What?

This is kind of a follow-up to my last post: We have here an item putting out the idea that the short-lived Geena Davis vehicle Commander in Chief bodes ill for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. As well as Katie Couric's plunging ratings as anchor of the CBS Evening News.

Here I thought Commander in Chief was short-lived because it was creatively unsatisfactory (it also didn't help that it was up against House, which isn't). And Katie Couric's ratings haven't improved because, I suspect, she is perceived as being frivolous and trivial, and people want their news anchors, man or woman, to at least have the appearance of gravitas.

(which is why Newt Gingrinch would make a great one, and I can't believe Fox hasn't snapped him up)

But seriously, folks...I'm left wondering again: Does quality mean nothing? If Geena Davis' show was cancelled, it's because people aren't ready for a woman president. If Katie Couric's ratings are bad, it's because people aren't ready to see a woman in Uncle Walter's chair.

The fact that the show was bad, and Couric was maybe the wrong woman for the job--and that CBS news is now being run by a bunch of dummies- has nothing to do with it?

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I hope it's for the same political reasons for which liberals would reject a man who has done the things Hillary has done. I hope it's not because they're not ready for a woman president.

And I hope it's not because of the lies conservatives are peddling about her. It occurs to me that one thing Mrs. Clinton has in common with her husband is that, taken on her own merits, she leaves a lot to be desired.

Myself, I don't fully trust her, but it's not becase she's a woman, it's because she's Hillary Clinton. But the attacks on her are so unrelentingly unfair and hideously abusive that she rarely gets taken on her own merits, merely because most of us like to stick up for fairness.