i just worked 60 hrs over the last 4 days...so I'm a little late to the party on this one...i just can not let it pass without comment...Saturday, the Times published a piece speculating...if not Hillary, then, who could be the first female president of the United States...listing the qualities and background that they...the writer and editors of the NY Times...deem as necessary prerequisites for candidacy...and then they toss in a list of 12 women...with varied qualifications...who could be the next to run...Chelsea Clinton...really...?...
of course they overlooked the kind of candidate they would never take seriously...a war veteran...serious, ambitious, women are serving and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today...and I'm confident that any one of them with the desire to step into politics would have no problem overcoming what the Times calls..."the burden...to prove toughness..."
this is the New York Times blindspot...that any woman in uniform today...could be faithful to the mission...and not be George Bush in a pantsuit...it's completely conceivable that some present/former aviator...or intelligence officer...whathaveyou...could come home, run for...and win...state senate/governor/congress...and...with the right message...become a serious presidential candidate...I could vote for someone like that...
according to the NY Times...this is next to impossible...the same could have been said of a young state legislator from Illinois a few years ago...
