. . .are always other women and Amanda Fortini of New York Magazine does not disappoint. To her mind, Hillary Clinton ran the campaign as a "*itch" and Sarah Palin, of course, was a ditz. This sets the cause of women back generations. But she reserves the harshest (though fewest) words for Michelle Obama:
Michelle Obama began the campaign as a bold, outspoken woman with a career of her own, and she was called a hard-ass. Now, as she prepares to move into the White House, she appears poised to recede into a fifties-era role of “mom-in-chief.” It will be heartbreaking if, in an effort to avoid the kind of criticism that followed Hillary Clinton, the First Lady is reduced to a lightweight.It looks to me like Ms. Fontini is fulfilling yet another of the negative female stereotypes: she’s never satisfied.
She ends it with: Many will say we’ve come a long way this year. The truth is we have a long way to go.
I wish she wouldn't create that kind of false dichotomy. I think it's clear that women certainly do have quite a ways to go in the public sphere. However, Fortini needs to put more stock in the importance of having viable (and I'm being very nice to Palin here) women run on EACH PARTY's ticket at one point. That's an incredible step forward. Hell, even Katha Politt (who Fortini cites in that article) recognizes how important Palin was in showing the American public that there could be more than "one mode" of female politicians.