Michele Bachmann is running for president of the United States. Sarah Palin may be running for President of the United States, too. Okay, that's the bad news.
What's the good news? The fact that there is little, if any, discussion about the fact that women are running for president. For the top spot, not for VP. In three short years, a woman running for president has gone from a contentious, historic, much-debated proposition when Hillary Clinton was running to (almost) a non-event.
Maybe it is too soon to tell. Maybe it is a given that one of the tall white men running (read: Romney or Huntsman) will actually win the nomination and these women are just an entertaining "opening" for the main event.
While the fact that there is no outrage or derision is encouraging, having a woman run for president is long long overdue. America, a progressive, democratic country, where women have had the right to vote since 1920, where 60% of the college students are women, where 58% of grad students are women, will be one of the last countries to have a woman as the head of the government. England was ruled by queens centuries ago -- and, then, by Margaret Thatcher. Even Russia had Catherine the Great. In modern times, where the heads of state are elected and not (necessarily) by divine right, we are behind so many: Germany, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Bolivia, India, the Philippines, to name a few. Pakistan -- a Muslim country! Even Rwanda, for crying out loud. The world's first woman prime minister was Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, in 1960 -- over 50 years ago! I never understood, and still don't, why we Americans are such laggards in this area. There is no logical argument to be made.
Now, back to the bad news. The first woman elected as president of the United States has to be exceptional. Superior. The smartest, best educated and most rational person in the room. So, not Palin, not Bachmann. Why? Because failure is not an option.
I used to work at a Wall St. investment bank. There were diversity programs galore but it was still problematic to find a senior woman to promote to Managing Director in Information Technology. I used to discuss this often with my boss, himself an MD. He finally suggested just promoting a particular (and the most senior) woman in the group to managing director. His argument was "self selection". People tend to like and promote people who are similar to themselves. I get that and I agree. But this woman was not good. If there were five options in any given situation, not only would she not pick the best one, she would almost always pick the worst one. So my worry was that the first woman MD would "represent". She would be the standard bearer. She would have to do a good job, on behalf of her entire gender. If she sucked, the reaction would be "See. Women can't be managing directors". If a guy in that role sucked, it would just be "Gee, John is an idiot" and not "Men are idiots".
Barack Obama carries that burden for African Americans. Happily, he carries it well. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit (really, you have to!) that he is well-educated, competent, rational, even-tempered and intelligent.
So, even if my political views weren't the polar opposite of Palin's and Bachmann's (which they are), I would still say "not Palin, not Bachmann". As women, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Oh, really! I have to admit that! Is that a ruling from a woman that I have to obey? As to Obama's credentials: It's subjective whether an education from Harvard, or any vine-covered school is a "good" education. As to "rational and even-tempered" I leave to the pundits and their puns. But competent and intelligent are iffy at best. I'd just as soon have Truman back.
HAHAHA.... oh, you weren't kidding?
Well he did enact a stimulus spending plan to keep unemployment under 8%, and create 250,000 jobs per month in the summer of 2010... oh, bad example?
At least he knows the Constitution and limitations of Presidential power... so he wouldn't send our troops to war without Congressional approval... bad example?
Sure he got a recession comparable to the early 1980's one; but his 3rd years is much better than Reagan's' 7% growth coming out of... yeah, I know... bad example.
But his leadership on getting bills passed is exemplary. Letting Pelosi write the Stimulus, letting Pelosi write the Health Care bill, staying out of the Budget debate, proposing a budget that got a 0-97 vote in the Senate... bad example again, hunh?
So, economic policy, foreign policy, and legislative action... minor points compared to what Obama truly brings to the table... which is? Anyone? I'm drawing a blank here.
Oh, bringing the country together, as the 0-97 vote against his budget shows... not a single Senator would support his plan; now that's bipartisan unity... against him.
I don't think his incompetence disqualifies his race or gender, or religion, or whatever other category you'd care to pick from higher office; but to say he's doing a good job is laughable.
And if you retort that he isn't intelligent and accomplished, then I will know your bias for what is it.
Well, if you had opened the search to the best candidate, and not merely the best female candidate, your search would not have been so quixotic.
"Happily, he carries it well. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit (really, you have to!) that he is well-educated, competent, rational, even-tempered and intelligent."
No, we don't have to admit anything of the sort, because it is not true. Mr. Obama is identical to your failed female tapped for promotion to Managing Director in Information Technology. Given a set of choices, he invariable chooses the wrong one. I know more about the Constitution than he does, as is obvious, for example, in his position about Congress' role in war. He is the first President to not seek Congressional approval at all for his conflict; imagine a Republican doing the same and you get the idea.
All you have to do with a lefty posit is look for the "command". It is their "tell". In this sickening example, it is right here: ' (really, you HAVE to!).
Get it? You can't argue with a cogent, thought out retort, producing a thorough impeachment of her claim that the current POTUS is NOT: "well-educated, (and) competent, (and) rational, (and) intelligent", (and) even-tempered". (he must be ALL of those adjectives, not "some")
You simply "can't" argue that his latest speech on the debt limit and numerous other examples show him to be irrational and by no means "even-tempered". Or other examples that one could argue him to be incompetent.
This post is the left summed up in a bright sparkly bow: If you don't agree with their beliefs, you are wrong. Period.
The arrogance in the left's DNA cannot be removed.
As Americans we don’t need to agree on these issues, but it’s critical we participate in the future of this "worst possible form of government…â€. As in racism, any form of sexism should be exposed and criticized. There is no longer room for this attitude in these United States. Those days are gone for good.
I hope.
Jedidiah T.
(1) Donna Brazile: Are you ready to hear 'Sarah Palin for President'?
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/06/donna_brazile_are_you_ready_to.html
(2) Donna Brazile: Yes, I said Sarah Palin for President
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/06/donna_brazile_yes_i_said_sarah.html
Choice excerpts':
“Palin is the candidate with the most crossover appeal between groups. She can talk to the tea partiers, the radicals -- even the nearly extinct moderates. “
“But I never got into the groove of simply dismissing her as a credible and successful politician. I didn't have the heart to join the "let's beat up on Sarah Palin" crowd. For one thing, Gov. Palin wasn't nicknamed "Barracuda Sarah" (by her high school basketball teammates) for nothing. She didn't need me to put out a call for civility. She's one tough political diva who knows how to take the heat. In fact, she's given every bit as good as she's taken. “
“Palin became the sole star of the Republican Party in August 2008. Sen. John McCain was the nominee. He possessed presidential nominee credentials heavy enough to sink a battleship twice over. But it was Palin who electrified the dormant base of the Republican Party. It was Palin who drew large and exciting crowds -- similar to that of then-candidate Barack Obama . “
No, these two women in no way measure up. Vastly unqualified.
Then, to beat President Obama, it's quite clear: Big government versus individual independence; more taxes versus more wage/tax earners; etc.
It is amazing that you could keep it so very civil.
These two lack so many skills, competencies and intelligence for the position I just laugh when I hear about their aspirations. If they make it past the primaries I might have to consider moving to Greece, Spain. Portugal or Italy for my sanity.
Obama executive experience is the last 2 1/2 years as president and making an absolute mess of an already bad situation.... god forbid we abandoned what is clearly not working out in the countries best interest.