Nowadays, it seems to be quite natural that a woman should be and can potentially be a President, since she does not differ either mentally or morally from a great number of men which traditionally dominate in politics and social life. It is obvious that a woman is also a useful member of the political society. Moreover, some political and philosophical concepts and views of a female leadership are more stable, informative and logical. In fact, this is the result of the observations based on the real life activities and experience than on political data and doctrine.

Before speaking about modern facts, I should draw your attention to the fact that our history knows a large quantity of women, who became the leaders of their countries, reached the highest points in the political ladder. Here are just simple examples, taken from Wikipedia: Indira Gandy (1917-1984) - the Prime minister of India (1966-1977 and 1980-1984), Violeta Chamorro - the President of Nicaragua and all of Latin America, Maria Estella Martinez de Peron – the first woman President of Argentina (1974-1976), Margaret Thatcher – the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain (1979-1990), Waira Wike-Freiberg – the President of Latvia since 1999, Gloria Macapagal - the President of Philippines since 2001, Angela Merkel – the chancellor of Germany since 2005. And here is only a small list of names that are noted in history.

Speaking about present day situation, it is worthy of mention a very famous woman, Hillary Clinton. Ferrous character and will have not allowed her to lose any serious battle in her life, she has got used to hold a blow and not to incline under the load of problems. Hillary is a very ambitious woman. In the American political life, Hillary looks like a bright and outstanding figure. She has energetic, full of enthusiasm supporters and no less sharp adjusted opponents.

Speaking about her foreign policy, observers underline that Clinton started to promote her own position that is different from that of the current administration not by chance, and it is not because the rate of republicans falls down day by day. Not entirely right policy of republicans is the primary goal of her appearance on political arena. In most of her interviews, Hillary Clinton criticizes the foreign policy of George Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. As for Iraq, she supposes that the gradual withdrawal of the American troops is absolutely necessary. By the way, she underlines that the protection of human rights is in our interests just to move forward the freedom and principles of democracy. Moreover, she is sure that they should restore the relations between other countries (cited in The American Conservative, March27,2006)

She correctly describes the world we live in: development of terrorists network; growth of weapon supplies; situation in North Korea, openly testing rockets and nuclear weapon; active position of Iran, elaborative own nuclear potential; civil war in Iraq etc (The American Conservative, March27,2006). She earnestly underlines (Breitbart.com, Oct.31, 2006):

First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew

internationalism for a new century. We must value diplomacy

as well as a strong military. We should not hesitate to

engage in the world’s most difficult conflicts on a

diplomatic front.

That is why, agreeing with her policy, seventy percents of the American electors are ready to give their votes for the candidate of female sex on presidential elections of 2008, and 62 percents consider that a woman can govern America (cited in ABC News, Sept.27,2005). Geena Davis portrayed this question in ABC drama, saying:

I think we should just be talking about the person who is

the president, rather than their sex.

Greater part of electors has already determined with their sympathies and they are absolutely sure that democratic senator from the state New York Hillary Clinton, who has lived in the White house for eight years though in other status, must be on the post of the president. Others, traditionally voting for republicans, offer the Secretary of State Condolisa Rice as a candidate on the presidential arm-chair. But it is up to voters to decide as their general policy and leadership of these two female candidates are absolutely opposite, because Condolisa Rice is the main Bush’s sticker.

Comparing Hillary Clinton with other female leaders I should say that her political views and directions are respectively right. For example, one more woman, one more strong character – Margaret Thatcher. Certain political, ideological and moral options, which were conducted or aimed to conduct by Margaret Thatcher, and also her specific style of guidance – here are the key success of this woman. Here political philosophy is also interesting. Its base is made up by several elements. It is an apologetics of free enterprise and personal initiative. A direct financial benefit, desire to "arrange life as good as possible on your own and for the family" is one of the stimulus that Thatcher described. Being on the post of the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher undertook energetic efforts on the reformation of the British economy and whole society. Many state companies were privatized with the purpose of increase of economy efficiency. In numerous conflicts, Thatcher showed herself as a decisive politician and a great leader of the state, involving all of soldiery and diplomatic possibilities, for renewal of sovereignty of Great Britain.

Thatcher deserved a nickname "iron lady" thanks to her decisive actions for the inflexible following of a selected course, in spite of verbal attacks and criticism.

But all in all, the common idea is that a woman-president will manage much better with problems in a social sphere, especially in health protection and educational system, than a man. Speaking about defense, no doubt a woman is trusted not greatly, but it does not mean that a woman gains no understanding in martial law. Anyway, sex or it is better to say gender does not matter in this case.

The picture of presidential elections points out a long train of womanish victories in different countries: Angel Merkel in Germany, Waira Wike-Freiberg in Latvia, Gloria Macapagal on Philippines. As the experience of the last years shows, women win quite often on the elections in the states, where authoritarian leaders governed for a long time or civil cold war took place, for example on Philippines, in Indonesia, Nicaragua, finally, in Chile and Liberia.

However, the womanish charm only is not enough for victory: a candidate for a presidency must have a successful career equally competing with men. All the listed names of female Presidents are those women, who have the common idea of governing their country. They mostly fight for reconstruction of relations between countries, normalizing of economic situation and of course, extermination of problems in the sphere of health care and education. That is why, hoping that a woman will smooth out contradictions in the society better than a man, people vote for a woman.

So summing everything said before and all the facts, I can say that this information gives a clear portrait of a modern woman leader of a country and proves that every highly educated woman having a goal and aspiration for reaching it can become a bright head of the state.

But there is still one more question: "Should a woman be a President?". To my mind the concept of woman president is something speculative, going beyond the generally accepted rules and at the best subject to the theoretical and philosophical comprehension. Our society is still hardened in the patriarchal character. That is why this concept is examined as an exception and it sis often not mentioned in general.

According to objective tests of possibility, a woman does not have limitations for implementation of duties of a president. Moreover, some researches, conducted by scientists showed that in a number of cases a womanish paradigm of management, based on the non-hierarchical system, is lying on the ground before masculine. A woman generates more strong connections, comes from "life logic", she has close connection with nature that is especially important at the beginning of the XXI century, when a question of planet survival sharply stands before us.

However, all these facts have never been taken into account, but the point is that considerably higher requirements were preferred to a woman at all levels of management. So, it is obvious that to reach a Presidency in any case, in any country and under different circumstances is quite difficult for any woman of the state.