Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: She takes private practice to extremes, by Ellis Hennican, Jan. 19.
I was distressed to read Ellis Hennican's column subtly trashing Judith Steinberg Dean. Here is a writer who purports to admire "headstrong, independent" women, and says that why, even his own wife is such a person. But he can't bring himself to "like" the wife of this presidential candidate. Apparently she is far too wrapped up in her own passions, which include her children and her medical career.
As a physician and mother, I can answer Hennican's questions without a blink:
"Is her schedule really that busy?" Yes.
"Is she really that shy?" I do not know her, but, yes, many people really are that shy.
"Do her patients really demand that much from her?" Yes - and the fact that she devotes the time necessary to meet their needs speaks volumes for her as a physician.
Hennican goes on to make the outrageous suggestion that she at least could have traded her jeans for a nice pair of wool pants. (This, of course, is a rhetorical comment, but it sums up his general criticism of the woman for not being at her husband's side in the "proper" role of first lady wanna-be.) To give Hennican credit for trying, he does sling a couple of arrows at Nancy Reagan for her "slavish devotion," and at Hillary Rodham Clinton for getting too involved in policymaking. He doesn't like women to be overly involved in their presidential spouses' affairs, either. He would prefer "something between."
I have news for you, Mr. Hennican. Nancy, Hillary and Judy are who they are. Judith Steinberg Dean is unwilling to affect a phony persona in order to appease those who supposedly admire "independent" women, but only to a point. Her own husband does not seem to be whining about her lack of involvement in his campaign. Does he require male columnists to whine for him?
It isn't Judith Steinberg Dean who needs to change, but those who cannot climb out of the mind-set that demands a woman throw her life's work by the wayside so she can look good standing by her husband. This is not an argument that a wife should not be supportive of her husband, only that everyone else withhold judgments based on some hypothetical "ideal" first lady. The Deans seem to be doing just fine, and I salute them for respecting each other's mission.
Enough already! On Friday you printed Maureen Dowd's condemnation of Judith Steinberg Dean for not being a "proper" political wife (Frosty Dr. Dean needs to get a wife). On Monday you printed Ellis Hennican's rant on the same subject (She takes private practice to extremes), the lowest point of which is the plaintive, "Couldn't the woman have found a pair of wool pants?"
Thankfully, Howard Troxler has spoken out against this habit of bashing-by-proxy. Howard Dean is running for president; Dr. Steinberg is not. How they manage their marriage is up to them. If she chooses to keep a low profile in his campaign, that's perfectly fine. But to attack Howard Dean and his campaign through the fact that his wife is not "a prop on the campaign trail" is disingenuous, sexist and ultimately a distraction from the real issue: whether Howard Dean will make a good president.
Hooray for Judith Dean! She is a woman with a mind of her own, knowledge of her self-worth and the necessary self-esteem to follow through.
We sure as h--- don't need another simple looking presidential wife who gazes "ga-ga" at her self-serving husband. Why don't these women tell the truth? "You are falling short on your promises to the people, dear."
There are many women who care deeply about our country, our children's education, and our failed health care system, and we will speak out in the voting booth! While I sincerely respect Dr. Judith Dean's privacy, I do wish I could give her a hug and a pat on the back!
It would be refreshing to have another kind of woman in the White House if Howard Dean succeeds in reaching that office. Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean would, I hope, continue her career as a primary care physician instead of being a "first lady," a role that always impressed me as being pseudo-royalty.
She would presumably not try to influence dress fashions and would be too busy to take on more than a few promotional appearances. I would hope those would be related to health issues, but she may have other interests equally as important.
I expect that having a working career woman rather than a "first lady" partner with the president might give a morale boost to the many women working to balance spouse/mother/professional roles. And it would make the White House seem more of a home office for a real contemporary family instead of a prop for photo ops.
She would probably want to join the president for some official events and would be an asset at them, without $7,000 outfits. It would be a refreshing change.
Re: Frosty Dr. Dean needs to get a wife, by Maureen Dowd, Jan. 16.
Just what is it that Maureen Dowd is criticizing the Drs. Dean for? Or more to the point, what is it she is criticizing Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean for?
So, she appeared in a picture in worn jeans and old sneakers, as shy and retiring? Oh, is that bad? She looked like a crunchy Vermont hippie, Dowd says? Crunchy? Hippie? What kind of ad hominem argument is that?
No need to detail Dowd's additional trivia criticizing Dean's wife. Why not talk about what an unselfish doctor she is, even old-fashioned enough to be available for house calls. No Dowd sarcasm can take that away.
It is not serving us potential patients well to be trivializing doctors such as Judith Steinberg Dean, who is obviously devoted to serving patients. Give her a break. Give us a break.
Dowd needs to move into the 21st century. Drs. Steinberg and Dean could easily become role models for mainstream America that is now made up of two-career families.
As a female with a career, Dowd should be getting in line right behind Dr. Steinberg's patients to express admiration and respect for her, not criticism.
I want to comment on the article about candidate Howard Dean's wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, and why she isn't out at her husband's side.
To me, she represents the real wife of a wonderful, truthful future president of the United States of America. Judith Steinberg Dean is the best we can have in the White House - because she chooses to be her own woman.
Re: Harris' speech just one ring in bicoastal news circus, by Lucy Morgan, Jan 17.
Lucy Morgan's reference to Katherine Harris and Michael Jackson having similar hairdos made me sad. I thought we had gotten beyond such a comment. Katherine Harris' political views are fair game, but references to her hairstyle are snide and unbecoming to a political correspondent.
I have no reason to defend Katherine Harris, but I am a fellow female who does not like to see one of our elected females be made a victim of such a remark. We have come too far to accept such a comment.
Re: Bush puts stalled nominee on bench, Jan. 17.
Maybe it's the Twilight Zone presidency, where nothing makes sense. Maybe it's just the photo-op presidency, where everything is just a big campaign commercial. How else could you describe it?
One day you fly to a fallen civil rights leader's grave to place a wreath, and the next day you appoint a segregationist, antivoting-rights activist to the federal appeals court.
When Democrats controlled the Senate, Charles Pickering was turned down for the post, because of his extremist views. He was renominated and fillibustered. So now he gets a recess appointment.
Karl Rove and George W. Bush are probably still rolling on the floor of the Oval Office, laughing at what they just pulled off.
But the American people are not as stupid as they think. We'll remember this in November. And they'll just be another "seasonally adjusted" statistic.
Re: FCC head wants potty mouths to pay up, Jan. 15.
When is this going to end? What happened to freedom of speech? I am talking about the FCC and how it wants to fine broadcasters for using the F word. We all have heard it, so what is the big deal? If a radio station wants to use language that is offensive to some, it should be able to. Maybe the FCC needs an overhaul and to update its books so it is in this century.
Stop telling everyone what to say and what to wear. We should be able to decide for ourselves. If Howard Stern wants to use the F word that is his right. If Mason and Company want to use the F word, that is their right. If they want to run around nude while doing it, that is their right. Maybe we have forgotten our forefathers fought to have freedom of speech and to do what they wanted. Maybe we need another Tea Party.
Re: $115 cut to $9.50, Jan. 14.
I just finished reading the article about Tom Kirscher. His ex-wife has been awarded $3,505 a month for the rest of her life in alimony. Why? She makes $14 an hour. I know people who live on far less than that. The court ordered him to sell his car and possibly his home to pay this woman. This is even more absurd after reading that the judge criticized him for not looking for jobs outside of the area. How could he do that if he sold his car? Apparently the words "logic" and "legal system" are mutually exclusive.
Re: $115 cut to $9.50.
I have little sympathy for Tom Kirscher, the man profiled in your business section last week. Judge John Schaefer was correct when he described Kirscher as "willfully underemployed." The fact that he has received very few offers in his field was predictable given his unwillingness to relocate.
He states in the article that he is unwilling to permanently relocate because he has a daughter and his wife's parents in the area. However, he had no problem permanently relocating in 1993 when he left his first wife and youngest daughter in Minnesota and moved to Florida. This guy is a real piece of work.
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or through our Web site at:
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.