insight

A quick snippet from Maureen Dowd's NYT op-ed today:

But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.

Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.

Full article.


This is exactly right. The constant chattering on whether or not Americans are ready for a woman president, if Hillary can overcome the gender thing, etc. has been so annoying to me precisely because it is a sideshow. Everybody knows she's got the biggest dick in the whole horse race. The list of qualities that Dowd lays out here - opportunism, triangulation, questionable ethics, ruthlessness, et al - effectively cancel out any perceived weakness HRC's femaleness may engender.
But does our reaction to this list of characteristics stop at "Great, the woman thing won't be an obstacle, because she more than compensates on these other fronts!"? I hope not.
Is ruthless opportunism and secretiveness and flip-flopping what we're looking for in our next president? Are these the things that will repair at least some of the damage of the last seven years? Strength, sobriety, discretion ... these are all good - always good - in leaders. But does Hillary Clinton take these to a level where they become problematic? Certainly, on some levels, many people's viscerally negative reaction to her has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with a fundamental understanding that she is just as Ms Dowd says she is.