Maybe it's just an emotional desire to have a woman President despite the fact that she is nothing but another centrist/coporate Democrat who will not in any way improve life for the average woman in America (things will actually get worse as nothing significant continues to get done on most major issues facing the nation). She will continue the war in Iraq and possibly take needless and dangerous military action against Iran, cave in to the health insurance and pharma lobbies to which she is now beholden and sacrifice what would otherwise be a landslide Democratic Year in 08 from the lowest office to the highest on the altar of her ego. Female voters seem glad to be being hoodwinked by a typical politician because that politician wears a skirt.

Far from being anything to celebrate, it's a sad day for the nation IMO. Russert is a moron, but nominating Hillary means nothing for the advancement of women other than to be a symbol that satisfies the emotions but achieves nothing of substance for average citizens (who, you may recall are supposed to be the primary constituency of the Democratic Party). If she wins the Presidency it will be by a hair, many who would have won seats in the House and Senate will not win and the D vs R numbers will not appreciably change keeping the reactionaries in Congress in control and thus her leadership will portend more of the same capitulation and surrender and raw deals for America's average citizens both female and male that the DINO's like Senator Clinton have provided us for years.

Yahoo! Isn't it great that at least the roadblock to progress for regular Americans economic and social interests in the White House can be a woman as well as a man? Who would have thought we would make such strides for women and families in our lifetimes? Is this a great country or what?

While I agree with the comments insofar as I don't identify feminism with voting for a woman, are we reading something into Hirschman's post that I'm missing? 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I know, Hillary and Condi are non-feminine hawks but let's face it--the US has a drug problem which has perverted its foreign policy and made the US a world pariah. It's excessive testosterone. So we need more estrogen in high places and we need to hope that it can improve the present miserable situation despite the hawkish rhetoric from some distaff notables. Basically cooperation is a feminine trait and confrontation, such as in sports and militarism, is a masculine thing, right?

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

Good for Clinton.
As an employee of a wealthy corporation where I have stock options and bonuses based on profit in addition to salary, I beg Clinton, please don't screw up a wealthy corporation I work for.

It makes no difference regarding hormones if the policies are the same. That's my entire point. Elect Hillary because she is a woman... woopeee! You get the same thing as if you'd elected a male DINO whose policies are pro-business and anti-average American. Why is this cause for any joy at all?

Paula Hawkins was elected to the Senate from Florida. How did that benefit women? Phyllis Schlafly is a woman and a lawyer! Why not elect her President so we can solve the testosterone problem? That's right, because that isn't the problem. Gender isn't the primary problem by any means. The primary problem is electing people who act against the interests of average Americans regardless of their gender.

"The primary problem is electing people who act against the interests of average Americans regardless of their gender"

Boy, oleeb, are you right on that! But average Americans cannot run. We've developed a political class and the various interest groups (good and bad) control the purse strings.

Until we get to a point at which elections are completely pubically funded, we won't have an average anyone. And I can't see anyone now in office or power willing to work for that because this system works for them.

Oleeb,
Patience. Your entire point is wrong. As women break the glass ceiling the first emergers are the macho Albright/Clinton/Rice types but then will come the Lee/Woolsey/Waters types and we'll all be the better for it. Women are different from men. After fifty years of experience I'm convinced of it.

Women are different from men.

I guess, to me, they're the same. social conditioning is a powerful thing.

To boldly go...

Linda, ummmm... "I'll have more soon on TNR?"

TPMCafe is the bigger TNR! At the very least, TPM is what TNR was meant to be before it got so corrupted that it had to go biweekly (at about the same size as its typical weekly issue a few years ago) and had to be sold to a Canadian publisher.

I still have a soft spot for TNR, though most here would advise me to get over it.

One thing I am sure of, though... don't plug a TNR hit here. Use TNR to plug what you're doing at TPM. That place is played out. This is where things are happening.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

MCS, social conditioning is indeed very powerful, but women get something extra. I would never ever have believed it because I really thought much of women's position in the world was based on conditioning, but the absolute minute my daughter was born, my entire perspective just plain old changed.

What we get is something related to preservation of the species, I think, and it seems to be built in, not conditioned. I can tell you that it was very weird.

I don't know how to explain it other than that way and in discussing it with other women as we became mothers, the majority had the same, fairly dramatic, response.

What this has to do with governing we'll find out, but I can assure you we are different.

I disagree with this generalization and what I consider a very shallow analysis: "return to the traditional American foreign policy of internationalism and muiltilateralism that held sway from the days of FDR until Bush took office."

FDR inherited an isolationist America that was stung into the Second World War by Pearl Harbor. Reference lend-lease and how FDR had to handle it to give Britain aid in spite of an isolationist-leaning public.

After World War II is the start of the communism versus the western democracies. It was also the time of nuclear proliferation; actions taken by America to prevent communist governments; not declaring war so China and Russia would not be required by "honor" to declare war on us and perhaps escalate things to an exchange of nuclear weapons; and various "non-declared wars" like Korea and Vietnam. Included are crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Post Cold War Era is what we've been in for some time. In the Cold War Era, America certainly wanted countries in "our camp" and not in the "communist camp". We interfered and battled around the globe. It seems to me that our interference in governments around the globe is continuing with the added spice of using our military to prevent slaughter and then to rebuild the governments in those countries. Bush, with his enabling Democrats, continued our interference in governments without obvious provocation. This is the classic definition of colonialism--where we control another country's government and governance.

If anyone has a coherent list of principles underlying our foreign policy in the post Cold War Era, please cough them out. I certainly don't find this consistency. Prevent genocide in the Balkans has to be matched with not preventing it in Rwanda. Bypossing Congress with the Balkans intervention has to be placed against Congressional approval of the Iraq Resolution for War.

There is no consistency--but how one can argue that we need to return to World War II isolationism or Cold War hegemony bypasses my logic completely.

What exactly do you want to return to? Korea? Vietnam? World War II? Cuban Missile Crisis? Intervention in the Balkans? Non-intervention in Rwanda?

I guess it got its modern reputation during the run up to the 1992 elections. TNR helped make Al Gore. It was an influential insider publication, the "In flight magazine of Air Force One."

Obviously, the Stephen Glass stuff hurt it. I think the Bush years hurt it, too. It's as if TNR still wanted to be Air Force One's In Flight magazine and so the content skidded to the right, especially after 9/11. The folly, of course, is to try to be the magazine of choice for a group of people who prefer Fox News to any printed matter.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

What we get is something related to preservation of the species

what about the majority of women who go to the mall, each weekend, and buy crap they don't need. as far as I can tell, women like wealth and power as much as men do.

women, in my opinion, tend to use emotional warfare to get control-- things like seduction and the GFE experience, whereas men, in my opinion, tend to use physical warfare but, regardless, the aim of both seems to be the same: wealth and power.

powerful men and women, from what I've seen, dominate both spheres: emotional warfare and physical warfare.

when I speak about "socialization," I'm talking about the possibility of training children, regardless of gender, to use both types of warfare.

my brother's wife, for example, seemed delighted in her efforts to bankrupt someone who she blamed for HER car accident even though the city attorney didn't pursue the "hit and run" aspect (no cars hit) because she was speeding, so she went after a civil suit. She didn't think, for a single minute, that her high speed caused her car to flip; to "save face," she kept blaming the car who cut in front of her in order to take the next exit-- even though that car only startled her and never actually hit her. Had she been driving the "legal speed," I believe she could have kept her car under control. Because I feel that way, she now hates me and is using her emotional warfare against me but I don't care because I feel she's being petty.

I don't know how to explain it other than that way...

I'd say that your description is sexist since many men I know would make the same claim that they care about the "preservation of the species." i.e. male doctors, scientists, teachers,... etc... would probably give you a funny look...

as sexism goes away, we're seeing more male bank tellers and nurses; over time, people will stop associating gender with caregiving as gender becomes less correlated to job function and what contributions they make to their families.

To boldly go...

So, let's see, if I read Ms. Hirschman correctly...America has officially transcended from the red state blue state paradigm to now being about gender wars. We will now support candidates based on gender stereotypes vs. which policies are good for America independent of gender. This is a sad day for America.

One thing is clear if Obama had played a race card there would be far more clarity around this issue. No one would be touting that being black had prevail and the next closest white candidate was 20 points behind.

Identity politics like this has no place on the national stage. Especially, when it comes to selecting a President. Hillary does not need to answer substantive policy issues she can just whine and snivel and play the victim...and get elected?

This is a sad day in Amerca, particularly when you realize that the countries America has to negotiate it simply do not beleive in women in leadership roles and this 'victimhood'  damsel in distress schtick from Hillary will do nothing for America's world stature. 

Ms. Hirschman you are doing America an extreme disservice touting this gender issue, It is unhealthy for America and a total setback for women.

puissant: You are not getting Linda correctly. What she said was that Russert tried to peddle the gender wars and nobody by Obama's people bought it.

The person sniveling is Obama with his false claim she said I can't hit her because she's a woman when what she actually said was you hit me and I CAN take it because I am a strong women.

Do I read you correctly that since the contries that America has to negotiate with do not believe in women in leadership roles we should therefore not elect a woman?

You do know that the Arab world is prejudiced against blacks?

What she said was that Russert tried to peddle the gender wars and nobody by Obama's people bought it.

Sorry AJM, Obama nor his people bought it. They rejected the entire premise. Russert did not peddle the gender wars. Hillary's campaign did and they have been doing so for a while. They have been touting Hillary's appeal to women, Hillary has said in debates 'I'm your girl" and now her campaign came out with the video of Six Men Pileing On and calling Hillary a strong woman. Russert had nothing to do with this totally pathetic appeal on Hillary's part. Not to mention the AP story which clearly states that playing the gender card has always been a long planned strategy of Hillary's campaign. This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Hillary being shown as inconsistent, doubletalk agent in that debate...Hillary set out to shift the focus from her poor performance to a gender victim. It is awful. We now do not get answers from Presidential candidates because they claim to be 'unfairly victimized by gender'.?..what hogwash! Hillary is trying to hide behind her pantsuits not needing zippers.

The person sniveling is Obama with his false claim she said I can't hit her because she's a woman when what she actually said was you hit me and I CAN take it because I am a strong women.

I do not know what you are watching or reading. None of this was said. matt Lauer asked Obama about the issue and he responsed that he believed that Hillary wanted to be treated like everyone else. He also said that he did not claim when Biden Dodd and Clinton came out swinging against him in the IA debate that it was because he looked different but that they had policy differences.  Hopefully, you will go and check your facts because clearly they are wrong.

Do I read you correctly that since the contries that America has to negotiate with do not believe in women in leadership roles we should therefore not elect a woman?

My point is that a women who snivels and whines about being a victim based on gender is ineffectual. She is even more ineffective when the global heads of states do not even believe that women are their peers. If Hillary can't run with the big dogs she needs to get out the kitchen. The heat those global leaders are going to put on her is far greater and the risks for our country far higher. Hillary  won't be able to whine and play damsel in distress, if she does America will go down the tubes. I think she lacks the moral courage and political backbone to negotiate with male heads of state. She will simply attempt to America's military might to get her way like a scorned women and that will set off another global war which America can't afford. Hillary disgusts me. And that video her campaign put out was despicable. Strong women do not need those types of videos, strong women stand on the issues, strong women are decisive, strong women have principles to base decisions on they are not evasive, wafflers which do nothing but cement the female stereotype of women being fickle. Hillary is bad for America she does not offer leadership she thinks she wins the politcal battle while America loses the war for global stature.  Hillary needs to go home. Her campaign sucks for women and sucks for America.

You do know that the Arab world is prejudiced against blacks?

So is America. What's your point? The Arab world just like Amerrica is far more sexist than it is racist. Which is why Condi Rice was the worse possible choice for Sec of State.

The past 30 years haven't been exactly our best have they Bev? 08 should be like 1964, but with Clinton at the top of the ticket it will be 1992 again. Many who should win next year will not if she is leading the ticket IMO and that of many others. If she is nominated I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. I won't vote for her under any circumstnces regardless and I doubt I'm the only Democrat who will do the same.

Who is saying that we have to elect an average American? Not me. We need someone who will work on behalf of average Americans. That is ver doable even without public financing.