Posted on 11/16/2007 7:03:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This next election is shaping up to be the most important decision America has made in many decades.
In fact, depending on how Americans choose to vote in the democratic primaries, it could be the most important election since the very first, way back in 1789.
For the first time in history, the United States has two candidates — one a woman, one a man of color — who have very good chances of becoming the next leader of the free world.
That’s not to say that there weren’t others before Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who threw their hat into the presidential race. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and even the late, great Shirley Chisholm all ran before, with varied results.
But these two are actually the front-runners for the Democratic nomination. Their closest competitor, John Edwards, trails Obama by more than 10 percent according to pollingreport.com.
Although I am well aware that these may be far from the same statistics the candidates will be seeing the closer the calendar gets to Nov. 4, 2008, these are still encouraging numbers. But, unfortunately, in the hearts and minds of the Washington “Boy’s Club,” that’s all they appear to be: numbers — meaningless figures, especially in the case of Senator Clinton.
Last month, an unprecedented event happened: The wives of five candidates (Obama, Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson) met to discuss life as a political wife. They talked about their hopes and fears; shared laughs and friendly discussion. And, ironically enough, they stumbled briefly on the subject of the presidential spouse potentially being a man.
It’s interesting to note this because there was quite a noticeable discrepancy in tone of the event the event: It was for political “wives,” not “spouses.”
This begs the question: Why was Bill Clinton not invited to be part of the discussion? Some may argue the American people already know the former president. Others may say that he does not share the same experiences as these wives. Both are valid arguments, but they miss the point entirely.
These women weren’t there so America can get to know them; they were there as representatives for their presidential candidate husbands, which is exactly why Bill Clinton belonged there, as well.
Referring back to the non-partisan pollingreport.com, Hillary Clinton is by far the front runner for the Democratic nomination. As of the beginning of this month, she is ahead by 45 percent. So why didn’t the leader deserve a representative in this discussion of political spouses? Because the old guard doesn’t want to let a girl into the political ring.
At least, not as an actual president.
With this subtle, yet effective, move the boys in Washington proved they’re simply not ready for a woman to lead the country — even if all of America seems to be very open to that idea. They have re-enforced the image of traditional White House gender roles: A man is president, and a woman is his loyal first lady.
Any perceived disruption to this power structure makes the men in Washington nervous to the point of paranoia. So, they paint a picture of the first lady as an aspirational role, something a woman should desire to be. This portrait brings to mind images of women, such as Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan; and those are the kinds of women the good ol’ boys want in the White House.
Conversely, a woman like Senator Clinton is painted as pushy, uppity and loud-mouthed. Not a flattering picture of a woman in power.
And that is precisely the point: Make the image of women in power as unflattering as possible in order to stem the tide of women seeking power.
If Washington is still, after 200-plus years, unreceptive to the idea of a female president, then perhaps it is time for a complete overhaul in the political system. England, Ireland, Mozambique and even Pakistan have all voted in female leaders; isn’t it time for one in the United States?
So is Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Bob Mulholland, James Carville, and a host of other MALE politicians.
What's your point? Hillary is what she is. Her femaleness doesn't mean we are forbidden from pointing that out.
And the reason they all "ganged up" on her at the debate IS BECAUSE SHE WAS THE LEADER. That's what is done to EVERYONE who is considered the front runner.
There are feminists who are hot to vote for a women and will do so. This sounds like one.
Maybe those five ladies didn’t want to spend the afternoon fighting of a known rapist.
Hillary is such a low caliber person in achievement and character that it is embarrassing that this country is treating her run as anything but a pathetic joke.
I keep expecting the mean girls to dump a bucket off blood on her head as they laugh and laugh.
Ignorant female child probably too young and too bigotted to have heard of Margaret Chase Smith.
Yes, it is perhaps the most important election.
But not because of what people look like, which is what this “journalist” is obsessed with.
It is opinions like this why more and more people don’t trust (nor like) the media. Show some intelligent commentary for a change instead of the juvenile gender/race crap and maybe your image might change for the better.
Barf is right. Idiots!
I could not pick even one more idiotic sentence after another. My brain just became stupider for reading it.
This bimbette asks: “It’s interesting to note this because there was quite a noticeable discrepancy in tone of the event the event: It was for political “wives,” not “spouses.” This begs the question: Why was Bill Clinton not invited to be part of the discussion?”
The answer is simple: who — including Her Thighness, Queen Hillary — would trust Bubba with someone’s wife, let alone five wives.
For that matter, who would trust this serial rapist with their daughter other than the bonehead Lewinsky family.
You write those blurbs for movie reviews when you're not FReeping, right? You've GOT to be a pro! [^)
P.S. I sure love the poem on your home page. And what a delightful, beautiful, lucky little baby in your arms!
Is it really, or are you pullin' my leg?! LOL
I first thought this was a police blotter. Maybe that's prophetic?
5.56mm
“…all voted in female leaders; isn’t it time for one in the United States?”
It isn’t “time” for anyone to be voted in for anything. The Republican party tried that approach in 1996 with Senator Bob Dole.
With the exception of England under PM Thatcher all of the nations that were mentioned in the article are, at best, third rate countries that depend on the US to defend them.
We need to vote for the best, not some one running on her husband’s resume, as tainted as it is.
Indeed.
This got me thinking. There are so many cultures now that still have a patriarchal mindset. They're not even embarrassed to say these things. I think there are lots of men, even American man who won't vote for her once they're in the voting booth as well. They'll never say it out loud.
But, then some people, like the liberal girl who wrote this article, will always vote for the woman in an election. So isn’t that bigoted of a female to vote for Hillary just for that reason?
And the girl who wrote this article is clearly liberal. So she’s ok with Hillary for that reason. Would she vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole if one of them ran for president?????????/
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.