Is it Hillary, or just a woman thing?

Just came across an interesting take http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10kristof.html?em&ex=1203051600&en=4f660b704185642a&ei=5087%0A on Hillary and female leaders, arguing that women monarchs or despots have been more effective leaders than women leaders in democratic societies:

Got me thinking about women in our society who pass both the likeability test and the respectability test. The only name that came to mind was Oprah. The others I considered -- Carly Fiorina, Gloria Steinem, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Condy Rice, Julie Foudy -- fell short in one category or the other.

Then again, maybe it's just her. Or as one pundit I heard on NPR said, ``Maybe we're just not that into her.''

 

And yet, Oprah is pretty self-effacing, at least on camera.

Can you imagine if Hillary ever said in an interview, "Look, I'm a 60-year-old broad with a pear-shaped figure I'm insecure about and I found out with the rest of the world my husband cheated on me with a 20-something tart in the Oval Office. I don't know if that qualifies me for President, but I can tell you that after that, I know I can face down any challenge that comes my way."

Instead she comes off as one of women with the ever-present tight smiles who never lets people really get a sense of what she is feeling. That meeting in New Hampshire was a rare occasion when she let her guard down.

Remember when Al Gore lost the race in 2000 and they showed him at a party later in the night smiling and swigging a Heineken? Everybody said, man THAT'S a Guy I'd have a beer with, but Gore kept that part of him under wraps during the campaign.

 

Don't forget about the loooocccckbooooxxx

totally agree with you Dan

 

Julie Foudy fell short? Wow. I can't think of any unlikeable traits she might posses. She's a leader, a risk taker, an entrepreneur, intelligent, athletic, articulate, business-savy, feminine (important; otherwise some men and maybe a few women would be threatened by the other traits).

 

There'll be a woman President. Have little doubt. Might take a coupla more decades, but there figures to be one.

 

Hillary, if she were a man, would be running away with the nom.

She takes ridiculous scrutiny for items that males NEVER even get blinked at for.

 

Part of her current problem is that she's joined with Bill at the hip, and that is no longer . . . shall we say . . . an unmitigated asset

 

She bugs me. As a person, not as a woman. She just annoys me.

 

This is patently, remarkably untrue. Clinton has a shot <i> only </i> because she's a woman. There are women voting her out of default - period. Obama's already slam-dunked all the other men in the Democratic race.

 

If Hillary were a man, she'd be an anonymous partner in a K St. or Park Ave Law firm. Maybe a public interest lobbyist. Hillary is known to America because she married a man who ran for office many times and won elections as Governor of Arkansas andThe Presidency of the United States.But for her marriage, she's another ambitious Ivy League lawyer.

 

Hillary as a person just doesn't score well on the likeability scale: you don't see a lot of personality, warmth or sense of humor in her public persona.

For some out there, the fact that she is a woman is the engine starter for their dislike, no doubt. But, for what I would guess is an equal or greater percent, that lack of public personality or warmth is what keeps folks from embracing her: as a candidate and as a person.

 

In politics, a man must show warmth or he's not "likeable" or he doesn't pass the "beer test" (see GWB vs. Gore/Kerry). A woman, however, can't be warm or else she'll be thought of as soft. Anybody else notice this double standard?