I agree -- I think there was a missed opportunity here.
Instead of dissing Hillary for not wanting to appear to feminine, AW could have dissed the social norms that hold women to higher standards.
We draw the line for male candidates at their qualifications. But the female candidate has to be qualified AND has to balance her femininity, not show emotion and not wear pink to a debate. Remember that?
More incredulous than her pink jacket choice for the debate was her male challengers commenting on it -- on national television. I don't see anyone looking at Barack and questioning his Louis Vuitton-ness. The closest its ever come is the dialogue about John Edwards hair and that was about his wealth, not his masculinity.
Hillary is not even my candidate. I think she'd make a great President but I have another candidate who I think might be better. But, I evaluate them by the same standards.
I don't think any of us, not even the accomplished AW, can begin to imagine the walking on ice experience that must exist for the woman who is running for President and actually has a shot to win. Careful, Hillary. One shade off on your lipstick and you could be giving up your dream of becoming leader of the free world.
To Hillary...
I say do what you need to do, sister...Turn down the cover of Vogue. Wear your navy and go gently. Ease this country into the idea of a female president.
I more than anyone would love to see you draw attention to the double standard by asking a male counterpart if he's ever cried or questioning your debate opponents about "who they are wearing tonight." But maybe those are the questions we can be asking, and the media should be asking, while you're talking health care, economy and solutions for peace.
Because the farther you go in this election, the farther you leave in your wake the seriously flawed, antiquated and short sited perceptions that still exist in this modern day of 2008 about women and our gifts for leadership.
