Call me idealistic, but I want to see an election that's played out over policy initiatives. I want to know where my candidates stand on the issues. I want to know what they've done (not what they claim to have done) and what they're going to do and how. And I really could not care less about their personal lives and feelings.

I am a Hillary Clinton fan. Yes, one of the beleaguered bunch still hanging on to the hope that the toughest candidate, the one with experience, the one with a plan will end up in the White House come November. I am a Clinton fan, but I am not a Clinton zealot. I acknowledge that there are some harsh realities facing her campaign and I will earnestly entertain arguments suggesting she should drop out so that the Democrats can start to rally as one united group.


I look at Hillary Clinton as an excellent candidate because of her experience, her take on health care, her commitment to humanitarian ideals and frankly the fact that she doesn't sugarcoat things. I like that she's tough.

Jill Iscol's recent admonishment of the Democratic party for not defending Clinton against the host of character assaults she's endured over the course of her campaign represents to me everything that's wrong with this particular Democratic stand-off.

Don't get me wrong, Iscol makes a solid point. Why haven't the Democrats come to Clinton's defense as they have for Obama? Why does Clinton seem to be the only senator with enough class, enough party loyalty to come to the aid of one of her own? Her defense of Obama against some of Bush's more unfounded criticism really solidified a lot of the respect that I hold for her.

Clinton has suffered much of the backlash that awaits all women in the modern working world: show too much strength, then your... well let's just say it rhymes with "witch." Demonstrate some emotion? You're too feminine, too soft, not cut out for the man's world. Or, in Clinton's case, you're a manipulative woman crying fake tears to earn real votes.

Hillary Clinton has had more than her fair share of mud slung at her over the course of her campaign and it's largely due to the fact that she is a woman. As many pundits have aptly noted, it is more acceptable to be a misogynist than a racist and Clinton is bearing the brunt of that distinction.

As a Clinton supporter, I'm annoyed. As a woman, I'm outraged. But as a realist and as someone who would like to see politics taken back to basics, I have to ask: so what?

To me Hillary Clinton is not a woman. I don't look to her as some model of femininity, or a champion of working mothers, or even as a beacon of hope for every woman seeking to shatter the glass ceiling. I look at her as a politician. And frankly I really don't care if she gets her feelings hurt.

I respect Clinton's intelligence and political savvy enough to safely assume that she knew what she was getting into when she became involved with politics. Let's face it, this is the woman who saw her husband's presidency lampooned by a tell-tale stain on a blue dress. Clinton doesn't expect the media or the public to play nice.

Would it be great to see the Democratic party come out to support her the way they do for Obama? Absolutely. Would it be nice, fair even, for the media to back off attacking her for her pantsuits, her haircut, her apparent disinterest in being a woman rather than a politician? Sure. But I don't expect it. And I doubt Clinton ever did either.

While I'm sure Iscol's support for Clinton is rooted in the issues, in substantive debate, as that of many other supporters' is, she doesn't delve into those ideals in her scathing critique. Instead, she appeals to Clinton as the woman's candidate, her courage in the face of public attack making her a more attractive candidate.

Maybe it does. And maybe for Iscol, Clinton's apparent grace under fire is the lynch pin she needs to secure her support. But as for me, I would simply expect nothing less from a professional politician.