Sure, I’d take a woman for president, provided it’s the right woman. However, I agree with Barbara Kay here. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. Plus, it’s really counter-productive to think in terms of voting for a politician because they are fill-in-the-blank minority.
Either you think Hillary’s ascension would represent a momentous shattering of a glass ceiling it is high time was shattered, or you think what would have been a big deal in 1990 is a big yawn today. I’m in the latter camp. It would be a first in the U.S., to be sure, but so what? Never mind Thatcher and Golda Meir; there have been women prime ministers in India and Pakistan. And what good did that do the women of India and Pakistan? None, as far as I can tell, any more than Obama being the first black president did anything to heal the racial divide (and arguably contributed to its worsening).
(I disagree with Barbara that only a woman would think about stealing furniture or cutlery after serving in public office. I know of men who have stolen office furniture, and that’s the same idea.)
My big problem with Hillary is not her penchant for theft or lying but rather her extreme pro-abortion stance. Gone are the conciliatory, “conservative” days of safe, legal and rare.
In other news, I’m pleased to report that I am the first Canadian female of Czech-Polish heritage to have a women-only pro-life blog! Bring out the champagne. (There’s always champagne to be had if you narrow the parameters for winning.)