"...What excuse is there, in 2008, for a politician who pretends to be a great friend to women while continuing to block any possible legislative changes that might actually improve womenÕs lives?

The wink-wink excuse for McCainÕs hypocrisy, for the contradictions between his good-guy persona and not-so-good-guy politics, is that he has to hold his nose and keep his bread buttered with the religious right. Another explanation is that, like our current good-guy president, McCain is a man blinded by ideology Ð in this case, by that rough-rider rugged individualism thing that he so admires and that is so inimical to real, functional gender equality.

Or it could be something else, something much more basic at work, something that, I think, showed very clearly in McCainÕs expression last week, as he fought, more or less successfully, to suppress a joke and the naughtiest bit of a giggle after reporters demanded a response to remarks by Fiorina in which the clearly unscripted surrogate had complained about the unfairness of health insurers reimbursing Viagra but not birth control.

You could see it in his mouth, in his eyes as, for a full five seconds, McCain worked to remake a face that said, Give me a break, will you? DonÕt you know that I just donÕt care?.

Teddy Roosevelt, remembered today as a big proponent of womenÕs suffrage, admitted in a letter once that, when it came to the womanÕs vote, he too didnÕt really care. ÒPersonally I believe in womanÕs suffrage, but I am not an enthusiastic advocate of it, because I do not regard it as a very important matter,Ó he wrote from the White House in 1908. A big part of the reason: women themselves, he said, appeared to be mostly ÒlukewarmÓ on the issue. ÒI am very certain,Ó he said, Òthat when women as a whole take any special interest in the matter they will have suffrage if they desire it.Ó

McCain, as he casts for votes among HillaryÕs last angry hold-outs, seems to be banking upon finding women who are similarly lukewarm to their interests.

LetÕs hope that heÕs wrong."


(NYT)