The Flip Side
Laura Bush has been more visible lately, speaking out against the government in Mynannmar after the typhoon, and now touring Afghanistan and making political-sounding speeches while her husband is rattling around Europe. What possible reason could there be for this? Nah, say it isn't so. I predict that the first woman president will in fact be closely related to a past president. It's the only way she could get enough visibility to overcome the glass ceiling. Hillary still tops the list of potentials, since she still isn't through yet, and then there's Chelsea, which means that Michele Obama and her daughters, Laura Bush, and even, gulp, the Bush twins make the list. I've already ruined my day, and it's barely started. Now I have to salvage what's left of it.
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:46 AM
9 Comments:
John, I think it’s enormously insightful of you to spot that the Republican Party is secretly grooming Laura Bush to be the first woman they will nominate for president. Yes, four years from now she will have a lot going for her: she’ll have stuck with her husband through thick and thin --thick being the descriptive word here; most Americans will still find her more likeable than Hillary, and by then she will still be considerably younger than McCain. (Come to think of it, almost anyone will be.) As for the other names you mention, all are feasible choices with the exception of the Bush twins. By the 2012 election, I believe America will be ready for twin female presidents. Not Jenna and Barbara however. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen.
As long as there are fat, white, black, good old boys running both parties, none of the females will stand a chance. If Hillary could not break the glass ceiling, do not think any other woman will for a very long time.
Good cartoon, John C, by the way, il professore, good comment even if I do not agree with anything you said, however, as usual it was said with great wit. (grin)
GREAT cartoon John! LOL
Why on earth pray tell would Laura be having a say in Myannmar? Surely there are enough problems in her own country to address. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.
Re "women" in power...
That's just it... until the distinction of "woman" is taken out of the equation nothing will change. In other words until a candidate is viewed as simply that... a candidate... not female nor male, not black nor white... we will continue to see gender and racial bias in every aspect of society.
Hillary had human behaviour stacked against her. When she showed softenss and compassion she was pilloried in the press for being weak.
When she showed strength they called her a bitch (McCain wasn't even phased when asked how he was going to beat the bi...err her) - but take that word out and insert the word black and one could only imagine the hue and cry!
It would appear that despite the enlightened times... gender bias is still way more deeply rooted than racial bias. The polls (and so therefore the people) speak for themselves.
Lee, as always I value your comment. I think, however, while our pols speak with hoofs in mouth, il prof had tongue planted firmly in cheek. Hard to disagree with him about the Olsen twins. Quite right about the wit, though.
Jean, you nailed it. Absolutely dead on analysis, IMO.
Lee,
Disagree. I think America is surely ready for a woman president, even two of them, witness the Olsen twins. What I don’t believe America is ready for right now is a woman in the stamp of Hillary Clinton. When she gets as old and as ballsy as Margaret Thatcher was, perhaps they’ll reconsider, but right now she’s too young, too attractive and too too self-assured to win many hearts. We don’t like our wimmen folk to be too good lookin and self-confident, we like em a bit more ugly and docile. I don’t think Hillary’s political life is over –-far from it! She’s destined to take over for Teddy Kennedy and become the most powerful voice of the center-left in the US Senate. Needless to say, should that upstart Obama get in, and it’s very likely he will, boy is she going to bust his balls. He’ll be lucky to get any bill, let alone one honoring mothers, by her.
John C, was well aware that il professore was speaking 'tongue in cheek'.
Il professore, happened to have admired Margaret Thatcher when she was in office. Do not think Hillary is more attractive than M. T., but then I might be called prejudiced as I was Scots for many a year. England is ahead of the USA in many ways, they do not seem to be afraid of females. You are right, Jean, Hillary was damed if she did and damed if she didn't. Has nothing to do with her looks which by the way, I do not admire. I actually liked her for her mind and ideas, plus her courage in the face of all those 'fat tomcats in Washington'.
It should be "damned" Sorry about that.
Hey Lee! It wasn't me who mentioned Hillary's looks... LOL
On the contrary... I was promoting the notion that candidates should be judged solely upon their credentials for the job.... (not colour race creed or gender)
If the criteria was narrowed down to that one single factor... the choice would be simple.
Hillary's gender (unfortunately) got in the way.
[It's an unavoidable fact that women have to be far more qualified than men in any given field... just to get a foot in the door]
You are quite right about the Brits... they are used to women in power. They have afterall had a wonderful example of impeccable leadership in Queen Elizabeth II who effortlessly manages her difficult and challenging role with impressive dignity and grace.
Margaret Thatcher was an impressive politician and a fine Statesman. The fact that she was also a woman was in many ways inconsequential.
right on, Jean!
Post a Comment
<< Home