Aug
01
Posted on 08-01-2007 at 08:30am
Exactly.
Filed Under (Government & Politics) by Katherine Coble on 08-01-2007

Sarah Moore on Hillary Clinton:

If memory serves, there have been female world leaders before. In fact, some of these places across the globe that Estrich mentions have had more direct experience with female heads of state than we have here in the United States (Great Britain and Israel come to mind right away). I understand that the U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore its leader has a great world presence, but Senator Clinton would not be doing anything new on the world’s playing field.

I constantly marvel at those who talk about how groundbreaking a Hillary Clinton election would be, simply because she has a few different body parts from all those who came before her. I’m disappointed that so much of the talk about Clinton centers around the base “it’s cool ’cause she’d be the FIRST WOMAN!” while almost completely ignoring all discussion of what her presidency would hold for the United States. It reminds me of when people focus on the wedding day but forget about the 40-plus years of marriage which come after.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • RawSugar
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
    Read More   

Comments

Kate O' on 1 August, 2007 at 8:45 am #

This:

It reminds me of when people focus on the wedding day but forget about the 40-plus years of marriage which come after.

is deserving of a post all by itself. Maybe later. But yeah, well said.

.

As for Clinton, I don’t see her as the evil incarnate some people claim, but I don’t favor her just because she’s a woman. Nor do I favor Obama because he’s black. But I do favor Obama because he’s smart, competent, and he says a lot of really right-on things. The fact that, if elected, he’d be the first president of color is an interesting sidenote, but not, in and of itself, a platform. I do think it’s important in terms of equality that we eventually get to where a woman and/or a person of color and/or a non-heterosexual and/or a non-believer and/or [insert other non-traditional but harmless attribute for presidency here] can be president, but I think it’s equally important that candidates with these characteristics are regarded as actual candidates. That’s the real measure of equality.


Ron on 1 August, 2007 at 8:46 am #

No one is voting for Obama’s black half for president, just his white half.
-
/joke


Slartibartfast on 1 August, 2007 at 9:05 am #

OK, I’ll admit it. In sports, when a woman competes against men, I almost always pull for her. I have no idea why.
-
I cheered for Danica Patrick, till I found out what a jerk she was. Same with Michelle Wie (although the jerk in that case was her father, it still makes it hard to cheer for her when all of her peers hate her guts)
-
Anyway, I guess it’s the novelty of it, the underdog factor.
-
Hillary?
-
The fact that she’s a woman is overshadowed by the fact that her overriding political philosophy seems to be “I want to be president”.
-
Of course, from the POV of someone from my side of the fence, if a Democrat is going to be the next president, better a DLC type than a MoveOn type. Only problem is, I don’t know from day to day which one she is.


Sean Braisted on 1 August, 2007 at 10:51 am #

The funny thing is, she probably wouldn’t even be the first, First Lady to become President, because Cristina Kirchner may beat her to the punch (there could’ve been others, I just don’t care to research as to whom that was).