Tomservo

I think that subject line probably got your attention.

Unfortunately, it's not all that intellectually dishonest. My wife and I are currently having an argument about the reality of a woman president/VP, and the reasons it's taking so long to get there. With Hillary on her way to perhaps filling on of those roles, it's on our minds. However, there's every possibility that a whim by John Kerry or John Edwards could cause another long run of white men in power.

Let's say Kerry grabs Edwards as his running mate, wins, and does a pretty good job of running the country (Not that I think that's going to happen, mind you). We'd have 12 years more or less guaranteed that the Dems would be putting one of those guys up for the nomination... meaning my daughter will be finishing college before there's a real possibility of "change". Now, perhaps change could come from the Republican side via Elizabeth Dole or someone, but no Republican woman has gotten the clippings and watercooler of Hillary.

This frustrates me to no end. I love women. They rock. I was raised by two women in a house with my sister and my niece, so I know the species relatively well, and I'm damn certain that there are plenty of leadership-quality women out there, yet we keep pushing up the same old white guys for consideration. I have nothing against white guys, I am one... and I think John Edwards will make a fine president *wink*. However, it's ridiculous to me that a "minority" group that makes up.. oh, over *half* our citizens.. cannot have their own strong, consistent political party or leaders. Where are the great women?

What made me think of these issues were a few situations: #1- the Gary Barnett deal in Colorado. Six women, including a player, alleging rape by the football team, and where is the Hillary Clinton of Jackie O standing up and shouting for these women? If six blacks were assaulted because of their skin color and it came out nationally, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be having their calls forwarded to the Rockies faster than you can say "KKK". #2- The California Gubernatorial mess. Anyone who tells you Arnold and Bustamante were the two *BEST* choices to lead this state is flat-out lying to you. Arnold's lack of political gonads is prominently on display with the gay marriage issue, and Cruz... well, I'm a Democrat, and I couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for that guy. He's slimy. You mean to tell me there's no one woman who coulda ran the table and actually do a decent job of bringing CA back? Why didn't Feinstein run...? Oh, yeah... the Democratic "boys" asked her not to. #3- recent news stories that keep popping up about this woman or that girl, raped and killed, just killed, whatever. The guy who kept several girls in a dungeon for months at a time, and the police who just didn't believe them, till he was caught red-handed. (He's not even doing LIFE in prison.)

So, my blanket statement is that if women banned together for a platform of leadership that covered moderate issues (As most voters are moderate) and actually ADDRESSED women's issues in a proactive way, the resulting political party would likely be large enough to defeat both power parties. I'm not talking crazy lesbian "girl power" politics, I'm talking actual politics women are concerned about... generally, family issues, personal freedoms, so on. The president doesn't have to be strong enough to wrestle a bear, he/she just has to be smart enough to figure out how NOT to.

So, no, women aren't stupid, as a rule, but they are stupid if they think the power hungry MEN are just going to hand over leadership to them without a fight, and while it's not a *declared* battle, it is being fought.

What are your opinions on my rambling?