Code pink

Kate Zernike set out to write a piece about when a woman might be elected president; I wish she had spent more time trying to write a decent article about when a woman might be elected president.

From tone to facts, the entire piece, She Just Might Be President Someday, is riddled with the stereotypical starry-eyed tone women running for president have to overcome.

It's more cheerleader than quarterback:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may or may not become the first female president of the United States, but if fate and voters deny her the role, another woman will surely see if the mantle fits.

Deny her the role? As if it was rightfully hers, and those meanies aren't giving it to her because she's a woman?

Caveats abound: as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, emphasized last week, this thing is not over. And these predictions may prove as false as any by the time the first woman takes the oath of office — whether in 7 months or 9 years or 9.

Is Zernike serious? She goes out of her way to write 'caveats abound' about Clinton not winning the presidency this year? Really? I don't think it's a statement that needs to be qualified, unless you live in Hillaryland.

With all that said, there are few obvious candidates, particularly among Republicans, perhaps because there are about twice as many Democrats among women in elective office nationwide. Sarah Palin, the Republican governor of Alaska, is on many lists — she’s known as a reformer as well as for riding a motorcycle and referring to her husband as the “first dude.” On the Democratic side, the names that come up most seem to be Govs. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, both Obama supporters.

Asked to name a potential first woman as president, though, even the shrewdest political strategists said they couldn’t think of anyone. Most people disqualified their prospects as soon as they identified them — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example — for one reason or another.

Wait, are there obvious candidates, or not? She lists some, then says even the smartest analysts couldn't think of any. So are these names coming from dumb non-experts? Or herself? Or what?

Mrs. Clinton has won 17 primaries. She has soundly defeated the assumption that a woman could not raise money, or that women would not donate (they make up about half of her contributors).

Emily's List has been around for decades, but it was Clinton who put to rest the notion that women can't raise money? If that notion still exits, how would anyone explain all the high-profile female politicians, including both senators from the nation's most expensive media state?

But almost anybody — and particularly women — will discount the idea of a woman as dark horse.

“No woman with Obama’s résumé could run,” said Dee Dee Myers, the first woman to be White House press secretary, under Bill Clinton, and the author of “Why Women Should Rule the World.” “No woman could have gotten out of the gate.”

Women are still held to a double-standard, and they tend to buy into it themselves.

Yeah, attractive, amazingly intelligent woman with an unbelievably charismatic speaking style and superb organizational skills are routinely dismissed by our society... sheesh.

Identify a female politician with Obama's astonishing traits first, before saying that person couldn't make it with his resume.

Mrs. Clinton easily cleared the bar with many voters on her ability to be commander in chief, making it easier for people to see a woman in that role. Still, most people assume that the burden will fall on women to prove toughness — of a certain kind.

Mrs. Clinton seemed to have the most success in the last months, fighting like a mama bear for her cubs.

If voters thought Clinton really was fighting for her cubs rather than herself, this race wouldn't be over. And she's had the most success in the last months? Not back when she had the delegate lead?

On other wish lists is Maria Shriver, with the Kennedy allure, a strong following among women, and a husband who is said to eye the White House but can’t run because he was not born in this country.

And of course, some Democrats dream of Chelsea Clinton, who has revealed herself to have her father’s ease and her mother’s discipline.

Who is Zernike talking to? Who out there is pining for celebrity reporter Maria Shriver to be president?

And Chelsea Clinton? Someone who refuses to answer large blocks of questions when she's out there rah-rahing it up for her mom?

But for many women, whether or not they support Mrs. Clinton, the long primary campaign has left them with a question: why would any woman run?

Many feel dispirited by what they see as bias against Mrs. Clinton in the media — the “Fatal Attraction” comparisons and locker-room chortling on television panels.

“Who would dare to run?” said Karen O’Connor, the director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University. “The media is set up against you, and if you have the money problem to begin with, why would anyone put their families through this, why would anyone put themselves through this?”

For this reason, she said, she doesn’t expect a serious contender anytime soon. “I think it’s going to be generations.”

It's ultimately this type of language that makes sexist voters question whether a woman can be president.

'Dare to run'?! Come on, the type of women who otherwise would want to be president are going to not run because they're afraid of the campaigning?

Give me a break--as if all the other things that come with the presidency pale in comparison to people being mean to you when you're running.

Zernike's piece, which in tone and logic reads like it belongs in some cheery woman's magazine, is a disservice to its cause. It's almost as if in printing such a weak sister piece the Times signals it isn't taking the subject seriously.

Which is a shame, since it's a topic that certainly merits sober discussion.