Anne appears to have borrowed a page from Maureen Dowd's book. Don't be mistaken, I'm all for having women and minorities in positions of power, it just seems that some of our women commentators allow gender to cloud their objectivity. Angela Merkel may be pragmatic, but that could probably be said for most of the post-WWII German leaders, which is probably reflective of the populace. And it seems a stretch--if not sexist--to suggest that German leaders that aren't Anne's gender automatically provoke fear, jealousy or competitiveness among its neighbors. Or that Angela's "femaleness holds the key to her success". Is Anne stipulating that only women can possess the attributes described? The other side of the coin is that feminists may well take her to task for the same thing. Is "femaleness" in this case not also being used to describe a kind of subservience, humility, or meekness?

I like and applaud Merkel's low-key, no-nonsense approach to governing. Still, I disagree with Anne's presumption that any one European country's leader--no matter how respected, beloved or powerful--should be depicted as Europe's "de-facto leader". Despite the EU, it can be seen most have retained a fierce independence and all are ever mindful of their own interests. On numerous issues, they are often in disagreement or have difficulty forming a concensus. Was this not amply demonstrated with the Iraq war? In fact, in my view, there has never has been a de-facto leader of Europe in modern times. The closest thing to that might have perhaps been Hitler, but that looks to be a connotation Anne is striving here to avoid.

It isn't an elected official's gender, race, religion or sexual orientation that should concern us as much as what they say and do. As a matter of course, interpersonal skills are usually a prerequisite to becoming a politician. Angela's skills in that area may be exceptional, but that isn't what should truly interest us.

On a somewhat distantly related note, why is that the media and everyone refers to Obama as the first black American president? I voted for the guy twice, not because he was black, but because I thought he was the best choice in the late stages of the primaries and in the general election (Russ Feingold didn't run). The crux of this is that Obama is actually half-white. Wouldn't it be more accurate and honest to just call him our first mixed-race president? Do we need to play up the race card, so that we can pretend we've somehow managed to vanquish the racism (now often hidden or masked, but still prolific) in this country? While electing any non-Caucasian in this country to the highest office represents a milestone and warrants some cause for celebration, the true test for determining the end of discrimination will be when we need no longer remark upon a candidate's race, gender, creed or sexual orientation. And, just possibly, refraining from remarking upon these things now might help speed that end.