June 04, 2008
A Woman’s Perspective

Pixie writes:

I think women who believe a woman in the White House would mean someone who would keep us out of military confrontations, someone nurturing and sensitive who would respond to the people, someone who is less testosterone-driven are crazy. When I see women say that, I think, “Honey, any woman who gets to the White House isn’t going to be like you — isn’t going to be a soft-spoken, nurturing type. That’s not the personality that wants to be President. The gender is irrelevant. That’s why Hillary got so far.”

So what happens now? Is Obama totally screwed? Would he ever choose Hagel as a running mate? Or would that actually drive most Republicans away from the ticket?

And I add:

Indira Gandhi, Gold Meir, Maggie Thatcher…


valkyrie1.jpg

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Jerome Doolittle at June 04, 2008 04:12 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

Two words: Margaret Thatcher.

Posted by: Michael Bloom on June 5, 2008 9:51 AM

Couldn't agree with you more, Michael, and in fact I thought I already had. But your comment made me realize that I had inadvertently left out the introduction and the closing to my post. The omissions are now restored.

Posted by: Jerry Doolittle on June 5, 2008 10:41 AM

But who are these "women who believe a woman in the White House would mean someone who would keep us out of military confrontations, someone nurturing and sensitive who would respond to the people, someone who is less testosterone-driven"? I don't know any. Do they exist, or are they straw (wo)men?

Posted by: Martha Bridegam on June 6, 2008 10:06 PM

I used to, Martha, when I was very young. But I suspect very young women these days are not as naive as I was.

Posted by: Joyful Alternative on June 8, 2008 10:27 PM

I'd vote for Modesty Blaise. Who else?

Posted by: Peter on June 9, 2008 1:56 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?