I’m getting caught up in the US political elections. I’m staying up most nights until about 4AM during the primary/caucus season watching CNN or reading the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for more coverage, more analysis. (I’m especially loving the integration of blogs and video streams in The New York Times.)

And the big story before today’s New Hampshire primaries is that Hillary Clinton showed . . . emotion. She actually got teary-eyed when a female questioner asked her how she deals with the pressure, frustration, disappointment and constant attacks. In short, how can you not take it personally when everyone basically says that you a cold, cunning bitch? Doesn’t it hurt that all of your experience, preparation and contacts are irrelevant because most people don’t like you and won’t like you no matter what you say or do?

Obama emotes. Bill Clinton cries. Even George Bush got teary-eyed when remembering the terrorist attacks. But the fact that Hillary — a woman — shows emotion is what people consider noteworthy. (This reminds me of the Sex and the City episode whether Charlotte warns Samantha that the worst thing that can ever happen to a woman at her job is that her co-workers see her crying, because from that moment on, she’ll be labeled weak and emotional.)

I don’t really think it’s all Hillary’s fault, though she must accept some of the blame for her personal choices. I mean, even I was happy to see that she finally let her hair down and stopped trying to be a superhuman SuperWoman. But I do understand that powerful women in high-powered positions often have no choice but to become near robots in order to survive in corporate America. Some of my best female friends — people who I know have more heart, soul and conviction than 99% of the population — are so wrapped up in being as good as men at work that they find themselves wondering whether all of their professional success was worth the personal sacrifices — no meaningful relationships, no kids but lots of money.

Political America has to be even worse. In a context where survival of the fittest is the only relevant principle, Hillary’s had to develop a thick-skin to show that she’s not a stereotypical woman who’d launch nuclear war because she just had her period. Even when her traditional status as a woman was challenged when her husband cheated on her on numerous occasions before the entire world, she maintained a brave face for her family’s well-being. And while trying to be a good wife and good mother, she also had to navigate being a powerful woman who grew up when it wasn’t so common for women to have power (she is 60 years old after all). Fortunately or unfortunately for her, she was never the beauty queen, so she couldn’t rely on her feminine wiles as a defense mechanism. She’s no Southern belle.

So after literally decades of toughening her skin to be able to deal with all of the personal attacks — she’s not pretty enough . . . why would she wear that? . . . is she getting fat? . . . her daughter is not so pretty — she inherited her mother’s looks . . . she’s too manly . . . even her husband prefers to screw every ugly trashy woman who give him a bit of attention rather than be with her sexually . . . i wonder if they have sex . . . people say she is a lesbian . . . — people are surprised that she’s not highly emotional in public.

I think it goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even though all of the candidates are promising “change”, it’s clear that change is slow, frustrating and sometimes ephemeral. When I was a college student so many years ago, one of my favorite US constitutional law cases was Hopkins v. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Long story short, Ann Hopkins was a ball-busting top accountant at PwC up for partner in the 1980s. Even though she was a top performer, the firm opted not to make her partner, based on the fact that she was not feminine enough. They thought that she was too aggressive and literally advised her to walk, talk and dress in a more feminine manner. She sued PwC in 1983 for gender discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed with her. And from what I remember of the legal opinion — I haven’t read it in at least 10 years, so that’s a pretty big caveat — the Court argued that this kind of attitude puts women in an impossible position, a catch 22: They have to prove that they are at least as “tough”, “emotionless” and “professional” as businessmen, but they must also be “feminine” and “lady-like”. In other words, women must be part Scarlett O’Hara, part Rambo. The can’t be “pussies”. They had to show that they have “balls” but they can’t be “bitches” either.

This is a balance that men typically don’t have to make, and it’s one that’s near impossible to achieve. The result is a glass ceiling that means that women often don’t ascend to the highest levels in business or politics. That was true 25 years ago, and it seems to be equally true today.

I’m not going to go so far as Gloria Steinem, who has an editorial in the Times saying that racial progress often comes at the cost of gender equality. Like so many feminists before her, she argues that it makes sense that Americans would vote first for a black man before they’d vote for a white woman, because a man — even a black man — is still a man. I think that this is a tired argument, and no one was making this argument even 2 weeks when Obama’s biggest liability was the doubt that white America would never vote for him, while everyone assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. In the US, I think that white women as a group are generally more powerful and economically privileged than black men (to say nothing of black women), and certainly better represented in the halls of power. But as I said, I’m not going to go there.

I will simply say that I feel badly that even Hillary Clinton can’t escape her gender’s glass ceiling. And if she can’t do it, I don’t see why we should think that Obama will be any more successful in escaping his race’s glass ceiling. It’s just a matter of time. I hope I’m wrong, but my biggest fear is that the media is building him up — just as they did over the last 6 months with Hillary Clinton when she was declared unbeatable — only to tear him down when they all remember in the privacy of their voting booths that he’s really a not-so-nice-word-that-begins-with-n-and-is-still-used-in-some-corners-to-describe-black-people.