In two days, the New York Times published three pieces—by Kate Zernike, Peggy Orenstein, and Jodi Kantor—on Hillary Clinton, misogyny, and the first woman president. Orenstein, writing from Berkeley, does not "consider Senator Clinton a victim." She doesn't like Hillary, in other words, but the senator is maybe a useful lesson for her daughter in how the world will shit on her if she's ambitious. There is a long way left to go! In the meantime, we shall distract our daughters with cookies. In the Week in Review, Zernike, writing more practically, asked who the first lady president will be. Answer: kinda like a male president, but more so.

The woman will have to have an established name, a great deal of money, and be old and married with kids (preferably grown kids). They will probably need more experience than Obama or Edwards, but that double standard is partly enforced by elected women themselves, who don't care to run for higher office unless asked. This piece is the second to mention Fatal Attraction.

We are of the opinion that a woman not saddled by the name "Clinton" would have a decent chance, but that is apparently the reverse of the conventional wisdom. And after reading the third piece, Kantor's essay in today's Politics section, an "on-the-one-hand" debate between various quoted sources over whether sexism killed Clinton's campaign (some say yes! other say not so much!) is it sexist of us to find all these pieces utterly lacking in the "intelligent discussion on gender" that they all wish we could have as a nation?

All we've learned is that Clinton-haters make us Clinton-don't-like-as-muchers look bad.