So a blonde walks into a campaign...

One of my favorite editorial writers, Leonard Pitts Jr., wrote an editorial on November 19th about the Vegas Democratic Debate. I admire the sarcastic but honest writing that comes from Pitts. Kind of like Dave Barry meets Anderson Cooper. Serious but sweet. Humble but harsh.

I had the great pleasure of meeting Mr. Pitts at the National Writers Convention in Portland when I was in high school. He spoke so boldly and genuinely that you can't help but respect the man. I didn't know at the time who I was listening to--still so new in journalism--but I quickly became a fan of his editorials and keep an eye out for a good one in the Op-Ed pages of my local newspaper.

The November 19th editorial was about Hillary Clinton and she is perceived by the public.

"So, how do we beat the bitch?" Did I get your attention?

The editorial talks about the incident where Senator John McCain chuckles at that question presented to him by one of his female supporters. I honestly didn't hear about this incident--aside from some references made on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

At first i didn't think much of the comment--but made me dislike McCain supporters more than I already did, but I didn't give it as much thought. But Pitts dives in deep. While Senator McCain chuckled and later apologized (he said he didn't approve of such language and didn't think his opponent was a 'bitch' at all), Pitts writes that his reaction was very grotesque and telling of the McCain's caliber.

"Can you imagine if the Democratic front-runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman and the woman said, 'So, how do we beat this hebe?' Can you imagine if it were Gov. Bill Richardson and the woman said, 'So, how do we beat this spic?' Can you imagine if it were Sen. Barack Obama and the woman said, 'So, how do we beat this coon?'"

Now here Pitts writes about Clinton herself. He writes that as a person she isn't someone he would 'figuratively' cuddle up with. She, Condi Rice, Nancy Pelosi, other women political figures aren't--to him--very approachable. And that's where I was taken aback. I always looked at Pitts as a very fair person but to say that women in power are very off-putting to him made me upset.

Sure, I don't like Clinton myself I find her campaign tactics pathetic and calculated--and I can't see myself not sitting with her at a coffee shop talking politics...naaaah. (but that's not to say I wouldn't have coffee with her, given the chance...Hillary? Coffee?) But why overgeneralize and make it sound like you have a beef against women in power. Pitts writes:

"Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright . . . They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold.

Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge, and yet also, warm."

What do you mean we? I'm slightly offended. And, sure, there is a certain part of me that is thinking I might me a minority in this 'we' Pitts is talking about. I am proudly a new-wave feminist--I embrace femininity but hold firm to the belief that the suffrage movement was not in vain. But, Pitts is having me believe that I am crazy to think that a woman could be president since they are so cold and off putting. Now, I don't intend to vote for Hillary Clinton but her gender doesn't play a part in that decision. It's her policies and her politics that do.

So it's a double-edge sword. Be a nurturing, sensitive and caring female and appear weak politically? Or be a tough, determined and business-like and get tagged as a bitch? Do I have a different definition of 'bitch'--different than what Pitts is driving at? So how does this work? How does personalities fit into politics? Do we want nice politicians or someone who will get the job done...is it possible to have both...

This all reminds me of some great conversations I've had in some of my political theory classes in college. How does passion play into politics--some say it's everything others says it's frivolous. I recall a quote from one of my favorite movies "A Few Good Men". It was the movie that got me hooked on Washington and really cemented my love of politics.

Scream your justice Tom Cruise! (A Few Good Men 1992)

"I represent the government of the United States without passion or prejudice..." It's a small quote, but it got me thinking about what that means to represent the government without passion. If that's how it goes then does that mean we don't look at the person behind the candidate...but most of us know that's not how we vote. We want to vote for the candidate that appeals to us not necessarily because of what they stand for but maybe because, as my one friend put it 'they smile a lot...they just have a nice smile'. huh.

Pitts redeems himself in the end. He sees the flaw in all this. McCain's response was disappointing but spoke to a greater issue in this country--the country's perception of women politicians. But they still read high in my books. Fear not Pitts, not all of us have that image of women in politics.