Hillary is not representing strong women

Stephanie Park

There are many women I look up to in today’s society: Oprah Winfrey, Condoleezza Rice, Diane Sawyer.

Please note that Hillary Clinton, former first lady and 2008 democratic presidential candidate, is not one of them.

It astounds me that Hillary has gotten this far in her bid for the lofty digs at the White House. The Associated Press reported Monday that Hillary has raised a record-breaking $26 million toward her presidential campaign during the first three months of 2007.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for women’s rights. While I’m far from a full-blown feminist, I believe a woman is quite capable of filling our country’s top leadership position. I shake my head, disappointed and disgusted, when I hear people scoff at this idea and ignorantly boast sexist comments saying, “A woman couldn’t handle it,” “They are too emotional,” or “She’d PMS and kill us all.”

Perhaps a woman is just what this country needs. Maybe the “overly emotional character” of a woman could positively affect foreign and national affairs. Lord knows the emotion-free approach men have followed in the Oval Office thus far has left millions of American citizens pondering their decisions and wanting more help and concern for those fighting war and poverty.

So let’s vote for Oprah or some other strong female.

Just not Hillary Clinton.

Since when does riding on a man’s coattails through life and to a senatorial job in New York make a woman qualified? Call me crazy, but a self-made billionaire or a self-made, politically involved female seems like a better choice.

To me, a self-respecting female would not stay with a husband who found pleasure in a White House mistress and a pack of cigars. The humiliation of the entire country knowing about this repulsive act of betrayal would have helped me put both my shoes on and get both my feet out the door.

So I asked around – and people explained: It was a smart political move for a woman looking to take office to stay and support her man.

But do we want a submissive, weak woman who fears change in her own life to determine the changes in everyone else’s lives?

I bet single mothers across all 50 states would vouch for the fact that staying with an unfaithful man is easier than starting over with no job and two kids. I know single mothers who full-heartedly agree.

However, welcome to the real world.

Divorce rates today are at an all-time high.

Single women continue to successfully raise their children and stand for themselves with their own salaries and not their husbands’.

Talk shows and shows like “Cheaters” make it clear that Americans know cheating is morally wrong.

So, Mrs. Clinton, because you didn’t take your own name and dignity back and stand for yourself the way a woman should, taking into account the new values and lifestyles women in this era abide by, you won’t get my vote.

Wake up. It isn’t 1950.

Women stand for themselves – not just for their men. And if Hillary can’t stand for herself, why would we expect her to stand for every American citizen?

Stephanie Park is a junior information design major and design editor for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact her at [email protected].