Tragically for the women of this country, in the years since Ferraro's nomination, the nation's view on the requisite qualifications for a woman presidential or vice-presidential candidate has radically shifted.Tragically! It's tragic! What she's really saying is that she would rather see a male President who is pro-choice than a female President who is pro-life, no matter what other views that female might hold on other issues. (Notice, Hilary Clinton is obviously fine, because she is pro-choice and goes unmentioned in the article. It's that damn radical right who are bringing down the women.) I'm admittedly more pro-choice than pro-life, but I can certainly understand why some people might be pro-life. Although, I don't think the government should have any say on the issue under any circumstances, but that bridge has been crossed years ago, thanks to Justice Blackmunn's ham-fisted "right to privacy". But that's an issue for another day.
Now, the prevalent notion is that any woman might well be sufficient to the need (the need for more women to hold high political office), just because she's a woman. No matter her views, on anything.
As a consequence of this tragically flawed strategy, the door opened -- wide -- to women politicians of a whole new kind, e.g., Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who could be perceived, and now have been, as legitimate political leaders of women, despite being opposed to the most fundamental right of women, the right to control their reproductive destiny.A fundamental right. Says who? Where? (Doesn't it feel like everything is a "right" lately?) You have the right to control your reproductive destiny -- the Supreme Court has seen to that. Any talk of overturning Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey is Chicken Little running around like a fool. It's not going to happen. Abortion has been legal for over thirty years in this country, yet still it's the top issue on the agenda when it comes to women's rights and women's talking points for the Democrats. I don't think much about abortion anymore. I'm more concerned with the deficit, the economy, jobs, and the slow creep of the federal government into issues that aren't any of their business. I've never based my choice of representative or President on their views about abortion. I hardly think I'm alone in this.
It gets better:
Now, all that is left of the Ferraro-era message is the simplistic notion that women can do anything men can do, including running for office -- a message that any woman with political ambitions could appropriate, whether she is for women, or not.Yes, it's so simplistic that anything men can do, women can also do. Is she serious with this? I actually think it's pretty great. One would think that a so-called feminist might also grudgingly admit that as crazy as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann may be, it's nice to see women out there. Obviously if you are not pro-choice, you are against women. That is quite a leap in logic. It's akin to the outcry that the Republicans hate women because they wanted to cut 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's funding. Ignore the deficit crisis, ignore the out of control spending -- just make sure women are getting their free medical care at Planned Parenthood.
In the 27 years since Geraldine Ferraro was nominated, three generations of women have entered the American political arena, hearing and assimilating this simplistic and useless to the women of America message: just because I'm a woman, you should vote for me.
Was that Sarah Palin's message? Michelle Bachmann's? Hilary Clinton's? Nancy Pelosi's? I don't know. It seems to me that is probably only the message the liberals like to latch on to when a conservative woman is running for office. She makes this statement despite that a 2009 Gallup poll showed that 49% of women identify themselves as pro-life, while 44% identify themselves as pro-choice. Guess what? You are in the minority.
And so we come to the prospect of a presidential run by Michele Bachmann: the prospect of a serious presidential run by a woman whose candidacy would have nothing to do with advancing the rights and security of American women. How far we have fallen.
Why does a woman who runs for president have to "advance the rights and security of American women?" Can't she be president of the entire country, men and women? Can't she "advance the rights and security of American women" without being pro-choice? Why is that one, single, issue the end all and be all to women like this writer? Can't we all just be happy about the leaps and bounds that women have made over the past thirty years and allow those women the right to their opinion?