Sexual Politics- Redux

Chris Matthews has asked every week for the last year "Is America ready for a woman President." My question for Mr. Matthews is why isn't America ready for a woman President?

Prime Minister Harper's (C- the middle ages) Cabinet shuffle notwithstanding, Canada has had very strong female representation in its government. As had England - and yet, both England and Canada have problems too. They are diverse and multifaceted. The new Chancellor (The New New Labour) in England had her top described as a "photo finish in a Zeppelin race" - something that men don't have to put up with. It is deplorable, but that is the way it goes until someone says something. I have said something for some time, and for the same reasons I hurled David Emerson (C - Pacific Rim Job) the same vile words that were cowardly smeared at Belinda Stronach (L - I am sorry for what you had to put up with), we need to recognize the a double standard exists, and we have to work to ameliorate it. One ignorant back-room boy at a time.

That having been said, let me state that I have never voted for a woman in either a federal or provincial election. Why? Well, the political party which I chose to support in each of those elections wasn't fielding a female candidate in my riding. The closest thing I have done in terms of voting for a woman is to vote in favour of the Charlottetown Accord to impress a woman. It didn't work out for the government, but I did alright.

So, now that I have admitted that a) I am not perfect and b) illustrated that the party system is part of the problem - where does this leave us? Mr. Matthews statement is actually a very fair one - and I don't think the answer is yes.

On the one hand, the Democrats need to nominate a candidate that will encourage people to vote for them - not vote against them. Love 'er or hate 'er - Hillary Clinton (D - NYC by way of Little Rock and Chicago) is one of the most polarizing figures in American Politics. Ignorant and mobilized voters do not need another excuse to either not vote or vote republican. On the other hand, America, particularly the Red States, is still a very spiritual, traditional, puritan society where outdated stereotypes about the role of the woman in the home significantly affect voting behaviour.

That said, based on the current slate of declared candidates, Hillary is my second pick after the Governor of New Mexico (D - Energy Stability 101 - he actually gets it), who was also part of the Clinton Cabinet. It isn't a sexist thing, it is a "I think Richardson is smarter" thing.

The Red State problem with Hillary isn't that she is a woman, it is the woman that she is. She carries with her the baggage of the Clinton Presidency, with none of the benefits. Her husband doesn't even carry the baggage of his Presidency anymore- because so many Americans long for that time when they had that feeling of "je ne sais quoi" about the Presidency. Hillary is still seen by many as the meddler who fucked up health care in 1993, and doesn't have a fraction of her husband's charisma. Others see her only as ambitious. How fair is that?

Feminists, of all ilks, should be wary of the symbolism in a second Clinton Presidency. While we will never be able to prove it empirically, there can be no dispute to the fact that her success is due entirely to the high profile she enjoyed in the 1990s as a result of her husband. While I am confident that Hillary is smart enough and affable enough that she would be able to start at the bottom and work her way up to the top (just like her husband did) ultimately, we will never know if she could- she started at the top, and it was her husband that put her there.

That said, I am positive she would be a giant leap forward for the other equal rights problem in America, and her candidacy (successful or otherwise) is proof that a woman can compete in a man's game.

But, the contradictions abound- when Bill ran, he held Hillary up as part of his team. Hillary, for obvious reasons, can't do the same thing for fear that undecided voters may believe what many decided voters want to believe: a Hillary Rodham Clinton administration would be the third term of Clinton/Gore, and that in the back rooms would be William Jefferson Clinton. If *I* believed that, Hillary would be my first choice - not because I am sexist and don't think she could do the job, but because I think her husband was the best President in 65 years.

So what is a girl to do? Frankly, after the last eight years, what would be so wrong with the closest advisor to the President being the former President? Kids never listen to their parents, but husbands and wives talk, right?

An inconvenient candidate (D- Tennessee, Academy Award, Future Nobel Laureate) aside, Hillary will easily win the nomination and then face the most...unique electorate in American history. Starving for a stark change in direction, many voters will remember the good times of the 1990s. Red State so-cons - who are ostensibly the manifestation and creation of the Clinton scandals - will rally their troops to do anything they can do to keep her out of the White House.

Her success really depends on the Republican Candidate - If it is Rudy (D - NY) the same Red State so-cons will have to either a) accept the lesser of two evils or b) ensure her victory with a third party candidate. If it is Fred Thompson (R - Reagan's California) Hillary is in a lot of trouble because he has all of the benefits of Ronald Reagan, all of the charm of Ronald Reagan, and none of the baggage of eight years of republican rule. If it is Mitt Romney (R/D - Utah this week, Mass last week) it is a total toss up because of his propensity to go back on his word, and make both of his positions seem silly.

But, to answer the question, American isn't ready for a woman President - if it was, no one would ask such an asinine question. People ask dumb questions like - can a woman go to war? Can a woman drop the bomb? Can a woman deal with terrorists? So far, we have seen a man (R - Daddy got me a job!) fuck up the job for eight years - but nobody ever asked if he could do it because he was a man- and they shouldn't have - they should have asked if he was smart enough.