writes wistfully of her "fantasy" of the first female president -- how it would be someone who would come in and turn the whole, "lousy" system upside-down.
Quindlen's unfulfilled fantasy is very revealing of what left-wing feminism is really about. Implicit in her dream of what a female president would be like is the assumption that women aren't just different than men, they're somehow better
-- and that superiority would be reflected in the woman they chose to lead them (and America). Now, how disappointing to find that Hillary Clinton is, at base, just another . . . politician.
Given all this, it's hard not to feel just a twinge of pity even for Hillary -- who, after all, could live up to this standard? It strikes me that conservatives have had a much healthier approach. Margaret Thatcher, for example, was a person of principle, but conservatives lauded her not for serving as some kind of female political Messiah, but rather because she was able to effect real, positive change and stand by her convictions, even as she beat the men at their own game. Some Republicans have touted Condoleezza Rice, not because they believe she can effect some kind of female-driven revolutionary change, but because they think they could win, or because they believe she'll fight hard against terrorists, or whatever.
Anna Quindlen should have gone to a girls' school in her early years (she attended college at Barnard). What it taught me was that -- though boys and girls are different -- girls, and later women, aren't any better than boys. Boys are aggressive . .. so are girls, in a different way. Etc., etc. Yes, a woman can be president, but chances are that it won't usher in some kind of "I am woman, hear me wrong" Golden Age of high minded political discourse and sweeping reform.
Hillary has, apparently, come to terms with that fact. It's just that those who should, perhaps, be her srongest supporters can't quite summon that level of pragmatism.