In my daily paper is a good article about Hilary Clinton by Anna Quindlen. I tried to locate it on the web to share

but she basically says how hard it is for a woman to run for president. If Hilary were a man and described as calculating or ambitious, that would be assumed. But when Hilary is described that way, it's almost an insult.

found it!

To win, Hillary Clinton must buck the system

May 24, 2007
I t wasn't supposed to be like this. When we were parsing the possibility, dreaming the dream, cruising past President Barbie in her jaunty tricolor accent scarf in the aisles of Evolved Toys, we imagined the endgame: a woman at the podium and the distaff side of the aisle going nuts, seeing decades of slow, steady progress embodied in a single individual. Good morning, Ms. President.

The moment has arrived when a woman could well be the Democratic nominee: Hillary Rodham Clinton, smart, experienced, sure-handed. "Help make history!" her Web site says. So how come the response has been so guarded? Where are the cheers and the confetti?

The truth is that Sen. Clinton has a woman problem, but it's not the one we all might have envisioned decades ago. Certainly there may be Americans who covertly balk at the notion of a female president, despite what they may tell pollsters. And every time Clinton is described as calculating or ambitious, you realize that such words are never used for male politicians because for them both traits are assumed -- and accepted. Old habits die hard. In the first Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the contenders how they would feel about having Bill Clinton back in the White House. In a single sentence he turned the Democratic front runner into the Little Woman, a mere adjunct to her husband.

And of course there is that immovable group who have long hated Hillary Clinton for reasons too psychologically complex to be deconstructed, the people who wouldn't vote for her if she were running against Osama bin Laden. But in some weird fashion, the woman thing, as we like to call it, is playing a larger role among her natural supporters than her opponents. When we imagined a woman president, we imagined a new day, a new strategy, a new vision and new tactics. Even when we said it was unfair to hold women to a higher standard than their male counterparts, in our hearts we did, whether they were running companies (more family-friendly policies and humane workplace conditions), editing newspapers (human-interest and service stories) or practicing medicine (patient contact and engagement).

But with Sen. Clinton's candidacy, the brand new is the same old, revolution and throwback simultaneously. She has been part of the political scene for so long that an entire generation of girls have grown up never knowing a world without Hillary, front and center. Although opponents like to paint her as a liberal and a feminist, she is above all a pragmatist; she knows how a campaign is run, the well-oiled machine that must support the standard-bearer. In her case the machine is so well oiled and she is so polished, so practiced, that authenticity seems to have fallen by the wayside. The fantasy was that the first woman president would be someone who would turn the whole lousy system inside out and upside down. Instead the first significant woman contender is someone who seems to have the system down to a fine art.

Recent elections suggest that Americans are often interested in something quite different in a candidate than they ultimately require in a president. That's how the country wound up with a commander in chief chosen because he was the kind of guy people wanted to have a beer with, a Dude Prez who finds it appropriate to give the female German chancellor a surprise shoulder massage in the middle of a world summit.

Voters may have a hard time imagining themselves bellying up to the bar with Sen. Clinton. Her human traits are too seldom on display. At political events, women speak of what it was like when they met her -- at a small fund-raiser, in a school auditorium. How personable she was, how she really listened, how she knew everything about the issues that concerned them, from services for the aging to autism. The great conundrum of Hillary Clinton has always been this disconnect between the woman with the bright eyes and the deep belly laugh and the polished debater with the Sermon on the Mount posture and the tight mouth. The human vs. the superhuman. Truth be told, that's another fantasy we had about a woman leader, too, that she would be authoritative and down to earth in equal measure.

Sen. Clinton has been described so often as a transitional figure that she must be sick to death of the term. But perhaps that is what she will inevitably be in this race. Since the first Democratic debate, her poll numbers have slowly risen. It may be that voters are more convinced of her opposition to the war in Iraq. It may be that Barack Obama seems slightly less magical than his early showing suggested. Or it may be that all of those women who dreamed of Ms. President are realizing that there was always going to be a way station between guy politics as usual and a new female style of leadership. The public Hillary Clinton may always seem more presidential than approachable. But perhaps this time around, no matter who runs and who wins, Americans will figure out that they are electing a president, not a drinking buddy.

To contact syndicated columnist Anna Quindlen, write her through Universal Press Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo.



-- Edited by TinaLord68 at 12:23, 2007-05-24