A Bizarre Obsession

Why are so many people, as evidenced by this piece in The New York Times, obsessed with the concept of having a female president? What's the big deal about "Commander in Chief" -- or Hillary Clinton, for that matter?

The fact is that America will elect a woman president when there's a woman running who's worthy of being elected. It's worth pointing out that, whether the left will admit it or not, America is still, to some extent, the world's policeman. And no woman will be elected until Americans are confident that she is familiar with and friendly to the military and willing to order the use of military force when necessary.

Hillary Clinton, with her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee, understands this. But absent unusual circumstances, all her calculated efforts aren't going to be enough to overcome the polarizing effect she has on voters and a lingering sense that, despite her support for the war (which is costing her on the left), a large part of her heart remains in the '60's and early '70's, when liking the military wasn't "cool."

And, as one of the commenters in the linked piece points out (Kathleen Turner, of all people!), Hillary Clinton has allowed herself to become a "celebrity." In America, we don't elect celebrities, who pose on the front pages of Vogue, to the presidency; we elect leaders. Once again, Hillary may want to have it both ways, but she can't.

The Times and the feminists should relax. The gender of the president is so much less important than his/her capabilities and principles.

Update: What I should have written is that we don't elect celebrities "to the presidency" -- because, as readers point out, a number of actors have had successful political careers, primarily on the Republican side. However, it's worth pointing out that by the time Ronald Reagan was elected president, he was hardly a "celebrity" in the sense that Arnold Schwarzenegger still is; his film career was long over.