Sarah's Thoughts
Young Girls Are Helpless Without Hillary
I am currently reading “The Case for Hillary Clinton” by Susan Estrich. It was written in 2005, before Senator Clinton officially announced her candidacy for president (I think the unofficial announcement was made sometime in 1969). I don’t think that Ms. Estrich is going to win me over to Hillary’s camp, but I like to read political commentary from all areas of the political spectrum. Plus, when no one else is around, I like to read the book out loud in my best Susan Estrich voice. Since my first ever cigarette on my 21st birthday eleven years ago, I think I’ve smoked in total what amounts to one pack. So, it is quite the feat to achieve Ms. Estrich ’s scratchy, chain-smoking tone.
Estrich opens her book with the following:
Imagine yourself turning to your daughter … and saying:
“If she can do this, the world has really changed.”
And across the globe, in every language women speak, as the pictures travel and the word spreads … billions of girls and women will turn to each other and say the same thing and the world will never be the same.
Really? 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.
I don’t think I will turn to Catherine when we elect our first female president and share a precious female bonding moment. I’ve spent my entire life believing that women can do anything they want and I’ll expect my daughter to have the same view. Therefore, I do not plan to be amazed when a woman leads our country. If I like her policy positions and feel she is the best person for the job, I’ll be happy. If she is Hillary Clinton, I won’t be so thrilled. Maybe Catherine will be the first female president! She will not need to wait to see someone else do it first in order to believe she is capable of the position.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am
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.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:59 am
[...] 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. [...]
August 1st, 2007 at 8:19 am
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.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
[...] 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. [...]
August 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“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]