Well, it just goes to show you. Heck, I'd have thought she would be doing Coke commercials by now. And it comes from a group determined to put a woman in the White House.
I have no problem with that. But if Anita Hill is one of their role models, they're going to have to do better than that.
"I for one am thankful that we live in an age where we have role models like Anita Hill to show us the way forward," Skoll said. "We're also grateful that the White House Project" is working to see that a woman becomes president.
They were giving Geena Davis an award at the UN. Read it all at link, then Click Click Click before that's cancelled, too.
To the strains of "Hail to the Chief," actress Geena Davis accepted an award night for her television portrayal of the first woman president of the United States from an organization which is seeking to turn fiction into reality.
When the star of the ABC television show "Commander in Chief" got to the podium Tuesday, she was given a red, white and blue sash to put on over her gown, similar to one worn by Chile's first woman president, Michelle Bachelet. "This is the coolest thing I ever got! Wow I love it!," she said.
"So many countries have had a female head of state before us," she told the 500 guests at a dinner in the U.N. Delegates Dining Room. "So it is certainly time."


You get pissed about the dumbest things.
MrsLevy'sNiece
Posted by: MrsLevy'sNiece | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Now I'm all for a woman president, IF, and only IF, she's the BEST candidate offered.
I find this "desire" for a woman President based only on the basis that she's a woman to a bit dangerous to say the least and quite possibly the worst reason for a woman President there could be.
Years ago, I attended a conference at San Francisco State which was predictably highjacked by a "multi-cultural" element who laid out ground rule for speaking at the first plenary session, now this conference was about empowering students (not anything necessarily to do with race or gender, just getting students as whole organized).
So to make a long story longer, the rules as they were presented was that ethnic minorities got to speak first, then women (a woman ethnic minority got to speak first of the first), then the disabled (which was an add-in and placed between ethnic minorites and women in the heirarchy), then non-Christians, then and only then, and I might add after all from the other groups who wished to speak, could a caucasian male speak.
Regardless of the issue, regardless of the debate, if you were a white male, "no speakee for you". So myself, being the elected leader of my school's delegation, being a white male, the conference as a whole became virtually impossible for me to participate in. So the disabled, Native American woman in our group (boy were we lucky to have her), stood up and said our whole group was leaving because of the ridiculousness of the event. As it turned out, when our group stood up, people were shocked, because not only were we the largest contingent present, we were also the most diverse.
They begged us to stay, until I stepped forward (on behalf of my group now) to ask a question, I was immediately shouted down as a "white male oppressor", we turned on our heels and left.
I relate this because I think it shows the dangers of selecting people to speak for you based on their genetics, sex, religion whatever. When you start declaring that "it's time" or "it's a woman's turn", I think you run into dangerous waters where the best path closes off as an option for the sake of political correctness, ethnic diversity, sexual liberation whatever.
Let's just focus on the best person we can get for the job. We'll never get the best person for the job because of the nature of politics, so lets just focus on putting together a group that's capable and electable, then if the best person from that group happens to be a woman, so be it and godspeed.
--Jason
PS - BUT, if we are going to find ourselves playing this game, my response simply is Condi/Rudy '08 4 teh win!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jason Coleman | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 02:47 PM
Good point, Jason. And truth prevails, no?
Posted by: hobo | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 04:41 PM
Good point, Jason. And truth prevails, no?
Posted by: hobo | Thursday, May 04, 2006 at 04:42 PM