I have been following the American Democratic presidential candidate
nomination process closely and I predicted a long time ago (when I was
in Nepal last year) that Barack Obama would be the winner - putting
more into hope than into any intuitive process, but more than Obama
coming up ahead, I amnow glad Hillary is not going to be president.
Nothing do I have against a woman becoming president, but America
always seems to be picking women with a lot of male hormones for top
jobs. Be it Madeline Albright or Condi or Hillary, they are all women
who somehow want to walk in the corridors of male power, who want to
be in a playing field level with men, and hold no charm for me as
women in their own evolved selves.
On the other hand, I look at women who have held top jobs in India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and even Bangladesh, and I notice none of these
eastern women ever competed with their "woman" status and begged and
pleaded to "make history" as Hillary did. It was pathetic to watch
someone who at once proclaimed she would be ready on "day one" to be
"presidential" and yet, repeatedly played the "woman" card! Hello?
Does she want to be the president first or does she just want to be
the first woman president?
There was an article in Newsweek a year or so ago, that spared no
effort while mentioning that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan
were all British colonies in the same breath as the one that informed
the reader that they have all had democratically elected women as
leaders. It of course forgot to mention that the Brits elected
Margaret Thatcher a long time after India elected Indira Gandhi and
way after Sri Lanka elected Bandaranaike!
Neither Thatcher nor Indira Gandhi ever played the "gender" card in
their politics. Bandaranaike never even came close to it. In fact,
these ladies seemed to care two hoots about it. They were all strong
willed, articulate and could hold their own on the stage of
leadership. Indira Gandhi was far sharper at criticism and by far the
more enigmatic of the lot, but in a country that is supposed to
suppress women culturally, Indira Gandhi simply did what she had to do
as a professional, and everybody quietly followed their leader.
Hillary owes a lot of her notoriety to her marriage to Bill Clinton
but more importantly, she stood to lose from it as much as she gained,
if not more. It isn't easy to measure up to Bill Clinton. Fair
enough. But she rode that distinctive Clinton advantage as much as
she could. Sure Bill Clinton would have done a lot for any other
Democratic candidate had Hillary not been in the fray, but where does
that leave Hillary as the capable strong woman?
Quite simply, she is no stateswoman (or statesman!). She is a shrill
and manipulative product of Washington politics who can gleam once in
a while like a shiny automobile from GM that doesn't have to show its
lousy gas mileage in the commercial. She manouvers more than she
manages, she presents more than she professes, and she certainly tries
to win more than she tries to convince. She played victim on so many
occasions during her campaign, I doubt if anybody would use their
sympathy to vote for someone who feels so victimized to a position of
Sadly, I doubt if Hillary ever truly felt victimized. I think she is
crooked enough to see that as an opportunity to mark up her appeal to
morons who would fall for that. I think she is enough of an
opportunist to take advantage of something like September 11th and
uncouth enough bring a great nation down to its lowest undignified
stance in the name of going to war, every bit as much as Bush. No
doubt she would be a better candidate than Dubya, but then, who
Hillary would have done much better if she studied her support base a
little more carefully, even if she wanted to manipulate them as she is
capable of. Instead of mud slinging Obama, she could have simply
refused to play dirty, and stayed above it all - that would have
brought out the best in her voter base, and won her admirers from the
Obama camp. Hillary has never come out swinging against the lobby
culture. She must know, atleast in a cerebral kind of way, that the
new generation or two of voters are sick of all the things she has
been bred in! Why did she choose to give us all a taste of what we
already know and do not quite care about?
Where is that self made American woman politician? If Arianna
Huffington can have so much fun being who she is - a woman, an
immigrant, and with a hell of a funny accent, why is Washington so
full of men? There is no excuse except that American women haven't
wanted to be there as much as we would like to see.
It isn't as if no American woman has ever been head of state. Janet
Rosenberg who hailed from Chicago was prime minister and later
president of Guyana. >>Her political career started in 1950 and she
held many positions. In 1997 her husband, Dr. Cheddi Bharat Jagan,
died, and she was chosen to replace the Premier who succeeded Mr.
Jagan as President. Janet was chosen as her party's candidate in the
following Presidential elections, which she won. Afterwards she
re-appointed the former President to the post of Prime Minister after
being sworn in as President. She was born as Janet Rosenberg in
Chicago and mother of two children. (b. 1920-).<< class="nfakPe">Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party in India, which is now in power, is of Italian origin. She married Rajiv Gandhi when he was a pilot for Air India. Later, after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, she
was quietly requested to assume party leadership and today she is
every bit Indian as anybody else. She is simply fondly referred to as
I cannot believe there are so many countries in the third world that
have so easily ignored bias of gender, color and even national origin
while choosing their leaders. It is high time America got off its
high horse of presuming it is in some kind of position to advice the
rest of the world on freedom and civilized behaviour, while it can't
find one real woman to fill any post of real substance and example.
I cannot believe there are so many naive American men in positions of
tremendous power and influence. GW is a glaring example, which nobody
can deny, so we will leave him out as an exception. Look at the rest
of the stable and you will find a lot of asses, some mules, and a few
horses. Stallions, none at the moment. And this is an eight year
presidential term? All in the name of fighting against a bunch of
My question is not - so the most powerful country in the world has a
bunch of idiot politicians. What's new in a democracy? My question
is - when the men have had such a long tradition of being in politics
and have trashed an illustrious past with the below mediocre present,
where are the American women to challenge their men and put them in
their right places?
There are any number of societies in the world where men are worthless
drunks and the women do all the work and manage everything. They
don't let their men boss over them, and don't take crap from anyone.
At the same time, they don't function like men. They are stalwarts of
dignity, and beautiful and feminine all the way. What is it that
American women seem to be so wary of?
I think American women are extremely beautiful beings, caught in the
stupid need to fight for their rights and be equal to American men.
Your men aren't such great examples, darlings! Why the hell would you
ever want to be equal to them!? Leave them to do their grunting macho
stuff, and simply take the quick path past them to tremendously
evolved planes. Leave it to them to catch up if they want to!
Seriously, if Hillary is the best you ladies can come up with, I'm
glad America is not ready for a woman president. I hope the roles
that you American women will choose to play in the century ahead will
have more to do with your own essential substance than having to play
within designs men put in place. America needs that, and the rest of
the world would love it.
Oh, by all means, vote for a woman, but please make sure she is woman enough.
Peace and love.