An Intimidating Woman

A good friend of mine recently sent me a link to an opinion piece in the New York Times. It was by a Judith Warner and it was titled, 'The Mirrored Ceiling'. I'll quote from the very first paragraph of the essay, to give you an idea about it:

“It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.”

So that's the lay of the land on what follows. I invite you to go to the link and read it in its entirety, http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/the-mirrored-ceiling/?em but I'll confine myself to just one aspect of it here, with a good faith effort to agree with someone who is as rudely incendiary as the media can offer.

If we turn to the contempt-soaked paragraphs that deal with a woman as an 'intimidating presence'...

“....I think, they find her acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically.

But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. In fact, this—shouldn't a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there?--most perfectly describes Hillary Clinton.

And just look what they did to her song.