"But I do think it's worth considering, that your first impulse is that she must have become one of the guys."

Actually, it's not my first impulse.

Ok, I'll try to be brief.

I admired Hillary when she was combative, when she said that thing defiantly about baking cookies. I liked her then. I liked her until her husband's administration sold out everything I'd grown up to respect about liberalism.

The "one of they guys" thing didn't come up until very recently, actually, when my mother, who is Hillary's generation, told me she could sympathize with Hillary because my mother was basically taught/given to understand that for a woman to succeed (in law school, e.g.), she had to be more of a bastard even than the men, who were great bastards and weren't about to cede their dominance in bastardy without a fight.

So, how much of Hillary's bastardy stems from her character and how much from socialization? Who knows.

I'm not even convinced it's a productive question because in the end, these aren't character traits I admire or desire in a leader, in someone in the public trust.

"I'm not saying that your critique of power is wrong — but all of the world's female heads of state, from Thatcher to Bhutto, have shown a marked similarity to their male predecessors and counterparts. I just don't think it's a critique that's usefully limited to, or focused especially on, women." No, of course not.

My point is I dislike these traits, this orientation in human beings, period.

"And when I hear people say that Hillary is such a huge turnoff that they don't want to vote for her even if she wins the primary (which isn't necessarily what you were saying, I realize!) it makes me worry. We all have the same ducks lined up, here, right?""

Well, not necessarily.

I'm not a Democrat.

I campaigned vigorously for Nader in 2000 and I volunteered for Michael Dukakis when I was fifteen.

Frankly, I don't know about the ducks.

If you can explain to me, for instance, how I can justify enabling the enablers, I'd consider voting for Clinton in the general.

But really, a vote for her is, in my eyes, a tacit complicity with the Bush administration.

So no, I'm not a partisan, if that's what you mean, but I am something of an ideologue.

"What is important is that we grant others a certain basic dignity and that our discourse does not disparage them because of race, gender, or even age."

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

The goal is to avoid dehumanization of the other.

That's a good rule of thumb.

"I think there should only be one set of standards for making verbal personal attacks against human beings. Either it's wrong to do it to anyone, or it's right to do it to everyone."

There can't be one set of standards, though.

It's actually impossible.

Meaning is such that context governs everything.

Any "one set of standards" would inevitably fail because it could never accommodate new and/or unmapped contexts.

Really, this might seem a tidy solution, but I think it's impossible to attain.

You have to understand something about how meaning is generated.

But while you can't have "one-size-fits-all" (forgive the cliche) rules, you can have sensitivity.

Ah, but that's much harder, because it requires serious work and a willingness to engage and remain open to misunderstandings and being equipped with the tools necessary to deal with those misunderstandings.

Much harder, but the payoff is that you sow the seeds of trust, community, compassion, etc.

Demanding rules for these kinds of interactions is kind of like demanding rules for raising one's children.

"Don't you think you're splitting contextual deconstructionist hairs?

Really, is it so hard to be honorable of everyone. Is truth really served by name calling? Not that I haven't done it, but I have never called anyone a fucking whore or a nigger. Asshole, maybe. But I think that's rather nondenominational.

Isn't this just an excuse to call someone a reprehensible name? After all, a rose is still a rose by any other name."

Wait, what?

I'm not taking your point.

I'm saying it's not about making a list of forbidden words, but rather internalizing and cultivating mutual respect.

I'm not sure what "splitting contextual deconstructionist hairs" means.

I think maybe you're misreading me.