Mrs. President

In 2008, the Democratic party came closer to nominating a female Presidential candidate than any major US political party ever has. I happen not to think she would have been a very good candidate, but more on that later. In my mind, this is clear evidence that our society is as ready to elect a woman as President as it ever will be short of actually doing it. (And I was ridiculed for saying much the same thing about a black President as of 2005.)
The question now is merely one of when it will happen and who it will be.

One important starting point is the fact that feminist reactions to her, are likely to be varied and unpredictable. Feminism never was about unconditional gender solidarity, especially where elected officials are concerned. One example of popular misconceptions on this point, are the recent claims that Sarah Palin is "redefining feminism". No she's not. Feminism is as Gloria Steinem is so fond of saying "simply what the dictionary says it is" namely the pursuit of full legal, societal, and economic equality for the sexes. One cannot redefine feminism but merely present a case as to how one's agenda or actions fit in with this program. And Sarah Palin's case is highly questionable at best, as it lies somewhere between that of Camille Paglia and Phyllis Schlafly. Indeed anyone who argues that because Palin is a successful woman that she's automatically a feminist has forgotten that Schlafly was also a successful lawyer.

Indeed not every female head of state has been a staunch promoter of women's rights. Golda Meir in particular was infamous for quotes to the tune of "Women's liberation is a bunch of foolishness." Margaret Thatcher while not overtly anti-feminist in the same way, was generally lukewarm at best. Often she claimed feminism had nothing to do with her success and supported policies such as indifference to high unemployment which were generally not good for women's advancement-or the society in general.

So it can be assumed-without assigning blame or charges of hypocrisy-that whether a female candidate gets support from feminists will depend on both the candidate and on the opinions of different feminists. During election 2008, there was a lot of talk about the "dilemna" of choosing between a black man and a white woman-often talking as if gender and skin color were the only relevant facts about either candidate. To this feminist the *correct answer* was to make a decision that was not based on either gender or skin color, and I ended up backing Obama in the primary and general election. I will say that despite all the talk of the "white female" vote in that election Ms. Magazine was fairly neutral on the Democratic Primary and utterly opposed to John McCain and Sarah Palin in the general election. It is worth mentioning however, that contrary to popular stereotypes Ms. Magazine enjoys a more diverse readership than most "women's magazines". Not to mention a whole list of other issues feminists tend to care about (even if not all share the same opinions) such as Iraq/Afghanistan, global warming, health reform, workers issues, the economy, education, social security, civil liberties, the environment, and more.

Another major issues regarding a female President, is that for nearly 2 decades the very concept has become all but synonymous with a particular woman, however she may have gone from first lady to Senator to Secretary of State.
In my opinion this is mostly not a good thing. Hilary Clinton's areas of popularity simply doesn't look very good on an electoral college map, and therefore it is questionable at best that she could win. One bottom line in this situation is that most people who hated Bill Clinton also hate Hilary. And not everyone who liked Bill Clinton likes Hilary.
Is misogyny a factor in this?
Probably. But it isn't the whole story.
During the 1990's Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other right winged media got a huge amount of mileage out of the anti-Clinton cottage industry. And in part because of them a massive level of right winged media and social infrastructure was built, which made it all but impossible for any dissenting voices to be heard.
Another feminist angle on this is whether or not it is wise elect a former first lady for that role in our history, let alone pin all hope on her.

It is certainly true that Hilary Clinton does have a certain number of core supporters. From my own anecdotal experience most of them seem to be women of a certain age (late silent to mid baby boom generation) who feel a certain solidarity with her. Much of it seems to be based on life experiences. Most of these women despite all the hype did not seriously consider voting for McCain out of spite, or as Tim Wise suggested as a form of "white racial solidarity". And nearly all were insulted by the suggestion that Sarah Palin was a worthy substitute.
No. This supporters were/are better than all the media with the usual dismissive talk of them joining McCain, being "racial loyalists first" or being the same group who liked Sarah Palin will every likely acknowledge.
Such genuine solidarity is impossible to argue against directly. No matter how much patriarchal society may hate to acknowledge it as anything above petty spite in women. And no matter how much younger feminists by and large see things differently. But all the same, it is unlikely to win the day in 2016.

But too often the main reason that Hilary Clinton is seen as the "obvious" choice if the Democrats were to run a woman for President, is the assumption that there is "nobody else".

And have they learned nothing from the past elections? Surely the experience of the 21st century and before shows us that always picking the person who has been the "obvious choice" for years, is no sure strategy for victory let alone the only way to go.
Al Gore was considered an obvious choice for Democratic Nominee throughout the 90's, and John Kerry was nicknamed "JFK" at Yale. However almost nobody outside of Arkansas heard of Bill Clinton as of 1988, and before 2004 Obama was just another new Senator. Nor did many people outside of Georgia know much about Jimmy Carter when Nixon was in office.

So it would be folly to assume that just because nobody can name any possible female candidates besides Hilary Clinton (or Sarah Palin on the Republican side) doesn't mean that none exist, or that other hopefuls might not emerge at any time.

It may happen sooner than you think.

Say Goodnight Readers!