Does anyone else out there think that our political process suffers from testosterone toxicity? I am getting heartily sick of the would-be Presidents trying to out macho each other. Whenever the sound bites stray too far from the terrorism and who has the 'equipment' to deal with that oh-so-dangerous world out there, someone or something directs it back. I keep remembering that funny little scene from "Animal House" where the Delta boy swaggered up the the older woman in the supermarket, picked up a very large cucumber, and told her 'mine is bigger than this." He sheepishly backed off when she informed him that the Dean of the college was her husband and asked if he really wanted to show her his 'cucumber.'
Each and every candidate assures us that they each one are tough enough to deal with the crazies out there; and that they and they alone are 'man' enough for the job. Unfortunately, in my mind at least, they are coming after the 'man' who lied us into a war and then asked us to prove our patriotism by going shopping.
I can understand McCain emphasizing his 'manliness.' What else has he to offer? But Clinton? It is a sad commentary on our political situation that a woman running to replace the macho man who pushed this country into major quicksand on all levels feels she has to prove she has the biggest balls to win. And Obama? What kind of change can we expect when he poses the same argument that got the 'man' he wants to replace re-elected four years ago: that he is macho enough to stand up to terrorists? No matter where the argument starts (economy, jobs, social security, what ever) it always seems to end in the same place: which one has the testicular fortitude. Now I will go throw up--again.