The mainstream media seems to have concluded that 1, a woman President would be much like a black President was, a break through in U.S. presidential politics, 2. Hillary Clinton has a “natural” advantage being a woman. It is probably also worth noting that so far that seems to be the sum of Hillary’s “advantages” if she does decide to run for President in 2016.
Of course if you look at it from a historical perspective there was Prime Minister Golda Meir who led Israel through trying times but that was very much a military government with warring factions that probably would not compare favorably with Hillary’s challenges in 2016….or would it?
Margaret Thatcher on the other hand as Prime Minister of faced several issues similar to what candidate Clinton might face in 2016, a economy in ruins attributable to left leaning governments, a global conflict between a social/economic force communism and capitalism.
Let us go to more modern times and look at Angela Merkel Prime Minister of Germany. Of course this is a subjective review but she does have a doctorate in Physics. Both her first and current husbands are physics or chemistry professors – – I don’t recall what Bill’s degrees are in but I’m certain it was subject that allowed constant communications between the two. Most importantly Angela was the head of her political party for sometime before becoming Prime Minister and finally she has held a coalition of parties together, CDU, CSU and the Democratic Party of Germany since 2005 during troubling national and international times. I’m not certain Hillary can be compared favorably with Angela on the coalition of diverse party views inside her own party let alone across a mix of libertarians, left wing activists, conservatives and middle of the road voters.
It would probably be fairer to Hillary if we compared the “current” crop of women Presidents and Prime Ministers particularly in the Americas.
The three female leaders in South America have a couple of things in common, they were swept into office because they were women and the public thought they would do better than past politicians at least in part because they were women. It was generally thought women were more honest and less likely to succumb to greed or special interest group pressures.
Media guru Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC has long touted the move of women into politics as the answer to the skullduggery that male politicians practice. It is reasonable to assume that Andrea is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, something she barely can hide in her speculating about 2016 presidential candidates.
However I would caution Andrea to temper her enthusiasm for Hillary and for that matter the entire Democrat party if it is based on the category of women as the catalyst for winning the 2016 presidential election.
The three current female leaders in South America, Michelle Bachelet of Chili, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil ad Isabel Martinez of Argentina have all fallen from approval ratings in the 70 % area to low to mid 20% and it is because in each case there are charges [mind you they are only charges at this point] of corruption, pandering to special interest groups, bribery and out and out stealing from their respective countries.
It doesn’t mean a woman wouldn’t do an excellent job as President. However I must point out that our current “hope and change” President has disillusioned me. I’m not inclined to believe a category like black, Hispanic, Asian, LGBT or woman will deliver a better performance as President because of their gender or sexual preference.
My message to Hillary; find another basis for your run for President other that just being a woman.