From the Washington Post:
Two new books on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offer fresh and often critical portraits of the Democratic presidential candidate that depict a tortured relationship with her husband and her past and challenge the image she has presented on the campaign trail.
The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of the books comes across as a complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton’s brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive, and occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way. The books portray her as alternately brilliant and controlling, ambitious and victimized.
Excuse me for asking an obvious question, but why do I get the feeling that they wouldn’t be making such a big deal about these books and the portrait they paint of Senator Clinton if she was a man?
After all, Rudy Giuliani has had a “tortured relationship” with his spouses (“circus-like” might be a more apt description), Mitt Romney has pursued his political goals with methodical drive — and adjusted his positions accordingly — and every presidential candidate out there has “occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth.” But only Hillary Clinton comes under this scrutiny, and I can’t help but think that her gender plays a big role in this.
If they were describing the average male as “alternately brilliant and controlling,” those traits would be considered as assets; here’s a guy who knows how to get things done. But let a woman show that she understands what it takes to be a leader and suddenly she’s all freaky and controlling.
Grow the hell up, people.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.