As Americans observe yet another Presidents Day celebrating the lives of men who occasionally were heroes as well as slaveowners, philanderers, crooks, heavy drinkers, overeaters, underachievers, bigots, liars and some remarkably dim nincompoops, after 218 years of male rule the question remains: Why not a woman?
Honestly, could it get any worse?
The latest polls suggest that voters finally may have come to this realization. In what’s either a sign of long overdue enlightenment – or utter desperation – overwhelmingly they’re saying they are at last ready for a woman president.
A CBS News/New York Times poll this month found that 92 percent of adults said they would vote for a woman for president if she were qualified.
When asked about their perceptions of fellow voters, they’re still somewhat skeptical. Fifty-five percent said they think the country is ready for a woman president, up from 40 percent in 1996.
Marie Wilson, president of the nonpartisan White House Project and the country’s leading advocate for electing a woman president, finds the numbers reason for cautious optimism. After the symbolic candidacies of Carol Moseley Braun, Elizabeth Dole, Pat Schroeder and Shirley Chisholm, a real chance at electing a woman just may happen in 2008.
“Women now are seen as having credibility on the key issues of foreign policy, security and the economy,” she said. “This is a critical change.”
It has occurred largely because of two women secretaries of state: Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. Women also are popular governors in Kansas, Arizona and Washington. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman speaker of the House, and Harvard University just named its first woman president.
As a result, Wilson said, “We haven’t exactly achieved critical mass, but we’re closer to making it not an aberration to have a woman in charge.”
Maybe most significant this time is the fact that a woman is raising real money.
On Dec. 31, 2006, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign reported $11.1 million in cash on hand compared with $1.2 million for Barack Obama’s campaign and $4.6 million for Republican Rudy Giuliani.
“She’s very skilled,” said Sacha Millstone of Boulder, who joined her national finance committee four days after Clinton announced her intention to run for the Democratic nomination. “She’s been raising money for Democrats for decades. She’s very good at it.”
Former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler, who supports Clinton, said she believes the senator is a “major political force” who can’t be easily dismissed.
“She’s so strong on the issues, she can’t be ignored,” Schoettler said.
While personal attacks from opponents are inevitable, she said, the difference with Clinton is that she’s been through it all – and viciously – so many times. “She’s already been ‘swift-boated,’ and unlike John Kerry, she knows how to respond,” she said.
In so many ways, Clinton’s candidacy is extraordinary.
The very fact that politicians and critics are debating her vote to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq – instead of obsessing about her hair – is remarkable.
“Like it or not, it’s a better conversation,” Wilson said.
“Still, all of that old crap is going to come up,” Schoettler said.
She’s right, of course.
Because even if the voters are beyond it, the slathering goons in the media still hype the celebrity-sluts angle over women with brains at every opportunity.
Consider this: For two full days this month, 50 percent of the cable TV newshole was devoted to the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
It’s no small irony that Smith’s ambition in life was to impersonate Marilyn Monroe, famous for singing a come-hither version of “Happy Birthday” to a president notorious for his philandering.
At the same time the 24-hour news networks were featuring the Anna Nicole pinup gallery on a continuous loop, Congress was debating a war resolution and the president was rattling sabers with Iran.
Is this a great country or what?
Diane Carman’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-954-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.
