So, the first female candidate to have made it so far and close to running (and assuming) American Presidency finally conceded defeat and threw in her support for a black horse in the race.
One year ago, Hiliary Clinton was literally a shoo-in for the Democrat choice for the White House. But a year later, she failed to live up to the promise and handed the candidacy to a(n almost unknown) first term senator politician.
The guy who is on the way to becoming the first (Black) President, if he were to be a little less careful with his words in the race against straight-talking John McCain.
So what went wrong with the power lady?
Much has been talked about how her charming hubby was more a liability than an asset in the race. Also, how she made the wrong choice to go for the bigger states than chasing the caucuses like Obama.
And her blips during campaigning (like her claims to coming under sniper fire during a 1996 visit to Bosnia).
As a member of the fairer sex, however, the singular question that I think really begs an answer is really this: Is America ready for a female president?
If the results of the primaries are anything to go by, the answer will be negative.
Further by virtue of the fact that a Black (male) has triumphed over a White (female) candidate, the next question that really begs answering is whether America is more ready for a President from an ethnic minority group than a female president.
But perhaps before we can jump to any conclusion, there is a third question that begs answering. That is, how far does American women identify themselves with Hiliary?
This is perhaps the very weakness of any political campaign (that is intentionally or unintentionally) underpinned by an overture on gender representation.
The idea of a lady president may be an appealing selling point to women voters. But this will only work if the candidate in question is able to find a voice that connects women across social and racial boundaries.
Unfortunately, Hiliary wasn’t able to get that universal endorsement from women voters. She was a polarising figure, attracting staunch support and dissidence at the same time.
Many were disappointed with how she handled Bill’s infidelity. Yet, there are also others who sympathsized with her and complimented her forbearance.
Her cold, businesslike demeanour won endorsement from some women but turned others off.
For female voters (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/) have looked to an alternative representation of American politics with more feminine traits like a softer touch, more compassionate rather than rational stance towards international issues like the Iraq War.
But Hiliary failed to represent what these women are looking for. Neither did she win the men over with her political machoism.
What all these show, really, is that gender may be more a liability than an asset in the political battleground. Women continue to be judged (by both the same and opposite gender) on the basis of their gender in a field that is not traditionally feminine.
And there’s hardly any middle ground on those issues like how one should deal with marital infidelity. That will continue to divide the feminist movement throughout the history.
Gen X-I 