By the ever-amazing Charlene Spretnak via the Women and Spirituality blog (a great find which I am adding to the blogroll forthwith):
To think that this is still going on – the raw hatred projected toward a woman who’s “going too far” – after nearly forty years of efforts is immensely disappointing, to say the least.
Even if such visceral hatred weren’t being flung in Hillary’s direction, though, watching a woman go through the paces of a national-level campaign has brought into sharper focus the male nature of the process. Take the debates, for instance. For months there were six to eight people on a stage trying to one-up each other, score off the others, or deliver a few verbal punches here and there. Oh, yes … and somewhere in the mix were actual analyses of problems and policy positions. But why do we need to know which candidates can whack the others the most forcefully? Is verbal whacking a skill that a president needs? Wouldn’t it be more useful information for voters to see each candidate grilled, on separate nights, for a couple of hours on her or his proposed policy initiatives in all areas by a panel of journalists? That way, we could not only hear about what they propose to do if elected, but we could also see if they can be diplomatic with persons who may well disagree with their analysis. Can the candidate be resolute and convincing without smacking people down? Can they acknowledge other perspectives, while making a strong case for the wisdom of their position?
Instead, we get a contest in which someone will “win” and others will “lose,” and the stats will be clear, and the best whacker will emerge triumphant. It may be a charming sort of sporting event, but what does it have to do with the skills set that we would look for in a president?