I have all sorts of raging angry opinions on this one, folks, most of which I expressed loudly last night at the bar so I won’t go into them here. Regardless, I thought I’d share this darling exchange between John McAlperin and Hilary Clinton during CNN/You Tube’s Democratic debate:
McAlperin’s question to Clinton was as follows:
Hello, my name is John McAlperin. I’m a proud member of the United States military and I’m serving overseas. This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton: The Arab states and Muslim nations believe [in] women as being second-class citizens. If you’re president of the United States, how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks negotiations or any other diplomatic relations?
I feel that’s a legitimate question.
A legitimate question? (cough, cough, sexist, cough, sweeping generalizations about muslims and arabs, cough, cough.) Feministing.com sums up my thoughts on McAlperin’s question perfectly:
Has this guy been living under a rock? Condi Rice and other female Bush administration officials make frequent visits to the Mideast and appear to be taken quite seriously. India just elected a woman president. (There is an) insanely long list of other countries that have had a woman president or prime minister— several of them are Muslim nations.
I think what’s really going on here is John McAlperin might have a problem taking a woman president of the United States seriously.
Clinton’s response?
CLINTON: Thank you, John, and thank you for your service to our country.
You know, when I was first lady, I was privileged to represent our country in 82 countries. I have met with many officials in Arabic and Muslim countries. I have met with kings and presidents and prime ministers and sheiks and tribal leaders.
And certainly, in the last years during my time in the Senate, I have had many high-level meetings with presidents and prime ministers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan and many other countries.
I believe that there isn’t much doubt in anyone’s mind that I can be taken seriously.
(APPLAUSE)
I believe that other countries have had women presidents and women prime ministers. There are several serving now — in Germany, in Chile, in Liberia and elsewhere — and I have noticed that their compatriots on the world stage certainly take them seriously.
It would be quite appropriate to have a woman president deal with the Arab and Muslim countries on behalf of the United States of America.
(By the way, there were a ton of great questions, including this one from my new personal hero, a reverend in North Carolina asking Senator Edwards why he thought it was okay to use religion to deny gays their full and equal rights. Watch it and know that there is some hope for the world yet.)



Digg
two comments
Oh Blagh. At least Clinton had a good comeback. This may make it sound like I live in a hermetically sealed bubble, but how can people even ask stupid questions about whether or not a woman should be president? No one ever asks if a man should be president. What does it have to do with anything???
The thing that depresses me most about this is that it seems like a lose-lose situation: Clinton's politics are sketch and I'm not even sure I want her to win. At the same time having to wait another four (eight? 12? 16??) years until the World's Most Powerful Nation has a lady president seems pretty awful.
Posted by thea
July 26, 2007, 4:07 PM
Go with your instinct, Thea... I mean, not that you (or I) have any say in this one anyway, but you might as well hope for the best candidate. Just because she's a left-leaning dame doesn't mean we're obliged to support her. Having a female leader is no guarantee of solidly progressive politics anyhoo... look at Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, okay it's sad that I can't think of any more female heads of state.
Personally the main reason I'd want her to win would be because it would make a lot of people really, really upset. Me, vindictive?
Posted by Anna
July 26, 2007, 5 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.