Not intentionally, of course. At the Huffington Post, she experiences a "political epiphany" at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Francisco, while eavesdropping on women caretaking their mothers while dealing with medical bureaucracy.
Listening to these women manage their mothers with effectiveness and as much patience as they could muster, admitting to errors, standing in interminable lines, speed-dialing medical professionals, I wanted to ask, "Could you run my country?"Sure. Those are exactly the job skills we need in a President. Because the President does that sort of thing all the time.
But it turns out this sort of thing is exactly what propelled Hillary Clinton to her New Hampshire primary win:
… female voters didn't seem to be responding to Clinton's tears so much as to their outrage at men's reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media).Ah, there's a good reason to vote for someone: because men—boo, hiss—don't think Presidents should tear up, or even pretend to tear up, when asked softball questions about their feelings.
If pundits ever tried to understand what some female voters know about the complexity of women's lives, they might begin to comprehend the appeal of a female candidate whose ethic of caring and whose posture of femininity derive from responsibilities beyond the maternal. And then they might begin to understand the affection of women in New Hampshire who put her over the top.Alternatively, those pundits could reasonably ask: why on earth would women think that "caring" talents are exactly what are needed in a President?
For the record, I have more respect for female voters than does Susan Faludi. I think, on average, they're not as flighty and superficial as Susan thinks they are. Hope so, anyway.