The female as commander-in-chief I am no feminist – not by a long shot – but tonight as Barack Obama gets one step closer to his eventual nomination, I think it’s important to ask, “Was Hillary Clinton’s campaign a breakthrough accomplishment despite her impending loss?" It is indeed true that she came within a few whiskers of clinching the nomination, and – as she herself puts its – could still win the popular vote contest.

It probably is, but as the ever insightful Rachel Maddow pointed out, this should have happened years ago, when Geraldine Ferraro ran for the vice presidency in ’84. It does beg the question, why didn’t it, when it has happened in countries far less advanced: India and Sri Lanka as early as the mid-sixties, Argentina and Central Africa in the ‘70s, China and Pakistan in the ‘80s? Less surprising are the women heads of state from Britain and Western Europe, but representative nonetheless.

Maddow expressed the view that while the US has not had much of a problem electing women governors, perhaps the reluctance to elect a woman to the highest office in the nation might have more to do with her holding the office of commander-in-chief of the army. There is after all a disproportionate role for national security in the requirements of the presidency.

Maddow is not the first to express this view and probably will not be the last, as the debate is set to continue for at least another four years.  ¶ 9:49 PM