James Brown said, "This is a man's world", but does Senator Hillary Clinton's recent loss prove that? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Janet Reno, and Condoleezza Rice have proven that women can challenge and interpret congressional laws, they can be the chief law enforcement office of the government, and they can even advise the president on national security and foreign policies. Representative Geraldine Ferraro came the closest to presidency by being Walter Mondale's running mate except the pair lost to President Ronald Reagan by a landslide.

Madeleine Albright became the first female secretary of state and held the position from 1996 to 2001 and at the time, this was the highest office that a woman has ever held. In our fair America, we would like to believe that we are on the cutting edge of every social, political, technical, and environmental advancement known to man, but how is that possible if we are unwilling to accept a female head of the country? In this election year, change has been the operative word and if we all want a revolution, then why wouldn't we feel that a female president would be a welcome departure from the policies and practices that has our country in its current state? Senator Clinton has been involved with law and politics since 1974, she became a proactive first lady when Bill Clinton took office in 1992, and in 2000, she became a New York senator. She definitely has experience in politics, and undoubtedly has made a few high powered contacts and friends, so why wasn't she the more popular choice for the democratic nominee?

If Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto can serve two terms and Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth II still holds her office after 56 years while former prime minister Margaret Thatcher held her office for 11 years, then I believe the U.S. can have a female president. Unfortunately, I do think that Hillary Clinton's gender played a role in her election campaign because the media, her supporters and her detractors all seemed to judge her a little more strongly than her male counterparts. I know that many people paid great attention to her words, her actions, and even her dress and hairstyle yet even with sexist attitudes in the government, I still believe she got a fair shot. The downfall of Clinton wasn't because of her gender, but because of her personality and her actions. Forget the fact that she's a woman because she has certain qualities of a leader. I feel that even without the office of presidency, she still has a strong political voice that deserves to be heard. My opinion is simply with the words she has said and the actions she has taken, she can be a leader, but not THE leader of the free world. I see the country as being ready for a female nominee just as much as it's ready for a nominee who isn't white. The only thing for a non-white or non-male candidate to remember is that all eyes of the country are hell bent on dissecting and analyzing every word or action. Yes, George Washington was the first president of the United States, but "it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl."

Learn more about this author, Garrett Rogers.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Reflections: What America needs?
We want to hear your view. Write now!