A Woman For President. Just Not Hillary!

It increasingly looks like Hillary Rodham Clinton will in fact be the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. John Edwards's chances seemed bolstered when Americans started paying attention to poverty in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but were deflated when people turned their attention elsewhere a week later. John Kerry had his chance and is not likely to get another. And if Wesley Clark's fortunes haven't evaporated, he's doing a good job making people think otherwise by vanishing into thin air.

I don't like the way political trends in America are headed. I personally think running Hilary is a bad idea, but not only because she's an obvious political opportunist who hijacked New York's open Senate seat when seats in Arkansas or her native Illinois weren't up for election. It's also because of this: First we had George Bush Sr. as President, then Bill Clinton, now George the Second. . . . So, Hillary could be next, then possibly be followed by Jeb Bush. . . .

In other words, the Presidency is set on a course for passing back and forth between two political dynasties while their supporters fight each other mercilessly for the upper hand. What is this, the Wars of the Roses?

Personally, I have nothing against a woman as President of the United States. I'm just against this woman. I don't see anything in Mrs. Clinton's background to suggest that she wants the Presidency for any reason other than to fulfill her personal ambition. Personal ambition is fine, but unless you have valid reasons for wanting a prestigious position, you're not trying to make a difference or set a standard. You're trying to be Madonna!

I can name several women whom I'd be ready to support for President if they chose to run for the office, and I'll name two right now. How about Barbara Boxer? I'd vote for her in a minute! Or Dianne Feinstein? She's been a mayor, so she's had executive experience! Of course, Boxer and Feinstein, both Senate Democrats from California, are unelectable, and not just because they're both from liberal San Francisco (or "Scum Fransico," as the far right sometimes calls it).

Boxer and Feinstein are unelectable because they, in common with a lot of people of their religion, are Jewish. I'm certain I'll see a female President in my lifetime, but she's definitely going to be a shiksa. Let's face it folks, Americans will never elect a Jewish lady President of the United States. Not only would we have to hear her complain about her children at press briefings - "My youngest son, he nevah calls me, he knows I'm in de Oval Office aftah one, I even gave him da hotline numbah!" - there'd remain, because of the prickly question of her faith, the question of a personal bias in favor of Israel factoring into her foreign policy.

Of course, if the president of Iran has his way, we might not have to worry about that. :-O