...she's made a lot of nice career hay out of disguising her envy of other successful women as concern. Has she _ever_ had anything positive to say about her peers--or is she stupidly convinced that by savaging them, that makes her look more feminine and appealing to the macho lunkheads she thinks are "real" men?

Good Lord. If electing a president (or PM) has anything to do with men's speed dating preferences, how on earth did Thatcher get in? I think you're spot on when you say that men (and women) probably AREN'T voting for the candidate they'd most like to date. I'm frankly quite scared if they are.

On an unrelated note, how funny is the Queen Bee with male slaves comment? There's another NYT article published the same day in the science section talking about how all the workers in a bee-hive are actually sterile females (and why hollywood seems to insist that most of the insect world is male... and can talk, but thats another issue). Maybe she should have a chat with the science section editor before talking about Queen Bees and male slaves!

that when the public conversation is dominated by women constantly talking about the contempt they have for the losers that men are that it is kind of obvious that men might be wary of women who are in a position to see them as losers.

they compete to fuck once and then die. I think there's a reason why this keeps coming up.

that equates their political beliefs with their romantic taste

Well, pollsters have been doing this with regard to women's votes for male candidates for many election cycles now, and isn't turnabout fair play? Even if it is utter nonsense anyway?

1. Men do not choose smarter women generally because women already have the upper hand power wise in the relationship by virtue of their gender and the current social and legal system. If men suddenly took on smarter women, this would be DE-EVOLUTION.

2. Obama and Edwards and others also have to fight the 'be nice or be effective' thing. It is not gender related.

3. Hillary does not register at all in most men's minds, as evidenced by an article the other day that scanned men's brains to see what parts lit up on seeing Hillary. she is a blank, she cannot relate to men, hence men cannot pin her down as for what she is or is not. Would YOU vote for an enigma? At least this is what I surmise.

The only bee that springs to mind when I think of Maureen Dowd is the one at the beginning of bitch. Men hate powerful women but not half as much as a certain kind of thwarted, bitter woman does. There are plenty of third world countries that have had women leaders, countries where the average woman has absolutely no standing. If they can do it why is a first world country like America not ready? Most of what Maureen Dowd writes is tosh presented with chutzpah and this anti-Hillary babble is no different. She never lets the facts get in the way of her prejudices.

Dowd only hopes in her wildest dreams that Hillary gets elected. She made a career out of Clinton-bashing. Hillary as president would guarantee her a fruitful retirement.

As to this...

But I have a hard time believing men would not vote for Clinton because they wouldn't want to date her; that equates their political beliefs with their romantic taste.

...I only observe that people voted for Bush because they thought they would like to have a beer with him or because he seemed "strong." And I also observe that the majority of presidential votes cast by women since 1960 have been for the better looking man each time. Why in the world would we think men are above voting based on their romantic tastes? Sometimes I think everything men do is influenced by their interest in sex. :)

should be a flight attendant. Then we'd only have to listen to her smug sexist punditry if we're unlucky enough to be trapped on a plane with her. Edwards and Obama are too effeminate and Hillary is too masculine, also Michelle Obama is emasculating for criticizing her husband in public.....we know, we know. Why we should pick a president, again, based on Maureen Dowd's love of gender stereotypes is beyond me.

I think women's unwillingness to date down far, far outstrips any reluctance on the male side. With that in mind, I'm vaguely curious if Hillary's election would be bad for the Clinton marriage.

Would it kill her to keep her vapid archaic ponderings on gender to herself? She can toss her hair and smirk all she wants, she can continue to date her high powered douchebag gentleman callers, she can turn cartwheels in her skivvies down Park Avenue until she throws up, for all I care. But for godsake woman, do us all a favor and put the pen down! Is there no end to what this woman will write to tear other women down?

It is dumb enough that people choose their president based on who they would like to have a beer with. In the matriarchy are we supposed to choose our presidents based on who we want to date?

Newsflash to the Idiocracy: W doesn't drink, and Hillary is married.

She's already established herself as someone who can't get a date to save her life. So, she's going to keep beating that drum until someone gives her a pity fuck. I say we all chip in to rent her a nice cabana boy. Maybe she'll lay off accomplished women and address real feminist issues.

I just try to pretend she doesn't exist. (Otherwise her existence as a published sexist feminist writer makes my head explode.)

Back around 1992, didn't Pat Schroeder say that George Bush (senior) wouldn't get womeon's votes because he "reminded every woman of her first husband"?

I have a feeling that Hilary Clinton reminds a lot of men of their ex-wives.

Maureen Dowd is like an Anne Coulter who pretends to have class.