My husband bought me a subscription to Time Magazine. He said he was sick of me reading Human Events, a conservative newspaper, as if it were a political Bible. "It's time to read something I like, too." he said. "I can't read about the corrupted Republican party any longer."

I feel his pain. Although, in my defense, I only bought the subscription to Human Events because I wanted to read Ann Coulter's latest book without having to contribute any money to her bank account. It seems she's giving away free copies with every subscription to the newspaper.

I was a bit skeptical when the first issue of Time arrived in my mailbox with a picture of Hillary Clinton on it's cover. The story was titled "What Hillary Believes...And Why She Thinks She'll Win" and I found myself wondering if she believed in anything other than her own well-being.

I tossed the magazine aside and cursed my husband for giving up his credit card number so easily, for a magazine that seemed to stink of liberal rubbish.

Then I remembered to be fair and balanced and I gave this article a speed read.

I was surprised to learn the author, Joe Klein, painted an honest picture about the powerful woman so many members of the GOP despise. I admit, I don't like her either. Or should I say, didn't? I decided to give her a chance, and I'm learning that maybe HIllary isn't so awful after all.

Conservatives reading this may quite possibly experience a heart attack -- maybe a few liberals, too. I'm not one to switch teams at half-time. But in all honesty, when I compare Hillary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani (or any Republican candidate for that matter), she's not looking half-bad -- and I'm not speaking of her physical appearance. (Too many people have attacked her looks as a way to hide their fear of the former First Lady.)

Klein opens his article with a comparison of Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Walter Mondale, whom he calls "a ghost of Democratic disasters past."

He writes:

"Mondale is a smart and decent man, but he ran the worst sort of cautious front-runner campaign for the nomination in 1984, was nearly upended by the younger, more dynamic Gary Hart in the primaries and was utterly trounced by Ronald Reagan in the general election, in part because, in an untypically incautious moment in his acceptance speech for the nomination, he said he would raise taxes."

And

"Clinton has been accused of running a cautious front-runner campaign. She is challenged by a pair of dynamic younger candidates in Barack Obama and John Edwards. She has endorsed higher taxes for the wealthy. And more than a few Democrats worry that she cannot win a general election, even against a disgraced and exhausted Republican Party. In other ways, however, Clinton is the furthest thing from Mondale imaginable. A vote for Clinton is, at bottom, a radical proposition. It is a vote for the first woman to run for President, the most dramatic expansion of American possibility since a Catholic was elected President in 1960."

What struck my Achilles heel was the words "radical proposition". Radical as in extreme or perhaps far-fetched? Simply because she's a woman?

I want so badly to vote for Hillary as our next president, if only to prove a woman has every chance to be in a position of power, to lead our nation -- just like men.

I mean sure, my political views are 'radically' different from Hillary Clinton's but she has said, "Americans are ready for substance" and Hillary believes she's the right woman for the job.

She's confident, she's got the female equivalent of brass balls (Can I say "brass vagina"?), and she's not afraid of the testosterone her opponents are throwing around the playing field.

I was just a teenager when Bill Clinton was in office, but I remember my father claiming that 'Slick Willy' rode to the White House on under his wife's direction -- that she was the driving force behind his campaign. Behind every (good?) man was an even better woman.

And maybe Hillary has been successful because of who she married, but in a world where men are automatically given the better advantages, is it really so wrong for Hillary Clinton to reap some of that success?

Klein writes:

"To become the first female U.S. President, Clinton will have to escape the shadows of her own stereotype and of her husband's popularity. Her campaign is hoping that women voters will help bring her to victory."

Perhaps she is relying on women voters to win the Presidency. Who am I to say she doesn't deserve to win?

If I had a daughter I would be proud that she had the strength and confidence to follow her dream of becoming President. (I might hope and pray that her political views were more balanced and less progressive, of course.)

While I may have liked the Time piece, Devil's Advocate did not:

"In the most recent issue of TIME Magazine, Joe Klein wrote a puff piece titled: “What Hillary Stands For.” This was the most brazen use of damage control by a purportedly objective magazine that I have seen in the last decade. After reading Joe Klein’s journalistic negligence, I finally understand why TIME Magazine is losing subscribers. Not only should Joe Klein be ashamed for what he wrote, but TIME Magazine should as well. The fact that his article was located in TIME’s “Nation” section on pages 44-49, instead of on the “Viewpoint” section beginning on page 51 is absurd. It demonstrates that the editors and executives at TIME are so far to the Left that they cannot discern the difference between real journalism and a full endorsement of Hillary Clinton."

Sweetness & Light writes:

"Even madam herself must find it hard not to laugh at such preposterous mendacities and shameless, vomit-inducing fawning. Again one has to ask, will Mr. Klein’s contribution in kind be reported to the FEC?"

Stop Her Now writes:

"Time asserts that: “Conservatives might hate Hillary desperately–quite literally.” I don’t know that this is the case. We certainly oppose her. Call this desperation if you will. Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Michah Tillman writes:

"People who just want to get things done, who are pragmatists, are those who are already in power. They don’t have to present a vision of what the world would be like if they were leading. They aren’t trying to convince you to give them power. They don’t need you. They’ve got the power and want to use it.

If Klein is right about what Clinton stands for, then Conservatives are right about Clinton: she just wants to bask in the glory of her own power. Power for power’s sake."

Finally, an agreeable theory to snap me out of this Hillary trance.

----------

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.