On a related note, I'm sick of hearing fellow feminists decry Clinton's "mannishness."

While feminists and progressives may disagree with Hillary's politics, I have a real problem with comparisons made between Clinton and "men." Here's a quotation from the article I just cited that irks me:

Hillary... seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.

And then this statement seems so sexist to me, I want to throw my coffee mug at the computer screen:

We don’t want the first female president to be Joe Lieberman in drag, pushing Bush-lite politics. We expect something better.

Evaluating Hillary Clinton's demeanor or even her political views based on the fact that she's a woman strikes me as incredibly sexist. What does this self-described feminist author, Susan J. Douglas, want? While I agree with Douglas about Clinton's politics and I do not want Clinton to be the next president for political reasons, I absolutely disagree that Clinton's perhaps aggressive, domineering, strong, and assertive manner of speaking makes her "Joe Liebeman in drag" or ANY guy in drag.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that a leader needs to have leadership skills. Historically, in our government and in many positions in most fields, leaders have been men. To equate leadership qualities with MANLINESS is tantamount to saying that women with leadership skills aren't capable female leaders, but rather that they're leaders who are like men. And I completely disagree. While representatives of leadership have primarily been men, for centuries, it doesn't take a man to be a good leader (a) and (b) assertiveness, strength, decisveness, and sometimes, yes, aggression are required of leaders, especially those who may be the most important leader in the Western Hemisphere/world. I also want my most important leader to be insightful, compassionate, educated, informed, and well-spoken. I want her to get along well with foreign leaders and think critically and maturely, taking all facts known into consideration before choosing to enter into military action, or any other action.

But I DO NOT CARE if she comes across more matronly on the podium or more like a CEO. Because, if she is a good leader who gets the job done, then that's all that matters to me.

To be perfectly frank, while I may not agree with Clinton's political decisions, I think she has more personality chutzpah than Kerry did and she communicates a strength of personality and a resolute will that oozes "leadership."

But that's just it: she oozes LEADERSHIP, not MANLINESS.

Let's stop giving men the keys to every high-powered position by conflating the characteristics of their professional positions with their gender.

Or, to put it another way, why couldn't I say that, since Clinton is a woman with all these amazing leadership characteristics, that other leaders who are running for office - like, say, Obama or Edwards - sound like a woman every time they pound their fists on their podiums and speak clearly and passionately, assertively and smartly about the politics of their choice?

In fact, come to think of it, I think that's what I'm going to say from now on.