Seven years ago, many political sages said, “George Bush can’t win.”
“Look at his father,” they’d point out. “He has too much baggage; his personal life, you know. He’s a lightweight with no experience and an iffy military record.”
Last week, George Bush gave his sixth State of the Union address as president of the United States. So much for the wisdom of those in the know.
Now, the wise heads are saying, “Hillary Clinton can’t win. She has too much baggage. That husband, you know. Besides, this country isn’t ready for a woman.” Even some of my feminist friends shake their heads and mutter, “She can’t win.” At least, no one calls Sen. Clinton an inexperienced lightweight.
Well, if a woman can’t win in modern America, shame on us. Women have been heads of state for decades in countries that we think ignore women’s rights. Countries like Pakistan, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Women have been prime ministers and presidents in Norway, Great Britain and Chile, among many other countries. Maybe it’s time to start saying, “Of course a smart, experienced, highly qualified woman can be president of the United States.” Because that just might happen.
Some say Hillary Clinton can’t win because of her failed health care plan. Well, by the time the 2008 election happens, that debacle will be 14 years in the past. Millions of voters will never have heard of the Clinton health care plan. More voters will simply know that they don’t have any health care plan and will vote for the person they believe will help them get one.
Others say she can’t win because she didn’t dump Bill after his notorious infidelity. Really? These couldn’t be the same voters who cheer Mrs. Haggard for sticking with her husband after his “sexual misconduct” with a gay prostitute. Or those who believe in “family values.” Or those who think women should be able to make their own choices in life.
“Oh, but she’s too polarizing,” some complain. As if this country weren’t heavily polarized on so many issues. It may be true that 45 percent of the voters wouldn’t even consider voting for her. But at least that many support her enthusiastically. Let’s remember that winners of the last three elections have won with less than 50 percent of the vote.
Whether or not Sen. Clinton wins the presidency, she is the first female presidential candidate with a clear shot at winning the White House. Not only is she smart, experienced, decisive and capable, but she has also worked well across the aisle in the Senate. She has done her homework and sought compromises on critical problems. She is admired as well as feared by her Republican colleagues – partly because she is such a strong contender for the nation’s highest office.
Hillary Clinton started her campaign with a superb organization and probably the best fund-raising capability in American politics. She has worked endlessly for Democratic candidates across the country, piling up chits for her political future. She is certainly the best-known politician in the country. Like her or not, she is a formidable political force – not because she was married to a president, but because of her own intelligence and skill. She has won overwhelmingly two Senate elections in her adopted state of New York, even in conservative parts of the state.
It’s time to stop mouthing banalities about Hillary Clinton. She’s a strong, impressive, powerful woman. If she were a strong, impressive, powerful man, who would question her electability? As with George Bush’s first presidential campaign, it would be folly to underestimate her ability to run a successful campaign for president. She does, indeed, have a very good chance of becoming the first female president of the United States.
Gail Schoettler (gailschoettler@ email.msn.com) is a former U.S. ambassador and Colorado lieutenant governor and treasurer.
