0 Votes
Madam President?
The buzz surrounding a Hillary Clinton bid for the presidency is on the rise with the announcement of the new ABC drama Commander in Chief. Geena Davis is cast in the role of the Vice-President who, after the death of the President, must take over as the Commander in Chief of the USA.
Is this Hollywood’s method of showing support for Hillary? Many from the Right say yes, citing as evidence the payroll for the television show. Steve Cohen, a writer for the show, worked for Hillary in the 1990s as her deputy communications director. However, other member of the show staff have worked for President G.W. Bush and also for Sandra Day O’Connor. In response to the hoopla, creator of the show, Rod Lurie states, ‘I promise that if there was no Hillary Clinton, there would still be a Commander in Chief – I want to have a hit show that people enjoy, and really, that’s it.’
Women’s political lobby groups, such as The White House Project, seem to cling to the new show as a means to change the perception of women as leaders, eventually aiming to have a woman as the President. Will Commander in Chief better the chances for a Hillary run in 2008? Are Americans opposed to a woman President? Should Republicans fear the influence of a TV show?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Silly Congress, by VnutZ 3 months ago
- Women Now Allowed Into Combat Roles, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- How would you reduce the deficit?, by Travis 5 months ago
- 512 Paths to the White House, by markmcb 7 months ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Pipe Dream by Valerie
I honestly can’t see how Hillary Clinton could ever make a serious bid for the Presidency, in spite of Hollywood’s supposed assistance. I understand that she is popular with the Left (especially feminists, gay-rights advocates, pro-choice supporters), but these groups exist on the outside of the American conservative majority who elected Bush in 2000.
Also, she is mired in controversy and political failure. Whitewater, National Health Care, and blatant contradiction in voicing her political opinions all provide easy fodder for any conservative candidate.
Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by seapgar
Frankly, after the nutroll that is going on right now in the White House and the world, I think a woman president might simply be the refreshing change this country is looking for.
Not only would we put a new figure in office in the next election but we would be giving ourselves a challenge. If the people elect a woman I think other politicians will be forced to show that they respect the decision. That vote would be productive in not only putting a new face to our political arena but also giving us a challenge we could use right now to test some new social waters and watch the way relationships among our nation’s leaders unfold under a new task organization.
We could get some assertive (vs. cowardly) address on current nebulous topics like women and homosexuals in the military. Moreoever, strong women tend to not go easy on other women (for example – I have no patience with many women in the Army, as we dig our own grave sometimes with certain behavior), so for those who think that a women would tip the scales in an unreasonable manner towards women rights, think again. Some women are tougher than some men in that field.
So I say why not? From the looks of some of the men we have put into office it is obvious both genders offer us the good, the bad and the ugly. Let’s take it for a spin and see what we can do.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by Bortnyk
I think you are mistaking the a nutroll for a general decline in society and civilization. Also, I think the only thing Hillary Clinton would do in the election is act as a spoiler similar to Ross Perot. She is popular, but not enough to run uncontested for the left. Even if she swung the party nomination another candidate, perhaps Barak Obama or John Kerry, would come in independant and split the left vote. What would Ann Coulter say?
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by Valerie
Do you really think that gender has that much to do with how the Presidency is won and later run? Has Bush made the decisions he has because he is male? Could a woman win just because having her in office would be refreshing? To all three questions, I would have to say no.
I would argue that running for president requires a candidate to address a multitude of factors that the public considers to be important. Gender doesn’t guide candidates’ opinions as much as party affiliation, religion, and socio-economic class. If gender had that much of an effect, then the House and Senate wouldn’t be divided along party lines, but separated into the boys side and girls side. I’m exaggerating some, but still, we see that this isn’t the case.
The idea of electing someone to office to "test the waters" seems a little cavalier to me. Can you imagine the response if, during a Presidential debate a female candidate said, "I think I should be elected because the country needs a challenge. We need to see how the nation’s leaders would react to a change in the political power structure. Let’s just take a chance together, see how the nation and world leaders respond." No way. A woman in office can’t be justified solely by the reasons you listed.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by Bortnyk
I would like to think we would never elect a president based soley on testing any social theory. When that happens I shall move to Ireland, fake a brogue, and sell crazy celtic crosses to tourists in Kilarney.
On another note, I think that presidential candidates have to appeal to so many different voting groups in order to be viable that the whole process is little more than a popularity contest. In that environment I think it would be a mistake to discount the idea that there would be bias on a candidates ability based on gender.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by romanizzo
Here’s my take on it. I won’t vote for someone just because he’s a he and the opponent is a she. I’m firmly against female soldiers and female police officers, as these things require the kind of brawn that your average female doesn’t bring to the table (some do, but unfortunately, we don’t set the standards tough enough or enforce the standards we have.) However, being president doesn’t require brawn, it requires brains and leadership. And neither of those qualifications are gender specific. I would not hesitate to vote for a female running for president, assuming her political stance matches mine.
Voting for a girl because she’s a girl is just silly. Likewise, voting against a girl just because she is a girl is also silly.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by seapgar
Can’t expound much now but 2 thoughts:
1) "I would argue that running for president requires a candidate to address a multitude of factors that the public considers to be important. Gender doesn’t guide candidates’ opinions as much as party affiliation, religion, and socio-economic class."
On that – I didn’t suggest that any other these things are NOT true. I agree with all. But if gender was not an issue in politics, then we wouldn’t have women’s rights movements, bills that keep them out of combat, big old headlines when a woman gets elected to an office she’s never been in before, spewing over new supreme court justices… Same thing for minorities or ANY kind. We’ve simply decided to make these things issues, and I think in the case of the presidency it IS a big one, even if simply meaning bringing different characteristics – gender based – to the table.
2) Can you imagine the response if, during a Presidential debate a female candidate said, "I think I should be elected because the country needs a challenge. We need to see how the nation’s leaders would react to a change in the political power structure. Let’s just take a chance together, see how the nation and world leaders respond."
On that – I also did not suggest what campaign platform this candidate should run on nor what she should say. You’re being a little over the top with this one – the assumption in my comment about this nation’s giving itself and responding to a challenge is that this candidate – like any – will be who "we" feel is most suited for this job.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by Valerie
You’re being a little over the top with this one – the assumption in my comment about this nation’s giving itself and responding to a challenge is that this candidate – like any – will be who "we" feel is most suited for this job.
I agree with you that the candidate must be the one best suited for the job.
Another thought with the challenge argument though… Wouldn’t we have to consider the effect of the "challenge" with respect to global politics? Even if the US were up to the change, do you think that the opinions of other governments with whom we need good relations would factor in? Take, for example, governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Jordan, all conservative Islamic states who, by definition, see women as inferior for such places of authority. Would voters need to take that into account?
I’m no expert in international relations. Does anyone know if other countries with female presidents or prime ministers have had difficulty establishing themselves internationally?
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by LordDilly
There’s Iron Maggie Thatcher, and if anyone ever gave her guff, I think they livde to regret it.
RE: Brief Opinion - Maybe It Would Be Refreshing by seapgar
Good point – the international relations part is an interesting one – certainly Middle Eastern nations have a different perspective on the ability of a woman to act in a leadership position. From my personal experience, though (basic relating to Iraqi gravel contractors as a PL, etc.), the response in those cultures is more of curiosity and surprise than of condemnation – and may in fact not be as problematic as we think. I imagine the woman we elect having the stamina to overcome issues of cultural male dominance and capitalize on the fascination factor of their interest in her in that role.
Other Option- Condi, 2008 by LordDilly
I hope, hope, hope that Condi Rice can be convinced to run for president in 2008, Hillary or no. Her past is immpeccable, (unlike,say, HILLARY!) she holds a PHD (among other creds), speaks Russian, French, and Spanish, was National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, thus giving her loads of on-the job experience. She is very well spoken and articulate (unlike, say, her boss ;) and I’ve never heard her say a bad thing about political opponents, something all but extinct these days. Based on her credentails alone, I’d say she is more than qualified for the job.