I sincerely believe that the United States ought to have a woman President. In recent months, Chile, Germany, and Liberia have selected female heads of state. Here’s a list of other current women heading their governments, excluding queens and other ceremonial heads of state. And here’s a list of women heads of state in the 20th century.
Yet, the idea of either Condoleeza Rice or Hillary Clinton running for President fills me with deep disappointment, because I would be loath to vote for either them.
Condi is easy to dismiss as a candidate, assuming she’s even interested: architect of our failed foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Yet, it saddens me. Not only a woman, but a black woman, and I’ve had to write her right off.
Hillary is more problematic. A few weeks ago, Molly Ivans wrote a story about her which captures my ambivalence, at best, about her. She is running in the primary next week to maintain her seat, and unlike Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, has no chance of losing her party’s nomination*. Still, I will vote against her on September 12. Given the situation, with perhaps the political balance of the Congress at stake, I haven’t decided (yet) to vote against her in the November general election. I believe the word I’m looking for is conundrum.
A nonsensical rationale for not covering certain candidates. The ersie comment is mine.
Greg on American imperialism, which just happens to mention Ms. Rice. At least one person has a comment.
*”The MoveOn poll results, (Jonathan) Tasini 44% to Clinton 56%, reveal just how close this race really is among the Democratic activist base,” according to e-mail I received yesterday.
“Capital Cardiology Associates are holding the 2nd Annual Brooks BBQ to benefit the American Heart Association at 7 Corporate Woods on Southwoods Boulevard [today] from 3:30 to 6:00.”
I’ve eaten Brooks Barbeque. I LIKE Brooks BBQ. But a sale to help the Heart Assn? Sounds oxymoronic.