I do not believe America has ever seen a viable woman leader such as Michelle Bachelet run for president, but we do have several women in Congress and other elected positions. I do not believe the United States is an inconsequential nation in the globalized world simply because we haven't had a female president yet.
No, the fact that the United States has not yet had a female president has no influence on its role as a consequential nation. If that were the case, then countries like Russia, China and Japan would also be deemed inconsequential. While electing a female president might be a sign of progress, the United States remains a global superpower.
The United States of America is not an inconsequential nation in the globalized world for not having had elected a female leader, like Michelle Bachelet. Having a female leader does not automatically bring validity to a country. There have been imperial women rules, back even to the time of Cleopatra. America has validity and so does every democracy on earth -- whether there is a female in charge or not.
Throughout our history, there has always been an idea that the white male is the dominant type of person, and is the only type who can lead this nation. These racial ideas take a very long time to overcome, and we just did with president Obama, so we have done nothing wrong.
Another question that clearly has an anti American agenda behind it. It is not progressive, necessarily, that the US has not elected a woman, but several have had real chances at the office. The US is, by pretty much every metric, the most consequential and influential country in the world.