maureen doubt: some news on the complexity of the clinton campaign

if you're a woman running for president, well, you know who you are. and, of course, so does the rest of america. the american public, especially the female half, is all too familiar with the complex issues of feminism, anti-feminism, neo-feminism (am i missing any?) implicated by your position as a candidate. being a woman is complicated. being a woman, a senator, the wife of a former president and a democratic presidential candidate yourself? more complicated still.

and what about being a woman who doesn't want to vote for a woman? isn't that, too, complicated? how does one justify that kind of seemingly self-defeating sentiment? obama-touting women across the country have no doubt been asking themselves just that question as the democratic primary continues on its tense course.

today, the new york times gave those doubting feminists their answer. maureen dowd, the much revered and reviled so-called feminist columnist, gave us permission. she told us that, as much as we like the idea of a female president, we can all vote against hillary and still be proud.

when you are a woman running for president, and one of the national media's loudest feminist voices tells women that it is okay not to support you, that it is okay to doubt your abilities and to criticize your positions, well, i imagine that, in itself, is somewhat complicated. i imagine it's not a particularly good sign. and i imagine that the presses used to print this morning's papers could be put to use this afternoon printings signs. as i've said, i can only imagine, but i think they'll read something along the lines of: "hillary clinton. also ran."

read the full text of maureen dowd's article here.