I'm an unapologetic, even occasionally obnoxious, feminist, and I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee in 2008*. After eight years of GWB, the last thing we need is a president who will be obliged to use force indiscriminately just to prove she can... like it or not, that's a set of assumptions Democrats already have to overcome, and any woman will have to be even more gratuitously martial to "prove" herself.

I've often thought that the first female president (and probably the first one from an ethnic minority, as well) will probably have to be conservative, to ease the public out of the old stereotypes. Unfortunately, we can't afford that for a few more years at least, until the US has rebuilt its international credibility, not to mention repaired its disastrous economic policies and thoroughly corrupted government. I'm really sorry that Hillary probably won't see a peaceful & stable enough period in her lifetime for voters to fully engage in the experiment, but she would be (and already has been, really) too completely crippled by her opposition and broader gender-based demands to actually, y'know, do a decent job. There are things this country needs more desperately than a woman in the Oval Office at this point in time, sad to say.

*yes, yes, if she wins the nomination I will vote for her in the general, but with a heavy heart and not much hope for a reversal of course.

the unfortunate truth is that in America, shows of force are practically required to be taken seriously in the political realm... there's a reason Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and you can bet that it's because in order to be POTUS, neither Democrats nor women can be considered soft or hesitant to use force. If you'd like to show me some examples or data that support the notion that American voters really value negotiations & peaceful resolutions over flag-waving & the ostentatious deployment of our vast military resources, I'd love to see it, but our culture is pretty damned militaristic these days.

BTW, the cover article in the current American Prospect is about the GOP as the "daddy party" and how Democratic veterans running for office are changing that... it's a pretty rambling, but interesting, overview of how our politicians have been divided into manly-men and weenies, even though the substance rarely matches the image.

9/11 really was the best thing that ever happened to the Bush Administration.

keep in mind that these articles and admonishments are often trickling *up* to middle- and upper-class women; the breastfeeding rate is alarmingly low among lower income groups, and that seems to hold true for students and stay at home moms as well as workers. And, of course, this means that the kids who most need breastmilk-- the preemies, the ones with asthma or constant colds, the ones who live with smokers & are more likely to die of SIDS-- are precisely the ones who aren't getting optimum nutrition, not to mention the fact that formula's ridiculously expensive. I visited a mom with three kids under four just yesterday & met the two-week-old, who is being formula fed even though the mom doesn't work, both parents smoke, and their budget is very tight... it's possible that she can't nurse, but that really is pretty rare, and I imagine it just never occurred to her to try with any of her brood. Heck, in my hometown of 40K, the most popular OB (as of a few years ago; haven't been there lately) actively discourages breastfeeding because he thinks breasts are more important to husbands than to infants. I doubt it makes that much difference to most individual children, but it's not really good policy either.

In any case, I just don't see why people should be so indignant about this; if anything, it should be used to push for more lactation friendly policies in workplaces. It's not like we don't know that there is some qualitative differences between breastmilk & formula, although formula is certainly nutritionally adequate. If these little lifestyle nags don't apply to you for whatever reason, for heaven's sake just ignore them. I don't have much patience with a lot of hang-ups, but the fact is that it's not really my business or anyone else's how other people's babies are fed as long as they're not malnourished.

Clearly, whatever reaction there is to this female bishop it is only because the previous gay bishop has already stoked the ire of conservatives.

It's a bit more complicated than that-- the Episcopal Church, along with the UMC & other mainline Christian denominations in the US, has been specifically targeted by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Scaife-funded, far-right group that aims to facilitate conservative power grabs of liberal-leaning churches. Sure, the Anglican churches in the developing world are unhappy, but they're also the beneficiaries of behind-the-scenes support that makes compromise less likely, and it shows. The reason so many Episcopalians are defiant is that we have been under conservative siege for quite a while and.

Regarding the ECUSA's position on homosexuality, it's still rather unformed. There is no official liturgy for same-sex unions, although a few individual dioceses may affirm them unofficially, but few are willing to condemn gays and many parishes are supportive of gay members & their partners. The main reason Gene Robinson was confirmed as bishop was the church's policy of self-governance-- it was presumed that New Hampshire Episcopalians knew what kind of bishop they needed. The issue of his relationship was treated pragmatically in the sense that everyone knew that he could not legally marry his partner; if that was a possibility, then his lack of a marriage license would indeed have been a problem.