On the inherent sexism and Clinton as a candidate...

It is exhilarating to see the Letters to Editors on New York Times to speak out for Hilary Clinton, against the sexism from Maureen Dowd, one of her own gender. I find it very disturbing every time when I hear people who intend to trash and talk down Clinton would throw at her all the "auxiliary" thing that one precisely shouldn't be looking at in a candidate. How she does her hair (as that stupid would-be voter before the New Hampshire primary)? How she sound like when she laughs. Her husband being the president (and a popular one too). Is she pimping Chelsea?

Why didn't I hear people complaining about Michelle Obama coming out on the campaign trail? Or Elizabeth Edwards (before her husband dropped out)? I didn't hear anyone complained that any of these other women are too ambitious. So, why complaining that Hilary Clinton is too ambitious and aggressive for her own good, for her (and failed) attempt in bringing us universal health care back then?

All these inherent sexism really gets at me. It's bad enough to hear men's disparaging remarks on Clinton. But to hear it from a woman, saying all the things that we as women would and should bring to steer others' attention away from when it comes to career, is very troubling and depressing. I, as a woman and a mother, would not want that for myself or my daughter in the future. Women like Dowd remind me of those bitchy girls in high school, who would gossip of the non-essential details of others simply because they don't know and don't have other better things to do. Remarks like this are enough to turn me off, and away from any of the articles and writings from Maureen Dowd in the future.