Interesting article in the New York Times this past Sunday about who the first woman president could be. Hint: it is not Hilary Clinton. Even though the chances of HC winning the Democratic nomination are, well, pretty much nil, the article’s author felt it necessary to pay deference to the very slim possibility that it could still happen. Even so I liked this article. Because for this entire campaign I have maintained that my gripe with HC is not that she is a woman. Perhaps many will think it bullshit, but I did not think of her is a woman candidate but as a candidate that happened to be a woman, among so many other things. Same as I think of Obama as a candidate who happens to be black, well actually, half black, but no few seem to want to make that distinction. Anyhoo… my point is that what won me over to Barack — because at the beginning I figured he wasn’t going to get the nomination and that he pretty much knew that, that what he was doing was getting his name out for the next possible time — was that he was not a Boomer, the same thing that put me at odds with HC, pretty much the only thing that put me at odds with her candidacy. The Boomers have overplayed their hand at the presidency with Bill Clinton in the 90s and now W in the first part of the 21st century. The results have been, well, let’s just say less than stellar. So as far as I, and many, many, many others, are concerned, it is time for a new generation to have a go at it, i.e. Generation X. It is our time.
The NY Times articles suggested as much, that the first woman president will have to be from a new generation of leaders. She may be a Dem, may be a Rep, but either way she is not going to be a Boomer.
The article lists several possibilities from both the political world and the business world. Some seemed very interesting possibilities. Others not so much. The only one I really had a gripe with was the suggestion that Chelsea Clinton somehow qualifies. The idea is kind of, well, fairy tale-ish if you ask me. And the suggestion CC somehow possesses the right mix of her father’s charm (sans the compulsion to diddle very young interns with cigars) with her mother’s discipline (sans the calculating coldness factor) seems like myth-making. Especially when you consider the bratty, snotty, and just fucking rude way she responded to a question about her mother’s handling of the Monica scandal.
She can say it’s none of people’s business all she wants but the fact is her old man, by doing what he did, made it the public’s business, whether we wanted it to be or not. She’s going to get tough questions like this one and she better find a bit more poise and grace in which to respond to them.
In any case, I can’t see any reason to support her for anything, not until more is known about her political views. I mean, unless we’re supposed to assume that they simply mimic her parents’ view, in which case we might want to consider it she is in fact not some kind of cyborg that the Clinton’s created in their dungeon in Arkansas or whatever.