Estrich shows shallowness again

Estrich shows shallowness again

Susan Estrich has done it again. In her Oct. 19 column, “Why the need for ‘binders of women’?”, she again demonstrates the shallowness of her analytical ability by coming away from the second presidential debate focusing on the fact that Mitt Romney “was proud to discover that, yes, indeed, there were whole binders of qualified women.”

She asks, “Did he need binders to know that we were there ... asking only to be treated fairly, as people?” She totally missed — or intentionally ignored — the fact that Romney asked women’s groups to provide him with resumes of women qualified to serve in his Cabinet.

She seems unable to comprehend that Mr. Romney actually knew that there should be qualified women who were not represented in the original “binders full of male candidates” for his Cabinet, and that he would not form his Cabinet without qualified female representation. The end result was “whole binders full of women” from which Romney selected and hired 50 percent of his Cabinet.

Ms. Estrich states that she, as a self-appointed activist determined to get a woman on the Democratic ticket in 1984, has been making whole binders full of women for more than three decades. Yet she ridicules Mr. Romney for searching out and using those binders for just the purpose she intended.

Either her feelings were hurt because Romney was smarter than she thought, or in her partisanship she feels a need to denigrate him. I don’t see how the Daily Herald can continue to publish such totally unprofessional drivel. Ms. Estrich would do well to read (and reread) Michael Gerson’s column in the same issue for a great example of professional coverage of that debate.

Marv Schulgen

Lombard