Rebecca Traister wrote: "I don't mean here to compare Hillary Clinton with Michelle Bachelet -- two politicians with very different ideas about the meaning of "electability." But how about the attitudes of the electorates they serve?"

I didn't get from RT's column that she was trying to make a case for Clinton over Warner, but rather, that the US is still not ready to elect a woman, regardless of other qualifications. In fact, some Democrats may even be willing to vote for a candidate who resembles a Republican even more than Hillary does, just because he's a "man." Around the world, women of various political stripes are being elected to their country's highest office. But not here. Not yet.

It pains me that this is true, since I think our policies are out of balance, precisely because they are dominated by (mostly white) men, and lack enough input from enough women. For that to change, we need a much larger pool of women from which to choose. More governors. More senators. More representatives. And more women rising up from the grassroots to fill these positions. That takes time. And electing a woman to the WH may actually require that we first elect a male president (if not two) who actually understands, and "gets" women's issues, i.e. the ones that are important to women, rather than just those that are associated with women. That would be a genuine breakthrough and would help set the stage.

Setting gender aside, my preferred candidate for 2008 is currently the one who progressives are talking about, but who is barely mentioned by the MSM: Russ Feingold. And my reason is the same as many others': his principled stands on so many issues affecting our democracy. More importantly, I dare to hope that he would not let a "doubtful" vote count go unquestioned. However, if Hillary ends up being the candiate, will I vote for her? You bet. Because there are still all of those mid-level appointments that make a tremendous difference in our government, and which the W administration has leveraged to its advantage and our detriment. Not to mention the Supremes. Again.

Finally, I'm tired of our winning the vote, but losing the count. That is what we should be criticizing our Democratic leaders/candidates for: allowing questionable vote counts to go unchallenged ... not their diverse opinions on policy issues. Who wants a lock-step Democratic Party? Not me. If I wanted that, I'd register with the GOP. However, anyone looking for a simple, basic, and common-sense beginning for a Democratic platform, would do well to read Marty Kaplan's recent piece at the Huffington Post. It includes voting reform, which is my personal litmus test. Coincidentally, he happens to support Feingold, too.

Didn't I write that Russ Feingold would be my first choice? Last time it was Howard Dean. Had Hillary taken similarly principled stands, she might be first on my list. (Granted, she also has baggage that neither Feingold nor Dean have/had.)

Having ovaries does not preclude wanting the best candidate available, man or woman... though we might lament that there is not yet a large enough pool of women with national reputations from whom to choose a woman as a presidential candidate.

Barbara Boxer is one I would add to your list, as well as Jennifer Granholm (except that she is apparently ineligible, since she was not born in the U.S.). What would you suggest to make more people take these women more seriously? I already wrote what I think... more women elected to more high offices. There is not yet a critical mass.

Perhaps you're taking offense at something that neither applies to, nor was intended for you... the idea that there are still many people who will not vote for a woman as president. However, when the Democratic Party is considered weak and womanish (we can thank Modo for contributing to that!) and the worst insult is to consider a male candidate either wimpy or "girlie," how can it not be true that being a woman is still a negative, politically speaking, when national security, and being able to wage war, are at the top of so many lists of priorities? Sorry, but it's out there... whether you are part of it or not.

We'll know the tide has turned if/when a candidate is ever considered too concerned with being macho to be electable. (Too bad that couldn't have been the case with W before either of the last two elections.)

While trying to recover from the 2004 election, I spent some time that November, and into the winter, trying to lift my spirits by inventing an alternative, or "shadow" government. And, of course, Garrison Keillor, was given a very prominent role:

http://blogs.salon.com/0004000/2004/11/21.html#a128

The reasons are obvious: his eloquence, gentlemanliness, and just plain common decency and sense... and more.

It's very interesting to read this post in conjunction with the earlier one, "fetal food fight," on the struggle for nutritional resources, that can result in certain genes being shut down.

I'm wondering how much of that mechanism is also strictly genetic, and how much is environmental, i.e., SES, abundance of resources. And could anorexia be one of those conditions that results from a complex interplay of genetics, gestation, and environment?