A "Woman President"? But Which One?

This is not about Dick Morris’ latest book, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. The issue today is “Should America have a woman President?”

I reply, “Of course, and not a moment too soon. But shouldn’t we put a LITTLE thought into which woman would be good for the job?”

The woman/White House issue is, of course, raised by the new ABC program “Commander in Chief,” starring Geena Davis. Does anyone have slight doubt that a President should be impeached and removed, rather than praised, if he/she threatened war against another nation for executing one of its citizens, under its own (barbaric) laws?

The writers of that episode expected Americans to applaud that action by fictitious President Allen (Davis). They choose an African nation as the target, perhaps to distract the viewers from the fact that the real President Bush went to war in Iraq over the lives of 22 million people, obtained a Congressional declaration, and still faces sniping over the “legitimacy” of the war.

The Clinton cronies who litter the staff of Ms. Davis’ show expect Americans to approve President Allen’s threat of war, without Congressional approval, over a single African woman’s life. At the same time, they expect the same Americans to question President Bush’s actions, approved by Congress, over war for millions of lives.

Do they believe that the critical faculties of Americans shut down like a hard reboot on a computer when the TV is switched on? Don’t answer that; it’s rhetorical. Frank Lloyd Wright answered it when he called TV “chewing gum for the eyes.” But I digress.

Dick Morris posits that Secretary of State Condi Rice is “the only person who can defeat” Senator Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. Rice is not running then. Rice should not be running then. The highest executive position she has held so far is Provost of Stanford University. Beyond that, she is just an academic and an advisor.

Admittedly, keeping the students at Stanford from drinking themselves into a stupor, getting each other pregnant, vandalizing the premises, and flunking out, while seeing they get a competent education is not bad preparation for being President. But it is not enough. Rice needs to run for, be elected to, and function well in a high position BEFORE she runs for President.

I could see her as the Vice President under Senator (and former Governor) George Allen in 2008, and then running for President in 2016. But back to the subject of woman/President.

Implicit in the question of whether a woman should be President is the idea that Hillary Clinton would be “a good role model for American women.” Let’s examine that premise.

I have two daughters, of whom I am very, very proud. Both are very successful in the business world. Both are married to men whom I respect. Both have children who are moving well down the bumpy path to becoming adult men and women. Is Hillary a good role model for either of my daughters, or any of my assorted granddaughters?

If either of my daughters decided to stay with her husband after he made it clear, repeatedly, that she is a doormat to him, I would lose all respect for them if they did such a thing. Especially if done for personal gain at the expense of self-respect.

What if either of my daughters treated her coworkers like dirt, blamed them for all failures, screamed obscenities at them, discarded them like trash when they were no longer useful to their ambitions? Role model?

What if they engaged in a public fraud involving $700,000 to $1.1 million and sought to evade all responsibility? (Google the names of “Peter Paul,” “Hillary Clinton,” and the word “fraud” for information on that.) Role model?

What if what they supposedly believed in and thought was important, varied from moment to moment like a weathervane in a cyclone? Role model?

To show how foolish the question is whether we should “have a woman President,” reverse the sex. Make it, “should we have a man President?” The answer is then obvious. Only if that person is the best choice for the job.

Yes, Hillary IS a role model, in the same sense that Lady Macbeth is the greatest model in English literature of a woman composed of nothing but ambition who would do anything to achieve power. Hillary IS a role model as was Lucrezia Borgia in real life. Again, an example of ambition wedded to a lust for power, and divorced from any other considerations.

A woman President? Yes. As long as the model is Dame Margaret Thatcher. But Hillary is no Maggie Thatcher.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu

Deep in the recesses of the collective brain of our society, where all the deepest, darkest secrets lie, is the undeniable truth that, political correctness aside, we are not yet ready for a woman president. No more than we are for a Jewish president, or a black one.

All this trepidation and fear of a Hillary candidacy fascinates me, though. I can't imagine a bigger disaster for the rats. Her thighness's vaunted husband, with all his charm and bubbaness, never garnered more than 46% of the vote, and owes his being elected in the first place to a Texan that literally hated George H.W. Bush.

Without the Perot phenomenon, there would never have been the eight-year-long nightmare of the first Clinton presidency. Unless McPain opens a very well-funded third-party run for POTUS -- and I doubt that can happen --, there will not be a second one. Trust me on this one, and relax, already.

hillary-as-role-model bump;)

This is not about Dick Morris' latest book, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. The issue today is "Should America have a woman President?"

I reply, "Of course, and not a moment too soon. But shouldn't we put a LITTLE thought into which woman would be good for the job?"

The woman/White House issue is, of course, raised by the new ABC program "Commander in Chief," starring Geena Davis.

A "Woman President"? But Which One?
Special to FreeRepublic ^
22 October, 2005
John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

Reviews of "Commander-in-Chief" mislead; they suggest that this new ABC offering, this electuary of suds and psychologizing, is optional for missus clinton, that Rod Lurie's latest clinton agitprop is nothing more than the icing on missus clinton's inaugural cake.

The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.

THE PROBLEM

While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy on the battlefield isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM

COMPLETE ARTICLE
see descriptor morphs

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.