COLUMN LEFT / JOAN LESTER : Stand Tall, Hillary, and Stay Strong : ‘60s ideals have finally found a power pulpit. The carping is because a woman is preaching.

So now Hillary Rodham Clinton is being trashed for wanting to bring the “politics of meaning” to the White House, and, indeed, to the folks outside it, too. She is being attacked on the false premise that articulating moral judgment is a departure from the liberalism of the last 30 years.

Well, what were the sit-ins of the 1960s about if not moral judgment? Why did we risk our lives in voter-registration drives if the issue wasn’t equality, a fundamentally moral notion?

We were, after all, the children who had grown up on “land of the free and home of the brave,” shocked to discover in adolescence that in fact it was the land of the free white man and home of the brave Indian. So we set out to make things right. The notion that there has not been a level playing field, that there has not been a fair distribution of opportunity, has been the simple underpinning for every liberal effort, from the Movement (for African-American access) and women’s liberation and La Raza to today’s gay-rights struggle. “Give me my place at the table” of the American Dream has been our rallying cry.

And what were we if not morally absolute? Tolerance of diversity meant that we extended invitations to many who were formerly absent from the table: people with disabilities, Jews and other religious/cultural minorities, people of color, women and gays. For 30 years, we have been figuring out how to provide various types of access to each of these groups, making it possible for them to take their rightful places at the table.

So what did anyone expect from Hillary Rodham Clinton, child of the ‘60s, except moral activism, now joined to the ability to create national social policy?

No, this attack is not about Hillary’s well-defined social goals. This is about a woman unashamed of her power, a woman who is articulating a clear moral, social, economic and political vision. Hillary Rodham Clinton is doing exactly what leaders are supposed to do: Give us the view over the mountain so we will know some of tomorrow’s possibilities.

How many women with the national presence to articulate vision and the power to effect change have we ever had in the United States? This is indeed the era of the woman, and some people will try anything to cut us down to our former size.

First, Hillary was charged with being flip and independent--the “stand by your man” and “cookies” comments--in short, a woman with attitude. When that didn’t succeed in derailing her (though it did cause a pause in her co-partner stance) she was vilified for having ambition. Ah, ambition. What woman who has ever held power or aspired to it has not heard this charge? Still, Hillary stood.

So now it’s “the vision thing.” If any of our last six presidents had uttered sentences half as articulate or visions a 10th as broad as Hillary’s, he’d be enshrined today as a great thinker.

We never, any of us, thought it would be this way. We aren’t used to seeing anyone other than a white man be in charge of the really big things. Thus, anyone else is seen as incompetent. Flaws overlooked in white men seem magnified in others.

Adam Clayton Powell, a great leader, was kicked out of Congress decades before ethics became fashionable in that body. Shirley Chisholm, a social visionary, was laughed out of presidential politics as “unelectable” before she even got a start. Jesse Jackson, surging in the popular vote during the 1988 primary, attracted scathing stories about his ego in major news magazines, thereby providing cover for an inside-the-party ambush.

Now we have a President’s wife to be force-marched over the political coals.

One of the fascinating things about having a strong, articulate and compassionate woman in the White House is watching how stereotype after stereotype is superimposed on her. Yesterday’s cold, steel-minded usurper of the presidency is today’s airhead, searching naively for ways to do good. Next thing you know, we’ll be hearing about what a poor mom Hillary is, how she ignores (or smothers) Chelsea.

Yes, Hillary’s mothering style should come into full public view right about the time the health-care proposals are unveiled. Remember, you heard it here first.