After three years of relative silence, the New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is making waves again by speaking out on a range of issues from the distribution of antiterrorism funds in New York to military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although she is a hawk, she has begun to challenge Senate Republicans on other issues like unemployment insurance benefits. Hillary even phoned a New York radio show to make her own corrections after a caller made false accusations about the Clinton White House’s policies on troops in uniform.
I don’t agree with Hillary about everything, but I like her chutzpah, her intelligence, and her ability to play the political game without yielding control to the good ol’ boys of Washington. If she can stay active without succumbing to the obnoxious incivility that politicians from both parties have displayed in recent months, she will have even more of my support.
As usual, the Times reports that every move Hillary makes is being gauged by pundits as a “will-she-or-won’t-she run for President in 2008” tactic. Personally, I hope so. At a time when the Senate still has less than 10 women in its ranks—this after even Pakistan had a female political leader—I’m just glad to see her back in action. My friends and I talk about this a lot; some of us believe we would consider voting for a Republican female presidential candidate over a white Democratic male just to send a signal that it’s time. I’m sick of the pedantic arguments about how female could never manage a country, fight a war, or balance the budget. How would we know when we’ve never elected one into the nation’s ultimate position of power? Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary call the shots quite well when they are able.
It’s a little embarrassing that young girls like myself grow up without having more than a handful of female political role models.
Respond to this posting
Back to top