Here’s the problem with the emotional intelligence thing Warren, though I agree with you and John fully. To the extent that the Democratic Party has become the “Mommy Party” it’salready all about “emotional intelligence” and all that junk. The idea that a female liberal president would be more “feminine” than Bill Clinton is absurd, laughable, factually untrue. Bill Clinton was weepy, huggy and at all times pain-feeling. He’d wax eloquent on the glories of talk and empathy. At the end of one marathon meeting which accomplished nothing, he stretched out in his chair and said “That was great” as if he was about to light a cigarette. Feminists declared him the first female president. He talked of security not in the sense of blowing up terrorists but of leaving no children behind. Lip-biting, soul-searching, Café Vienna moments, let-me-say-this-about-that-Oprah femininity was the order of the day under Bill Clinton. And, sad to say, it was so successful that George W. Bush and Karl Rove copied it with their treacly “compassionate conservatism.” It took 9/11 to remind George W. Bush why Republicans are called the Daddy Party.
Getting back to Geena D, the more they hype her girliness the more unrealistic the show will become. There are no Democrats championing “manly” rhetoric or policies. This Donald Southerland character already stinks of straw, as in straw man. And, I can guarantee you, any real life female president would understand immediately the importance of following Maggie Thatcher’s tougher-than-those-silly-boys approach rather than Bill Clinton’s weepiness. Clinton could pull-off the weepiness largely thanks to the fact that he’s a guy. When Pat Schroeder cried, it was the end of her political career.
Doomed, the show is doomed. Barbara Walters and Dianne Sawyer may carry it for a while with endless accolades and interviews, but it will stink on ice.