15 January 2004

here's something to make you want to never, ever read the times again. as is often the case, this particular bit of mean, senseless drivel comes from maureen dowd.

i don't know much about ms. dowd's life, but i bet it's fair to say that she's a "career woman."

...which only makes it harder to understand why she chose to write this piece about judith steinberg dean. really, you have to read it to believe it. first there's a pallid attempt at bush criticism (the phrase "national yenta" is involved. oy.) -- but then she reveals her real intent: trashing the nontraditional political spouse.

i love (read: hate) that the national media is so up in arms over the fact that dr. steinberg dean is not on the campaign trail with her husband, stumping at every turn. but what do they want? she's shy, she has a very successful career of her own, and she's not very interested in politics. also, according to our pal maureen, she (gasp!) doesn't care very much about appearances.

these are good things, but they don't make for an ideal campaign spouse. judith dean has stated and restated that she supports her husband, that he would make a great president. shouldn't that be enough? why is the political wife who doesn't adore her husband in the manner of a (rather more articulate) golden retriever always cast as cold, distant, uncaring? and how does that label get transferred to her husband so effectively?

God, i love gender(ed) politics.