd, and yeah, she should change her name to "Maureen Dowd, heavy sigh why does she have her job."
If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.
EVEN IF Dowd had not put McCain's name in the same sentence as the prediction of Clinton's age, seriously what the hell is Dowd thinking?
MCCAIN IS SEVENTY-TWO, FOR FRAK'S SAKE.
I mentioned this to some fellow bloggers, one of whom was so bold as to make the "it's different for girls" argument. Somehow Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir are allowed to be older successful women politicians, but what, Hillary is too pretty for that? Or not tough enough? Or what? What?
I'm not the only NYTimes reader who ain't buying that.
_____________________________
While we're on the subject of Senator Clinton, here is a juxtaposition I would like folks to think about. I seriously think it's time for Mister Dean to start spanking, if not some candidates than some state party chairs. Michigan and Florida broke the party rules. Deliberately. Very deliberately. Senator Clinton respected those rules by not campaigning in either contest, good on her. What is with this?
Does Senator Clinton write the rules? Just asking.
