“Now we need to elect a wom(a)n to the US presidency!” – Margot Grimmer (via Facebook)
Well, it’s not the presidency, but it’s history none the less.
The Academy tired of giving it to the guy with all the muscle, choosing a female who built her machine one brick at a time against all odds over him.
Seeing Barbra Steisand hand Kathryn Bigelow the Oscar for best direction, going to a female for the first time in history, you couldn’t help but think of Hillary. Hollywood quenching the thirst of their community for a new kind of acknowledgment that our country still can’t deliver.
I’ve called it the Hillary hole, that space Hillary Clinton’s lost nomination bid left in so many people’s psyche, which has in no way healed.
“24′s” Cherry Jones, who plays the president on the show, the first female to reveal the building tide. “Oh, I would always vote for Hillary,” her comment when asked last September.
Kathryn Bigelow, the tough female director putting together a far flung independent Oscar bid film about war and the heroes who fight it, becoming our fantasy female commander in chief the country is ravenous for it at this point.
Looking at the ineptitude of the Democratic party with its aimless wandering for purpose the last year, who doesn’t long for “Pres. Kathryn Bigelow”?
It’s part of why Sarah Palin is so popular and why her fans are tied to her so strongly. It’s also why she is so dangerous to Democrats.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy did more than make 18 million holes in the hardest glass ceiling on planet earth. It gave a vision to American women of a woman actually competent, strong and ready to fill what has historically been a man’s job. It’s something that women are holding tight in their dreams, while instances continually pop up that provide opportunities to keep the dream alive, even if it is only the Oscars.
While fully realizing it won’t be Hillary Clinton who gets the nod for commander in chief, American audiences of the presidency are glued to the prospect that it’s now a woman’s turn, so eyes are peeled for the first female who can fit the bill.
The disarray of the Obama White House has only made the passion grow. There is no way to imagine a woman doing worse.
The frustration for many in both parties and women is that the only female in the spotlight right now is Sarah Palin, someone people still are not convinced is ready to occupy the oval office. Liz Cheney’s hope of president residing in being chosen vice president or through a Senate bid, which is still years away. But with the sober reality that unqualified men have run for president before and gotten in, why not Sarah? First of all, women will be much tougher on their first potential female nominee, with Mrs. Palin having a lot more convincing to do.
The Democrats won’t have another chance until 2016. Jennifer Granholm a natural who would need a law to make her eligible, but since that same law would open the door for Arnold Schwarzenegger, I’m not so sure anyone would be eager to try it.
However, the Hillary hole is real, that’s for certain, with the only one eligible to fill it in the immediate term a Republican named Sarah Palin. She knows it and is working it. The details won’t much matter if the emotional tide towards a female commander in chief keep building.
While Democrats long for a “President Bigelow,” a woman who is as good as a man in the field of battle. Even if there’s no one yet to cast in that role.
March 8th is International Women’s Day—a day to reflect on the progress the world has made in advancing women’s rights, and to recognize what work remains to be done.
This year marks an anniversary very close to my heart. Fifteen years ago, along with women and men from around the world I attended the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The message from that conference rang loudly and clearly, and still echoes across cultures and continents: Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.
One hundred and eighty-nine countries represented at Beijing adopted a Platform for Action that pledged to increase women’s access to education, healthcare, jobs, and credit, and to protect their right to live free from violence. We have made great progress, but there is a long way to go. Women are still the majority of the world’s poor, unhealthy, underfed, and uneducated. They rarely cause violent conflicts but too often bear their consequences. Women are absent from negotiations about peace and security to end those conflicts. Their voices simply are not being heard.
Today, the United States is making women a cornerstone of foreign policy because we think it’s the right thing to do, but we also believe it’s the smart thing to do as well. Investing in the potential of the world’s women and girls is one of the surest ways to achieve global economic progress, political stability, and greater prosperity for women — and men — the world over.
So on this International Women’s Day, let us rededicate ourselves to advancing and protecting the rights of women and girls, and to join together to ensure that no one is left behind in the 21st century.
As much as people want a female president, I’m also thinking they want someone who’s qualified and prepared. Sarah Palin still doesn’t fit the bill. I’ll wait for Hillary or someone who embodies what she represents in terms of policy and preparedness.
As I wrote in my post:
The frustration for many in both parties and women is that the only female in the spotlight right now is Sarah Palin, someone people still are not convinced is ready to occupy the oval office. [...] First of all, women will be much tougher on their first potential female nominee, with Mrs. Palin having a lot more convincing to do.
Some will never be convinced, Daubry. George W. Bush wasn’t exactly a rocket scientist either. Something for Dems to remember.
…oh, and by the way, Happy International Women’s Day!
Happy International Women’s Day to you as well Taylor!
I hope all is well, school has been so busy, but I always find the time to read your blog.
I think Sarah will have a LOT of convincing to do. To put it mildly. It’s refreshing to know that we as a nation can envision a commander in chief who happens to be a female. Surely I can see it happening in my lifetime.
It will happen in my lifetime, too, daubry. Always good to hear from you, but keep crackin’ on school, which obviously matters most.
daubry and Taylor,
None of us want a woman for President JUST because she is a woman. But it was hell to see how far the men took it to be certain a truly qualified woman wouldn’t. They couldn’t recognize or didn’t care about their own prejudices. That was the “sit back and take a look at what really is going on” moment for me. It wasn’t Hillary’s competence or stance on issues – it was that she was a SHE.
Happy International Women’s Day to all, and thanks for posting this, Taylor.
For years, make that decades, we were told that women had to get more experience in politics before they could feasibly run for elected office, particularly though not limited to the federal level. Not that it comes as any surprise, but the elections of the less than experienced W. and O. make the gender double-standard quite obvious. To use your phrase, djjl, the problem in general is that “she is a SHE.”
We are now past the “she is a SHE” moment. Who will take the reins of the opportunity on the Democratic side is unknown. If someone doesn’t, the Republicans surely will. The fact remaining that 2012 is a ripe year for it to happen if Republicans can market the woman who is qualified and fits the times.
I find it ironic, and a bit unnerving, that it was a “man’s” movie which won the Academy Award for a woman. I’m aware that black’s have to work twice as hard as white’s to earn the golden ring. Does this Award indicate that a woman has to be twice the man as men to get the recognition that they deserve? There is something very degrading, hard and twisted about all of this. Peace
No one wants to see a woman as president more than I do but a qualified woman,please! An unqualified woman would set women in politics back as I fear Obama will do with qualified AAs. The next AA who wants to run for President will have to get over the hurtle set by Obama. If his presidency ends up as a success then things will have been advanced if not it might go the other way. Same with women,a Palin presidency is something I cannot imagine but like you say W got elected.If she were elected and got us in a major war or really screwed things up which I think she would then women can forget about it for a long time.
Granholm is th only woman I see on our side that has the smarts and experience and she has truly delt with the problems on the ground but the thought of opening things up for Arnold in our celebrity obsessed culture is a scary thought indeed.However, he might not be any worse than what we have now. Might be better considering his interest would not be taking his place among the global elite,he already has a place.
The first manager (a man) who informed me of my promotion (the one and only woman out 230 men), he told me I would always have to work twice as hard, do twice as well to get half as far as my male colleagues. I’m sure many women have been told that – it wasn’t the last time I heard it.
The woman doesn’t have to be “twice the man” – the man is not really the standard which a woman should aspire – it’s the men have traditionally been in charge and made the decisions.
“Degrading, hard and twisted” – pretty tough accusation against men – but there is likely some truth in what you say. Watched a lot of ugly, twisted, and degrading behaviour during the past primaries. Many women, including myself, were amazed that this country really hadn’t come as far as we had thought.
Anybody notice the trial balloons floating up on immigration reform? My first thought was that it is about Obama in 2012 not about any real reform.
Yep, absolutely what i thought. Obama and the Rahm crew is not about governing it’s about winning.
“the standard which a woman should aspire” I was veiwing this from the man’s point of view. That a woman see’s this differently is a given. But in a “man’s world” these decisions are based on whether or not any given woman is twice the man as the man that is also under consideration. Otherwise, promoting the woman can’t be justified to the other men. It’s sort of a catch-22 for the man in charge of making the decisions. Peace
We already had that situation Imhotep and the men conspired against her on all levels: MSM,new media,cable pundits,her collegues in the Senate and the Party hierarchy.The country is suffering for it right now.
Imhotep
I did think you were likely looking at it from the male perspective. I just wondered why you would think the man should set the sandard.
Are you suggesting that men discriminating against women based solely on their gender is justified?
“But in a “man’s world” these decisions are based on whether or not any given woman is twice the man as the man that is also under consideration. Otherwise, promoting the woman can’t be justified to the other men.”
Just what does twice the man mean? It would seem that it would be in our interest to choose the most qualified -period.
As Shirley Chisholm said:
• I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being black.
and
• Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as “for men only.” (1969)
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/shirleychisholm.htm
Until people are no longer in fear of losing their jobs and their homes, Obama and the Dems are in trouble.
If the GOP allows their candidate the latitude to address the country’s angst with appropriate populist outrage, Romney, given his resume and skills, is the perfect candidate for 2012.
Joe Chi
Did you see DeLay supporting Bunning:
Tom Delay thinks Jim Bunning is “brave.” (But then, this is the same man who said, “By the way, there’s no one denied health care in America. There are 47 million people who don’t have health insurance, but no American is denied health care in America.”)
Like most Republicans, he thinks you should be desperate enough to take any job you can get, even if it doesn’t begin to meet your family’s basic needs – especially the dignity-free, low-wage, low-security jobs so beloved of top Republican donors:
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the Texas Republican said that Bunning’s fiscal responsibility was commendable, even if his shenanigans (refusing to allow unemployment benefits to be considered by unanimous consent) nearly brought the Senate to a halt.
“Nothing would have happened if the Democrats had just paid for [the benefits],” Delay said. “People would have gotten their unemployment compensation. I think Bunning was brave in standing up there and taking it on by himself.”
Asked whether it was bad strategy to make a budget stand on a $10 billion extension of unemployment (as opposed to, say, the Bush’s $720 billion prescription drug package), Delay insisted that if the PR had been done right, Bunning would have been applauded. Helping the unemployed with federal assistance, he said, was unsound policy.
“You know,” Delay said, “there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don’t look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.
Host Candy Crowley: Congressman, that’s a hard sell, isn’t it?
Delay: it’s the truth.
Someone please tell me why the likes of Jennifer Granholm is even being discussed as a worthy presidential contender. First,as mentioned, she is not constitutionally qualified. Second, Michigan always seems to be the worst off states in the country in terms of its economy. Even when times are good for the rest of the nation, Michigan always seems to be floundering. As far as I am concerned, she is probably no more qualified than Barack Obama. We don’t need a unqualified female in the White House.
OK Taylor, you got me started. The only qualified female on the political scene is STILL Hillary Clinton. I do concur with your assessment made previously that Hillary will not stand in the way of Barack Obama and a second term. But I sure wish she would. I wish she would break with this putz and the policies I know she must be privately wincing at.
Saying that, it wouldn’t be so bad if Sarah does actually make it to the White House. As I have stated here previously, I liked Sarah’s approach to governance while governor of Alaska. It was a refreshing breeze that blew through the governor’s mansion when she arrived there. I always felt that she was truly governor for the people. After all, she took on the oil and gas companies to get the best deal for the people of Alaska. It didn’t get much play in the press but it should have. It didn’t get much play that Sarah understood the everyday citizen’s struggle with energy costs a few years back when she proposed and got passed a $1200 energy rebate for all Alaskans. In Alaska, she was popular with not only Republicans but Dems and Independents. I think she could form a broad coalition much like Reagan did.
Though Sarah is no Hillary Clinton by any stretch, I would feel comfortable voting her into the presidency. We can’t do any worse with her. That’s for sure.
Jesus Christ. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Kathryn Bigelow is an amazing director. Her award is much overdue. Not, mind you, because she is a woman. But because she was the best director this year. It’s that simple. And for the non-cinephiles among you, her other movies are cult favorites, like Near Dark, Point Break, and Strange Days. With the possible exceptions of Precious and Up, no one made a more emotionally resonant movie this year. So her accolades are well deserved, and I look forward to seeing more from the immensely talented director.
Why is why turning Kathryn’s triumph into yet another “Hillary void” thread is beyond repugnant. And complete horseshit.
Taylor Marsh says:
08 March 2010 at 12:16 pm
We are now past the “she is a SHE” moment.
I hope you’re right Taylor, but I’m not that confident. I’ll very gladly be proven wrong on this.
Was for Hillary in the primary because of her push for universal healthcare–and despite her defense of our Iraq involvement. Still looking for the perfect candidate. Surprised at how many thought Obama was he. But don’t know whether she is out there either. If so, I hope she shows up soon.
nzanh..are you making Granholm responsible for the gutting of industry in MI and the mutli year failure of the car industries? For pete’s sake! She is in there fighting for everything she can get for her state and she is their biggest cheerleader.She is always a standout on any panel,knowing her facts and advancing her state’s interests. She has made herself an expert on green jobs and is doing everything possible to attract green industies there.
djjl, “most qualified” is very subjective. What are the criterion that distiguishes who is and who is not the “most qualified?” I’m sure that you know many people who are technically proficient at their jobs but who would make disastrous managers. I’ll bet you’ve even worked for a few. As a manager I might view one set of criterion as most important and as an employee I might view another set to be more valuable. It has to do with perception. For example I could never work for, nor would I want, Hillary Clinton to be my boss or leader. The woman makes my skin crawl. But that’s just me. On the other hand I appreciate Obama’s leadership style. Where Hillary is much too hands on for my tastes, Obama is more laid back and that fits more with my personalty type. (Anti-authoritarian. Although I love my mom.) In other words I’m not sure what “most qualified” really means on an individual basis. By the way did you ever wonder how that idiot ever became the boss? He or she was purposely set up to fail. Don’t ask me why I know that. Peace
Imhotep
No intent to argue – it was just my intention to use the intentions I thought were conveyed in your post.
I was setting the criterion – “your comment was twice as good as a man”-
my question is why would you set that criterion ?
These comments are what gives me pause:
“Imhotep says:
08 March 2010 at 12:26 pm
I find it ironic, and a bit unnerving, that it was a “man’s” movie which won the Academy Award for a woman. I’m aware that black’s have to work twice as hard as white’s to earn the golden ring. Does this Award indicate that a woman has to be twice the man as men to get the recognition that they deserve? There is something very degrading, hard and twisted about all of this. Peace”
I guess the anwer for you is yours to answer.
Whoa. I read the article. I dislike the idea that since men have been able to get into office by being stupid, braindead liars, we should give Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin a pass and pop them into office – for the sake of vagina solidarity. Sorry but both of these women are the Serena Joys of Womanhood. They are working toward a glorious the Republic of Giliead, assuming that when the perfect biblical sharia state comes, they will be the exceptional women who WON’T have to live under the Christianist Burka – the rest of us be damned.
Yes, we definitely are way past due for a woman to represent us. But not just any woman.
djjl, therein lies the conundrum. Peace