Today Marie Cocco published an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled "The 'Not Clinton' Excuse" and asks the questions: "If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?" about electing a female leader, a milestone for which the US is woefully overdue. Cocco examines other potential candidates, and lists reasons why it is unlikely that any of them would succeed in a presidential bid. She also brings up the interesting point that it has been 24 years since a woman ran for "national office on a major-party ticket." With Clinton all but out of the race, this is an interesting question to consider-- when will the US finally elect a woman president?
Also take note of Robert D. Novak's Op-Ed in the Post, "McCain Stakes His Turf." This piece examines John McCain's likely strategy for waging this general election campaign. It is one that is familiar from past campaigns, and (probably wisely) avoids for the moment directly engaging Obama on two issues that he is sure to win on (health care and the economy). Novak also mentions that, "While on this attack, Obama also rails against any responsive fire from McCain." This is something that bothers me about Obama. He talks about taking the high road and waging a positive campaign, then he turns around and goes on the attack. And THEN he takes the opportunity to talk MORE about waging a positive campaign and "changing the system" whenever his opponents strike back. This is, in my eyes, contradictory and rather childish. If you're going to give criticism you better be ready to get some back, and you better be able to take it. It's politically juvenile to expect a totally positive campaign with no criticism, and even more so to expect to be able to criticize and not be criticized.