Again with the presumptuousness of Entitlement.  Is what she is suggesting that most Established front-runners and picks of the “Party Machinery” end up with the nomination, but Hillary Clinton did not because she was a woman?  This is for a candidate who I have a lesser opinion of as we near the end of the electoral process as I had at the beginning. 

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

An interesting question, and the columnist Marie Cocco then proceeds to pooh-pooh the obvious possibilities out of the current female stateswomen and politicians.  I tend to agree, except my answer as to who would be the most likely female president would go, #1: Hillary Clinton.  Still.  One last chance in 2012 or 2016.  Particularly in Obama either decides he has to sidle with Clinton as running mate, or goes the “Dick Cheney” route in selecting a powerful vice-president with no presidential aspirations of his (her?  But probably his) own.  #2, or 1a:  Somebody not mentioned.  #3:  That cast she mentioned.  For example:

 Kathleen Sebelius.  Kansas governor, something of a hero to partisan Democrats for being the identifiably Democratic governor of the archetypical state of Kansas.  But she did botch her “State of the Union” response.  Her pooh-poohing of this possibility goes ala:

She heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.

Unlike Bill Clinton of — was it 9 electoral votes?– Arkansas.  Which I then shrug and shout out “Janet Napitaleno of Arizona!” and offer up a giant rhaspberry. 

Then there’s one pooh-poohing of an issue which is semi-concious and semi-unconcious:

Here, though, revulsion often is expressed at the prospect of the Bushes and Clintons trading the White House among one another. But the “dynasty” argument didn’t impede other American political families: not the Adamses, nor the Roosevelts nor the Kennedys. It sure didn’t keep George W. Bush from becoming president.

And we really don’t want to suggest W as an example.  She left off that great Presidential dynasty of William Henry and grandson Benjamin Harrison, and I mention them to suggest a point of order — even if any of these presidential dynasty had traded off to each other, the nation apparently wasn’t sick of them.  In the end, there was only one President Kennedy.  And the two Adamses were spaced out over a generation.  As the cousins Roosevelts.  Obama campaigned tapping into a desire to significantly “change” the political climate, which is as much a campaign against the Bushes as it is the Clintons.

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro.  The cause of a Woman President might have been better off without her selection — though maybe not — who might have been that first female president for the past 24 years with or without her?  At any rate, she assured that the next vice presidential pick would be a white southern male.  (Or, Texan, which Texans hate being called Southerners.)

Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?

Or maybe it’s something about Obliterating Iran.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 at 7:49 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.