Who's the Next "Viable Woman Presidential Candidate?"

I didn't start out as a Hillary Clinton supporter.

John and Elizabeth Edwards were my presidential couple of choice. In fact, when it became clear, lo' those many years ago, that Hillary was crafting her White House strategy I said to anyone who would listen that she would never be able to be elected -- partly because of her Clinton "baggage" and partly because I didn't think this country was ready yet for a woman president.

Uttering those words felt like feminist treason.

But as someone who grew up in a rural community and who has lived in some fairly red areas, I had a bad feeling in my gut that America wasn't ready.

It looks like I was right.

Many have argued that such a notion is nonsense, After all, plenty of other countries have had women leaders, so surely it was time for the US to join those ranks.

But America lags in so many things that benefit women -- reproductive rights, numbers of women involved in government (we're behind plenty of countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Argentina just to name two), and maternity leave benefits-- that I doubted whether we as a country possessed the basic amount of respect toward women that would be needed to put one in charge of the whole country. If lawmakers won't acknowledge women's value to our economy or that certain rights should be permitted under the law, how can we be at a place where voters can see one pulling up with the moving van to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

When the Supreme Court pronounces that women are incapable of making decisions about their own reproductive rights, saying that their decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart was for "[women's] own good," what hope is there that our country is in a mental place where it can imagine someone who wears skirts (or pantsuits) making decisions about everyone?

Sure, we've come a moderate way, baby, but not far enough to take that last step.

I wanted to be wrong. I really did. So when John Edwards dropped out of the race, I decided to support Hillary over Obama, in large part, because her health care plan was essentially the same as Edwards' -- real coverage for everyone -- whereas, Barack Obama's is not. Yes, it's WAY better than what the Republicans want, but it's still not health care for everyone.

I also became the teensiest bit excited about the possibility of being able to show my second-grade daughter in November that girls really could be anything, and thought it would be special to make plans with her to watch as Hillary took the oath of office as the first woman President of the United States.

Clinton is in campaign shut-down mode and I'm a bit depressed. Not because I thought she was the best candidate to be our next president, but because of what it says about our country and its views on women and how much longer that road is than I had thought.

We're not ready for a woman president. So if not now, when?

Given the treatment Hillary has received as a candidate, I fear it will be a long time before another woman is ready to subject herself -- and her family -- to the meat grinder of American presidential politics.

While she's pondering who could really be the first woman President of the United States, you can also find Joanne at her place, PunditMom. Joanne is also an original MOMocrat and a Contributing Editor for Politics & News at BlogHer.

Comments

[FlyingEagel]

I do not agree at all with your article. Hillary lost this race because of a badly run campaign. She did not have a game plan after Feb 5th and that was her downfall. I believe this primary has shown that America is ready for a Women to run this country. She has shown all of America that women can be strong and proud.

[Nonamnesiac]

You do a great disservice to the Democratic electorate with your article -- an electorate that just selected the first African American standard bearer from a major political party. Hillary was rejected because she voted for the Iraq invasion against the overwhelming intelligence at the time that Saddam had no WMDs (Blix) against the majority of Congresspersons from her Party (both Houses), lied about it, refused to apologize for the vote, voted for Kyl-Lieberman and lied regularly duringt the campaign. Sexism had nothing to do with her loss and the Democratic electorate has proven they would select a female standard bearer if she were the most qualified nominee. Hillary proved she was not the most qualiied candidate and lost something that was virtually handed to her, losing an election despite having the full weight of the Clinton machine behind her, with the press calling her inevitable for over a year, against a relative unknown whose middle name is Hussein.

You are needed now to get over your depression, not act like Harriet Christian, and work with the rest of us to stop "no choice", "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran", "100 years in Iraq against the itnerests of the United States", "vote against making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday" racist, sexist, warmongerer, John McCain.

[MrsGreebers]

Why, oh why, oh WHY was Hillary considered to embody the very concept of female advancement? Can someone 'splain it to me?

[Rockerbabe]

Senator Clinton thought she had something to offer the American public and she was right. About 20 million votes right = 20 million supporters with money to spend and each one vote to cast. What do you have to offer, except rude, crude comments?

[Nonamnesiac]

You do a great disservice to the Democratic electorate with your article -- an electorate that just selected the first African American standard bearer from a major political party. Hillary was rejected because she voted for the Iraq invasion against the overwhelming intelligence at the time that Saddam had no WMDs (Blix) against the majority of Congresspersons from her Party (both Houses), lied about it, refused to apologize for the vote, voted for Kyl-Lieberman and lied regularly duringt the campaign. Sexism had nothing to do with her loss and the Democratic electorate has proven they would select a female standard bearer if she were the most qualified nominee. Hillary proved she was not the most qualiied candidate and lost something that was virtually handed to her, losing an election despite having the full weight of the Clinton machine behind her, with the press calling her inevitable for over a year, against a relative unknown whose middle name is Hussein.

You are needed now to get over your depression, not act like Harriet Christian, and work with the rest of us to stop "no choice", "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran", "100 years in Iraq against the itnerests of the United States", "vote against making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday" racist, sexist, warmongerer, John McCain.

[alsm9]

HuffPost's Pick

Joanne I respectfully diagree. There have been women in history who have overcome the odds of discrimination and social attitudes to sit in power. The three longest sitting monarchs in British history have all been women. The head of state in Liberia is a woman!! This "we aren't ready" idea is rubbish. That's just a pathetic excuse. Hillary Clinton just isn't the right candidate, regardless of her gender. It's a simple as that. More women have to step up and start running for office, end of....

[janedarcy]

Yea, that sounds like the same line a jerk gives when breaking up with you..."it's not you...it's me..."

[Rockerbabe]

Why, so the likes of you can badmouth them and their families and their programs and let your sexism show for all to see.
For your information, the 3 longest monarchs as all the monarchs do in British history, came to the positions of power by birth, murder and mayhem; not a vote of confidence by the Parliment or a popular vote such as what we have. AND, none of them would tolerate the badmouthing and disrespect that is often shown to women in American culture. (With the current royal family being the exception to the rule).

[RedDogBear]

Yes, there is still plenty of sexism in this country. But there is also plenty of racism and that didn't stop Obama. In fact Obama never once complained of racism and he also never tried to use it (unlike Senator Clinton and her surrogates) to help divide the party. You are doing your daughter and all the women in this country a disservice by claiming that Senator Clinton lost because of sexism. Senator Clinton lost because she ran a bad campaign. She played dirty and changed the rules and then complained when the rules weren't changed enough to suit her. You are also doing the women in this country a disservice by moping for a candidate who can't face reality and join the rest of the party. Doing so strengthens John McCain would has received a ZERO rating from NARAL http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/unmasking-mccain-his-reac_b_103580.html Senator Clinton, whether unwittingly or on purpose, is helping McCain. Any true feminist would be concerned with that.

[philosopherkingtomas]

Hillary's victory speech last night was shameful! Its all about her !

[arkgrfx61]

It still disturbs me that people are still thinking in terms of Hillary the first woman candidate, Obama the first black candidate....why am i not excited about either one of these historic firsts??
Because that's NOT what this race is about. It's what Hillary has MADE it out to be, but it's not what it's about.
It's about the fact that we have been mired in an illegal war since 2003...the economy is in the toilet and gas is over $4/g. I want the best person for the job...someone who can work well with others, who is open to creating dialogs between people that might not be considered savory - but as they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Hillary is all about her...Barack is about all of us.
So, while I hate the fact that it's about race and gender - i really hope that you convey to your young daughter that an extraordinary candidate has won the nomination...her generation will benefit greatly from this.
The next time a woman runs for the presidency - it will be the RIGHT woman (and i don't think that will be too far off)

[OriginalScreenName]

I think you are wrong about this country not being ready to elect a woman president.

Clinton baggage had far more to do with this election then her being a woman. Take for instance the "iron my shirt guy." Given the evidence, it's far more easy to believe that guy was planted by Clinton and not real. That's the exact kind of crap a Clinton would pull off.

The evidence is overwhelming that the country is far more ready to elect a woman than it is a half white, half-African guy, with a Muslim name. Hillary did not have to deal with an underground campaign the likes Obama has already been facing. He's been called Muslim, the anti-Christ, ultra-liberal, etc in smear campaigns. Hillary didn't face any of that. Plus, the representation of Woman in government far exceeds the representation of blacks. Woman make more on average then AAs.

All the evidence shows, that if this country can elect a black man, they can elect a woman. To say Hillary was not a seriously flawed candidate that got to where she is because of her Husbands connections is not dealing with reality. The simple fact is that Hillary had her fund-raising machine handed to her on a platter by Bill.

Please don't be discouraged.

[kissmygrits]

It's about Iraq and insincerity, not her plumbing. Get real.

[Nonamnesiac]

You're absolutely right, although I'd add dishonesty (which you may have covered in insincerity).

[kevinw]

Actually, it may ironically be esier for another woman to run for president. Hilary came close to winning. Even after the press and teh Obama supporters declared her dead and chanted do the math, she took most of the last primaries, some by substantial margins. She even had an upset last night in South Dakota. My point here is thatpart of the vitriol was because she was part of the Clinton family and the sexist attacks were just one of many means to attack her. I believe that the next female candidate will heve people voting for her to rpove that the loss around Hilary was not sexist. Actually, this should be a signal to women to get ready for 2016. That may be your best bet for the historical run.

[lilysnana]

Why am do I continue to be disappointed in my fellow women? Perhaps the next viable candidate, either man or woman, will be able to vie for the presidency based on their own accomplishments, and not their spouses. If Hillary Clinton had had to spend the time like everyone else does who runs for public office (excuse me, except George Bush of course!) instead of being handed the Senate seat from NY on a silver platter, perhaps she would have had greater viability with more people. Seeing women voting for her just because she is a woman is insulting to me as a woman. I want an equal chance for everyone - men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans - everyone. I don't want nominations handed to anyone because of what their spouse did or because of their reproductive systems. or for any other reason than that they are the best qualified. THEY are the best qualified, not a joint team with their spouse, they themselves. Hillary Clinton was not the best qualified candidate in this race. I believe that distinction would have been Joe Biden's or Chris Dodd's. When we have a qualified viable candidate, man or woamn, I would hope all of us would vote for that candidate despite their gender or race.

[Gma11]

Utter nonsense. Hillary is ONE woman. She is NOT representative of all women.

I sincerely do believe we should still be teaching basic logic in our public schools.

[Lazyeye]

You, are msyogenic, Joanne. Or, whatever the term. America is ready and able to elect a woman president. Just not THAT woman.

[DavidK08]

Did anyone of HRC's supporters stop to think that just maybe, there are reasons other than gender that has stopped her campaign short of victory??????

Was it not her that thought it would be over in early Feb?

Weakness causes people to make arguments about the last hope for anything.