hey liza. i'm not going to repeat what i wrote here, but did want to point out that Irene Claremont de Castillejo's Knowing Woman: A Feminine Psychology has chapters titled Man the hero, The Rainmaker Ideal & The older woman. her book begins with a question: Is it exhausting to listen and talk to people all day? She realizes "that the question was not one of fatigue or lack of fatigue, but rather of fatigue or refreshment". i think it would've been heroic if Clinton provided refreshment last night. we're all so fatigued.

don't know whether sheroe fits with the Rainmaker Ideal. that chapter begins with the Dalai Lama escaping Tibet. almost miraculously, the mountains were shrouded in mist. de Castillejo writes about the apparent power of lamas to influence the weather & says: Rainmakers are very inconspicuous... Indeed, these rare people around whom life blossoms can't be said to cause the blossoming. The Rainmaker of the story did not cause the rain to fall by the exercise of any supernatural power. Nor I am sure would the Dalai Lam claim that he had caused the shrouding mist to which he owed his escape. The Rainmaker does not cause, he allows the rain to fall... We have forgotten how to allow. The essence of the Rainmaker is that he knows how to allow... Whether he knows it or not his own receptive allowing will affect all those around him; rain will fall on the parched fields, and tears will turn bitter grief to flowering sorrow, while stricken children dry their eyes and laugh. There is a vast difference between allowing, and deliberately exerting power.

today they say that the Tibetan exile community is one of the success stories among refugee groups, "By showing how Tibet can exist internally, in spirit and imagination, even if it is barely visible on the map, the Dalai Lama has been suggesting to Palestinians, Kurds and Uighurs that they can maintain a cultural community even if they have lost their territory. Communities can be linked not by common soil so much as by common ground, a common foundation."

i think i understand your point & can see how Clinton failed to expand the political palette for women. she was certainly in a great position to do so last night. to set the stage, to establish the mold for other women to follow & break. maybe because for her winning is everything & no other possibilities exist. imho, if Clinton truly speaks for 17-18 million voters she should have the depth of imagination & psychological character & courage to lead her people to the promised land. even, if like Moses or MLK, she will never reach it herself.