Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I see that the LAT has jumped on the "HURRYUPANDOFFERHERSOMETHINGELSEANYTHINGELSE" bandwagon, coyly asserting that, "It's obvious that someone wants word of this bargain to be fruitful and multiply." Yeah. Like the people who write editorials about it under horrible photos of Hillary. Those someones.

Desperately pushing John Edwards ("Many of her potential competitors score far better on likeability indices, notably John Edwards, . . . ") and practically begging Hillary to be a good girl, a nice girl, a bipartisan girl who really, really, really shouldn't want to get her hands dirty with a nasty presidential campaign, the sort much better left to the boys, the LAT ignores recent polls that show Hillary almost even with McCain in spite of incredibly different press treatment and never bother to tell us how Edwards stacks up against McCain.

I like John Edwards and I think he's done some good work since 2004. I was horribly disappointed in his debate with Dick Cheney. Cheney pantsed him and Mr. Edwards smiled sweetly and looked humiliated. Sure, as the LAT notes, Mr. Edwards is "likeable." In 2008, apparently "likeable" is the new "electable." And no powerful woman is EVER going to be "likeable" in this culture. But "likeable" is NOT what we're going to need in the upcoming mudbath, cheatfest, slime marathon politely referred to as the 2008 election. (The Republicans will NOT go gently into that goodnight and, thanks to Messers. Kerry and Edwards being too "likeable" to fight over the 2004 results, the Republicans will have had 4 MORE years to perfect their one-two punch of Rovian-Dieboldian tactics.) Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, has pretty well shown that she can take everything they throw at her and then turn around and, for example, dress Rumsfeld down like he was a red-headed three year old.

The LAT is forced to admit that: After all, Clinton is the unquestioned front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. She commands an unmatched war chest, an unrivaled collection of political talent (headed by her legendarily adroit husband) and star power that most putative candidates can only dream of.

And, in trying to sell her the "nice" job that ANY sensible woman would take instead of that silly old pain-in-the-neck job of president, the LAT says:

So whatever the hype, Clinton's path to the presidency isn't an easy one. But the road to Senate leadership may be. Clinton possesses qualities that could turn the thankless, grueling realities of congressional preeminence into something glamorous and powerful. She's a human megaphone, for one, able to focus the press corps on whatever it is she wishes to say that morning. Such a skill would prove invaluable to a legislative leader, allowing her to set the agenda and advance her priorities even from the minority.

Second, she's an extraordinary fundraiser, far and away the best the Democrats have. She's raised $33 million for a Senate reelection campaign that lacks a serious opponent — partly the benefit of retaining the Clinton Rolodex, partly a function of her own magnetism.

Perhaps most important, her ability to bury enmities and forge alliances has been astonishing. She's reached out to the bitterest foes of her husband's presidency, seeking rapprochement with everyone from impeachment manager Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to bête noire Newt Gingrich. In the famously collegial Senate, where success relies on odd bedfellows and mountains of goodwill, she's that rarest of creatures, able to conjure partisan passions when elections beckon but also to resurrect constructive relationships when legislation need be passed.

Then, the LAT delivers the gee-honey-wouldn't-you-really-rather-get-a-nice-play-kitchen-than-a-silly-old-tool-set coup de grace: All those qualities would make her a superlative Senate leader, both for the health of the Democratic Party and the workings of the legislative body. Clinton, a serious policy wonk with a deep-seated drive to improve the world, could effect real change, possibly even more than the relentlessly partisan position of president would allow.

Yeah, Hil. You're smart. You've raised a shitload of cash. You're the front-runner. You would make a "superlative" leader and be good for both "the Democratic Party" and the larger government, but, really, honey, girls who are "serious policy wonk[s] with a deep-seated drive to improve the world," well, they're just not very likeable, you know, honey? But here, you take this nice consolation prize and let one of the boys be president. It's for the "good of the Democratic Party and the workings of the legislative body." Maybe a girl can be president AFTER we [free the slaves, win the War, end the war, get civil rights, . . . .pigs fly].

*************************************************

Obligatory post script: You want to disagree with Hillary Clinton's stand on the issues, fine. I agree with some of her stands and disagree with others -- JUST AS I DO WITH EVERY SINGLE OTHER POLITICIAN, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE (MALE) CANDIDATE FOR WHOM I'VE CAST MY VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. What pisses me off is the sexism. Let's dig up Likeable John's positions on the war, Israel, whatever and compare them to Hil's and have the debate about who we agree with on a more frequent basis. But saying that you can't support Hillary because of her stand on issue X or on issues X,Y, and Z when you regularly support males with whom you also don't completely agree is . . . well, it's sexism. And it's sexism when it comes from women (who have grown up in a sexist culture and absorbed its tenants every bit as much as have men) just as much as when it comes from men. Successful, powerful women don't only make men in this culture uncomfortable. I.am.just.saying.