I don’t believe in AWAT, any woman, any time, but I do have a sense that it’s going to a woman in the highest office to slapped the wrists, coax the faint of heart and cajole the hardheaded opponents out of their easy-believism that all we need is the right man in front of a cheering group of military, backed by waving flags, and he is going to rise to the occasion to lead us out of this morass.  That kind of intestinal fortitude and skill requires a woman.
Even if it were AWAT, how can anyone defend the leadership that has driven this courtry right into the ground.  Why, hell, I could do that.

@wendyw—I couldn’t agree with you more.  Of all the Clinton era cabinet and advisors that Obama has selected, Hillary is the one who makes me wonder what I voted for.  Obama’ foreign policy was one of the main reasons I voted for him rather than Hillary.  Hopefully, her campaign rhetoric doesn’t represent her policy positions, but that isn’t the Hope I voted for either.

I’ve been a frequent defender of Ms. Cocco in this forum, but I have to take issue with one facet of her thesis: Sarah Palin. I don’t think her “women have to be especially competent” argument is helped much by the use of Palin as an example. I would argue that NO man with her lack of qualification would have been selected as a VP running mate.  Ever.  In fact, I believe that Schwarzenegger had more expansive political experience (and exposure)before taking the California gubernatorial election (ubiquitous presence in national GOP campaigning) than Palin did (mayor of a small town); however, that’s niggling, as both were elected because they meet a modern-day thirst for celebrity or celebrity-like people in public office.
 
That said, Cocco’s main thesis still stands: women are vastly underrepresented in elected office, and the higher up the food chain they endeavor to ascend, the more they are met with sexist treatment, even if, as in the case of Palin, there are a legion of reasons to criticise her, or in the case of Hillary, it was simply irresistible to the school of Clinton-hating piranhas to attack using whatever teeth were handy. Clinton fought through this atmosphere through a long primary campaign and almost pulled it off - and might well have done it were it not that a once-in-a-lifetime gifted politician hadn’t chosen that year to make his move. Palin, on the other hand was plucked from obscurity and it took a week or two for her obvious deficiencies to be translated into put-down of her womanhood. Remember Dan Quale?  He was ravaged by the press and the left. But never on gender terms.

Thank you, prole, for speaking such sense!  I do not want “women in power” I want equality for everyone; deep, participatory, decentralized, direct democracy where everyone is given a say and no one has “power” over anyone else.  But this sort of ridiculous, apolitical form of identity politics that has held sway for this past year really makes me sick - do african americans and women really have no more issues anymore than just the amount of representation in the annals of the rich and powerful?  Not equal pay, or the economic legacy of slavery?

This has been a bad, and brutal year for men in politics, too - since, after all, it is the men who are viewed as disposable, who hillary clinton and barack obama, etc. were going to send out to die in the middle east, and who virtually all of the ‘acceptable targets’ in those countries were (since it is a reportable problem when ‘women and children’ are murdered, but us boys over 18 can fill the mass graves without a second thought.)  Clinton, Palin, Obama, Mccain also all firmly support the prison industrial complex, whose victims are by far male, also said nothing about corporal punishment still used in many schools, on primarily boys, made no overtures towards banning male genital mutilation (circumcision) in this country.  So the representation of males isn’t doing us poor boys any favors, especially not those of us on the left. 

I voted for Cynthia Mckinney, because of her political platform, that would have benefited all of us, unlike the ceo feminism of billionaire imperialists like hillary clinton, who also promised to deny equal marriage rights to us homosexuals, who have also had a ‘bad year.’

This is the kind of misguided, faux radicalism that is at base profoundly conservative. Instead of serving as a dissident force that can help burst the narrow bounds of hierarchical society in general, the majority of self-styled middle-class “feminists” seek to promote representation tokenism within the system, thereby serving to reinforce and strengthen that hierarchy, conceptually and practically – as well as advancing their own personal career interests .The far more important reality is that under existing strictures, the vast majority of citizens will continue to be relegated to subordinate status in society and ruled over by a minority of elites. Most - male and female alike - are beneath the banal “glass ceiling”; and always will be without broader thinking and wider structural change. The demographic composition of the ruling class is not as important as the fact that it exists at all. So, the real question becomes, do you want a truly democratic society, with power flowing up and rule from below, or do you simply want a quota program for “the halls of power”? The vast majority of the population, male and female alike, are effectively excluded from decision-making processes in government - and even more so, in the economy. By accepting the existing structural framework and simply changing some of the principals by sex or race, it merely replicates and reinforces the same class hierarchy which has always prevailed, albeit with surface changes. As we can see, by butchers and mass-murders like Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, et. al., there’s nothing inherently more humane and idealistic about females per se. Iraqi women and Palestinian women and Rwandan women, etc, (and men too, if they even matter) are no better off under a female imperialist – or a black one – than a waspish one. There are class and ideological differences between women as much as between men, and those are what matter most. Hillary and Palin are far less ideologically “divergent” from one another than they both are from someone like Ralph Nader. Nader bumped up against the ‘class ceiling’ of ruling power a lot quicker than Clinton & Palin. In fact, of course, multi-millionaires like Clinton and Palin do infinitely “better than women [and men] in impoverished, rural regions of the world” because of these class and ideological differences. “It’s time to stop kidding ourselves”, would Clinton or Palin or any of the sulky, affluent, over-privileged middle-class American feminist flock really want to trade places with someone in “impoverished, rural regions of the world”? Does anyone seriously believe that Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghani and many others aren’t incalculably worse off – thanks in no small measure to “brutal” women in “the halls of power” like Clinton and Albright and Rice and others?

Remember, just four years ago Obama was “only” a state senator.

It was not a brutal year for women.  More women than ever are serving in state governments.  The New Hampshire state senate is now more than half women.  That’s where it starts, on the state level.

All you Clinton lovers and haters out there.

Don’t despair, (or do.)

There’s always the possibility that Chelsea will get into politics where after seeing her campaigning for her mother, I’m convinced that not only is she poised for the role, but may very well break through that glass ceiling her mother and all the others only cracked.

Us woman waiting patiently for this to happen can only hope that it will!

(But, haven’t given up entirely on Hillary to finish the job herself!)

I am going to go out on a limb here as a male, so forgive me if I offend anyone.  I am open to a female critique of my thoughts.  What I see from the ‘third-world’ female leaders that I don’t from many of their American counter parts is an embracing of femininity.  What I mean is that it seems like women in American politics is a rejection of feminine traits.  I am not referring to clothing, all though many do dress less feminine than most women.  I am talking about the tendency to appear tough and masculine.  Sarah Palin was feminine in her dress, but the hunting beauty queen was really more of a male fantasy, totally embracing of and subservient too the masculine ideal.  She even referred to herself as a pit-bull with lipstick, a dog for the patriarchy.  I think that women in American politics feel they need to reject the soft, caring, and compassionate sides of themselves to get ahead.  That to me is the power of women, not in emulating men in toughness, but the ability to see and point out the cruelty in our world and offer up creative solutions built on cooperation instead of domination.  Women can be a true changing catalyst in our government by bringing a fresh feminine perspective.  To be a true voice of those who suffer in our society and around the world.  To me there is incredible power in the feminine. In the gentleness, kindness, and compassion of women to really feel the suffering of others.  To resist with righteous bravery, without malice.  Strange as it may seem, I think that both Gandhi and MLK represent a feminine approach.  What I see is that when women get near power or gain power in America instead of really stepping to the plate and bringing feminine sensitivity to government, they become hawkish and make great efforts to seem tough.  They don’t charm us with grace, dignity, and a great understanding of others suffering.  Hillary could have embraced femininity and really stepped to the plate as understanding and addressing the suffering of others, but instead we got tough, hawkish views and proposals.  I personally think that we need a more delicate feminine touch in politics and in the world.  I just wish more women would bring it.

“There must be some reason we don’t do any better than women in impoverished, rural regions of the world where cultural norms oppress women.
Maybe it is because our culture isn’t so different after all.”
Bingo!

Our culture is NO different at all!

We are just emerging [hopefully] from republican domination, coupled with a form of religious domination that parallels those impoverished, rural regions of the world.

Regions where the ruling class, including political, is defined by the ruling religious point of view. Most often a religion that firmly establishes the “place” of women as second class. The men hold the Priest-hood, head the family, make the decisions and put bread on the table. Even in those instances where men can find no work ... or choose not to ... the rule holds. Mom goes out and brings in the bread [with his permission of course] raises the kids, and turns to dad for “decisions,” and spiritual guidance.

Consider the recent election. Saying Muslim was tantamount to saying treason. Saying Christian was necessary for creating a “view” of acceptability. The Catholic Church weighed in on issues that were frankly none of their business, and the Mormons allowed themselves to be branded as anti-gay, therefore anti-free! Meanwhile the Nation State of Judaism, exercised an un-holy influence on the thought process of a so-called free society and the three religious groups came dangerously close to influencing the out-come.

Or maybe they did!

So unless or until we grow up enough to realize this is a non-sectarian nation, where religion should have no place in influencing our politics, or political decisions. We are doomed to that narrow view that leads us to automatically find fault in the female candidate, while ignoring most faults ... even the glaringly obvious ones ... in men.

I did not support Clinton for two reasons. First, and most important, was because of her initial position on the war in Iraq, and second because she was a woman! But before you condemn me as a hypocrite, allow me to explain. I knew, as sure as I know I’m sitting here typing, the so-called christian conservative base would never vote for a woman! And the stakes were too high! We had to get republican control out of Washington!

McCain sealed his own fate when he selected a woman for his running mate. Palin cost him the election. Not because she was a dingbat who knew nothing about governing in DC, [that certainly never hurt Dubya’s chances] but because she was a woman! Repubs do not like the idea of a woman replacing the perception of [male organ sanctioned] priest-hood in the White House!

Nothing will change until the female population reaches that level of self-respect and self-determination to say to their men-folk, “I don’t care whether or not you claim to speak in the name of God. That special set of organs you have does not make you smarter than me, or better than me, or more capable of seeing the big picture than me!” Note, those nations that have no problem giving leadership to women often are nations that do not allow a “priest-hood” to do their thinking for them.

And that’s the lesson we need to learn. This is NOT a theocratic nation! It’s high time we stop behaving like it is! Then and only then will we see a qualified woman become president!

This male praises Marie Cocco for her gutsy posting.

The stark fact is that the huge victory of Senator Obama is totally due to the large percentage of woman who voted for him. If that percentage had been the same as that of males, 49% vs. 48%, McCain might have won the election!

Broder, Ignatius, Friedman and others are all over Hillary Clinton before she has even visited a single foreign leader. 

It is time that President Elect Obama shows leadership by defending his choice of her for Secretary of State and give these midgets (Broder may actually be senile)a lesson in civility. What is this Knight in Shining Armor waiting for? He is slowly becoming disgustingly timid in this affair.

If Obama is “beholden” to any group of supporters it is women voters. As of today he does not seem to have grasped this basic fact.

Look, I don’t like Hillary Clinton and I am a woman.
I don’t like anything about her—her calculations, her hawkish posturing, her lies, her husband—the list goes on.
  I don’t like anything about her and what she stands for. in fact, I voted for Obama in the primaries as a vote against Clinton.
Does any of this have any bearing on the argument?

But you can see your reflections in that glass ceiling, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.  Who knows someday soon the right Alice will step thru the looking glass.