Why is it that leftists are always saying they are 'disturbed,' or 'saddened' or 'distressed?' Nothing seems to pass before the eyes of dyed—in—the—wool liberals without causing some sort of disconcertion. Such is again the case in a column written by Ms. Susan Ager of the increasingly useless Detroit Free Press.

In the column, Ms. Ager claims that while First Lady Laura Bush seems friendly and well—read, it disturbs her that Mrs. Bush is such a popular figure throughout the country in spite of public ignorance as to her feelings on the latest federal highway project or her stance on Supreme Court appointments. In short, Ms. Ager pities Mrs. Bush because the First Lady is not Hillary Clinton:

'Would I vote for (Mrs. Bush) for the U.S. Senate? Not until she demonstrates a passion for and understanding of the complex issues of our times.'

Ms. Ager knows and grants that Mrs. Bush is not about to run for office, yet an exchange between Larry King and David Gergen on CNN the other night had her feeling blue. King suggested to Gergen that, because of Mrs. Bush's popularity, perhaps this First Lady could also take a run at political office. Gergen said no; her desire not to enter public affairs is 'exactly why she's popular.' Ms. Ager concludes that Mrs. Bush 'knows her place,' and had pity—pangs for the First Lady:

'But as a non—traditional woman myself, I pitied (Mrs. Bush's) placidity. I wished she could throw her head back and laugh with her mouth wide open. I wished I could hear her heart in all its complexity, unedited. I wished I knew what she wanted her life to mean, and what she would stand up and fight for. And I guess I wished she were compelled to express an unpopular opinion and earn herself some enemies.'

Forget that it's really nobody's business what Mrs. Bush thinks her life means, or what she would or would not do in 'fighting' for something. Forget that Ms. Ager glosses over Mrs. Bush's very well—known feelings about abortion that are decidedly different than her husband's. Forget, also, that of all the people in the world, Mrs. Bush is the last person who needs to be defended against a two—bit columnist by someone in the blog world.

A question, though, for Ms. Ager: why is it that a woman automatically becomes a candidate for residence on Wisteria Lane, if she is in proximity to power but does not make herself a public spectacle by ambitiously co—opting un—elected power, and compounds the offense by choosing not to work outside the home? What is it about women like Laura Bush that make the so—called feminist mind come close to implosion? What in the world is to be pitied about a woman who has raised two daughters, been the First Lady of Texas and the United States, obviously loves her husband dearly, and has enough knowledge of literature to make an English professor blush with ignorance?

Why is it that women not in the mold of Hillary Clinton are somehow immediately suspect? Why, indeed, would any woman in her right mind want to emulate a person like the paranoid, power—monger Hillary Clinton? A woman who, according to Ronald Kessler in A Matter of Character, fired a longtime White House personal staff member because she had the temerity to take a call from former First Lady Barbara Bush, and answer a question about her laptop computer. Does this sort of behavior not distress those on the left who talk, and talk, and talk, and talk about the 'little guy'?  Why would anyone want to emulate as a role model a woman who had no problem trashing and stealing from the White House? Perhaps the absence of such concerns, and Laura Bush's stark contrast with her immediate predecessor, are some of the reasons for Mrs. Bush's popularity.

Ms. Ager further 'warns' those of us who like our women cooking, quiet, and compliant that those days are over, that women have ambitions for themselves 'with which we, too, can influence the quality of life in this nation and on this planet.'

In case Ms. Ager has not noticed, it is already well—understood that ambitious women currently enjoy influence on the quality of life in our country and around the world. All one has to do to comprehend this fact is to look at the members of the Bush Administration. Everyone knows about Condoleezza Rice, but is Ms. Ager aware that the White House counsel is a woman named Harriet Miers? Is she aware that the Secretary of Education is Margaret Spellings?

These women were not hired by the President merely because they are women. They were hired because they are the best at what they do. Because these women may happen to share a political philosophy that is not line with Angela Davis and Gloria Steinem, does that mean they are inauthentic? That sounds an awful lot like certain people who say that Dr. Rice and Clarence Thomas are 'for white people' and not really black. It is also an awful lot like criticizing Laura Bush for not fitting in to a predetermined definition of modern womanhood. Where is the celebration of diversity in such a narrow stereotype?

Ms. Ager looks forward to the day when television commentators discuss the President's husband and talk about what a nice, safe, unassuming bloke he seems to be — a male Laura Bush. Don't be disturbed, saddened, or distressed though, Ms. Ager, when the first female President is sworn in. When the as—of—yet—unmarried Dr. Rice takes the oath of office she will probably be the first single President since James Buchanan. But there certainly isn't anything wrong with that. Remember — a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Matt May can be reached at matthewtmay@yahoo.com; his blog is mattymay.blogspot.com