108.

On the bleary morning-after Clinton's campaign unofficially bit the dust, I've been pondering the significance of a female president of the United States. I realize I'm late to the game. It was Betsy Reed who introduced me to the history of the "Clinton as feminist icon" debate with her piece in the Nation, and that was about two hours ago.

Which reminds me of the infamous line from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, when Shylock the Jew says of his people, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" It seems the question Clinton has been forced to answer on behalf of all women with political aspirations is, "if you elect us, do we not lead?"

But why was this ever in doubt? A quick search through history reveals that the US would hardly be the first nation to offer its highest office to someone who has two X-chromosomes. In fact, among the G8 nations, we join Russia, Italy and Japan as the nations which haven't. Considering that Russia's recent democratic history has been none too impressive, and that the last two countries are known for their more rigidly patriarchal cultures, what does that say about the United States?

The British elected Margaret "if you want something done, ask a woman" Thatcher in 1979. The Canadians had Kim Campbell for all of five months in 1993. Edith Cresson served the French for barely a year, although her career was far from distinguished, and Angela Merkel still holds power in Germany.

Among the rest of the world, India (Gandhi), Israel (Meir), the Philippines (Arroyo), Nicaragua (Chamorro, in between various juntas) and numerous other nations have had female leaders.

Against this background, what's more startling is the fact that the United States hasn't elected a female president. The exclusion seems deliberate. Interestingly, none of the G8 nations have had a recent president from a "racial minority" group, an omission that has been deliberate. On this front, at least, the US need have no qualms: Barack's half-black half-white half-Arab half-blue half-red half-Moses half-Carter all-American style has struck a chord with us.

Hurray.

I also wonder how much of the pandering that has gone on in the press over Clinton's gender might have been much, much better applied to other issues and concerns. There has been much debate recently over the decline of the dollar and the end of the so-called "American empire." Although these terms are simplistic at best and useless at worst, looking at the hash that's been made of Clinton's candidacy reveals a depressing tendency among all parties to look at the issues of the day on the most superficial level possible.

Since when is "black" "white" "man" "woman" a stand? Since when is it anything besides an observation of fact?

In adapting Hillary for The Hills generation, we've lost something. And I don't just mean the chance to finally elect a female President.