The XX Factor: What women really think.

Overtime

I hear you, Hanna and Emily et al.—OK, pretty much everybody, now—and no doubt you're right, but I have to confess that I don't feel entirely ready for this to be over. I like this contest. I like the analysis and entrail-reading. I like getting up in the morning to find out how the returns came in overnight. I like watching as the Democratic party tries to manage the Godzilla-versus-Mothra nature of this battle between two formidable candidates and as superdelegates and party people try to decide which side to side with. It's suspenseful and exciting—like a great basketball game that's now gone into overtime. It doesn't seem such a bad thing if these two candidates continue to differentiate their positions and levels of readiness; and if Obama starts getting tougher media questioning and being obliged to respond, surely that will enable all of us to get to know him better. And I think that the primary results do enable us to look for illuminating patterns among voters. 

Ruth Marcus has a terrific column today in the Post. She convincingly refutes Hillary Clinton's complaints about sexism: Given that Clinton began this race as the establishment favorite, Marcus point out, it's ludicrous for her to plead that the playing field, for her, isn't level. However, Marcus also points out that for future female presidential candidates, sexism, while it may not be the most constraining "-ism" in America, cannot be dismissed. Noting that Hillary Clinton doesn't do as well among Democratic men as she does among women, and that there have been sexist overtones to some criticisms directed at her—the b-word among them—Marcus says, "I've been wondering whether the country, particularly the male half, can comfortably fit a woman into its mental picture of a president. Obama's success stems in large part from his ability to use rhetoric to inspire and persuade. The country has scant experience of a woman in that role." She quotes Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, pointing out that Americans lack "historical memory" of a charismatic leader who is a woman. Would we accept one, I wonder? Would voters flock to a woman with Obama-like charisma? If not, why not? Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate to answer these questions; there are too many variables, too many other reasons why someone might oppose her, besides gender. But I think these are interesting conversations to have and I'm prepared to keep having them for a while longer. It beats working.