It’s not about gender; it’s about that.

For where I’m sitting [and remember, I'm no fan], outside of her occasional flashes, she’s rather collected. Edwards, for his part, is frequently unhinged. He just sounds my Uncle Len, makes it all sweet sounding, but you know when he’s ready to pop. Edwards rides that line everyday.

Still though, I think we all (political nerds) watch these debates from a very different perspective. If Senator Clinton, or any of the other candidates, lose their cool (or in my mind, act passionately)– we tend to predict how it will play in the polls or how the campaign will spin it in the next tv ad.

I used to enjoy clips of Margaret Thatcher during “Prime Minister’s Questions” in the House of Commons. There’s another woman who could smack any man around with her intelligence, knowledge and wit.

I tend to agree with Gordon’s point – don’t broaden dislike for Hillary to imply dislike for all women as politicians.

By the way, my short take on the Dems last night:

Edwards: I think he might get my vote if the election were tomorrow. Still need to find out more about him, but he said two things I believe are absolutely true: a) the erosion of the middle class is killing our country; and, b) take back control of our government from lobbyists and PACs. Is it true that he has never taken money from these folks?

Obama: I usually like the way he talks, but he seemed weak last night. He’s going to attract a lot of the African-American vote even though his heritage is not that at all (African father, white American mother).

Richardson: Blue version of GW. Not in the same league as the other three.

Clinton: I’ve never understood her “35 years of results” assertion. She’s held public office for only seven years. Is she embracing the “two-for-one” notion about her role in the Clinton administrations as Governor and President?

This is all rhetorical for me as I’ll be voting in the other column in the primary. It will be interesting to see who shows up in Nov.

I’m still rooting for Mike Bloomberg.

That said, I have deep sympathy for Hillary. She is one of those women who were born into the transitional era when women who wanted a career for themselves were not the norm. The team thing with Bill worked fine in the 90s. Not so much now. I’ve been sporadically blogging about Hillary and my mixed feelings about her campaign.

I do think we need to promote more women candidates at all levels. Here in Akron, it is a male-driven political society. Gives me the creeps sometimes.

I think this is an unfair judgment of the publics’ perception of female candidates.

The next thing you’ll tell us is that white America could never support a black candidate as Obama takes lily white Iowa.

The fact is, it’s not “women” who come off as shrill,inappropriate or too angry, it’s Hillary.

Why do you think her handlers haven’t allowed her to answer questions from the media? Why did she turn down a request to appear on Meet the Press this morning when her poll numbers in NH are so horrible?

The answer… She’s truly not a likable person. She comes off as a know it all and her people know it.

Your analysis is a disservice to “tough” female candidates who the public would have no problem supporting. We’ve got way too many successful female politicians to prove it otherwise.

That’s true. You’re absolutely right.

The only solution I know of is for Clinton, and every other woman, when she thinks it’s called for, to get angry. And let the world know it.

As long as women play the game, the game will be played. Yes, there will be losers early on, just as there were in the first wave of feminism. But to quote one of my favorite maxims:

Well behaved women seldom make history.

What will you teach your daughter?

B’shalom,

Jeff