So, Jonathan, you are saying that once again Hillary shot herself in the foot? Toughness is a dumb metric. I have repeatedly read about the blind studies and so therefore Hillary picked a playing field whre she is at a disadvantage because of her gender. Mistake #254 but one that ranks high up on the list.

macho chest thumpers are insecure, and she is no exception.

I think the picture is a bit more complicated. I agree that Clinton has reinforced some of the manly metrics for being a good commander-in-chief and, in doing so, has worsened the problem that female candidates face. At the same time, however, she's probably lessened the problem to some extent as well, by shaking up people's stereotypical perceptions of women. She's done this by showing voters that a female candidate can -- as a matter of fact -- be extremely tough, pugilistic, and tenacious. She's also demonstrated to prospective female candidates that a woman can be admired for displaying these "manly" qualities in politics, rather than simply being vilified for them. So the damage she's done by uncritically embracing manly metrics, is offset by the good she's done in shaking up stereotypical assumptions about women and femininity. Does the good effect perfectly offset the bad effect? It's hard to say, since it would be hard to measure either one.

The problem with the manly metrics isn't so much that they're dumb, but that they're limited or incomplete. Presumably we do want commanders-in-chief to be tough, just not at the expense of having good judgement. We want both qualities.

This means that we need candidates who, male or female, can shake up gender stereotypes by combining whatever "manly" qualities are desirable in a president with whatever "feminine" qualities are desirable -- e.g. empathy, a willingness to listen and accommodate other peoples interests or perspectives, etc.  So as Obama sets out to demonstrate his toughness to voters who think he has a glass jaw, he should also work on showing them that he has a capacity to empathize. (That means he should guard against coming across as aloof or haughty.)

Jon.  The error you make about gender is common.  The role of the presidency is male-defined, i.e., it defined as something with masculine traits, not feminine ones.  Since women are socialized from birth to adopt feminine traits and males masculine traits, this makes women and men differential "fits" for offices like POTUS. Hence, this a structural bias favoring men for positions of leadership and power, i.e., those positions are defined as having  traits men are "properly" (some would even say naturally) socialized to have.  

When women aspire to positions of power, they must adopt the traits of those positions, hence become masculine-like.  This was Penn's position wioth Hillary.  Women police officers experience the same quagmire and then get stigmatized in the process.  Barack and other men are given leeway to redefine the roles because they are assumed to already possess the masculine traits required for the job.  Its called ascendant masculinity.  

Lets stop and honestly consider if we are really ready for more feminine traits (keeping in mind that men today display them more), in leadership positions like POTUS.  Maybe we are so in academia and in small or even large business.  But when it comes to public safety, I doubt it.  Check out Faludi's new book.  Th war on terror worsened this not only for women, but for candidates like Obama who do break from a more macho-Bush style.  This kind of stuff is already coming up between Obama and mcCain.  Expect more of it.  

So Jon, you must think about what the role requires and then who occupies it.   I think Obama is a bit, a tiny bit, post-gender is these respects.  But there is also much that is status quo about him here as well.

Obama is pretty close (especially for a young black man with a Muslim name)  to winning the Presidency of the United States with a thoughtful, anti-macho demeanor and message of unity.  

Do male candidates move towards more female gender norms when the times - and the American people -  call for it?  Sure.  These things swing.  Bill Clinton was considered a wuss for being "feel your pain" by huge chunks of the population (women too) until about 3 months ago.  He won twice.  

Gender norms and socialization are real, but not just one direction nor are they airless, deterministic things - they are fluid and sometimes benefit, sometimes not.  Our most beloved national figure - Abraham Lincoln, was also post gender by this definiton.  

It's too bad the assumption is that women need to move towards male gender norms to gain power - too often, it makes them come across as inauthentic.  Perhaps this plays a part in women's lack of access in additon to sexism.  

Women who are honest, straight-forward, comfortable with themselves and with men, fair better in the power stakes - this is certainly not good enough considering the low numbers of women in real postions of power.

But considering the whole picture, not just how we are oppressed, but how we oppress ourselves and the mistakes we make as women looking to gain power is just as important - more empowering and less demonzing of men too. I much prefer this.  

Sandra Day O'Connor comes to mind.  Having grown up in the west, I know many women like her.  51% of the population are women and perhaps they prefer men in power as well.  Rather than just looking at the socialization component - which is very real - its important to look at why else this may be. Alot of male characteristics are great to see in positions of power and I see nothing wrong with thinking that.

In any case, is there something real that can be done about this in the context of the Presidency?  

Wandrey and Hemlock.  I'll be curious to see how many men here at TNR weigh in on this debate.  If many do, it's a good sign.  I'm glad Chait opened the discussion and I actually think discussing gender and sexism is one way to heal, not divide, the democratics who casted votes for Obama and Clinton.  Obama did the right thing by acknowledging sexism.. and then he moved on, as he should.  I like that he takes the high road.  I've grown cynical from the Bush-Cheny low road.

Again Wandrey, I think 911 set things back on that score.  The safety aspect of POTUS makes, I think, hinders a redef of the office as a masculine institution.  

I agree Tammy - I agree that this is a important topic too!  VERY important.

Yes, people will probably feel safer with a man with a gentle soul than a woman with one for a long time.

Tammy, interesting. I find his take more compelling than you do. I agree that women have certain constraints based on roles. But I think there's some room between "stereotypically ultra-masculine" and "stereotypically feminine" that she could have occupied. It seems to me that most successful American female politicians have occupied this middle ground, with a focus on competence and getting stuff done rather than even playing that much on the tough-gentle metric (female governors and senators that I know of- not saying that Clinton isn't politically successful, but she hasn't won in a hostile environment the way- say Sibelius or McCaskill have). The Margret Thatcher model isn't the only one available.

I don't know of many voters who at the beginning assumed that her weakness was a lack of toughness. I think she perceived it as a strength of hers relative to Obama and so focused on it. A different option would have been to subtly redefine strength and toughness in a way that was less macho. Doing the right thing is hard sometimes, etc. This would have set things up better for her for the general. But it probably wasn't going to win the primary. Honestly, I think a more "feel your pain" approach would have served her well in the primary. Most commentators still, even knowing she has lost, wax eloquent about her amazing toughness. That was never the rub against her. Rather, it was her honesty that many questioned, and THAT wasn't addressed by the Thatcher approach.

But regardless, the campaign's dogwhistles about Obama's masculinity were NOT necessary to her as a woman, and in this regard, I think it's been a net loss for women, whether you agree with Chait's take on her overall persona.

You can't imply your opponent isn't a "real man" and thus not fit for office and help the cause of women electorally, methinks.

A different metric is really competitiveness. Barack was an athlete, knew how to take winning and losing in stride. When Hillary lost Wisconsin she looked like a deer in headlights, when she won Pa. it was like she has ripped on crack. View the tape, for Obama it is hard to distinguish the wins from the losses. Women sports have been a great thing but didn't really exist for Hillary as she grew up. Did she play anything? Additionally, Hillary never even competed herself in politics until now. She carpetbagged to the one state where her Senate seat was nearly handed to her.

As to the future, I think we have turned a corner. If the Presidential candidate is a white male, the VP will pretty much always be a woman or a minority from here on out, for both parties. You are going to see a lot of self made Women become VP's over the next 50 years, more than one will become President. I can also guarantee that none of them will have ever been former first ladies.

by the way, did Mr. Cookie give permission for his picture to be used?

Miceelf.  I guess I never read her comments about Obama as "commander in chief" as a slam on his masculinity.  Maybe that's exactly the problem: the commander in chief part of POTUS could be its most masculine part.  There are other versions of leadership available and other women and men candidates have displayed them.  I do think it's easier for a man to depart from those traditions than a woman.  Irrespective of this, Clinton played the gender thing poorly.  I think it was Penn's miscalculation, but you gotta hold the candidate responsible for signing off on it.  Hillary did much better as the fighter who feels people's pain, as you say.  Maybe that's the pathway to take to avoid stale gender traps.  I know that when I come across as authoritarian in class I do poorly with students.  When I stay firm, supportive and encourage them to higher levels of performance, they respond much better.  I guess I can learn plenty here as well.

Blackie. Spot on about being an athlete.  Hill's entire camp, I'm guessing, has few of them.  I still think, however, that first ladies should be given more consideration.  I say this because today's first ladies (think Michelle Obama) are accomplished women outside their marriages.  Surely, the White House first lady role can be redefined to reflect that.  It was gonna have to be if Bill Clinton would have been the partner.  I understand the problem with nepotism, but surely we wouldn't want to restrict  a talent like M. Obama to hosting tea parties.

There can be no doubt that, other things being equal, a female candidate is disadvantaged by popular biases, stereotypes, and perceptions, and simple bigotry, as a black candidate is disadvantaged, a Catholic candidate is disadvantaged, a Jewish candidate would be disadvantaged.

Despite that, it is extremely difficult in the case of Hillary Clinton to determine what the net impact on her campaign has been.  For one thing, she is running against a black man and she has been more than willing to try and stir up racist resentment as a campaign tactic.  I don’t think Obama has played the “sex card” in the same way.  For another, Hillary’s career path is unique.  There is simply no analogy to any other female politician.  The closest analogy is actually George W. Bush, and they seem in fact to have similar insecurities and weaknesses.

Additionally, this broad observation fails to take note of the fact that we are talking about the Democratic primary outcome, not the general election.  In the Democratic party, there is an especially wide spread between female and male voters in terms of turnout.  This surely didn’t hurt Hillary, it helped her.  As well, the broad observation fails to consider ways in which gender stereotypes and biases have favored Hillary.  I have very little doubt that a male candidate who shed tears about how hard it is to run for president would have been finished instantly.  Similarly, a male candidate who portrayed himself as a victim a lot of the time.  You don’t get to be commander in chief by whining about how the guys are pushing you around.

Hillary went down that road because her campaign was on the verge, several times, of foundering.  She exploited victim status to rally women behind her and it worked just enough to keep her in the race, but not enough to make any headway.  Obama has been smart enough NEVER to cast himself as a victim.  He always denies that it is so or that his race represents a liability.  Again, if he, as a man, had done this, or if he had appealed to anyone to vote for him as “the candidate of blacks,” he would have been finished instantly.

Also, while Hillary had to navigate the gender terrain, one must also consider how deftly, or not, she went about it.  I happen to think that constantly declaring yourself to be “tested, vetted, and ready” is absolutely the worst possible means of persuading anyone that you are any of the above.  In fact, although her feminist supporters hewed to the party line on this, and still do, Hillary managed only to highlight the extent to which she is neither tested, vetted, nor ready.  And when the contrast grew sufficiently uncomfortable, she sort of flipped out and began inventing foreign policy triumphs for herself, including her surviving sniper fire in Tuzla.  There is a difference between being tough, as Margaret Thacher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi surely were, and talking tough.  Hillary doesn’t know the difference between tough and nasty.

Withal, I think Hillary could have won the nomination had she been as capable a politician at the beginning of her campaign as she is at the end.  I still think she stinks at it, but she stinks less than she did at first when she was simply horrible at it.  But for her severe liabilities as a pol, Obama simply would not have had any opening and we never would have seen how good he is.  He would have been stifled out of the gate.  I attribute this to the fact that she never had a real political career, until now.  She was handed her senate seat and never had to learn how to politic.  She has learned, both good lessons and bad, in the last six months as she has raced to catch up with someone who is blessed with enormous political talent.  But it was too late to start learning to be a politician once you are in a presidential race, much too late.  At least in the Democratic primaries, I think the impact of her weaknesses as a politician have vastly more to do with the outcome than her sex.

I don't think Clinton's problem is a simple one, but she has in a way made it more difficult for herself.  One problem is not of her making, and that is the dangerous emphasis given to the commander-in-chief aspect of the presidency, which (my impression is) has only begun to emerge in modern times.  If the Founders had imagined that one day the measure of suitability for the presidency was being capable of deploying the largest military machine on the planet, under the control of the federal government, they might have swallowed hard.

We need to stop this.  The United States is not a militarized state (in the sense of a culture in which obedience is the highest virtue, as in Prussia) and we don't possess an aristocratic officer corps or anything like that.  Nevertheless, there's a dangerous shift in how people view the job of president, a shift which consists of obsessing over some imaginary crisis scenario (e.g. 3 a.m. phone call from retro red phone) followed by a favored combo of creased brows, clipped orders, and a general lack of thinking (known to Republicans as "leadership").

Clinton's mistake was to try to re-invent herself within this scenario as a way of suggesting that she can do "leadership" in this attenuated notion of the presidency better than Obama could.  Obama, for his part, has been more effective at reminding us that the office consists of more than ordering air strikes.  In a way, Clinton may have felt pushed in that direction, as Obama captured the creative energy that she assumed would belong to her, but she ended up opening yet another box of snakes.

What's hobbling Hillary at the moment is not the perception that she's tough.  I think should could have managed that aspect fairly effectively.  It's that she looks like she is going through various acts and presenting various fronts, all geared to the audience of the moment, and that this began with the Iraq war vote.  It looks like she voted tactically, in terms of her future career, on something that could legitimately been seen as an issue of conscience.  If she really believed that Bush was not to be trusted with a vote based on intel that seemed screwy, then she had every responsibility to vote no.  It's not unfeminine toughness that's her problem, it's a perception that the toughness is one more act -- hence it seems (a) brittle rather than tough, and (b) not rooted in any deep conviction.  When it comes to dealing with some complex inner problems that seriously affect one's life, Obama seems to me a lot tougher -- which makes Carville's testicles remark not only ugly but just plain wrong on the face of it.

The shrillness isn't in her voice, it's in her wounded indignation as she sees something that she thought she was owed being taken away from her.  Hillary Clinton isn't suffering defeat because she's a woman, but because she is a certain kind of human being whose bad sides (and she has many good sides) have been brought out by the desire for the White House.  It's not the first time.

Roid.  I agree.  As a wrote above, it's the traits of masculinity that are embodied in the institution of POTUS.  Had Obama cried, he likely would have been severly penalized.  And yes to Hillary's mistakes.  Now, if Blackie's predicted female storming of the VP office materiliazes, we will see how gender rears its head.  And we will see race and religion as well.  

I offer one caveat, there is always a tendency to toss off the gender or race effects or biases as due, instead, to some other quality of a particular individual.   This is your case with Hillary, which I've heard so many other people claim as well.  "It's not gender bias it's just Hilary."  So, let's see what the narrative is next time for a woman candidate.  That will prove a good test of your claim.  Agree?

Tammy, I'll continue to blame Penn and the mentality he kind of seeded into the campaign (and into Clinton herself, for that matter) for a great deal of her problems. I feel what you're saying about "authoritarian" and that's why "authoritative" (the successful approach you describe) is a winner every time (my research focuses on parenting, where these are the labels used, but it's pretty similar to any form of leadership/persuasion, I suspect).

It's hard to have this discussion without acknowledging that Obama has also had a set of stereoetypes to negotiate as well. I'd argue he's done so more successfully than she has. Whther that's because his are inherently easier to deal with or because of tactical differences, I leave to the experts.

As to whether feelings about Clinton generalize to female politicians generally, I hope not. I started out feeling pretty much the same about her as I have about our usual frontrunner, dull candidates (kerry etc.). My own more visceral reactions to her came (at least to my mind, who knows what lurks unconsciously) as a result of specific campaign tactics.

I WILL say that, I will on GP refuse to support any candidate who ever hires Mark Penn for anything in the future.

TammyA writes  "I offer one caveat, there is always a tendency to toss off the gender or race effects or biases as due, instead, to some other quality of a particular individual."

Ok, but perhaps, just perhaps, the tendency exists because people are, in fact, individuals.  Could that have something to do with it?  Obama's qualities don't come from his racial identity, for example, but his own individual efforts at dealing with race, family, and identity have flowed into those characteristics.

Again, Clinton could have handled those effects and biases more effectively.  Other female politicians have managed it.  Her deeper problem was not so much that there's an attenuated notion of what the presidency is about out there.  It was buying into that attenuated notion.

The job is not about finally showing everyone that you're no cream-puff, and presidents who have used to office to look steely-eyed and prove stuff have generally been bad ones.

TammyA's most recent post, along with Blackton's and roidubouloi's exhibit some of the best and most civil commentary I've read in TNR, far above the carping, sniping, foul-mouthing sometimes found here.  Thanks, all.

Brief comment on perceived "toughness": The hard charging automotive executive who fought his way to the top is hardly a good bet to battle for workers' rights and a high mileage, non-polluting automobile.  I suspect blue collar voters (and some academics) don't consider the difference...to the benefit of Sen. Clinton and all the Bushes.  Fighting for personal power and fighting for the less well off only occasionally intersect in my experience.

Irony:

Ok, but perhaps, just perhaps, the tendency exists because people are, in fact, individuals.  Could that have something to do with it?  Obama's qualities don't come from his racial identity, for example, but his own individual efforts at dealing with race, family, and identity have flowed into those characteristics.

But some of Obama's qualities DO come from his racial identity, as even you write that he makes efforts to deal with his race.  We all have race and gender and class etc in our identities.  Your point is extremely well-taken that it matters how we deal with those things.  Obama simply did better with race than Hillary with gender.

And Mickey's observation reminds us that the collective, not the personal machiavellian, good is the proper path for leaders.  While some old school feminists might argue that men are rewarded for the mach route and women aren't, I reject that today and side much more with Miceelf, you and Mickey.  It is Obama's "we" that has won me over.  The first time I heard him say it and noticed Hillary's "I," I knew she was in trouble, Obama was gonna inspire, and that I would be as easy recruit.

For Tammy, wondering how many men would weigh in:

I do not fit into many of the roles men are assigned. I am a home-maker while my wife works full-time. She leaves in the morning, goes to the office, collects a paycheck, comes home. Meanwhile, I do the majority of the cooking, cleaning, bills & finances, raise our (goat) kids, and so on. We also run a small market farm, which is my full-time job outside of home-maker. I was raised by a mostly single, harda-working mother, and have always had more female friends than male. My current closest friend is another small farmer who happens to be lesbian. My wife is and always has been more accomplished than me in the professional world, even before we started farming.

Through my wife's career in academia and the real world, and my mother's life, I have experienced second-hand much of the latent sexism and glass ceilings that accomplished women face. It's very real and very bothersome to me. My life has made me very sympathetic to the sorts of background biases that women such as Clinton face. I ended up voting for her on Super Tuesday primarily because I felt she was getting a raw deal in a way that no man, whatever his race, would recieve in the same way (and because I felt they were effectively identical on policy issues). Perhaps I would feel differently if I had more direct experience with racial issues as opposed to gender.

It seems to me that we aren't dealing with stereotypes here, but basic demographics. More and more women are rising through the system, but there is a lag time within our culture as the people around these women come to accept their new status. It's the same dynamic as gay rights issues, in which a growing majority of Americans under 30 simply don't see the problem. It's the same dynamic as any other formerly  "oppressed" minority such as the Irish or Norwegians. Slowly, more and more men are living lives closer to mine, in daily contact with accomplished "equal" women, and as that occurs more frequently and more early in life, the issue will fade. Unfortunately for the present, gradual demographic change doesn't help the fore-runners who are driving it, and that's what people like Clinton are up against.

I don't like the way she's run her campaign, and my politics are pretty well split between McCain and Obama right now. So from a political perspective, I'm glad she's on the way out. But I can also see the frustration among many who have waited so long and worked so hard to break barriers, only to see an apparent setback.

Don't know if that's of any value to anyone, but there it is.

Just a small point in defense of Hillary (from someone who's been rooting for Obama.) Irony writes that her problem was in buying into the attenuated notion of the presidency that's out there. And Tammy writes that Obama did better at dealing with race as an aspect of his identity than Hillary did with gender.

Although I think Hillary went way overboard with the macho behavior, even so, she didn't let go of "feminine" qualities completely. She was always pretty effective at "connecting" with people over issues like health care and the housing crisis. She's taken a rap for not showing the "human" side of herself, but when you see her in small groups or talking with individuals about their stories and problems, she does convey real concern for their problems. She does this partly through her wonkiness: by understanding the broader economic/social causes of their problems and being able to talk specific solutions, but also through showing empathy. I think that's one reason she's been more effective than Obama at "connecting" with a lot of lower income voters and getting their support. So you could argue that her view of the presidency (and what it takes to win) does combine masculine and feminine traits and, with respect to gender at least, isn't that attenuated (even if she got the balance of masculine and feminine wrong.)

Also, we shouldn't buy into a definition of "feminine" and "masculine" qualities that is too binary; even "stereotypical" views have some complexity. Mothers are typically praised, for example, for being fierce and tough in protecting their offspring.

Tammy said:

"It is Obama's "we" that has won me over.  The first time I heard him say it and noticed Hillary's "I," I knew she was in trouble, Obama was gonna inspire, and that I would be as easy recruit."

I could not agree more.  I have written many times in these blogs over the past few months that this was the central weakness of Hillary's campaign.  A presidential campaign must be about the American people, not about the candidate.

I do not doubt that misogyny and gender stereotypes have been obstacles for Hillary to a greater extent than they have helped her.  But I also think that she, even with her personal liabilities, could have won the nomination had she really clinched it before Obama had a chance to blossom.  Her failure to articulate a compelling aspiration for the country -- not the same at all as a list of policy proposals --  focusing instead on her own qualities and qualifications left the door open.  Obama was the wild talent who charged through the open door.  Had he not appeared on the scene, Hillary probably would have eked out a narrow victory over Edwards.

"Fighting for personal power and fighting for the less well off only occasionally intersect in my experience." Amen to that.

The private sector feeds the public sector, the public sector can then use some of that to ameliorate the negative effects of the private sector, but it is the private sector where everything originates, not the Politicians. How much and to what extent is open to debate, but I can't stand politicians who promise that what they are doing is somehow a gift from them. Of course there are millions of people in the public sector who are serving the people, soldiers, teachers, etc. I just don't put politicians up there with them. But like TammyA reiterated, we is much better coming from the mouths of pols. than I.

Hobo, I have had in my life 4 white women bosses. My boss now is a French Canadian woman. I worked in a Printing company for 11 years in New Jersey, half of the office were women (managerial) there was an unspoken rule that no blacks would be hired as management because the owner (who has plants throughout the country, doesn't want them) . In the printing shop about 30 to 40% of the workers were minorities, so objectively speaking, the company had a large minority presence. I have never cared myself woman boss or man boss, it has always come down to the person. But in my experience, within that whole industry, racism is pretty rampant (never overt, just unwritten).  The day we can walk into a decent size operation that is white owned with a fair share of black management is the day I look forward too.

I simply don't have anywhere near the sympathy for white women complaining about the glass ceiling until we address the issue of the black (or other minority) women (and men) who are stuck cleaning the floor.

Blackton,

Fair enough. So much depends on one's experiences, and as I said, I can hardly judge racial issues as I've never lived them. As time goes on, people like me will have more and more exposure to more and more diversity, and will come to experience, understand, and appreciate such dynamics more and more. In the meantime, all we can do is keep as open a mind as possible.

Great thread.  I'd just like to take issue with the notion that somehow we overemphasize the President's CinC role.

In our lifetimes, and from the election of 1944 until 1988, WWII and then the Cold War dominated the discussions we had every 4 years about foreign policy.  Every Presidential candidate was viewed through the prism of how he would act as CinC.

This did not become a particularly partisan exercise until 1972, with the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party.  Starting with the election of 1992, the end of the Cold War changed the discussion.  Indeed, foreign policy practically dropped off the agenda (It's the economy, stupid") in '92, '96, and 2000.

The CinC issue has now come back with a vengeance, and it looks like it willremain important for awhile.  Obama will need to show he would be up to the task.  We shall see.

My wife is both a woman (duh!) and a person of color. She faces both kinds, and although she's not one to dwell on the barriers, she was for Obama before I was.

On the gender roles tip, I do all of the housework, and her job has much longer hours than mine. In a couple of years, she'll be making 5-6 times what I'll be making and I'll probably retire. At that point, she tells me, only half jokingly, my job will be to keep the house tidy and look pretty.

Blackie,

By gum, no one cleared it with me that they could use my image...

This image though is really lifted from  the pants wetting nightmarres of some of  tnr's more aggressive flamers - the ones who have called me names - when faced with the prospect of meeting me face to face to settle some old scores...

best thread in months.

Say, butchie, in case you stopped reading over on the Spine, I am indeed Michigan Law, '78.  Go Blue! Hail to the victors!  That matter has actually come up before in connection with discussions about Lee Bollinger who was my contracts professor in his second year teaching.  I was friendly with him at the time and when I ran into him on the street in Paris two years ago, he purported to remember me.  It may have helped that I recognized him first and I was wearing a Michigan baseball hat.

Butchie,

"I'd just like to take issue with the notion that somehow we overemphasize the President's CinC role."

Perhaps a better way to phrase the notion might be that "we risk overemphasizing the President's CinC role to the exclusion of other factors". I think you're right about the rising important of foreign policy today, but we also have to tie in the effects of our domestic policy on world affairs. When our F-P debate centers on Iraq and the details of that war to the exlusion of all else, we lose focus on larger issues, such as how our ag policy affects Latin American immigration patterns and how our economic and transportation policy affects our Middle Eastern relations. I don't want to hear Obama and McCain debating stay/go decisions at the troop numbers level, I want to hear them debating how all of our decisions integrate into a larger system that we have to manage properly.

In other words, the complaint is that a narrow focus on CinC leads us to debate military strategy in presidential elections, while the true role of a President is to manage the entire system. I would hope both Obama and McCain would listen to many advisors as to detailed tactical/strategic decisions; the one who gets my vote will hopefully show that he understands the nuances and complexity of the world overall. Right now I don't know who that is.

It seems fair that the Commander in Chief question is key to the POTUS frame. There just doesn't seem to be an unpolticized way to gauge what that means.  I fear the arrogance that comes along with people assuming this mantle of "experience."  

This last several years have turned me off of experience as a metric for judging high level political/administrative competence.  Too long in the soup rots the mind and nurtures a shocking level of arrogance and entitlement.  

Then we get in to the anything-goes electioneering because these people assume that because they are so much more qualified, the ends justifies the means.  Only they can really know what's what.  Its a scary, toxic dynamic that I hope to see retired for awhile (I'm realistic, it will ooze back).

(Now, the mid level professional folks with years of invaluable expertise who actually run DC?  The best part of GWB packing up is bringing those folks home and giving them their power back. It is clearly way past time to send all those Pat Robertson grads home).

Reading micelf and literates posts made me think of how influenced I have been by my family dynamics as well.  This stuff is definitive to how you view identity politics.  

Raised by a white conservative former military man who was the first person to introduce me (in dizzying detail) to the civil rights movement.  He was raised by a single women, my grandmother - a *formidable* german woman.  He could do a perfect immitations of MLK Jr,  idolized Israel for taking on all of those enemy countries and winning (still does). My earliest memory is of him storming in the door one night apologizing to my mom, but he'd quit his job that day.  He threatened to punch out his boss who kept telling sexist jokes in meetings.  This was 1969 (I used that anecdote in my grad school applications for psych, wouldn't you?)

Mom?  The first female electrical engineer out of 500 on the Apollo space program (I'm not proud or anything like that) who simply waved her hand at me to get away from her and rolled her eyes if I ever brought up what a feminist pioneer she was.  She'd just say "you leave my guys alone" meaning her fellow engineers.  She still won't hear a word about that stuff and I do try.

No, roi, I got it.  All I got at Georgetown was that tired-assed Peter Edelman.

Hoya Saxe!

literate, you are entirely correct.  As I tirelessly say hereabouts, there is a whole big world out there not named Iraq.  As THE global power, we have interests many and varied everywhere.  And of course our domestic policies play into many a f-p discussion.

I know McCain has thought about and taken policy positions on many of these issues over his long career in DC, and even before as a naval officer.  I do not know the same about Obama.  Maybe he has a well thought out world view, and can craft policies to match it.

So far, the evidence is not encouraging.  But it's only May.  Long way to go.

Interesting posts, great thread.  Wandrey: Your parents sound very cool.

butchie, I agree with you to an extent, but (repeating a couple of people who got there before me) I'd simply reiterate that understanding how to manage a foreign policy structure and the CinC role are two different things.  Indeed, imaginative negotiation of foreign policy problems needs a somewhat different notion of military power than the one the Bush administration has.

What I really object to is the CinC aspect being dumbed down to who can yell "bring it on!" loudest and being used to obscure the many other important issues this country has to deal with, and needs presidential leadership for.

Wandrey,

I think part of my argument is that second-hand accounts, no matter how powerful, only go so far compared to one's own experiences. My mother was raised in a missionary family in the southern Philippines, sometimes going for years as the only white person other than her immediate siblings. She has a deep understanding of what it means to be a minority, and did her best to pass that along to me while raising me in a typical rural, white area. I can thank her for much of my liberal sensitivity, but it's mostly academic if I haven't had my own experiences. I've never worked with or been friends with a black or hispanic person, never even had real interactions with a minority other than across a post office counter or something like that. So my mother may have made me sensitive, but I can't claim a true understanding of something I've no experience with. Thus I think the true driving force behind these cultural changes is our own lives, though parents and media and second-hand influences certainly play a role.

I bet if you did some research, you'd find that acceptance of gay people is heavily skewed toward actually knowing gay people, not just knowing OF them through TV or something, but actually being friends and going to their house and so on. Same for any other controversial group. It's much harder to hate or distrust someone you've had a good meal with. I'm starting to sound awfully Berkely here, but hopefully the point comes across.

Butchie,

McCain has taken specific policy stances, but has he articulated a clear, comprehensive worldview that ties domestic factors into international ones? I don't see that from him so far. For example, I see little sign that he understands the dynamics of domestic ag policy as it relates to immigration and Latin American economies. Knee-jerk opposition to farm subsidies on ideological grounds isn't good enough. Not saying Obama's any better, but that experience is not the same as understanding.

Ahhh.  What a nice way to end the day.  I feel like I got to know people and make a few friends during this discussion of gender and politics etc. Thanks.  This single gal is off to run errands and then return to grill for 1. If ya want a steak tonight, give me a hollar!

Irony:

I just went through the thread and realized I took your "attenuated" comment out of context. I hadn't read your first post when I posted my last comment. (Had a busy day full of distractions.) Anyway, I see that by "attenuated" you meant military-centric rather than more generally macho-centric, and I agree that her buying into this view of the presidency as much as she did was problematic. But in particular, I think your point about the *real* problem with her toughness is spot on. You wrote:

"What's hobbling Hillary at the moment is not the perception that she's tough....  It's that she looks like she is going through various acts and presenting various fronts, all geared to the audience of the moment, and that this began with the Iraq war vote...   It's not unfeminine toughness that's her problem, it's a perception that the toughness is one more act -- hence it seems (a) brittle rather than tough, and (b) not rooted in any deep conviction..."  

I do think she gets penalized in many voters' minds for violating gender norms; but sexual biases aren't what's driving her loss to Obama. And you put your finger on the key quality in her, as an individual, that *is* driving her loss: her willingness to divorce seeming and being to such an extent that people no longer trust what is behind all of the masks. (Other factors hurt too, of course, like the mismanaged campaign, etc.)

There are so many interesting posts on this thread. Wish I could have followed it more closely through the day. It sure beats that earlier invitation to bloodsport: "Is Hillary a Sociopath?" Geez.

Wow. Everyone's probably left for good now.

One trait she did not have that he did [yeah, I'm past-tensing it!] is self confidence. In Pennsylvania for instance, he bowled horribly and laughed it off, and she threw back shots with the determined desperation of a frat pledge. Is this a masculine trait, self confidence? I don't know. Why is she so insecure? I don't know. Lots of men project insecurity - Mitt Romney radiates it - and lots of women seem very very at ease with themselves, such as Rachel Maddow and Arianna Huffington.

Early on, before I hated Clinton and when I was trying to feel good about her being the nominee, she would make me wince by doing things that seemed to be completely fake - awkwardly horribly fake, like plumping up the pillows on the couch after the cameras were rolling before announcing her candidacy. Little stuff like that had me going "nooooo..." and reaching my hand toward the screen.

The tactics she's used in the last 3 months or so that have driven away some supporters, I think those are rooted in the insecurity. She wants so badly to win, and she has zero faith that she can do it by relaxing and being herself. Either zero faith in herself or zero faith in the American people's attraction to herself as herself. So she goes scrambling for the low road, making arguments that don't make sense [anything she's ever said about Michigan, for example], lying about sniper fire, planting questions, etc. These are not the actions of a candidate who trusts that people will respond to her message.

Contrast this to Obama, who said, in the weeks up to Iowa, when asked to account for his sharp rise in the polls - but only in Iowa, not nationally - "to know me is to love me" with a shameless grin. He had faith that exposure would warm people to him, and that's exactly what happened in Iowa. Her attempts to appear self confident [I do not believe she truly was] were brittle assertions that she would win, with no room for doubt. It's like she had a bunker mentality of one.

If anyone's still reading this, like sleepyavl, and wants to accuse me of armchair psychoanalysis, I'll save you the trouble - I'm obviously doing that. I'm saying my impressions based on my observations. There. That's what we're all doing.

But ok, how does this trait transfer to qualifications for the Job? I think people who trust themselves more will be less secretive, less prone to making decisions that might be bad for the country in order to retain or attain power. Look at Nixon with the wiretapping and the enemies list. He absolutely hounded John Lennon because he was afraid of the unwashed hippie masses he assumed Lennon led like a pied piper. There was one insecure man.

Obama is afraid of nobody, politically, including Republicans. He's not going to crush them to dust; he's going to get them to vote for him. When he says "I believe the American people are better than that" I almost wonder if they become better by hearing it. Who doesn' t want to be "better than that"?

In a nutshell, I don't trust Hillary because she doesn't trust me, or herself. I don't know what she's going to do because I don't know who she is. And this is completely apart from agreeing or disagreeing on what actually comes from her mouth. Yes, I agree more with Obama on the idea of negotiating with enemies, but I also believe he'd be better at it. When I was taking acting class, one of the things they kept telling us was to take our attention off of ourselves. We'd be self conscious and rigid, to the point, hyperbolized the teacher, that our scene partner could be setting himself on fire and we wouldn't notice. I think, also hyperbolically, that this would be Hillary. She would have the attention on herself and miss something Putin did or said.

That is my unified theory of Hillary.

hemlock:  thanks for the second look, that kind of "attenuated" is what I meant; and psantillana:  yes, that's it -- she's smart and cued up and ready to take leadership FROM DAY ONE.  But we need a president who doesn't think that caps or lower case is the issue, but rather thinks about the meaning of the sentence.

psantillana, I find your suggestion about me tp be misleading. I have no problem with your speculations. What I object is when some people -not you, as I recall- put specific medical names and talk of specific pharmacologic treatments. In other words, they pretend to be physicians while they they are not. That is the unmistakable mark of an intellectual impostor. Such impostors also tend to do this not just with medicine, but with other things - many opinions, little factual knowledge.

What you have done is some speculation about the reasons and character of the two major Democratic candidates. I disagree with some of what you wrote, but I found your thoughts interesting and your tone civil and measured - a breath of fresh air in the poisonous atmosphere of the Talkback.

I liked your mention of Obama's "to know me is to love me". In fact the more I Iooked at his campaign appearances, the less I liked him and the more he looked to me like a ruthless demagogue who chose

a number of pretty horrible aides. But this is not contradictory to what you said - I agree with you that the man is self-confident and that his demeanor increases his chances to win, at least the nomination. I also think his manners might appeal to some Republicans too. I think his weak part is his chosen entourage, which I very much doubt can appeal to centrist voters. But I also keep in mind that the man is a cunning politician, so he may be wise enough to throw them under the bus as he threw Jeremiah Wright (not a day too soon).

But to realize someone has a better chance of winning a nomination doesn't mean to necessarily like him. I remember the 2004 campaign - I liked Howard Dean. I liked him even if I realized he couldn't get the nomination. I liked him because I thought he was a more intelligent and substantive person and potentially a more combative candidate. Moreover, I detest charisma. This is why I liked Gore, possibly my favorite politician: a deeply serious person, very learned and definitely not a demagogue.

If you are still reading Literate, you rmother clearly did a magnificent job.  You have a very nuanced, natural, learned view of gender dynamics and privledge.

I don't think Hillary Clitnon has harmed future female Presidential candidates, nor do I think she has expereinced very much sexism.  She's benefited far more from her gender, which cannot be separated out from her historic levels of privledge anyway. She's been the most privledgd candidate ever to run for this office, probably unlike the next women who has a shot at the Presidency.  I predict that she will come to this on her own, not through marriage, that she will glow with political talent and that it will happen soon, if not within the next ten years.  

I am so please - even joyful -  that the young women I counsel and work with, firmly believe that too.

(I do not pollute what few brain cells I have left with political TV, which is where most of the sexism has come from - and I am releived that neither does the vast majority of Americans.  But then the entire enterprise of TV in any way is a sewer of sexism, ten times worse than when I was growing up with Norman Lear, etc.  95% of TV should be taken off the air and the producers issued permanent pig snouts to wear).  

If nothing else this whole election has proved a couple of very valuable things:

1. 85% of the public is more than willing to vote for the right woman for President and even longs to.

2. That the run for this job is more of a meritocracy than ever, which infers that it will only become more so.  If you have real *political ability* then you can win, which is utterly fair and appropriate (this is the top political job in the world) regardless of the obstacles of gender or race.

(Although enragingly - this is clearly not true in any way for gay people yet - there is where the real bigotry lies).  

Unfortunately, you are still going to need to be twice as good if you are a woman or a person of color. Is that fair?  Life isn't, but that ideal is still worth fighting for.  Working for justice is never frivolous.

But there are plenty of people who just go ahead and do that "twice as good" thing. And win. This country is 230 odd years old, we're not doing as badly in this department as too many would have.

(Read an interview with the potential next President of Israel, she was amazing.  Twice as good, natch).

It sucks, but anyone who isn't a white male WASP has to overcome stereotypes of their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation in order to win a large-scale race in American politics. John McCain doesn't have that hurdle. George Bush sure as hell didn't. Neither did Hillary's husband. Hillary and Barack both do. Obama overcame it by NEVER playing to the stereotypical "scarey, angry, threatening" black male stereotype. Despite Clinton's various attempts to get him to go there, he was too smart, too steady. Unflappable - that's another positive trait for ANY presidential candidate. As a result, he's the nominee. Whether he can win the general is still an open question, but he's made it work so far.

Hillary, unfortunately, played into every stereotype about women. Yeah, she was tough, a fighter, etc. But she was tough and a fighter by being whiny, nasty, scolding, playing the victim, and frankly, acting hysterical at times. Made it tough to find the substance at times. Very inconsistent personality too - all over the board, which I'm not even sure a WASPy guy could have gotten away with. These are human traits - guys do the same things sometimes and can get away with most of them in small quantities. But it will probably be a very long time before a woman can get away with showing these traits. Just like it will be a long time before a black guy can get away with some of the stuff Obama had to avoid in this run.

I'm a white guy - I found Hillary deeply unappealing in this campaign (I liked her just fine in the past and liked her this time until her back was up against the wall - adversity brought out the worst in her, I think). I found Obama very appealing. The only thing that would have made him more appealing would have been if he did let himself show some anger a few times. He was probably right not to, but it would have worked with me.

Ramboorider - some of that anger snuck out in the hilarious "Anne Oakley" jibe, remember?  That was about it.  I loved it.  I longed to see Obama punch back at Hillary's bullying really hard, just once with one of his deadly retorts, but he more than anyone knows he's Not Allowed To Scare the White People.  

He's won this thing fighting three people at the top of their parties, who have 30 years plus more experience on him, with one arm tied behind his back.

All while he quit smoking.

Twice as good.

I know the right woman is next.  

I think Obama's candidacy has opened the subject of race, and though the conversation has been awkward and not always uplifting, I think it is a good thing for America.  We are not post-racial, but we may be ready to move forward again after years of benign neglect.

In similar fashion, Hillary's campaign has raised questions about gender that men and women had placed on the back burner since the early 80s. The analysis of Hillary's failed campaign, the media coverage, and the American voter's response to a female candidate for the Presidency will result in improved understanding of where we really are today.  As in the matter of race, the reality is that we are not post-gender either.  

I think Hillary's candidacy was flawed and as Jon Chait suggests, some of her tactics will not be helpful to the next woman to run for this office.  However, Hillary's very impressive accomplishment in this race will absolutely be a boon to the notion that people will vote for a woman in a presidential campaign.  Could she have done this well, or better, by avoiding the mistakes Chait describes?  Perhaps.  But her campaign is a net plus for women with Oval Office aspirations.

Neil  

wandrey,

I too could barely contain my frustration at the times when I could see easy ways for Obama to hit back at Hillary and he didn't.  But he is an infinitely better politician than I.  One of the few very gifted.  He has the tools to be a great president and I think he will at least be a very good president.

Here here Roi -

Now is the biggest test so far though, this weekend.  We all need to stay steady and not take the bait.  Zen. Breath.  Ignore.  Stay above.

I am skipping all media until Tuesday (although like any addict, I will probably sneak on this site in between clients as usual, but will try to make it less).

The best thing about Hillary's campaign is that when that exceptionally (twice as) talented woman does come along as Presidential material, I bet she will stay as far away from playing a victim as she possibly can - even in the face of the gross provocations that will clearly come along, snipes about PMS, etc.  She will know that showing the leadership strength to stay above or to be amused by -  is the path to victory. She will be stronger and more centered than all of us.

Well...this thread is far from dead, and thank goodness. It's about time something respectful and intellectual hit the Plank again. Bookmarks are a wonderful thing for keeping these going.

Wandrey, praise aside, personal theories only go so far. No matter how "nuanced" my view may be on the surface, what ultimately matters is my subconsious feelings and reactions. That's where most distrust, bigotry, and so on reside. It's easy for me to be a good liberal on the surface, and particularly online, and feel all huggy about myself 'cause I say I respect everyone equally. But the real judge is the first time I face a hiring decision involving a minority and come to terms with whether I harbor some biases I'm not even aware of. Part of my complaint with liberalism is the feeling that saying something makes it so. Look at the Northern states in the 1860s. At home, in person, every bit as racist as the South, and possibly more so in some ways. Yet because of their public stance on slavery ethics, the North is upheld as some paragon of virtue while the South is vilified. Well, as far as I know I'm the North. Got the right idea, but never been tested and possiby more comfortable never being tested.  What's the value of nuance if it's theoretical?

sleepy,

"I liked Howard Dean. I liked him even if I realized he couldn't get the nomination. I liked him because I thought he was a more intelligent and substantive person and potentially a more combative candidate. Moreover, I detest charisma. This is why I liked Gore, possibly my favorite politician: a deeply serious person, very learned and definitely not a demagogue."

My feelings exactly. My wife (then girlfriend) volunteered heavily for the Dean campaign, and I was able to meet him multiple times. He was as authentic as they come, barely a politician's bone in his body, and was squashed for it. Strangely like Fred Thompson, he just wasn't entirely comfortable with the crap that came with national campaigns, and never quite learned to manage it effectively. His crash is partly why I've never trusted Obama; I'm far more interested in substance than words.

"I'm far more interested in substance than words."  This has been a theme with people who distrust Obama, and I think its something that you either feel or you do not, almost to a chemical level.

I am a great lover of American history. I belong to the Lincoln Society The International Society of Political Psychologists (a glorified bunch of pasty academics sitting around discussing Truman's parents, etc) and have studied political rhetoric and speeches my whole life. I'm a hopeless political junkie, although not at the technical level Roi and the other math wizards are.  At the psychological level.  

Through all of these goofy hobbies my kids love to make fun of me for, what has come clear to me is that the creation and use of timely and inspiring political rhetoric, shared by someone with a temperment that inspires trust, to be the single most important factor in our progress as a nation.

Our Progress.

"Just words" means absolutey nothing to me as a phrase. It rings false, like an off note, a tactical attack to cover up a glaring weakness in communication ability, which is a a pivitol quality in a politician - MUCH more so than the ability to inspire trust (our Bill is a perfect example).

I suppose I wonder what people mean when they say substance - voting records? That's fair game -  Hillary's became shameful to me and ceased representing my values and views years ago, although after you shared with me her record on green farming techniques Literate, I checked it out.  It incited my mistrust that she did not use this part of her record, perhaps she was afraid of alientaing people who think such things are all for liberal tree huggers?   That and her Bankrpucy bill/Flag Burning Ammendment votes are not the kind of substance I want. At all.  

After reading Obama's books - especialy "Dreams of My Father" I felt that I had never known a Presidential candidate to the almost embarrassingly honest degree that I knew this one.  His life has had the sort of substance - and voting record -  that matters to me.  

Yep, he is flawed - astringent and opaque, but I do trust him.  Because words matter a great deal to me.  

I am also unaffected by issues of age, maybe my brain is wired differently there too.  I know way too many ignorant older people and too many wise young people.  Age is a number, Hillary has not shown much wisdom in this campaign even though she has been around longer.

Temperment means all to me I guess.  

Oh god. Having read the article and some of the responses, I have to say: I'd rather spend an hour with a bunch of stoned teenagers than a half with you people. This is a topic of ZERO importance. This topic... completely contrived... the idea of masculinity as being inherent in the US Presidency. Nevermind the vapid assertions that some women prefer a man in charge 'out west,' whatever cloistered freak said that...

..........................As a stoned teenager, I recall our conversation having SOME nuances beyond blunt assertions based on nothing. And when they weren't, we were at least trying to get laid. But we had many more developed conversations, citing history and text, lo those many years ago over a few puffs. Well, at least they SEEMED more interesting and nuanced.... Come to think of it: Are you all stoned?

"Yet because of their public stance on slavery ethics, the North is upheld as some paragon of virtue while the South is vilified"

NOT true. Draft Riots and burning asylums anyone? The depiction of the south as more racist was due to the much greater prevalenceof lyching about the turn of the century and Jim Crow and widespead, not incidental, resistance to integration later. I don't recall any teacher of mine holding up the North as a 'paragon of virtue' and I went to school many a year ago.

Literate,

The nuanced part of your thinking to me is your ability to self assess with regard to your privledge, a rarity.  Most people quickly become too defensive or too self flagilating. To me, real personal change occurs in your sort of thinking: always alert.  

I just accept that some of our most rancid socialization will always influence be with me, no matter how aware and vigilant I am.  We are always going to be tested.  You may hire that person of color Literate, and then what? Its never ending.

"Part of my complaint with liberalism is the feeling that saying something makes it so."  Perfectly worded.  I agree.  Most human situations are fluid and do not lend themselves to absolutes, ie: the Northerners being hypocrites.

It's yin/yang - politically prgressive while the lived experience is anything but.  Most of life is this varied, in my experience.  The only people I mistrust are those who seek absolutes and also seek to force them on others.  

This is my problem with liberalism: those who wrap themselves in a cloak of ultimate righteousness while turning everything into just one more ideology, complete with ideological enforcers and bullies. After all, THEY are protecting the downtrodden and oppressed!  So anything they say or do is justified. Most of it is just projection anyway.  I read a great quote on projection, originally said by the prophet Mohammed:

"When a man calls his brother an infidel, we can be sure that one of them is indeed, an infidel."

irony, I expect the SecState, SecDef and the NSA to "manage the foreign policy apparatus."  Presidents don't, can't and probably shouldn't try.

That said, I agree that I have not heard a "here's my worldview" speech from McCain.  However, what I know of his worldview is far more developed (and to my liking) much more than Obama's.  In fact, I'd say that, except for his well-known views on Iraq, and his (to my lights) ill-considered desires to meet with our enemies, I know nothing of his worldview.

For example, under what circumstances would President Obama intervene militarily?  A Rwanda-type situation?  Bosnia?  If not, why not?  If so, why?  Explain fully.

A shoe shine, good rhetorical skills, and a health care policy may not be enough.

Pillbug, this has been a very decent thread so far, which has been tough to maintain in these stressful times.  Please  tone it down, even if you do think we're stoned teenagers.  You didnt exactly come across as a Pulitizer winner or some deep thinker yourself with this introduction.

You are also welcome to check in with other threads  that might meet your needs more than this one.  No one is making you read here.  I'd like to read your thoughts, but not your contempt - its beyond unwelcome.

Wandrey,

I'll accept that my characterization of Obama is shallow and somewhat unfair. I'm  not able to follow these things to an extent that would allow me to really judge any candidate's true policy sense. For the record, I don't consider Clinton or McCain to have convinced me on "substance" either. I think what makes me suspicious of him is that he's presenting himself as somehow above others, and so I'm holding him to a higher standard. Maybe that's unfair. I burned out on this race long ago and retreated back to my fields, vowing not to pay attention again until the general truly started and we'd be able to assess the candidates at the national level, not the regional and party level. This is the first time I've been sucked back into something I have tried hard to avoid, the endless merry-go-round debate on Obama/Clinton. So I think I will back out again, perhaps cowardly, but I just don't have it in me to take part in yet another iteration of something that's been discussed far too much. I'm quite sure I have no perspective or opinion that hasn't been voiced before by someone else.

As a parting note, I agree that part of my complaint with Clinton is the disconnect between her campaign and her record. Had she run proudly on what she's accomplished and fought for, I might think differently of her. Ag issues in particular.

Pillbug,

Fair enough, that was phrase was a little much. I think my underlying point still stands, however.

Otherwise, reading your vitriol versus the reasoned thoughts presented elsewhere, I know to whom I'm most likely to listen. Care to offer something constructive to the conversation?

^@%$ comment delay...

Butchie,

I agree with you, except that I don't feel I know any more about McCain than I do Obama. Perhaps it's my youth, as I haven't had the opportunity to follow him for decades, but they're both blank slates to me, and neither are trying very hard to articulate their current views. Moreover, the world is very different now, and even if McCain had a well-crafted worldview, it was formed during the Cold War and I want to hear more about his perspective now. Medals, honesty, and an unpopular Iraq policy may not be enough.

Wandrey,

Excellent thoughts.

I agree Literate, Obama can come across as something more than just confident.  I can't put my finger on it, but I do see it and I do see how it can be off putting.  That's why the books (again, especially the first one - a terrific read with no politics in it at all) offered some information that helps.  He mocks himself mercilessly throughout the whole book.  He can make fun of himself and quite often does, its a relief.

I got on the damn merry go round and I'm embarrassed.  Sometimes I think its easier than facing global warming, the scary economy, crime going up, the war - alot of things that actually frighten me deeply.  Dive in to the dumb stuff to forget.

I think your opinions on Hillary have had the single biggest impact on me, substance-wise.  

"For example, under what circumstances would President Obama intervene militarily?"

Judging from what he's been saying, butchie, I think that it would be final circumstances, when all other avenues had been tried and failed.  The most important job a new president can do is to reverse the impression created by the last few years, to wit, that all the U.S. sees are military problems that can be solved by a unilateral application of force.

Along with that, however, I get the strong impression also that he would try to coordinate diplomatic, intel, and military efforts to go after Al Queda and its cognate forms more effectively.

Hopefully, his administration will also begin to think creatively about -- and provide some global leadership on -- nonproliferation.  This is crucial, as the old NPT regime is crumbling and a couple of dozen countries are toying with ideas for getting nukes or at least the production technology.  This is an existential issue for humanity and cannot be dealt with on the principle of "we and our friends get to keep all ours and more, and we'll try to stop anyone we don't like getting them too, 'cause we don't like them!"  Which seems not to be working, in any case.

Literate, I meant that you offered the best substance on Hillary's record that I read by anyone.

Wandrey...reading your posts and the others, it got me thinking about one of the aspects of Hillary's self-professed and self-possessed sense of toughness (which can be as much a result of her own upbringing as it is having to deal with the sullying behavior of Bill's that she's had to deal with). This trait of toughness in women is something that is presented itself as a cultural manifestation of the American ideal of being independent yet self-sacrificing. The inherent traits of the myth of being American.

For example, when Hillary was First Lady, the thought of an up-front, independent First Lady  who had interests outside of tea parties and hosting formal dinners for heads-of-state was beyond the pale for many Americans at that time. Both men and women preferred a "stand by your man" type of First Lady. As much out of a sense of tradition but also the idea of an independent First Lady was threatening at the time. Another first lady that garnered much the same political and cultural animosity for being independent and outspoken was 'Lady' Bird Johnson. We can't necessarily say Jacqueline Kennedy because she embodied the fantasy notion of the American princess of privilege and thus restyling the White House and fashion were much in line with the First Lady tradition.

The fragility of the male American ego is such that presented with a strong female roll model the approval tends along two lines. Either it is to be one's mother (single mothers especially). Never the wife or daughter. Those belong in the realm of "the protected" by th