Another View

The ladies of The View, who define acerbic, took some shots at Chelsea Clinton last week because she called them personally to talk about her mother’s presidential campaign. It seems that CC has a soft, feminine voice, and the ladies imitated her when discussing their phone calls. The audience laughed, the women talked about Clinton for several minutes (any publicity is good publicity), and life went on.

Today, the discussion is about HC firing her campaign manager with a snap of the fingers, as well as “defending” her daughter and the assistance she has provided to the campaign. Herein lies my problem: I don’t want my President to be perceived as a petty bitch! Firing someone on the spur of the moment is reactive, not proactive, and my president needs to be able to look at the bigger picture, not just today, and, in the words of George Dub-You, "stay the course."

Secondly, CC is not a “girl,” she’s a grown woman whose parents have been in politics throughout her lifetime. Thus, she knows the drill and if she cannot stand the heat, get the hell out of the campaign limelight. If it pisses Mama off that people make fun of her daughter, Mama needs to deal with it another way and at another time. Complaining to the media isn't working for me: it's not what I define as a "presidential" action!

When important international organizations vette future employees, they hone in on weaknesses that can be used to bribe the employee, extract info from him/her, or manipulate the individual into committing criminal acts. When there are “hot buttons” that can be pushed so the individual loses control and the more powerful person gains it, it makes a difference between winning and losing, especially for a world leader. Anyone who knows that Mama Bear has issues with Dotter Bear being attacked will go after Mama: using one's weakness against him/her is a great strategy for one's enemy to employ.

Friends have assured me that Hillary is going to be a great president, but I disagree; frankly, she is not of the caliber this country needs in its first female President. She whines, she complains, she cops the prune face when she’s pissed, she gets all teary-eyed when she’s tired or feels picked on, she fawns toward men, she reacts when she should simply ignore and move on, and she takes comments personally that are meant politically. She’s a “typical” female, and the position demands an extraordinary individual, whether female or male.

If a woman is going to become the President of the United States, she must be presidential not just in front of the cameras, but behind them. She does not have the luxury of reacting to personal situations in a personal manner, especially in the glare of the always-there media. Memorable role models for women leaders include Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth, and Indira Ghandi, as well as Eleanor Roosevelt, all of whom were “presidential” in their demeanor, rather than petty. They knew that the attacks on them would not just be political, but personal, but they did not respond to them and create headlines throughout the world that revealed thin political skin. Perhaps they were perceived as too cold and distant, but better that perception than a weepy, malleable female.

There isn’t much of a choice this election year, regardless of the political party one favors, and it is possible that history can be made by either electing the first black President or the first female President. However, we should elect the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, which are merely genetic circumstances, not qualifications for office. Electing anyone based on gender or race is a huge backward step for both equal rights and mankind.

Electing a candidate who shows before the votes are cast a lack of the personal strength necessary to represent the country in a global venue has not just the potential to be historical, but to be a bad decision.