Why A Woman In The White House?

The better question is why not? Why aren't there more females in the U.S. Congress? If we can talk about race, let's talk about gender. Whatever race she is, it's going to be a great day when a woman becomes president or vice president.

But why, people ask, push for a woman to be president? Surely, they argue, you don't want just any woman to become president. That's a trap. It's a subliminal invitation to an unwanted repetitive episode (URP). Most people get suckered into replying with: "Of course not." It's a rut. The better answer is: "I'm willing to give her a try. She can't do much worse than what we've had." Or, "If she gets far enough to win, she's doing something right."

I don't want just any man to become president, but somehow that just keeps happening.

Sure, the woman who becomes president should be exceptional. But not anymore so than male presidents.

I look at my daughter and the many young women and girls on The White House Project website and my heart skips. Apparently 81% of voters would vote for a woman. We just don't know which one.

Barack Obama is terrific in many ways. But he isn't perfect and neither is Hillary Clinton. John McCain was a wonderful Naval officer. But he slips up a lot. Who isn't flawed?

So, why not a woman president? Why not a woman as flawed as men who seek election?

Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether women are being held to a far higher standard, their every move, every outfit, facial expression, and utterance studied and criticized? Is this observation, despite extensive research support, sour grapes?

It's time to get honest here about our country and how we see women leaders.
The difficulties Hillary Clinton now faces are not all attributable to her gender -- perhaps not even most. But a sufficient amount of what she does wrong is exacerbated by gender stereotypes. The press is all over her -- often using those.

Michelle Obama was recently maintaining a low profile. Was her "political mistake" greater than the mistakes of those around her? Is she an angry woman? Is anger somehow part of leadership for men, but not for women? That view is as prevalent as it is stupid. Given the gotcha press we have now, wouldn't you be angry sometimes if you or your spouse were running for president? I'm getting angry just thinking about it.

So again, why not a woman for president? How long must we wait? Who will be good enough? Does such a woman exist? What traits must she have above and beyond those of male candidates? Can we tell our daughters that one day it will happen? Or are the cards stacked against us?

Let's not have just any woman for president, but let's have one soon. And let's do so by not slipping into unwanted repetitive episodes. Let's have the much needed debates no matter the gratuitous critics among us who try to stop them.

Dr. Reardon blogs on bardscove and The Thin Pink Line

Comments

[breakfast]

Remember the coronation march? Took a little too long, since it has given so many people the opportunity to get to know Hillary so much better. And the more we know, the less there is to like.

Nevertheless, I don't want to do it, but I will vote for Hillary against any Republican candidate, this time.

Like it or not, voting in the U. S. is almost always a matter of choosing the lesser evil. I hope that will change sometime, but it seems we have a lot of evolving to do first.

[BookQueen]

But male candidates for President have always been held up to harsh standards. Gore got the reputation for being a liar. G.W. Bush was portrayed as stupid and attacked for his pronunciation and grammar. Dukakis was accused of being a liberal and cold-natured. Muskie was criticized for crying in public. Biden got in trouble for plagiarism. Ford got a reputation as someone who stumbled a lot.

Good looks seem to help male politicians. They can be seriously hurt by the wrong picture as Dukakis was when he posed in a tank. They get plenty of comments on irrelevant and silly things like Nixon's big nose, Bush's ears, Obama's bowling ability, etc.

Yes, everyone has warts, but calling your wife foul names and joking about bombing Iran are bigger warts. Similarly, Hilary's faults in this election are bigger than Obama's - lying, negative campaigning, insider politics, a campaign in disarray. Meanwhile Obama turned attacks into the speech of the decade.

Maybe Hilary's real misfortune is running against a better candidate.

[LeJax]

As a middle-aged (white) businesswoman, I find your argument ridiculously specious. Just because mediocre men have succeeded to office does NOT mean we should settle for a mediocre woman. Even in a failing effort, I believe it is my duty to vote for the better candidate.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because I feel she is inferior to the option. She has demonstrated duplicitous self-interest, propensity to take the low road, unwillingness to admit mistakes (deja vu Bush), predilection to portray herself as a victim, and short-sighted preference for gaining glory at the expense of achieving promised objectives (i.e. healthcare, campaign-pledged NY jobs). Her gender does not compensate for these failings.

How desperate to suggest if not this woman, none will suffice. You are demonstrating little faith in the caliber of women who can, will and ARE rising up. My daughter and friends live in a different reality than you with your gender-fixated chatter. They know they will see a woman president, but not in the Geraldine Ferraro mold of affirmative action not merit.

Times change and those stuck in the past will be left behind. To reap the harvest of feminism requires a post-feminist mindset. You and Hillary are singing the same old song, trying sad, old tricks. This works against the reality of the true power and potential of women, creates a detrimental and false portrayal that accommodation is required, AND IT IS TIRED, sister!

[IslandGyal]

Any woman other than Hil-liar-y!

[VicksieDo]

Your bar is WAY too low lady.

[JamesEB]

How many times is Huffington Post going to post this cut and paste "people-don't-like-Hillary-because-she's-a-woman" pieces? I swear there's one article that they slap a new name on and re-post at least once a week. To suggest that Hillary--with her vote for the war, her vote against making cluster bombs illegal, her bill banning flag-burning, her support of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, her absolutely vile campaign--is no more "flawed" than Obama is just brazen nonsense. Why not Hillary? Because she's probably the most execrable pseudo-Republican candidate imaginable.

[MikeMidCity]

Hillary's problem isn't that she's a woman, it's that she's Hillary.

Now Barbary Boxer, that's a woman we could get behind.

[anywho]

People don't like Hillary because she:

Voted for the war in Iraq

Voted for Kyle/Lieberman (war with Iran)

Bosnia

NAFTA

WalMart

Watergate

Travelgate

Bill Clinton's womanising & she stayed with this creep!

Impeachment

Disbarment

Corruption/$500million for Bills Presidential Library

Court case in LA (that is being covered up in the media as we speak)

Endless scandals/this will not change if she and Bill once again get the opportunity to use the WH as an ATM machine

Was unable to achieve a national healthcare once already

Bosnia

"Bitter"gate/after a very small short term media gain this one will backfire on her

LIES, LIES and more LIES

Terrible pantsuits - real women can't relate to her at all - trust me!!!

Beer drinking - shot snorting, gun toting, $109 million dollar multi millionaire ex first lady!

Greedy, sneaky, desperate, ugly, condescending, poll driven, shallow

Oh and did I mention Bosnia?

[JLindsley]

I voted for Barack Obama, not because he is a man, a black man, but because of the exceptional person that he is.

I did not support Hillary Clinton because of her character and political methods, her gender had nothing to do with it. I tried to understand her enough to support her early on by reading her book and others about her but I also read both of Barack's books and because of the insight gained I overwhelmingly believe that Obama is destined to become our leader at this important juncture in our history.

The evolving nastiness of the Clinton campaign as she became less then inevitable, only reinforced what I had learned. Why, for example, would the campaign choose to pay Penn millions while he was double shifting and then stiff ordinary folks whose small businesses helped to make the campaign events happen? As an "over 60" woman with 4 grown daughters and 2 granddaughters, I would love to see a woman President of the United States but absolutely NOT this woman.

High disapproval ratings are not an accident. If she is the Democratic nominee the Republicans will unleash on her - all of that history and we will have another Republican administration. I, for one, will vote for Senator McCain if the choice is Clinton or McCain. He is a decent human being.

[NappyRoots100]

I have absolutely no problem with a woman president. JUST NOT THIS WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SLal]

If you search google, you get 2300 hits for "just not this woman". Don't you get it - it's a marketing campaign that is effectively waged against ANY woman put before us. Someone mentioned Barbara Boxer. Well, guess what - the same conversation played out here in SF during her candidacy. She has as many enemies as Hillary.

The premise of the article is a valid one, IMO - given two qualified candidates (and I find all 3 current candidates, and my other ones, as qualified as those who have come before them), why NOT decide that changing the face of the presidency to include a female face is worthile and important thing to do for women and for our children?

Women should not be fooled into waiting for the "perfect" candidate. Just a competent one. And even if they chose to support Obama, there should still be a unified outcry against sexism in the media to smoothe the path for a future female candidate.

If you hear yourself saying "just not this woman", ask yourself where the line came from...

[LeJax]

SLal -

I find your contention that those who object to Hillary because they are influenced by a marketing campaign very patronizing. It suggests that we do attend events, read, and watch the candidates speaking for themselves. On the contrary, that is certainly not the case for me or my well-informed friends, family, and co-workers.

Gender may be the most important issue to you, for justifications I cannot begin to fathom. Because you want a female face for a change? What? Under that line of reasoning, it appears you do not take the selection of a presidential candidate very seriously.

I hate to see the kind of silly, shallow, single-dimensional thinking (somebody I'd like to have a beer with) that helped G. Bush get elected used in terms of a woman as president. I strongly believe this does not ultimately help (and more likely hurts) the cause.

[LeJax]

To edit - It suggests that we do NOT attend events, read, and watch the candidates speaking for themselves. On the contrary, that is certainly not the case.

[several]

I've long been repulsed by single-issue voters.

Now there are people voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman or voting for Barack simply because he is black. These voters don't even try to understand the issues at hand, whether or not the candidate has their best interests at heart or which is more likely to beat McCain.

The sexual organs or color of skin of a candidate should have absolutely nothing to do with who you vote for. There are far more important issues at hand.

If anything the question should be "Why not *this* woman for president?" The answer is pretty easy: she's a proven liar, a shameless panderer, an opportunist, a corporate shill and her decisions are all made based on whether or not they'll further her career instead of whether or not the American people will benefit. None of that has anything to do with her chromosomes or body parts.

[personalpolitical]

We should have one, we will have one, but that one should be great, not just someone we settle on because she is the first we can get. We should have one who will actually bring something new to the office. We should have one who got there on her own merit, through her own hard work, not because she road on the coattails of her husband her entire adult life.

Hillary has nothing to do with feminism or sexism or America not being ready for a female president. We are ready, but she is not the one the majority of Americans want. We can do much better, and we will. I don't think the wait will be that long.

[KimberlyKay]

While I completely agree that the media has occassionally reacted badly to Senator Clinton, Michelle Obama and on occassion Nancy Pelosi, there is a conspicious absence of coverage of Cindy McCain -- is it, or isn't it true that Senator McCain insultingly called his wife a horrible word in public? Why isn't this a story, but omitting "really" from Michelle Obama's sentence is and discussing Senator Clinton's cleavage is?

On the otherhand, I have found the repeated call of "the boys are picking on me" coming from Senator Clinton's campaign to be repugnant. Let us have a woman for President, but not one who fails to answer arguments raised against her by crying "sexism," and not one who has not offered any comment distancing, or even explaining Elton John's comment that Senator Clinton is losing because all of those not voting for her are "misogynists." Insulting the voters is a horrible strategy, yet Senator Clinton ridiculed those of us who believe we can work to change our Country and also called us "delusional," today former Pres. Clinton told ALL of the caucus states and their voters that they supported Senator Obama because they are more affluent and "have more free time" today, and they aren't democratic, either -- I wonder how they feel about this nonsense in Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Wyoming, and etc. I want a woman to be President and I know I will live to see that day, but that day is not January 9, 2009.

[Rockwell]

I was prepared to happily, even proudly vote for HRC last summer. But the crud I've seen her campaign pull since then has totally disgusted me. The Democratic party had (still has) a golden chance to purge the White House and congress of the Republican infection, but instead what do we get, Bill pulling Karl Rove race cards again Obama, sucking up to Rush Limbaugh (for God's sake) to get phoney republican votes for HRC. Lies and distortions about her experience. And the ultimate betrayal of endorseing John McCain over Obama.

One disgusting power play after another and f*ck the good of the country. It reminded me of all the self-indulgent, self-centered psycho dramas that I hated about the first Clinton White House. Oh yeah, and throwing anyone and everyone under the bus who didn't contribute to the HRC coronation.

Comparing Bill Richardson to Judas (and by implication HRC to Christ?) Give me a f*cking break! Oh, yeah and let's not forget the super-rich Clinton donors who tried to bully the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.

And don't forget that HRC has never made a mistake in her life and anyone who suggest otherwise is a woman-hating, wife beating dirt bag.

HRC represents a repulsive old school politics. McCain represents a third term for Chimpy. Obama's not perfect but by God he's 100 miles closer to the new kind of leadership I'm looking for from my (MY!) government.

[ignrnthllblly]

The woman (or man) who becomes president absolutely needs to be more exceptional than past presidents, particularly moreso than you-know-who.

[Tonksmom]

Woman president? Absolutely. THIS woman? Hell no. Clinton is a liar. And some of us remember the endless investigations, always ending with "not enough proof to convict, but we're convinced she did something..." So she's good at covering her tracks. But "reasonable doubt" is not good enough to justify electing her to the highest office in the nation.

Give us a Golda Meir, and I'm all over it. But don't send me an Eva Peron and expect me to vote for her because she has a uterus.

[winoohno]

I agree with Tonksman. Hillary is just a horrible candidate who really doesn't have much more experience than Obama - yet she acts like everything she's done for the past 35 years is the perfect and unique experience for the Presidency.

Here is a quote that stood out to me:
The difficulties Hillary Clinton now faces are not all attributable to her gender -- perhaps not even most. But a sufficient amount of what she does wrong is exacerbated by gender stereotypes. The press is all over her -- often using those.

Is consistently lying and exaggerating exacerbated by gender stereotypes? Is flip-flopping on issues exacerbated by her gender?

I really don't understand or agree with the logic posed by Ms. Reardon. I keep seeing these Editorials popping up -- all written by women -- who are still trying to make the case for Hillary. It's getting unbearable.

You don't want us to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, but then everytime I turn around there is a new article about how she is beaten up by the media because she is a woman, and how men aren't voting for her because they are all mysoginists, etc.

WE JUST DON'T LIKE HER -- she lies, she is a plastic politician, she has virtually no executive experience, and most people don't want Bill lurking around the White House again.

[MELISSA29]

AS A WOMAN I WANT THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT TO BE MORE LIKE ME, TO HOLD VALUE TO THE TRUTH TO HAVE A GOOD HEART AND MIND AND TO BE ABLE TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOT SOME ONE WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN WHO HAS NO IDEA RIGHT FROM WRONG WHO WOULD DO ANYTHING TO WIN AND WILL HOLD NO PROMISE ABOVE HER OWN NEEDS! SHE IS EVERYTHING I WOULD TELL MY KIDS NOT TO BE! I AM ASHAMED OF HER AND THE FACT THAT SHE ISNT WHAT I WOULD CALL A WOMAN!!!!