While the national media argues whether the salty discharge in Hillary Clinton's eyes on Monday won her New Hampshire, it's important to remind everyone how John Edwards responded to her tear ducts. Blatantly playing the gender card, Edwards said, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."
No doubt a cheap shot but Edwards' comment taps into a prevailing fear among Americans, mainly men, that a woman just isn't tough enough to preside over the American military and use it to vigorously defend American interests.
Read on ...
Michael Weiss, over at Snarksmith, puts this ridiculous myth to bed, comparing Clinton with McCain on hawkishness:
Here's my theory: Hillary's basically an Angela Merkel-type center-left pragmatist who's deeply hawkish at heart. What unites her with John McCain? They both advocated strongly for the war in Iraq, and only Hillary -- adjusting for that war's increasing unpopularity -- changed her tune. I'd trust either of them as commanders-in-chief to bring the fight to the forces of jihad and ragtag totalitarianism. What are the odds that Hillary will not take credit, as one of the most vocal Congressional war authorizers, if the surge continues to work and Iraq becomes, if not quite a model democracy in the Middle East, then at least a darker shade of Turkey in the space of the coming administration? Get her in the White House and the talons will come out.
How easily Americans forget the lesson Margaret Thatcher taught Britons: girls can be as tough, if not tougher than boys. And on the plus side, Clinton would probably use more discretion before unloading American military might and definitely would be a hell of a lot nicer to the middle and working classes than Thatcher ever was.
