Ms. President Twinkle
Tom Shales, style columnist of the Washington Post, demonstrates the very concern I raised in my recent post, “Commander in… Chieftess?” In yesterday’s column, Shales lauds actress Geena Davis, star of ABC’s new primetime drama, “Commander in Chief,” saying:
Geena Davis can veto my legislation anytime. Starring as the first woman to hold the highest office in the land, Davis reminds us what we have missed in most of our past, real-life presidents: cuteness. She’s got a twinkle in her eye, a twinkle in her smile, a twinkle everywhere. She’s President Twinkle — just what we need to tame the extreme, charm the militant, inspire the troops.
My initial reaction to this statement was that of alarm. Such an approach reduces the presidency to nothing more than a beauty pageant. And yet, the indubitable Mr. Shales was miles ahead of me, saying:
Davis is [a] tantalizer all sublime. Maybe the presidency should be a beauty pageant; it’s hard to imagine that the results would really be that much worse than we get already.
This is exactly what we do not need. In a time that requires increasingly careful thought and cautious action, too many Americans, much of whom are already fed up with the Iraq war and President Bush, will consider a female Hillary to be a great improvement. While I do not see this moving the most loyal of the party faithful, it will have a profound effect on the ever-growing category of the independent and moderate conservative.
Clinton for 2008. Vote peace. Vote cute.
September 28th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
[sarcasm] It’s already become a competition to see who can debate better, so why not make it a beauty pageant? We’ll field Schwartzenegger. [/sarcasm]
September 28th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
SecDef, I don’t know why you put debating skill in the same class. It seems to me that cogent thinking and persuasiveness are valuable in a leader.
Beyond that, well, cuteness and charm have their place in diplomacy. However, I think of presidency as executive rather than diplomatic - all this to say that other qualities are more important.
I did read ABC’s page on the show, and was surprised that the character of Mackenzie Allen has three children. All I’m wondering is why they didn’t make her a home-school mom. Wouldn’t that make her seem more empowered and less plebian?
In another vein of thought, has anyone considered that a female national executive is nothing new? How about Egypt: Hatshepsut (sp?), Cleopatra; Israel: Deborah (OK, judicial), Jezebel, Athaliah, Golda Meir; England: Mary, Bess, Anne, Mary (wife of William of Orange), Victoria, Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher; Russia: Catherine; Austria: Maria Theresa; The Netherlands: Wilhelmina…; The Philippines: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Not to say it is ideal, but that it is not unworkable.
September 28th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
dear mr. straub,
even though i am filipino,i must admit using my county’s current president as an example, is not valid in terms of this post. the philippines is currently on the brink of a civil war. people starve. politicians steal and try revise the constitution to prolong a president’s term. gloria arroyo is a corrupt woman who cheated fernando poe jr in the last election.
id have to affirm secdef’s sarcasm about politics shifting into a beauty contest. in my country, the majority of politicians were or continue to be actors and actresses. that’s why my country is in trouble right now— people are electing candidates who are not qualified to do their jobs. arnold as governor?!! what was california thinking?!!! he can’t even pronounce the word!!!
but i think hilary would make a great president.
September 28th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
I just found this blog on BlogExplosion… And I must say, I am very happy to see some teen bloggers who aren’t… stupid. I’ll admit that my own blog is mostly useless. I might not always necessarily agree with you, but it’s refreshing to see that my generation isn’t completely doomed!
Keep up the good work!
September 29th, 2005 at 12:53 am
“SecDef, I don’t know why you put debating skill in the same class.”
To borrow one of Chuck Colson’s thoughts, during the 2004 election, many people were more concerned about who debated better vs. what they actually stood for.
I’m not saying debating isn’t neccessary, on the contrary, it is a requirement! But that shouldn’t cloud the issues. 
November 13th, 2005 at 4:18 am
Good point. All I have to say on the subject is that the president shouldn’t be chosen because of their gender. I don’t believe it matters if a man or a woman is in office—what matters is if they will, as a person, do well with running this country and do good for the people.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Well, to say the least, that post made some good points.
I can easily see it turning into a beauty competition. It almost already is.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:35 pm
I just read an interesting quote from Jay Leno, the comedian.
He said ‘This is a messed up country, when we only have two choices for president, but fifty for miss America’.
I thought it was almost relevent to this post in some way.
God Bless!
~ John.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
AAAAAHHHH!; how frustrating to have our country like this. My concern is not that there is enough votes for a specific person for presidency, but there will be a specific person actually worth voting for as the leader of our country!
December 7th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
vote labotamy! *gag*
June 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
thanks !! very instrumental post!
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
great post, thanks for providing so much. Keep up the good posts.! http://www.hoover-f5914900.com
September 27th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
whoah this weblog is magnificent i love reading your articles. Stay up the great work! You recognize, a lot of persons are looking around for this information, you can aid them greatly.