Clinton or Obama? Given I live in NZ and am an NZ citizen does it really matter what I think? Probably not, but it is hard to not have an opinion.

In my last year at university I wrote a (disappointingly bad) dissertation on candidate selection pratices of parties of left in NZ after electoral reform and the effect on women's representation. One mildly amusing discovery was that Jeanette Fitzsimons, co-deputy leader of the Alliance party at the time, referred to the committee that determined the party list as the "knitting committee." This was a reference to the challenges of weaving together the various interests of the party (the Alliance party was an amalgamation of a number of political parties, all with specific interests), while allowing for representation of women and ethnic minorities (Maori and Polynesian). The Alliance was a minority party so the composition of the top ten places on the list mattered a lot and working all those interests into ten spots had to be challenging for the decision makers (why the party did not implode earlier I do not know).

But I digress. In the course of research I became increasingly convinced that we need more women in leadership. And if there are more female leaders, this should in turn widen the pool of quality female candidates for decision making roles. We need inspiration for our aspirations.

When Jenny Shipley became NZ's PM, Helen Clark was leader of the opposition, and Theresa Gattung was head of Telecom. I would hear people bang on about how women were running the country, as if there was a new injustice. I heard how women were "taking over", how it was reverse sexism. This was a ludricrous notion. Parliament and decision making roles in the public and private sector were dominated by men. It just so happened that three high profile positions were held by women. But I hear this talk less lately. In the early days of her being PM, I heard Clark accused of a harsh appearance and of being selfish for not having any children (incidentally I have never understood why not having a child is a selfish act. Isn't the passing on of your DNA one of life's great vanity projects? And each child we have is going to put more pressure on the Earth's limited resources. Surely, therefore, procreation is the selfish act). You didn't hear such criticisms directed at male politicians. Perhaps I am too out of touch, now I am out of the workforce, but I seem to hear less of this criticism of Clark nowadays. I wonder then, are we growing up as a nation and getting used to the idea of a strong women in positions of power. And why might that be? Having women in high profile roles for a decent period of time must have helped us along. Clark has provided strong and effective leadership for over eight years, and few could question her competence and credentials.

I am hopeful about what this means for young girls and boys who have grown up during her term. I hope that they will see that aiming for great heights is something special, but not specifically extraordinary for a woman (as opposed to a man) to do. I hope that they look back on the days when people were concerned that women were running the country, and have a good old belly laugh.

So back to the original question, Clinton or Obama? From a "fair" representation perspective how could you value one over the other? I was surprised to hear that my husband (let's call him Iggy) was barracking for Barack, meanwhile I was hoping Hilary would prevail in Iowa. Iggy's argument was that there had never been a "black" president before (I always found the word black a bit odd - American "blacks" are not black - but then again I suppose "whites" are not white either, with the notable exception of Marilyn Manson.) I pointed out, on the other hand, how there had never been a female president before, "and women make up over half the population, so ha ha, I win". I don't pretend to know much about American politics, so my observations didn't get much deeper than that, although I did point out that she had been there, done that as first lady, whereas Obama is the new kid on the block relatively speaking.

Regardless, either would be a step up from George W, who would have made a lovely teddy bear face model (think frowning, quizzical Georgie), but isn't my hot favourite as US leaders go.