It was with some trepidation that I suggested on one of xJane’s posts that Obama actually embodies certain desirable “feminine” qualities more than Clinton does, though we might agree that he has an unfair advantage considering that the culture makes it easier for him to do so.

I half expected someone (not necessarily xJane) to give me the third degree, but instead, she linked to a another post where she makes essentially the same point. And now we have Clinton’s former spiritual advisor chiming in:

Ironically, Clinton’s problem today, Houston said, may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility — that he embodies a more female, inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.

[…]

Woodward wrote that Houston tried to steer Clinton away from her “warrior mode” and “the need to have enemies who could symbolically be singled out to embody the opposition.”

“It’s a shame the warfare model is still there,” Houston said. “If she could have moved to the next level, she would be the next president.”

I don’t meant to pile on Hillary, but I find the whole phenomenon interesting.

I’m not sure about the last claim. I suspect she would’ve won the primary but lost the general that way, unless she pulled a classic primary/general pivot, acting macho only after she got the nomination. But then instead of people forwarding around scandalous videos of Rev. Wright, this summer they’d be forwarding scandalous videos of Hillary talking about her feelings