It’s easy to understand why feminists across the country are elated with the prospect of electing the first woman president. Over the years, women here and throughout the world have achieved enormous success in such diverse fields as politics, business, entertainment, education, and the military. Most would agree, however, that they have not yet achieved parity with their male counterparts. Men still outnumber women in leadership roles, and generally receive higher pay for the same work. So the women’s rights movement, and women in general, see the election of a female president as the next and greatest milestone on the road to equality.

But is the public at large ready to elect a woman to lead the country?

Over the past few years, polling data on the subject have been inconsistent, but research does suggest that a large number of voters are at least willing to consider it. It is no longer such a stretch of the imagination.

After all, women now serve as elected heads of state in many countries throughout the world, including Chile, Finland, Ireland, and Liberia. Margaret Thatcher served three consecutive and successful terms as British prime minister, and Angela Merkel now serves as the first woman chancellor of Germany.

So now, during this current presidential campaign, the focus is on Hillary Clinton, and while she has clearly established herself as the Democratic frontrunner, two other things are equally clear: she is no Margaret Thatcher, and her road to the Oval Office will not be an easy one.

Her critics oppose her for various reasons. Many see her as calculating and manipulative, turning a blind eye to her husband’s serial abuse of women over the years in the interest of her own political ambitions. Some see her as completely untrustworthy, an absolute master of doublespeak. They question her ethics, reflecting on her involvement in the many scandals that erupted during her husband’s administration, and going back even further, her phenomenally profitable and highly suspicious trading in cattle futures. In fact, to many, she epitomizes everything that is wrong with politics today.

Character issues aside, they also have serious doubts about her resume, which amounts to little more than eight years as a first lady and seven years as a senator, a position she attained largely through her marriage to Bill.

Her strongest opposition, however, comes from conservatives, who believe that her far-left ideologies would bring the country dangerously close to socialism.

For whatever reasons, nearly 50 percent of the voting public have indicated that they will not support this candidate under any circumstances. And with serious doubts about her experience, her leadership, and her character, they can hardly be optimistic about the success of another Clinton presidency.

Of course her supporters reject all of that. But they cannot deny the overwhelming opposition she faces, and like the Bush-haters who have spent the past seven years trying to diminish his presidency, Hillary’s opponents will never accept her as a leader. It is that divisiveness, in fact, that virtually guarantees the failure of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Because she is so polarizing, she could never do what the next president absolutely must do: unite the country.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, a woman in the White House became inevitable. And though the time might be right, this candidate isn’t.

If feminists want the first woman elected to the highest office in the land to be successful, they will be a little more patient. If they want to show the country and the world that a woman can lead the United States just as effectively as a man, they will wait for a truly accomplished, competent, and worthy candidate to emerge from their ranks. They will find someone who can unite the country and leave a legacy they, and the rest of us can be proud of.

And they will tell Hillary, “You go girl! - right back to New York.”

–

Peter Lemiska is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

1. This is a good piece, Peter, and I agree with you about Hillary! I also see beneath surfaces, & the altruist who exists under the facade. I just don’t know how practical her ideas are - visionaries (myself for one)often see potentials more clearly than realities) & I certainly don’t trust her alliances! I see too a yearning to return to a matriarchal society - notice the recent emphasis on Mother Nature, Goddess energy, the Virgin Mary? Even the interest in all things Retro suggests a longing to return to (seemingly) happier times. But the crux of it, I feel, is that men make war, women make babies, & that suggests nurturing!

   Comment by Cousin Isa in WA state — January 9, 2008 @ 12:57 pm