Ms. Clinton would make a horrible president.

I'm still waiting for her to make true on her 1996 Campaign Promise of a comprehensive health care plan for ALL.

If you've ever seen her debate, she is horrendous.

And yes, I am registered as a Democrat and have never voted Republican in a national election. Unless, that is, she gives herself a complete political makeover in the next two years!!!

Bachelet, when asked how she felt being the first president in the Americas, said that this is a great responsibility, that all eyes are on her because she is the first.

I find it disheartening that the US is so far behind the rest of the world.

Please don't misinterpret what I am about to write as my belief that a woman shouldnt be president or that I wouldn't vote for one (I might even vote for Hillary, but she is such a polarizing figure that I don't think she can be elected, and would be ineffective if she was). My comments here are only about why I think their hasn't been a woman president yet, and won't be in the immediate future.

There is a difference between being President of the U.S. and being president of a South American or African country. That might not be true in 30 years, but right now the U.S. is the last remaining superpower. We have sort of forced our way into it (at the expense and harm of others), but the job comes with the title "Leader of the Free World". That is significantly more important than leading a third world country (where many women have been elected to office on the promise of honestly developing a country where men have kept power through corruption throughout history), requiring the president to lead the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known. As a result, we look (not always with success), for leaders with a certain type of experience. I think you have forcefully taken the right to start earning that experience; but in the eyes of many, enough women haven't gotten there yet for everyone to be comfortable electing someone to the highest office in the land. Being elected president is having passed the final test (or should be), not taking it. When society becomes used to seeing women in executive office, whether in the public or private sector (how many women are running Forture 500 companies?), and they climb higher and get more experience in the military, they will be more apt to electing a woman president.

That is a sort of simplified version of my perception of why we haven't elected a woman president. I should have included that some assholes just don't want to vote for a woman, but that is fairly obvious. I personally don't care what the gender of the president is, and in many ways have giving up hope on the whole process. I vote third party fairly often nowadays because I don't think either party has much to offer in terms of substance.

the only place pink accessories belong in 2008 is on mr. first lady.

my links never work on this site. ah well:
http://billforfirstlady.com

I've always been nervous about associating Commander in Chief with nervousness about a woman as president. I don't think that's really the problem with the series. I think the problem with the series is that it relies on a 1980s TV paradigm, a belated and stunted reaction to second-wave feminism, that putting a woman in a "man's job" automatically makes the story interesting. In this context, gender almost becomes a verb--Commander in Chief is advertised as a show where a woman presidents or a president womans, without there being any other clearly articulated reason to watch. It's similar to the way execs pitched the first season of Crossing Jordan, as if the title were It's Quincy...with Boobs!. I was not intrigued.

I'm pretty sure I would have loved The West Wing just as much if the president had been a woman (assuming producers chose an actress with gravitas equal to that of Martin Sheen--say, Glenn Close), but the show would have to be done in such a way that the president's gender was not the promotional gimmick.

So I would say the issue with Commander in Chief is less "America isn't ready for a female president" than it is "television producers don't know how to market a show with a female president." If television execs are blaming the gender of the lead character for its lack of success, they are grossly underestimating the American viewing public and grossly overestimating their ability to competently advertise quality dramas.

Cheers,

TH

Bear, is being the leader of the United States different from being the leader of first world countries like Britain or Germany?

You're right on, Tom. Commander in Chief was unwatchable because it relied on a gimmick (president in a skirt!) rather than on good writing and acting. I tried to enjoy the show, but it was just comically bad-- especially compared to The West Wing. If they'd only hired Aaron Sorkin to write Commander in Chief....

Bear, is being the leader of the United States different from being the leader of first world countries like Britain or Germany?

Of course it is prairielily, but I don't really think that's the point.

Bear claims that being the leader of a superpower requires "a certain type of experience" but never quite gets around to saying what that experience is, or why this would be relevant to the gender of the President. He condescendingly claims that "women haven't gotten there" as if "women" were a single monolithic organism hauling its ass along the road of superpower-leadership-qualificationism. That's absurd. Every woman is a separate individual. He hints that the problem is that not "everyone [is] comfortable electing [a woman] to the highest office." I don't see how this is relevant. Not everyone was comfortably electing George Bush to the highest office-- not everyone thought he was even legitimately elected the first time. So? If we wait until every single person is "comfortable" with a woman, we will never have a female president. It's better to elect a woman that a lot of people won't be comfortable with and shake things up a little. Maybe some people will see the world doesn't end as soon as someone with uterus enters the oval office.

Then Bear claims that [when] "they climb higher and get more experience in the military, they will be more apt to electing a woman president." Firstly, out of all the Presidents since WWII, in which this country has been involved in many wars, only one, Dwight Eisenhower, ever "climb[ed] high" in the military. The last two presidents never even served meaningfully in the military at all. The requirement that a president first climb high in military office is absurd, and would essentially disqualify women because to climb high in the military generally requires combat duty which women are currently barred from.

Finally, Bear makes some sensible statements "I personally don't care what the gender of the president is"... but then again that should be fairly obvious to anyone who judges a candidate on qualifcations. But if he/she "don't care what the gender of the president is", he/she should be realizing that by repeating stories about how "women" haven't arrived at some unnamed "final test" he/she is just falling into the trap of repeating the same arguments used by sexists who do care.

Well yes, angryleft, it technically is different. The national experience of every country is different, right?

The point I was trying to make was that countries aren't electing women as a last resort to fix their ailing, destitute third world economies. As in, "Hey, we've tried everything else... what the hell, we have nothing to lose." There are plenty of powerful, economically strong first world nations that have or have had female leaders. The United States does still have the world's largest military, but as you said, military prowess has never been a requirement for the presidency.

Wouldn't you think that a woman "Secretary of the Treasury" or a woman as the head of the Federal Reserve would be more an indicator of equity in this country than a woman as President?

What about Female Speaker of the House?

Women should be fighting for plenty of other positions besides "President"

First woman President almost pales in comparison to the others as far as my interest level is concerned.

Sure a woman president would be great (and surprisingly enough, I would vote for Elizabeth Dole, even though I voted against her husband)... but I would never want Ms. Clinton or Ms. Rice in that role.

We need a first woman president to be an independent thinker, a precedent setter...much like Margaret Thatcher was as Prime Minister of England.

angryleft - It was never my intent to be condescending. One of my eternal gifts/curses is being able to look at something objectively. Not at how I wish it to be, but as I truly believe it is. I wasn't trying to argue that we wouldn't be better off shaking thing up. You say my comment that military combat service as a requirement for president is absurd since women can't currently serve in combat. I believe women should serve in combat. But I know that many others say they shouldn't and those people also believe that women don't have the nerve it takes to run the military. They aren't my beliefs, but they are commonly held.

Also, the experience I implied women lack wouldn't have anything to do with gender had men not oppressed women for eternity. But they did. So the experience of running businesses and serving in elected office that we look for in leaders is held by a precious few (but growing exponentially) number of women.

Remember that our parents (or actually some of the people who read this site) lived in a time when women couldn't get a job outside of teacher, nurse, or secretary. My mother couldn't have been hired for the job she has now thirty years ago. It just wouldn't have happened.

I am sorry if you think my bringing these arguments up reinforces them. When I talk to young people and try to influence them, I bring these arguments up. Then I talk about how these beliefs are wrong, and try to get people to think differently. But I do think they need to know about the past and the wrongs committed.

prairielily - I believe Americans think that it is different, again because we elect the so called "leader of the free world". But your point is very well taken. Again, I was not trying to be condescending.

Bear, sorry I get a little too combative at times. I don't actually disagree that the relative scarcity of women in the pipeline is one of the main issues... think of my post then as not refuting your empirical claims but refuting the arguments behind why those claims should be true. But regarding the military I think the public has the capacity to see past a military resume... as if John Kerry didn't prove that in 2004.

Well, I think John Kerry's problem was that he didn't capitalize upon his platform like he should have. His campaign strategy was WEAK.

Another think that has yet to be investigated properly is the circumnavigation of election laws in "Red States"...I think the Republican Party definitely cheated on the election (especially in Florida where Republicans found a loop hole that allowed them to vote twice, once as an absentee ballot in another district and once in their "home" district...provided they could provide an address in the "other" district.)

Of course, this is unsubstantiated, but I definitely think that Bush cheated us, and I wish I had evidence to back it up.

That pink bag is something.

At least Clinton hasn't followed French presidential hopeful, Segolene Royal, into the FHM world's sexiest women survey.

The pink bag pictured looks like an Hermes Kelly. If we ever have a woman president, she would clearly carry a Birkin.

But not in that shade of pink.

Well, I think John Kerry's problem was that he didn't capitalize upon his platform like he should have.

Precisely. Ironically Kerry had the liberal voting record that the Repugs could attack but he didn't take a stand against the war or emphasize economic issues during the actual campaign. He waffled and instead relied upon a "manly man" military resume to make him seem tough. All of which goes to show substance can be more important than image and there's no evidence that wouldn't be true for a woman either. It certainly shouldn't.

Ann writes:

You're right on, Tom. Commander in Chief was unwatchable because it relied on a gimmick (president in a skirt!) rather than on good writing and acting. I tried to enjoy the show, but it was just comically bad-- especially compared to The West Wing. If they'd only hired Aaron Sorkin to write Commander in Chief....

Amen! You know, when I read your email I thought about 24 and President Palmer. Can you imagine how much it would have sucked if his gimmick had been "He's the president...and he's black!"? That would have stunk up the whole show. The beauty of 24 is that they ackowledged that a black man really can be president by correctly writing him as one. The tragedy of Commander in Chief is that by refusing to make (or at least market) the show as anything other than a show about a woman president, they made the tacit argument that being a woman was hard enough--the poor dear wouldn't be able to handle terrorist threats, or war, or multiple sclerosis.

Another problem I had with the show was that Geena Davis looked entirely too young. In a world where middle-aged actresses can't find work, we finally find a role that screams older actress--President of the United States--and they book somebody who can pass for 30? What the hell?

Cheers,

TH

This is slightly off topic...but it appears like Ms. Rodham-Clinton has already begun to make enemies within the Democratic party...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060613103109990014&ncid=NWS00010000000001