Comments on: Young Girls Are Helpless Without Hillary

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:50:30 +0000

“I also think you are wrong when you suggest that you won’t be touched by the election of the first women president.”

The election of her husband caused a lot of women to be touched.

[rimshot]

By: Music City Bloggers » Blog Archive » Exactly.

Music City Bloggers » Blog Archive » Exactly. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:30:43 +0000

[...] Sarah Moore on Hillary Clinton: If memory serves, there have been female world leaders before. In fact, some of these places across the globe that Estrich mentions have had more direct experience with female heads of state than we have here in the United States (Great Britain and Israel come to mind right away). I understand that the U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore its leader has a great world presence, but Senator Clinton would not be doing anything new on the world’s playing field. [...]

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:19:26 +0000

Melanie,

It’s “naive” to think I “won’t be touched” by a woman president? Thanks for letting me know that I’m wrong about my own feelings.

I acknowledged in my post that the leader of the United States holds the most powerful office in the world. So, of course, there is rightly an enhanced level of attention to the person in that position. This woman would be on the world stage like none other before her.

However, there are other countries in which having a female leader is nothing new. Girls in India, Great Britain, Germany, etc. already see that women can achieve a position of great responsibility in their home country. Therefore, I don’t believe Susan Estrich’s contention that, upon election of a female U.S. president, young women around the world will gasp and change their entire outlook of what the world offers them.

According to our Constitution, girls from around the world can’t move here and become president anyway. So, having female leaders in their own countries would seem more important to me.

While not excited to admit it given our current leadership, I do consider myself a Republican. So, your hopes have come true! I absolutely do not want a liberal elected as president and the sex of our leader is of no concern to me.

By: Volunteer Voters » Not Her

Volunteer Voters » Not Her — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:59:15 +0000

[...] Sarah Moore doesn’t think Hilary Clinton needs to be elected President to prove to her young daughter that a woman can be world leader: If memory serves, there have been female world leaders before. In fact, some of these places across the globe that Estrich mentions have had more direct experience with female heads of state than we have here in the United States (Great Britain and Israel come to mind right away). I understand that the U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore its leader has a great world presence, but Senator Clinton would not be doing anything new on the world’s playing field. [...]

By: Melanie

Melanie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:22:56 +0000

Well, gee, I can only hope you are a Republican. The American Presidency is the highest position of authority in the free world, so I think you are wrong when you underestimate how transformative her presidency would be. I also think you are wrong when you suggest that you won’t be touched by the election of the first women president. It’s horribly naive to say so. Further, I sure hope you are a Republican because Hillary is the best chance Democrats will have to elect a liberal woman as president for at least a generation. She also happens to be the best candidate in the race. I really hope you are a Republican.