Read Gloria Steinemís op-ed in todayís New York Times, excerpted below.
Thatís why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
Iíve known all that forever, of course. But it only hit me just now that black men born into slavery had been voting for 50 years before my mother was allowed to. Which makes me just another sublimely unconscious sexist pig, no doubt. Maybe thatís why I find this next bit from Ms. Steinem spectacularly wrong ó not the whole excerpt, just the highlighted part.
Iím supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this countryís talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.
I have no more idea than Gloria Steinem what may be inside Senator Clintonís head and heart, but only two things can explain her stubborn support of Bushís invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Either she supported Bushís idiocy because she agreed with him and still does, or she pretended to support him because of a fatal miscalculation that to do otherwise would keep her out of the White House.
The first would make her a fool, which she plainly is not. The second can only have grown out of a desperately felt need to, yes, prove her masculinity. If she loses the nomination, it will be to the man who has most successfully proven his femininity.