MyDD alerted me to this talk-show smear of Hillary Clinton this morning, in which she is attacked for expressing anger. Said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee:

“Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger,” Mehlman insisted. “When you think of the level of anger, I’m not sure it’s what Americans want” in the White House, he added.

Matt Stoller’s concern in the article is that Ken Mehlman continues to be quoted in the media like a credible person, when his credibility has been questioned, thus the title of his post is “What is the penalty for one’s ‘credibility being questioned’?” Here’s my response to Ken Mehlman’s attempted smear of Hillary Clinton:

What is the penalty for being a woman?

This is also an anti-feminist attack, since when men are angry and express anger at their staff, it is often chalked up to being a real taskmaster, having a good work ethic and getting things done. When Hillary Clinton has an angry episode, it becomes fodder for a smear.

Since we are now marking the passing of one of feminism’s greats, Betty Friedan, I think it’s about time women confronted some of these double standards. Anger is a productive and justified reaction in many instances, and dems should not back off of it just because their opponents are trying to play the victim and proclaim that they are “offended and hurt” by their anger. They are not hurt in the least. They are just trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky, passive-aggressive way.

Interestingly, as I was posting this, another person was simultaneously posting a similar response, calling attention to the passive-aggressiveness of the smear.