For a second-grader, PunditGirl is pretty tuned in to when others are getting picked on unfairly.
I guess that's the upside to all the time spent on the playground at school "dealing" with the boys. As you might guess, PunditGirl can hold her own with those seven-year-old alpha males!
So I wasn't surprised when she caught me listening to a re-cap of the recent Democratic debates and wondered why the "boys" were being so hard on Hillary.
The question of whether the Democratic guys were too tough on Hillary at the debate last week in Philadelphia is still getting a lot of media attention, which sort of surprises me. She is the purported front-runner, after all. Isn't it S.O.P. for those who want to take over the lead to play a little hardball?
In the New York Times this week, a front page article quotes former Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro as saying that the "attacks" on Hillary at the debate were sexist.
I don't disagree with Ferraro's observation that there's still plenty of sexism and racism in our country -- I practiced law in a male dominant law firm, as well as a federal agency, for almost 15 years, so I am well-acquainted with that experience. But that doesn't mean that every time some lawyer tried to pull a fast one they thought would benefit their client, I thought it was because I was the "girl" lawyer.
There were plenty of times in my careers in broadcasting and the law that I felt I was the recipient of sexist remarks, but I didn't think they all were. When another reporter scooped me on a story, I didn't complain that I didn't get the story because I was a woman. When opposing counsel conducted a harsh cross-examination on a client, I didn't assume he would have gone easier on the witness if they had been defended by a male attorney. Some things just aren't that personal, especially when the stakes are high.
If other candidates, Democratic or Republican, try to pull the 'there, there, little lady' card, I think the voters will get it. But commentators and other politicos who are criticizing the candidates for seriously taking on an opponent on her positions or lack of clarity are missing the point.
This isn't about sexism, it's about changing the direction of the country.
It's a pretty big mission, so I don't think any of the candidates are spending a lot of time worrying about whether they can make Hillary cry.
And, as with PunditGirl, I have a feeling Hillary can take care of herself.
Joanne blogs about all things political at her blog, PunditMom
Follow Joanne Bamberger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PunditMom
1 - impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
2 - end the Iraq war
The Democratic Party has failed in both.
The whole "they pick on her because she's a girl" issue has been promoted by the Clinton campaign. Surely they won't have the nerve now to complain that people are talking about it. I actually think Hillary has grossly overplayed the girl and boy line in her campaign: she's our girl, the boys are attacking her. Yeah, and we're all still in third grade and all is right in the world.
The only reason Hillary is running for president is became her husband has spent every minute since he left office whoring for corporate money to support her campaign so that he could get back into the white house. Unfortunately he seems to have taken the side of those same people he used to oppose, the right-wing corporate liars who are robbing this country blind and destroying our democracy.
Hillary does not represent change. She is a corporate sponsored candidate. She can afford to buy votes, buy TV time and other advertising, and that's why she's the frontrunner. She's pro-war and supports sending more jobs out of the U.S., and bringing more illegal immigrants in to throw more Americans out of work. Vote for Edwards or Obama.
Hillary will be better then Bush(Hell my cat would be) but she isn't a Progressive and will sell out American Freedom and Prosperity like Republicans have done and Bill Clinton as well.
Vote for change..vote for Integrity...vote for Freedom...Kucinich..Edwards..Dodd even Ron Paul are WAYYY better candidates to those American's who want a just, Free and prosperous America.