Forget her accomplishments as a U.S. Senator!  Nevermind all that talk about helping women and children around the world!  Hillary is bringing back the headband!  Women in their 60s with long hair!  WOO-HOO!

OK, no headband here, but her hair rocks. Image via www.state.gov

I don’t know about you, but I’m loving the blonder, longer hair the Secretary of State is sporting these days. As a woman closer in age to Hillary than Chelsea, I may just try that myself!

Of course, Clinton had to know that, having been mocked once in her life for being an adult woman who wore a headband, that there’d be plenty of discussion of it this time, too. The funny thing, though, is she’s totally in the style moment — fashionistas LOVED the look on Michelle Williams at the Golden Globes!

But aside from the headband, why are we so fascinated with  Hillary’s hair?   She’s got a ponytail!  Now it’s in a bun! Hey, did she get a blow-out? I hate to break it to the Hillary fashion haters, but sometimes a girl’s just got to mix it up a little bit.  Maybe she can sport this little leopard number for her next news conference?

Maybe her critics are afraid if the focus on what she actually does rather than how she styles her hair, they’d have to admit she’s a woman to be taken seriously.

Image via www.state.gov/secretary/

Poor Hillary Clinton. She never gets a break when it comes to the political rumor mill. Will she run against President Obama in 2012? Did she say she wanted to retire from being Secretary of State in a second-term Obama administration because she wants to make plans for a White House run in 2016? Maybe she has another reality-type show in the works?

The latest “will she or won’t she moment” that some are wishing for is a swap out in the current administration — move Vice President Joe Biden to the State Department and put Hillary on the ticket with the President for a new and improved 2012 race! Pundits who are suggesting that this could happen see it as a win/win/win scenario – Biden gets the job he’s supposedly really always wanted, Hillary helps Barack Obama win a second term, and Hillary has a launching pad for a 2016 White House contest.

I can almost hear the Howard Dean-like hooting and hollering of some Democrats now over that scenario!

But the problem is this. The former First Lady/U.S. Senator hasn’t given even one little inkling that she could be persuaded to sign on to that scenario. In 2010, she said, “I think I’ll serve as secretary of state as my last public position and then probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children.” And in 2011, she was even more emphatic that a presidential bid wasn’t in her future — no, no, NO!

There is only one thing certain in politics – if there’s no real news going on, prognosticators will come up with something to grab our attention. And what better way to do that as we are begging for the Republican debates to finally be over than to spend a little time wondering whether Hillary has been harboring secret presidential fantasies since 2008?

Those who are stirring the pot on this one are forgetting that even though Secretary of State Clinton is wildly popular now, she was the target of unending attacks from a wide variety of political commentators during her campaign, even some of the ones who liked her. And are our collective political memories so short that proponents of an Obama/HRC ticket can’t see that the Republicans would have a field day with political ads talking about Obamacare AND Hillary-care? If Mitt Romney is the destined GOP candidate, he’s already on the record questioning her health care ideas from the 1990s. The Republican attack ads about a “socialist” Obama/Clinton ticket would be on the air before you could say, “What time is the next bus to Chappaqua?”

Even if the President wanted to trade Joe Biden for another vice president, Obama and his advisers know that has disaster written all over it.

It’s probably a good bet that Hillary Clinton, when she retires from her job as Secretary of State, won’t be hanging out at the local yarn store looking for baby bootie patterns. She’s made it clear that she’s committed to working on issues that impact women and girls globally. How better to do that than take a page from husband’s playbook and become an international ambassador for those issues? She’s seen that Bill Clinton’s star hasn’t faded and that the role of stateswoman who doesn’t need to worry about voters or political attacks could be pretty darn appealing

Sure, seeing Hillary Clinton on a road that could lead her to the Oval Office is a fantasy I’d like to indulge. But at some point every girl has to sit back, put her feet up and do something that’s just a little easier than wrangling with Syria. One thing I would bet money on is a Hillary Clinton-run Super PAC to get more women elected. After all, I hear some people are talking about Michelle Obama running for U.S. Senate from Illinois after 2016!

A version of this post was originally written for iVillage.com, where I’ll be working on election coverage through November 2012!

While I don’t usually put one together, my amazing friend Samantha from Garza Girls gave me the inspiration to think about what would make the perfect gift for the pundits in your household.  After all, the 2012 primary election season begins immediately after the holiday season, so why not consider giving the politicos in your family a little political inspiration and amusement before things turn really ugly after the Iowa Caucuses!

1. Of course, I would love, LOVE it if you would consider purchasing Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America (Bright Sky Press) for those on your list who might be interested to learn that people other than cranky old white guys are tuned in to important issues and making a difference in their communities.  Mothers of Intention explores how women are embracing the tools of social media to kill once and for all the notion that once kids are in the picture, all thoughts of anything serious fly out of our pretty little heads!  It also features essays from 50 amazing women writers from around the web, showcasing how they embraced their inner pundits to make the world a better place for their kids.

If you do decide to purchase Mothers of Intention, forward a copy of the E-mail receipt to me at joanne (at) punditmom (dot) com, and I’ll send along an autographed book plate and I’ll enter you for a chance to win a copy of The Beauty of Different (Bright Sky Press) by my amazing friend Karen Walrond.

There are so many other things one could give a budding pundit or political observer.  Here are few I think they’d love:

2. What progressive woman’s wardrobe is complete without these earrings that feature a photo of President Obama inside the Presidential Seal?

3. Or maybe a Cain for President 2012 necklace?  That’s bound to have some value as a collector’s item!

4. I’m not a GOP supporter, but I was amused by this “Mitt Happens” T-shirt from the Romney supporters.

5. How about a copy of one of Jon Huntsman’s books?  I hadn’t realized he was a published author, but he wrote a little something called Winners Never Cheat: Even in Difficult Times.  I wonder if anyone in the GOP has consulted this when it comes to their political strategy?  Oh, and did I mention the foreword is by Glenn Beck?

6. If you’re a Michele Bachmann supporter and make a contribution to her campaign, you can score a snuggly “Bachmann for President” fleece to keep you warm this winter.

7. While he probably won’t let you use his line of credit, a nice trinket from Tiffany’s can be a reminder of  the campaign that the disgraced former Speaker of the House is running.  Or, if money is tight, maybe you can find a replica of one of the many pieces he’s already bought his wife.

8. I hear Rick Perry has some extra cowboy boots he might be willing to auction off.

9. For the Democrat in your life, maybe a nice, new party affiliation decoration for the tree?

10. Or, in honor of Newt “Gin-Grinch,” how about one of my personal favorite trinkets for decorating?  Perfect for Festivus?

So if your shopping isn’t done yet, maybe one of these unique gifts will be just what someone on your list would love to receive!  Of course, it’s not too early to think about 2016, either!

Image via latimes.com

I hate to break it to Gloria Cain, but I think she might be in denial about her husband Herman.

For Hillary Clinton, accusations against her husband President Bill Clinton about potential sexual extra-curricular activities could only be viewed as part of an ongoing “vast right wing conspiracy.”

The late Elizabeth Edwards initially believed that her husband John Edwards’  indiscretion with Rielle Hunter was a one time event, and let us all know that she had forgiven him, so we should too.

And then the tides infamously turned on both of those stories.

Clearly, we don’t know what Gloria Cain does or doesn’t know at this point about the allegations that have been made against her husband.  But there’s a long list of political wives who’ve each given their husbands the benefit of the doubt when it came to alleged sexual improprieties, only to have those stories change later.  So it’s hard to watch when yet another political wife becomes a character witness for the defense.  Gloria Cain may be right about Herman, but we know all too well how stories like this have frequently turned out in the past.  And it’s also not so uncommon for those who’ve been harassed or abused to wait years to come forward because of how they are often portrayed in the media, so the defense that these women would have come out sooner if their allegations of harassment were true doesn’t hold a lot of water.

I think Gloria might want to have a sit-down with Herman over dinner sometime soon.  Because while we all think we know our spouses or partners well enough to know their character and what they are, or are not, capable of, sometimes we’re wrong.  And then we’re surprised and shocked that we were wrong, and that we didn’t see the signs of something bigger before the truth hit us in the face.

Gloria says Herman Cain would have to have a “split personality” for the allegations against him to be true.  Like so many political wives who’ve come before her, she’s taking the “standing by her man” approach.   But we all know that could easily change sooner rather than later.

via iStock Photo/Sean Locke

Women candidates for president or vice president have been far and few between in our lifetimes. Until 2008, to see any woman on a national ticket, regardless of party, was a rarity.  Sure, there were a couple of famous exceptions like Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun.  But it’s pretty well accepted that the first viable run for the White House by a woman was when now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought the 2008 Democratic nomination.  As for the vice presidential slot, the major parties have each had exactly one woman nominee — Geraldine Ferraro for the Democrats in 1984 and Sarah Palin for the GOP in 2008.

Fast forward to the 2012 race and Palin is finally, officially, out after months of teasing voters with her maybe-I-will-maybe-I-won’t-bus-tour.  GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is still in, but her poll numbers suggest she won’t be for long.  And while she has repeatedly said she won’t, plenty of Hillary fans hope she’ll change her mind and give President Obama a run for his money.  So with women candidates on our minds now more than ever before in our history, have the 21^st century candidacies of Clinton, Palin and Bachmann created a new segment of women voters – ones who will turn away from political races that don’t include a woman?

Studies have shown that women traditionally participate less in politics – both in running for office, as well as in discussing the candidates – than men.  The interest of women and girls of all ages in attending political speeches or volunteering for candidates seemed, at least anecdotally, to be super-charged by the presence of strong, focused women on the tickets three years ago.  Throngs of mothers with little girls turned out just to see Palin on the campaign trail.  Mothers of Hillary-loving daughters became first time campaign volunteers because their girls were so excited about the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy.  So in a 2012 race that looks like it will soon have no estrogen, what happens to the engagement and excitement of women voters?

While I don’t think women will ignore the next presidential race, I suspect many will feel less invested in the outcome if the race is filled with a sea of men.

So with the GOP frontrunner status being a moving target, having shifted from Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Ron Paul, and the knowledge that women make up the majority of voters, keeping women interested will be the key winning the GOP nomination in 2012.  As for the Democrats, some observers believe that women voters are still licking their political wounds in light of President Obama’s win over Clinton and that progressive women will, at the very least, decamp from the Obama ranks for someone else.  All of this is hard to predict with more than a year to go before Election Day 2012.  But one thing is certain – no one can win without the women’s vote, so whoever really wants to be living in the White House on January 21, 2013, had better find a way to effectively engage them so they don’t focus on the fact that there’s no one at the debates wearing heels and hose.

Unless Betty White really is in the race.  Now there’s a candidate I could support!

Originally posted at iVillage.com.

Where were all these Hillary Clinton lovers in 2008?  Oh, wait, they were around, but they were the Hillary Clinton haters back then.  If you haven’t noticed, in the weeks since the whole debt ceiling ‘our fighting toddlers get along better than Washington politicians’ debacle, media stories have been popping up wondering whether things would be different in America today if Hillary had won in 2008.

Did Democrats make a mistake by selecting Barack Obama as their candidate?  Did we go for the flash instead of the substance?  If “President Hillary” were in office, would things be different with the economy?

Some commentators still believe there’s a chance that the Secretary of State is pondering one more run for the White House even though she’s said, oh, about, a million times that she has no interest in another Presidential campaign. Maybe the American people can send a love letter?

The fantasy of  ‘she who could have been our first woman president’ is too GOOD to let go of.   It’s clearly been a trending hot topic — except when the talking heads want to criticize her for supposedly going all emotional when Osama bin Laden was killed, implying that maybe she would have been too weak to be Commander-in-Chief.

Even former Vice President Dick Cheney is getting in on the “I miss Hillary” conversation, but we all know that’s just part of his effort to ensure ongoing Democrat infighting to put any Republican (especially another one he can control) into the White House.  Ah — a true political love story if ever there was one.

There’s only one person in the world who has the ability to convince Hillary that a Pennsylvania Avenue address is better than the one she’s using in Chappaqua — and that’s Bill.  He’s loving his role as international statesman, but you know his arm wouldn’t have to be twisted too hard to have another chance at Washington, even if it would be as the First Dude.  So maybe I should start stocking up on the Hillary in 2012 paraphernalia.  Then we just have to sit back and wait to see what the prognosticators have to say about who her VP choice would be!  May I suggest Elizabeth Warren?

The editors at Newsweek outdid themselves with their most recent cover featuring Tea Party favorite and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann with a glazed over, deer-in-the-headlights gaze with the caption calling her “The Queen of Rage.”  No matter what you think of her politics, or whether you’re a Democrat who’s been brave enough to lunch with her, how about if we try something refreshing like, I don’t know, using our words to show why we think she shouldn’t be President instead of using a crazy photo and name calling to get your points across?

Clearly, the choice of photo and headline – which I have to assume came with the blessing of publisher Tina Brown -  was done with superb effect not only to boost magazine sales but also to send the message through political shorthand that Bachmann is an unstable crazy woman.  That’s what much of our “news” has become — find ways to sensationalize to bring in more ad money through tried and true sensationalism.

Bachmann is in good company.  She’s not the first woman, and I am sure she won’t be the last, the media will use this strategy with.  Instead of portraying Hillary Clinton as a highly educated woman with a natural political ability the press turned her into a wrinkly hag who looked weak when watching the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Instead of focusing on whether former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was qualified to be vice president, the media resorted to overly familiar shorthand sexist imagery to turn her into nothing more than a babe in short shorts.

Most recently, the New York Times portrayed Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was elected to head the Democratic National Committee, as a nothing more than mom in a pink sweatsuit packing lunches for the kids, instead of as the powerful political player that she is, as former DNC Chair Tim Kaine was portrayed just two years earlier in a photo of him with the President, not with his kids in his kitchen.

Editors around the country continue to make women leaders the brunt of  not-so-subtle sexist mockery, rather than taking the time to dissect whether it’s fair to portray political women as misguided chicks who are nothing more than outdated stereotypes of womanhood.

I had an even longer post percolating in my head about all this, but then I read David Wescott’s fabulous essay at his place, It’s Not  a Lecture, and realized that if I had a friend who so wonderfully wrote about the big picture problem with the current Newsweek cover of Michele Bachmann and other political women, why reinvent the wheel?  Plus, it’s pretty refreshing to have a guy take on these issues.  But then again, David is a “Father of Intention!”

Image via Huffington Post/Newsweek.

“Flake” and “balloon head” are just the beginning from those who can’t get their own heads around the idea of challenging Bachmann on her political views rather than dusting off the usual sexist political playbook.

Many GOP leaders were huge Bachmann fans as she rallied her Tea Party base on their issues, but as she started making noise about going head-to-head with the “more serious” or “more likely” Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and others, her GOP BFFs have gotten a little distant.   They don’t call, they don’t write.  Once upon a time Republican Congressional leadership was happy to bask in whatever conservative spotlight Bachmann provided for their political agenda, but that all changed when the upstart mom of 28 made it clear that she wasn’t afraid of the big boys.

I hope that Bachmann knows it’s going to get a lot worse than that.  Of course she’s going to have to get out her history book and brush up on a few facts as some of her critics have pointed out, but that’s an easy fix.  If Bachmann is  really in this race to win (which I’m not sure she is — I think she wants to position herself for a role in the future  GOP leadership espcially after the current crowd snubbed her in 2010), she needs to steel herself for the full Hillary treatment.  I’m not sure Secretary of State  Clinton would be comfortable commiserating with Bachmann on how to navigate the entrenched sexism against women who seek political power, but in my head I’m imagining that her advice would be something like this:

1. Let other people deal with the whole “balloon head” thing and ignore it. The Hillary Nutcracker got lots of coverage, but I don’t remember her dignifying it with a response.  No matter what you say, those old boy male pundits are going to keep finding ways to suggest that there’s no need to take political women seriously, and they’ll use whatever adjectives or questionable collectibles to do it.

2. Some things will call for a snappy retort, so be ready. Remember ” iron my shirt”? Best not to leave that one hanging out there, so you might want to brainstorm with your staff about keeping a few good soundbite-sized responses at the ready for the hecklers.

3. Don’t believe them when they tell you you’re making excuses for other things if you call out the sexim when it happens.  High-profile media men and women alike scoffed at the suggestion that the never-ending sexist comments had an effect on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.   Clinton may not have lost as a direct result of the constant drum-beat of anti-woman rhetoric, but she was certainly undermined to an extent that when other things happened, voters were able to use the barbs as another reason to turn away from her.

4. Don’t think you’re safe with your GOP brethren.  Immediately after the recent CNN debate you participated in your fellow candidates were damning you with faint praise.  You pretty much won that debate for preparedness and staying on message,  but when asked what he thought of your performance, one of the guys said in a dismissive tone, “She did alright” — the political equivalent of what husbands say when their wives ask if their pants make their butts look fat.

5. Remember to pay it forward. If and when you call out the media or another politician for their sexist jabs, do it not just for your Tea Party sisters, but for all women who take those hits.  Even if we don’t agree on anything else, we ought to be able to come together on the idea that no woman, especially an elected representative who’s running for president, should have to put up with the same treatment that Hillary (or Sarah Palin or any other woman) got when she was audacious enough to say, “I’m running for President of the United States.”

We know all candidates, men and women alike, should be ready for questions on their experience, policy positions, demeanor and world view to the extent that they impact decisions that would effect the whole country.  But for any woman who dares to think she can channel her inner Geena Davis, she’d buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Image via Minnesota Public Radio

That’s the meme started by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and continued by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and others about reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and presidential adviser Samantha Power were a nagging triumvirate of estrogen that forced President Obama into sending U.S. troops to Libya in a humanitarian effort to prevent power-hungry dictator Muammar Qadafi from killing his own people.  Inside the beltway publication Politico kept the whole 1950s vibe alive by asking, “Boys against girls over Libya?” Even the Christian Science Monitor got in on the gender wars action as it tried to dissect the Libya decision.

There are many things to lament about the state of journalism — or should I say “journalism” in big air quotes — today, but reporters who perpetuate the idea that women can only convince men of their positions by harassing or cajoling them would probably have even Ward Cleaver shaking his head.  At this rate, it’s only a matter of time until we see a story suggesting that maybe Hillary batted her eyelashes at President Obama to get her way in Afghanistan or that Valerie Jarrett’s skirts are getting a little shorter in hopes of speeding things up on the Paycheck Fairness issue (Shhhhh.  Don’t tell Michelle).

If three high level men had been the ones who convinced the President that we couldn’t stand by and watch another slaughter of innocent people a la Rwanda, the critique would be about the actual facts behind the decision making process, rather than whether “the ladies” had just pulled something out of the old housewives’ bag of tricks.

Sadly, the fact that journos and commentators are even suggesting that three high-level, educated, accomplished and savvy women in the administration could only have gotten their way by henpecking, nagging, and harassing the President and the other boys in the room, rather than having convinced them that they had a legitimate, cogent, persuasive argument as to why the United States should have a role in a humanitarian effort to prevent a blood-bath, is just another reminder that no matter how far we’ve come, it’s just not far enough.

I know it’s the job of people like Dowd, Matthews, and others to say things that will get people all riled up, but I just have to say (again) that crossing the line into stereotypical woman-bashing doesn’t help anyone, other than advertisers who support those news outlets, because something sensational will always get more eyeballs on those all-important ads.

If we’re really going down this road, I’m going to have to call in Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble.  As long as we’re in the world of caveman thinking, I know they’ve got a good track record of  straightening out the boys.

In an odd move, Christine O’Donnell says she’s going to support any efforts by Hillary Clinton if she wants to run for President in 2012. That doesn’t make Clinton a mama grizzly rising, does it?

Senator Patty Murray is going to run to be the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  That can only be good news women in the Democratic party.  Does that mean she needs to get our her tennis shoes again?

Some of the readers over at The New Agenda aren’t so happy with my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s fascination with the 1990s. Why is that Democrats can’t raise questions about Palin in any way without being accused of attacking her?  That’s a chip that some people have to get off their shoulder — it’s always fair game to question politicians and not take them at face value.  I wish more of the mainstream media would do that.

And I’m still chuckling over the Barbara Bush smack-down of Sarah Palin.  If there’s one thing I know for sure in the world of the Bush’s, it’s that you don’t mess with George and Jebbie’s mom!

Image via LIFE Magazine