# Is the USA ready for a female president?



## la reine victoria

Having heard, some time ago now, that Hilary Clinton has "thrown her hat into the ring" for election to the Presidency, I've been wondering what the reaction is amongst our USA forer@s.

I've been reading quite a bit on the internet and have more or less gauged the mood, but would be interested in hearing your personal viewpoint.

LRV


----------



## Paulfromitaly

I wish it were, but I'm afraid it's not yet.
If G. Bush had been a black woman, he'd never ever have been elected (unfortunately he's a white rich guy  ).


----------



## xarruc

I can't answer whether America is ready for it but just imagine how Iran and other mysogynist governments are going to take the most powerful person on Earth being female! It would be a monumental event in terms of equality.


----------



## AngelEyes

Paulfromitaly said:


> If G. Bush had been a black woman, he'd never ever have been elected (unfortunately he's a white rich guy  ).


 

You could say that about:
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush, Sr.
Bill Clinton

What's your point? 

Or is that your point: it's time for a change?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## AngelEyes

LRV,

To answer your question, I think we're ready for a female president. It's a bit early to make a decision yet, but it's a very interesting political time in our country over here.

I'm looking forward to the debate and exchange of fresh ideas.

A woman could make a very good candidate for our highest office if she were qualified. 

It's going to be very exciting to watch as our democratic process is played out in front of the world. 

I'm thrilled at the prospect of it all.  


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Gatitalad

I think my country would elect a woman as president if we had a good option for one.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In a word, yes.


----------



## Kajjo

AngelEyes said:


> A woman could make a very good candidate for our highest office if she were qualified.


As far as I followed the  US politics the democrats will start with either a woman or a black person. Both would be novelties for the presidency.

The "if she were qualified part" appears to me to have never played such a strong role in US elections. From an outsider's point of view it is all about money, relations and lobbyism. Please feel free to teach me otherwise.

Kajjo


----------



## Riccardino

I think there will be one within the next 20 years, so either 08, 12, 16, 20, or 24. While I don't think she will be given the nomination, I believe that Hillary Clinton's campaign will help female candidates in the future. Also, within the next few years, all kinds of hardworking females from the 1970's and 80's that changed the face of America's workforce will be of presidential age (55-60).


----------



## ElaineG

Being female won't be what holds Hillary back. It depends how all other kinds of things play out, from memories (good and bad) of the other 8 Clinton years, to her shifting stance on the war and whether she has a plan for ending it, etc. 

Now, people may argue that more conservative sectors of American society won't vote for a woman candidate. But, guess what, those people weren't voting for the Democratic candidate anyway you look at it. So she's not losing ground with them.

The hard core Democratic base that turns out in the primary season IS ready for a female president. As I said, other factors could hurt her, but gender will be a plus if anything. (Many liberals I know can't stand the woman, but are tempted to over look some of her other flaws in the name of equality).

For whoever gets the nomination, the gut polarization issues -- abortion, the war, gay marriage, possibly, hopefully, climate change -- will drive people into either the Republican or Democratic camp. I doubt gender will have much to do with it.


----------



## Kajjo

Thanks, Elaine, for giving these insights.



ElaineG said:


> But, guess what, those people weren't voting for the Democratic candidate anyway


Right. As far as I understand the US situation most democratic or republican voters do not change the side anyway. The decision is made by a relatively small amount of voters willing to swap sides. Is that right?



> For whoever gets the nomination, the gut polarization issues -- abortion, the war, gay marriage, possibly, hopefully, climate change -- will drive people into either the Republican or Democratic camp.


From an outsider's point of view, I can follow the part about the war which is a really important issue. But I wonder why abortion and gay marriage are felt to be so important -- considering that most people are not _really _affected by both issues. One would expect people voting for peace, prosperity, education, health... and I guess there are enough important themes pressing nowadays.

Kajjo


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Kajjo said:


> Is that right?


No, I think that's left, since my country is now sponsoring a socialist government, and everybody's holding on tight to their positions! 

Now, back to the topic, I don't know if the USA is ready for Hillary or any other female president, but one thing's for sure: the rest of the world perhaps is not...  

I don't think many presidents would take the 'leader of the free world' (whatever that means) being a woman. Pity, since the logical thing is that the most prepared person should get "the job", no matter what his/her gender is.


----------



## Benjy

Ladies and gentlemen,

Please note that a large number of posts have been culled from this thread already. This *is* an interesting topic and I *do* want to see it stay open. Please restrict yourself to considdering the question posed by the thread-starter.

Thank you for your attention,
Ben


----------



## JamesM

I think only the election will tell us if the country is ready to elect this particular woman president, but I think it's significant that we are at the point where a woman can make a serious bid for the presidency and have it taken seriously.  As much news as Senator Clinton generates, none of it is taking her bid lightly.  She is considered a serious contender.

An interesting side point is the contrast between two of the front-runners on the Democratic side - a black male and a white female.  Setting aside any opinions I have of the specific candidates, electing either candidate as president would be a watershed event for the U.S.


----------



## AngelEyes

Kajjo said:


> The "if she were qualified part" appears to me to have never played such a strong role in US elections. Kajjo


 
I guess whether or not any of our candidates, male or female, are always the most qualified is a very subjective subject.

I can't argue the fact that I've stepped into the voting booth more than once and, with a grimace on my face, made my selection from the choices before me.  I've even been tempted a couple of times to just close my eyes and pick one at random, but I didn't do it. 

Hey, at least I show up for each election and vote.

There's a very real sense of us feeling like we're not important enough by ourselves to make a difference in whether we cast a vote or not. But it's such a privilege and a duty to do it, I could never stay away.

The political machine of any country is so vast and buffeted about at the whims of fate, behind-the-scenes activities, power-plays, and the biggest decision-maker of all: money, that it seems qualifications are way down at the bottom of that list, doesn't it?

Still, I do believe Hillary will win the nomination. She's a very powerful person here in this country.

And I very much agree with ElaineG. It will be many issues besides gender that will figure in to who we all vote for. Social issues, such as abortion and gay rights, are very powerful forces in the US.

I was watching the Financial Channel last week and I caught a snippet of a story that had interesting possibilities. One analyst was speaking about Vice-President Cheney stepping down and then having Condoleeza Rice being appointed Vice-President for the rest of Bush's term.

I admit I don't know anything about that. Has anyone else heard that story on any news you might be watching?

Imagine a Condi/Hillary run. That would be interesting.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## .   1

I do hope so but I am old and pessimestic enough to feel that the world  U.S.A. will have a female President much more akin to Margaret Thatcher and a long way from Mother Theresa.  I can not honestly see that it will make any difference.  The political machine in the U.S.A. is far too well entrenched with vested interests to allow an honest person to have a real chance at the presidency.

.,,


----------



## Paulfromitaly

AngelEyes said:


> Still, I do believe Hillary will win the nomination. She's a very powerful person here in this country.



Do explain, pretty please..do you mean that she will win the nomination because she's *powerful* and not for her skills, intelligence and ability?
That's probably the reason why G. Bush were elected, but it doesn't mean it always have to work the same way.





> And I very much agree with ElaineG. It will be many issues besides gender that will figure in to who we all vote for. Social issues, such as abortion and gay rights, are very powerful forces in the US.



I wish that we didn't even know the gender or the skin colour of a candidate because those issues shouldn't be taken in consideration at all when it comes to voting for a candidate.
I personally find the fact that Republicans could oppose C. Rice to H. Clinton for the sole reason that they are both women extremely sad and a sign of how politics is getting worse and mean.


----------



## french4beth

JamesM said:


> I think only the election will tell us if the country is ready to elect this particular woman president, but I think it's significant that we are at the point where a woman can make a serious bid for the presidency and have it taken seriously. As much news as Senator Clinton generates, none of it is taking her bid lightly. She is considered a serious contender.
> 
> An interesting side point is the contrast between two of the front-runners on the Democratic side - a black male and a white female. Setting aside any opinions I have of the specific candidates, electing either candidate as president would be a watershed event for the U.S.


I agree on both points!


----------



## .   1

Paulfromitaly said:


> I personally find the fact that Republicans could oppose C. Rice to H. Clinton for the sole reason that they are both women extremely sad and a sign of how politics is getting worse and mean.


Which Caeser was told that he would not be the party's preferred candidate at the point of Brutus and his mate's knives?  How many Caesers actually lived to a ripe old age?
Today the knives are not literally in the back and the daggers are only stares.  The Greeks were a bit rough as well.  A false accusation leveled against a political opponent resulted in a branded forehead to indicate 'false accuser'.  The old Scots would execute any leader who led them into something like Iraq.  No mess no muss just a sharp Claymore at dawn and a salutory lesson to any future leaders not to get caught up on a diet of their own hubris.

.,,


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

. said:


> The political machine in the U.S.A. is far too well entrenched with vested interests to allow an honest person to have a real chance at the presidency.
> 
> .,,


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Paulfromitaly said:


> I personally find the fact that Republicans could oppose C. Rice to H. Clinton for the sole reason that they are both women extremely sad and a sign of how politics is getting worse and mean.


Ah, come on, Paul! _That_ is the sign of how politics is getting worse and mean, to you?! Take a walk down here, darling, and USA's politics would seem like angel's talk, to you...  

I can't imagine a female president in Venezuela. We did have a female candidate, the same campaign that the current president ran for the "chair". She (Irene Sáez) was a Mayoress for several periods (the best public administrator we've ever had, if you ask me), but she was not taken seriously regarding a presidencial election.

I've always thought of USA as a more "open minded" country regarding that matter, but at the risk of repeating myself, I'd say I'm still not sure a woman would be accepted as the president of the USA by other countries... So I'd say international issues are somewhat significant in that matter.

What do you guys think?


----------



## AngelEyes

Paulfromitaly said:


> Do explain, pretty please..do you mean that she will win the nomination because she's *powerful* and not for her skills, intelligence and ability?
> That's probably the reason why G. Bush were elected, but it doesn't mean it always have to work the same way.
> 
> I wish that we didn't even know the gender or the skin colour of a candidate because those issues shouldn't be taken in consideration at all when it comes to voting for a candidate.
> I personally find the fact that Republicans could oppose C. Rice to H. Clinton for the sole reason that they are both women extremely sad and a sign of how politics is getting worse and mean.


 

Well, Paolo, since you asked so nice-like, how can I refuse to answer?  

_"...she will win the nomination because she's *powerful* and not for her skills, intelligence and ability?"_

My opinion is that it's precisely those qualities that contribute to her power base. But I think it's much more than that, much more than just the fact that she _is_ powerful. 

I think one of her best assets is that she's a wily, crafty genius when it comes to promoting herself and her ideas to the American public. She knows how to sell it, and there's no bigger advertising campaign and popularity contest than the US Presidency.

In addition to her being so smart is the fact that she has emotional stamina, too. That's not a quality that should be overlooked in the whole scheme of things during a campaign. She knows how to take the hard knocks that will be coming her way in the next two years. People will see that as the kind of inner strength they want from their president.

She's also got an already well-oiled machine in her election office. A lot of the people from her husband's campaign have been planning this move, I believe, since she left the White House. She's prepared. She knows what's she's doing and she knows how she's going to do it.

One of my mantras has always been: "You always have to have a plan."

I think Hillary has got a good one, and no one should underestimate her in any area.

That doesn't assure her the election, though. It's so early yet. She's got a lot of issues she's going to have to take a position on, and she - in my mind- doesn't do that too readily. 

Plus, this: do the people of the world realize how much she's disliked in our country? A lot of people really don't like her, including people in her own party! But they'll still vote for her come election time, because they want to see a Democrat back in the White House.

Regarding your remarks about President Bush, Paul, you already know my feelings about him. I don't think there's a simplistic answer why he was re-elected in his last run for office. Someone must have voted for him besides me.  

_"...I wish that we didn't even know the gender or the skin colour of a candidate because those issues shouldn't be taken in consideration at all when it comes to voting for a candidate..."_

Maybe we shouldn't take them into account, but we probably will when it comes time to cast our vote. 

_"...I personally find the fact that Republicans could oppose C. Rice to H. Clinton for the sole reason that they are both women extremely sad and a sign of how politics is getting worse and mean..."_

Yes, I agree. (Wow, we finally found something political we can both agree on.)

One last thing:
The Republicans have yet to pick a favorite frontrunner yet, so the contest is too lopsided to judge fully. Let's keep an eye on Mitt Romney, Rudy, and McCain...things can change very quickly when the other side starts rolling.

But I do believe we Americans are ready to accept a woman as our leader. And when we talk about a woman for president, there is only ONE woman at this time that comes to mind, and that's Hillary Clinton.

Is the rest of the world ready to accept a woman as the strongest leader of the free world? My short answer is no. That's also going to make this all much more interesting to watch as it unfolds. 


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

AngelEyes said:


> Is the rest of the world ready to accept a woman as the strongest leader of the free world?



The U.S. certainly isn't my leader.



AngelEyes said:


> My short answer is no.



Why not? Angela Merkel seems to have been accepted by all major countries, including places like Iran, without reservation.


----------



## palomnik

Why not?  the UK has had one, Germany has one, Argentina had one, India has had two, even _Pakistan_ had one.  Why not the USA?


----------



## cuchuflete

The U.S. has had about six years to grow accustomed to the idea of H. Clinton running for the presidency, and seems to have done so.  I've seen next to nothing in the press about her candidacy _as a woman.
_She has fervent supporters and equally committed enemies, but that seems to be based on her policy positions, her personal style, and the other usual things that cause a candidate to attract or repel people.  

Six years ago, it would have been inconceivable for a woman to run for the presidency and be taken seriously.
Today it is not.  I'm pleased at that progress.  If C. Rice were not so closely tied to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other architects of the Iraq fiasco, she too might be a credible candidate.


----------



## sloopjc

When you see television out-takes of G.W. Bush horsing around, or making crass statements, it's hard to imagine any woman behaving in such an infantile manner. On that point however, if a female president was elected, how would the responsibility towards the job manifest itself over time, and how might she let down her country in a parallel fashion?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

palomnik said:


> Why not? the UK has had one, Germany has one, Argentina had one, India has had two, even _Pakistan_ had one. Why not the USA?


Well, I don't _*personally*_ see any problem with it. If I were in the USA and had the right (and the motivation) to cast a vote, I wouldn't care about the candidates' gender at all. I didn't care about Irene Sáez being a woman, back in 1998. She was one of the best prepared candidates, although her campaign was not that effective.  Her gender didn't make her a better or worse candidate, to me.  And, I don't care about Hugo Chávez being a man. My thoughts on his policies and measures remain untouched, regardless of his gender. I wouldn't like them (or dislike them) any better was he a woman.

However, it just ocurred to me that the USA having a female president could be somewhat troublesome in the international field. The USA is not Venezuela (geez, really?!? ) Its international significance is something entirely different.

Maybe that was just a careless (mindless?) reflection of mine... I mean, if the Iron Lady made it, why not Mrs. Clinton?


----------



## TRG

. said:


> I do hope so but I am old and pessimestic enough to feel that the world  U.S.A. will have a female President much more akin to Margaret Thatcher and a long way from Mother Theresa. I can not honestly see that it will make any difference. The political machine in the U.S.A. is far too well entrenched with vested interests to allow an honest person to have a real chance at the presidency.
> 
> .,,


 
Perhaps you could explain how you come to acquire this important piece of information. If you follow US presidential politics at all, you should know that people get nominated by winning primary elections. It seems fairly transparent to me, but I will allow that we do not have our best talent running for president, but then who'd want a job like that if you could find honest work? 

As to the HRC/female president question, I don't see any reason why a woman couldn't run and win. It would just depend on her performance during the campaign. Naturally, there are going to be people who wouldn't vote for a woman, not now, not ever, but they are probably already voting Republican. I don't see how anyone claiming to be a Democrat could not accept a female candidate unless it was the electability thing. HRC is another story however. She has a lot of political bagage from her husband's two terms in the White House. A lot of people from both major parties are going to be asking themselves if they really want to go back to the Clintons in the White House. That, IMO, is the big stumbling block for HRC.


----------



## Kajjo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> [...]but one thing's for sure: the rest of the world perhaps is not... I don't think many presidents would take the 'leader of the free world' (whatever that means) being a woman.


Well, I am not so pessimistic. Germany has a female chancellor at the moment, who is both nationally and internationally well accepted. She just finished a tour through the male-dominated Arabic area and was well received and respected as political and economic partner. 



> Pity, since the logical thing is that the most prepared person should get "the job", no matter what his/her gender is.


I believe it is not the gender issue that blocks competent people from reaching highest positions. Money and lobbyism rule instead of pragmatic and rational policies.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

AngelEyes said:


> I guess whether or not any of our candidates, male or female, are always the most qualified is a very subjective subject.


Well, I believe "the most qualified" person will never be candidate. Whether the most qualified candidate becomes president might be subjective, but most information given here points to prominent themes (like abortion or gay marriage) being decisive rather than the personal qualification to solve really important issues facing the country.



> Imagine a Condi/Hillary run. That would be interesting.


It would be, indeed!

Kajjo


----------



## muselinazi

xarruc said:


> I can't answer whether America is ready for it but just imagine how Iran and other mysogynist governments are going to take the most powerful person on Earth being female! It would be a monumental event in terms of equality.



I'm more than a little bit sceptical about that. India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all had female heads of state but I don't think that any of them truly impacted the lot of women or the balance of equality in their respective  countries just by being in power. 
Not that I don't think a female president would be a good idea- I do- I'm just sceptical as to how much it really would shake up the status quo.


----------



## muselinazi

Kajjo said:


> Well, I believe "the most qualified" person will never be candidate. Whether the most qualified candidate becomes president might be subjective, but most information given here points to prominent themes (like abortion or gay marriage) being decisive rather than the personal qualification to solve really important issues facing the country.



I agree. What does it mean to be "most qualified" anyway? It's pretty slippery criterea as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## TRG

AngelEyes said:


> Well, Paolo, since you asked so nice-like, how can I refuse to answer?
> 
> _"...she will win the nomination because she's *powerful* and not for her skills, intelligence and ability?"_
> 
> My opinion is that it's precisely those qualities that contribute to her power base. But I think it's much more than that, much more than just the fact that she _is_ powerful.
> 
> I think one of her best assets is that she's a wily, crafty genius when it comes to promoting herself and her ideas to the American public. She knows how to sell it, and there's no bigger advertising campaign and popularity contest than the US Presidency.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
You may recall that when Bill Clinton was president he gave his wife the task of coming up with a national health care plan. By all accounts, this was an unmitigated failure; it didn't sell. I think she has done a very good job as senator and has avoided any major blunders, so perhaps she has learned, but that's what we will really find out about during the campaign. And I do give her credit for being smart, no question she has a good mind and certainly a good public personality.


----------



## muselinazi

Riccardino said:


> While I don't think she will be given the nomination, I believe that Hillary Clinton's campaign will help female candidates in the future. Also, within the next few years, all kinds of hardworking females from the 1970's and 80's that changed the face of America's workforce will be of presidential age (55-60).



I pretty much agree with your analysis. Perhaps Clinton running for office will be a step towards putting debates like this to rest, whether she's given the nomination or not.


----------



## Kajjo

muselinazi said:


> I agree. What does it mean to be "most qualified" anyway? It's pretty slippery criterea as far as I'm concerned.


Yes, it is. Politicians are qualified for politics. Hopefully at least. They are not particular qualified for science, health, education, defense and so on. The qualification would be to assemble a team of experts, to realise what the most important issues are and how to solve them. And to maintain a governmental condition that enables the experts to do their jobs. OK, that's wishful theory, I know. 

Kajjo


----------



## Surly Canuck

In my experience, US elections tend to be decided by the middle. The right votes Republican, and always will. The left will do the same for the Democrats.

It's the middle ground that needs to be picked up by either candidate; my opinion is that the middle is not opposed to the idea of a female president. Wether Clinton is that candidate or not is another question.

From my peanut gallery north of the border, I think it might be a little soon for Hilary. Obama might have a better chance, but in the end the Dems will field the candidate they think has the best chance of winning, which is not necessarily the best qualified candidate.


----------



## TRG

Surly Canuck said:


> In my experience, US elections tend to be decided by the middle. The right votes Republican, and always will. The left will do the same for the Democrats.
> 
> It's the middle ground that needs to be picked up by either candidate; my opinion is that the middle is not opposed to the idea of a female president. Wether Clinton is that candidate or not is another question.


 
Don't forget about third parties. They have been a significant factor in several recent elections. Bill Clinton never received more than 50% of the poplular vote, even though he was elected twice, because of Ross Perot and whatever his party was, I forget, but it's gone now. Then we have Ralph Nader and the Green party which was significant in the 2000 election, very likely costing Al Gore the presidency. It's not always the middle and it very often is the extremes, especially in determining the nomination.

My previous comments notwithstanding, I believe that HRC has been assiduously positioning herself as a centrist because she fully understands that an extreme left or right candidate cannot win. The difficulty is establishing your credentials in the center without losing your people on the fringe.


----------



## Surly Canuck

TRG said:


> Don't forget about third parties...
> The difficulty is esstablishing your credentials in the center without losing your people on the fringe.


 
True enough TRG... I hadn't thought about vote splitting when I wrote my post. Here in Canukistan it seems that vote splitting is becoming more of an issue as there is a tendancy to vote for "Anyone But X".

And certainly it's a different system, whereby we don't vote for a prime minister, simply for a party.

Centrist is the only way that HRC can carry the election, just so long as she doesn't alienate the Democratic base. That being said, I'm not so sure how the nomination is secured. My understanding is that it comes about through party members, and not a public vote.

Surly


----------



## cuchuflete

Surly Canuck said:


> Centrist is the only way that HRC can carry the election, just so long as she doesn't alienate the Democratic base. That being said, I'm not so sure how the nomination is secured. My understanding is that it comes about through party members, and not a public vote.



I'll try to clarify that last part, and bring us back to the topic as well. Nominations are secured at a party convention. Delegates are from every state, with each state having votes proportional to population...something like the way states have congressional seats.  That's the high level view.
Most states have primary elections, in which registered voters cast ballots for their preferred candidate to become a presidential candidate.  More muddle: In some states, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Party's primary; in other states, one may "cross party lines", and vote in any one primary.  Exception: States such as Iowa do not select representatives to the national party convention by primary, but by local meetings called caucuses.  I'm sure Wiki or some other source can give more detail.

Back to the thread topic:  To win nomination by a major party, a candidate must attract widespread support across states, especially those with large populations.  The nomination process is initially more democratic than Presidential elections.  If, however, a would-be nominee does not win a clearcut victory in convention voting, good (bad?) old-fashioned political horse-trading for votes takes place.   A woman must have the same broad popular appeal as any man to become a 'finalist' in the nomination process.  HRC or C.Rice or any other potential nominee can easily be
placed into consideration as a "favorite son/daughter" candidate by her own state's delegation, but after that it is the same arithmetic for all comers.

As I wrote a few posts back, I think the sex of a well known candidate is largely a non-issue today, providing she has broad support within her own party.


----------



## Cereth

Well after my posts were deleted... I´ll keep it simple, the answer is: *No*


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> The U.S. has had about six years to grow accustomed to the idea of H. Clinton running for the presidency, and seems to have done so. I've seen next to nothing in the press about her candidacy _as a woman._
> She has fervent supporters and equally committed enemies, but that seems to be based on her policy positions, her personal style, and the other usual things that cause a candidate to attract or repel people.
> 
> Six years ago, it would have been inconceivable for a woman to run for the presidency and be taken seriously.
> Today it is not. I'm pleased at that progress. If C. Rice were not so closely tied to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other architects of the Iraq fiasco, she too might be a credible candidate.


 
Ronald Regan said it best, "There you go again!" What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> Ronald Regan said it best, "There you go again!" What does this have to do with anything?


Simple. Look at the results of the last election.  She may be highly intelligent, capable administrator, experienced...and a string of other positives. But she is closely associated with policies that are very unpopular with most of the electorate.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Simple. Look at the results of the last election. She may be highly intelligent, capable administrator, experienced...and a string of other positives. But she is closely associated with policies that are very unpopular with most of the electorate.


 
I'd have to agree that, as a candidate for president, female or not, Ms. Rice has towed the line too assiduously to distance herself much from the Bush administration's policies, which are currently unpopular with a majority of the population. 

If she had concerns about the policy, I was never aware of her voicing them, contrary to someone like Colin Powell who voiced his concerns, bucked the trend, and accepted the consequences gracefully. (Now there's someone I'd like to see in the running.)

Condaleeza Rice seems to be a Renaissance Woman, if there is such a term, and is phenomenally accomplished, but everyone brings their own baggage to an election campaign and I think hers would be particularly difficult to jettison in the current political climate.


----------



## .   1

sloopjc said:


> When you see television out-takes of G.W. Bush horsing around, or making crass statements, it's hard to imagine any woman behaving in such an infantile manner.


Brittney Spears, Madonna, Paris Hilton, Roseanne Barr.
No, you're right.  There are no crass women just crass blokes.

.,,


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Perhaps you could explain how you come to acquire this important piece of information. If you follow US presidential politics at all, you should know that people get nominated by winning primary elections. It seems fairly transparent to me, but I will allow that we do not have our best talent running for president, but then who'd want a job like that if you could find honest work?


My aquisition is deductive.
When was the last time that a non millionaire was elected as President.
When was the last time that a non millionaire was even a serious contender?
The game is fixed to ensure that only mega rich people are even considered.
The direct answer is that it is an oily question of petroleum politics.
There is no chance that the oil lobby will allow a person to be elected as president unless that person fully supports big oil.
All sorts of strange coincidences keep ocurring like when a law was passed governing exhaust pollution from passenger vehicles Big Oil rammed through laws ensuring that SUVs were exempted from the legislation so that now the most profitable offshoot for Big Oil is the sale of enormous fuel guzzeling behemoths clogging our roads and emergency wards.

.,,


----------



## TRG

JamesM said:


> I'd have to agree that, as a candidate for president, female or not, Ms. Rice has towed the line too assiduously to distance herself much from the Bush administration's policies, which are currently unpopular with a majority of the population.
> 
> If she had concerns about the policy, I was never aware of her voicing them, contrary to someone like Colin Powell who voiced his concerns, bucked the trend, and accepted the consequences gracefully. (Now there's someone I'd like to see in the running.)
> 
> Condaleeza Rice seems to be a Renaissance Woman, if there is such a term, and is phenomenally accomplished, but everyone brings their own baggage to an election campaign and I think hers would be particularly difficult to jettison in the current political climate.


 
Evidently you missed Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN; too bad. It was very convincing, so much so that I'm sure he believed it himself. Had he believed otherwise, then he would have done well to resign in protest thereby saving us all, perhaps, at lot of trouble. As for him running for POTUS, it seems to me it's been his for the asking for some time. I don't know what could be holding him back, other than.... good sense. As far as Condi running for POTUS, she simply doesn't have the background politically to do it. Her politics are certainly agreeable to conservatives and I think they would even hold their noses and vote for a black woman. If Condi wants to run for POTUS then she needs to get elected to something else first. Besides, she just wants to be commish of the NFL, and I believe she means it.


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> My aquisition is deductive.
> When was the last time that a non millionaire was elected as President.


 
According to this article in China Daily in 2005, there were 8.9 million millionaires in the U.S in 2005.  That's a reasonably large pool from which to pick. 

I do understand your point, though.  It takes a huge amount of money and a large number of connections to even be considered as a candidate.


----------



## TRG

. said:


> My aquisition is deductive.
> When was the last time that a non millionaire was elected as President.
> When was the last time that a non millionaire was even a serious contender?
> The game is fixed to ensure that only mega rich people are even considered.
> The direct answer is that it is an oily question of petroleum politics.
> There is no chance that the oil lobby will allow a person to be elected as president unless that person fully supports big oil.
> All sorts of strange coincidences keep ocurring like when a law was passed governing exhaust pollution from passenger vehicles Big Oil rammed through laws ensuring that SUVs were exempted from the legislation so that now the most profitable offshoot for Big Oil is the sale of enormous fuel guzzeling behemoths clogging our roads and emergency wards.
> 
> .,,


 
Jeez, you've already dispatched one William Jefferson Clinton to the dustbin of history without so much as nod or a wink. Clinton did not enter the WH a rich man by any stretch of the imagination, and I believe he left in worse financial shape than he went in. But, I believe the boy is doin' alright now, thank you very much. And he was hardly a pawn of "Big Oil". Now be honest, when you wanted to scare your kids did you used to tell them that "Big Oil" was hiding under the bed?


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> According to this article in China Daily in 2005, there were 8.9 million millionaires in the U.S in 2005. That's a reasonably large pool from which to pick.


And since when did China start releasing accurate propaganda about the USA. 
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
It requires a multi-millionaire to run for the presidency.
What is the term for a person with more than ten million dollars?
You need lazy wealth to be a presidential candidate.  Money just lying around all over the place.

.,,


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Jeez, you've already dispatched one William Jefferson Clinton to the dustbin of history without so much as nod or a wink. Clinton did not enter the WH a rich man by any stretch of the imagination, and I believe he left in worse financial shape than he went in. But, I believe the boy is doin' alright now, thank you very much. And he was hardly a pawn of "Big Oil". Now be honest, when you wanted to scare your kids did you used to tell them that "Big Oil" was hiding under the bed?


If you google 'whitewater' you are led to an immediate "whitewater scandle' with 361,000 hits.
I suspect that this may cast some light on the aquisition of wealth by and honesty of both WJC and HRC.
Clinton an honest president.  Wow, those Habanas do have fantastic plastic wrapping when you smoke it.

My fur coat I told my kids scary stories about Big Oil and other multinationals out to garner every tiny scrap of profit no matter the human misery resultant.

The U.S.A. will be ready for a female president when the pollsters and lobbyists and political number crunchers deem that it would be good PR and not a moment before.

.,,


----------



## TRG

. said:


> If you google 'whitewater' you are led to an immediate "whitewater scandle' with 361,000 hits.
> I suspect that this may cast some light on the aquisition of wealth by and honesty of both WJC and HRC.
> Clinton an honest president. Wow, those Habanas do have fantastic plastic wrapping when you smoke it.
> 
> My fur coat I told my kids scary stories about Big Oil and other multinationals out to garner every tiny scrap of profit no matter the human misery resultant.
> 
> The U.S.A. will be ready for a female president when the pollsters and lobbyists and political number crunchers deem that it would be good PR and not a moment before.
> 
> .,,


 
This is so off-topic, but oh well... The irony of the Whitewate scandal is that the whole thing was a financial bust and the Clinton's made very little, if any, money from it. This didn't stop the Republicans from investigating it for 8 years, and if HRC get elected, we will probably get to hear about Whitewater for another 4/8 years which is one of the reasons I said earlier that the previous Clinton presidency would be a problem for an HRC candidacy. By the way, I lived in Arkansas for 10 years while WJC was governor so I've been following his political career for a long time. I can't say that I knew people who didn't like him, but it wasn't hard to find people who didn't trust him.

I should also add that you don't really have to be super rich to run for president, look at Ralph Nader, but you do have to be able to raise a lot of money and to me this is actually an important test of whether someone has what it takes.  If you can convice enough people to give you 100 million or 200 million dollars then that in itself is proof of superior organizational ability.  You could say it's proof of corruption, but I'm just not that cynical and I believe the process of fundraising is too transparent for any serious corruption to go on.  Some would call me naive.


----------



## winklepicker

> Is the USA ready for a female president?


 
Crikey, I hope so. I liked Clinton, and I had the feeling that HRC's healthcare proposals died for political reasons (getting them through the senate), not because they 'didn't sell' with the electorate.

If HRC has any of the soft skills that women are supposed to have, she can only make things better. Mind you, having experienced handbagging Maggie, I'm not wholly hopeful on that point.


----------



## AngelEyes

Am I hearing correctly what some of you men are saying when it comes to female leaders? 

I'm speaking specifically about the more traditional female traits of softness, nurturing, sympathetic understanding in the realm of unspoken feelings, and also that intuitive "something" that women seem to have.

Would you, do you, like having those qualities exhibited in a female leader? Do you even desire them as a positive addition, in regards to what they might contribute to the job?

I find that fascinating that men seek that out and speak about it.

Women, at least women I know, strive to be "strong and resolute" in the work world. They deny, suppress, hide, and ignore their feminine mental attributes, for the most part.

We're taught that to work alongside men and be paid what they're paid, it's better to think and express ourselves like men, too.

I'm not saying we hate being women. I'm saying we're confused at just where the perfect balance is between the yin/yang in our personalities.

Do our women leaders become more successful, then, if they learn how to perfect this inner balance within themselves? And do men really like this aspect of women leaders who can?

I think when Hillary smiles, it changes her whole countenance and makes her much more likeable. Does that translate into more votes for her? And is that part of the reason why I think America is ready to accept a female president?




_*AngelEyes* _


----------



## Kajjo

AngelEyes said:


> Would you, do you, like having those qualities exhibited in a female leader? [...] Women, at least women I know, strive to be "strong and resolute" in the work world. They deny, suppress, hide, and ignore their feminine mental attributes, for the most part. We're taught that to work alongside men


Yes, absolutely. Women impersonating men will never fully succeed (and vice versa). This is the eternal lie of feminism. Women and men are not equal! They have different abilities and capapilities.

Women should use and show their advantegous abilities. Men will respect women for being successful women, not for badly imitating men. The soft skills you mentioned could play a much more important part if women leader would just be theirselves.

Kajjo


----------



## winklepicker

Kajjo said:


> Women impersonating men will never fully succeed (and vice versa). This is the eternal lie of feminism. Women and men are not equal! They have different abilities and capapilities.
> 
> Women should use and show their advantegous abilities. Men will respect women for being successful women, not for badly imitating men. The soft skills you mentioned could play a much more important part if women leaders would just be theirselves.


 
    YES YES YES! If we want a male leader we'll vote for one!


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> Am I hearing correctly what some of you men are saying when it comes to female leaders?
> 
> I'm speaking specifically about the more traditional female traits of softness, nurturing, sympathetic understanding in the realm of unspoken feelings, and also that intuitive "something" that women seem to have.
> 
> Would you, do you, like having those qualities exhibited in a female leader? Do you even desire them as a positive addition, in regards to what they might contribute to the job?
> 
> I find that fascinating that men seek that out and speak about it.


I missed all of that.  I have perceived no sexist posts in this thread.  To which comments are you referring?

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> I have perceived no sexist posts in this thread.


Me neither. Why do you think that talking about women's soft skills might be sexist? It was not so in this thread.

Kajjo


----------



## AngelEyes

. said:


> I missed all of that. I have perceived no sexist posts in this thread. To which comments are you referring?
> 
> .,,


 
I was not in the least thinking anyone was sexist.  

We speak about our female leaders in terms of strength and "muscle" if you will. I think it was winklepicker who made mention of Margaret Thatcher's "strong" traits. "Handbagging" was the term he used, I believe.

I spoke of Hillary's inner strength.

It was just an added issue I was picking up, and I wanted to get feedback from the men in this thread. The women, too, for that matter. 

So, down boy. You spoke about sleazy behavior from some females. I was leaning more towards discussing feminine traits associated with ladies, and how that would add an additional impact to our first female president, should we elect one.

Remember, that here in America, this issue is monumental in our history. Other countries have experienced it more than we have. The newness of a woman president sparks all kinds of ideas and questions.

That's what this was. Nothing more. 

*AngelEyes*


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> So, down boy.


So, down girl!
You do have a fascinating turn of phrase.
Is 'boy' a term of endearment in your social circle.
You made an ambiguous statement and I requested clarification which is has not really been supplied and I am told "Down boy."
What a marvelous way to speak in a thread dealing with gender politics.
I have to be so careful to not make sexist comments about females but an apparent female feels free to patronise me in a sexist manner.
You go, girl.

.,,


----------



## winklepicker

. said:


> Down boy. Down girl!
> ... patronise me...


 
Children, children!

_(Now you can both turn on me, which should reunite you both nicely!)_


----------



## AngelEyes

Oh, no, winklepicker...there's no need...really!  

"Down, girl" is cute, funny...not at all taken badly by me. Same with "You go, girl." I laughed when I read it. (Oh, oh...it wasn't meant to be a joke? No matter, it came across as one.)

Same with, "Down, boy." It's not meant meanly at all. It's kind of like, "Whoa, wait a minute...slow down...no harm meant or taken."

It's kind of like saying, "Step back, Jack, you're misunderstanding my intent, here." Casual, friendly, non-combative.

I thought your feedback, winklepicker - and also that of Kajjo - was really interesting, from a male/female point of view. (You two being the males here.)

Over here in the US, we are discovering lots of new ways of looking at feminine behavior when it bands together with power. It's a combination we're all striving to understand and maybe even mimic in our own careers: finding a better balance between the two and doing it successfully. 

It's just another factor that's going to come about because of Hillary's campaign.

_*AngelEyes* _


----------



## Antupiren

In Chile, many wondered if we were prepared to elect a female president?  We did.  Does that mean that we were prepared?  I wonder. Some will never accept it.


----------



## Kajjo

AngelEyes said:


> Over here in the US, we are discovering lots of new ways of looking at feminine behavior when it bands together with power.


Most men will prefer feminine over feministic behaviour (I do by far!). And being natural and not showing artificial, constructed behaviour is welcomed in any case, I guess, no matter which gender. If you try to play somebody else you are never as authentic, constant and trustworthy as when being yourself. Again, this applies to both genders.

Kajjo


----------



## french4beth

Antupiren said:


> In Chile, many wondered if we were prepared to elect a female president? We did. Does that mean that we were prepared? I wonder. Some will never accept it.


My thoughts exactly!



> Most men will prefer feminine over feministic behaviour (I do by far!).


By the way, what exactly is this _'feministic behavior'  _? Although I'm thinking that I don't want to hear the answer; if by feminist, you mean someone who believes that a woman who has the same experience ,training, background, and abilities should be paid the same as a man, I'm a feminist. I don't bash men, I'm an equal-opportunity basher of specific individuals, be they male or female.


----------



## TRG

AngelEyes said:


> I was not in the least thinking anyone was sexist.
> 
> We speak about our female leaders in terms of strength and "muscle" if you will. I think it was winklepicker who made mention of Margaret Thatcher's "strong" traits. "Handbagging" was the term he used, I believe.
> 
> I spoke of Hillary's inner strength.
> 
> It was just an added issue I was picking up, and I wanted to get feedback from the men in this thread. The women, too, for that matter.
> 
> So, down boy. You spoke about sleazy behavior from some females. I was leaning more towards discussing feminine traits associated with ladies, and how that would add an additional impact to our first female president, should we elect one.
> 
> Remember, that here in America, this issue is monumental in our history. Other countries have experienced it more than we have. The newness of a woman president sparks all kinds of ideas and questions.
> 
> That's what this was. Nothing more.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Speak more of "inner strength". What is it and how do you tell if someone has it? Do women have it more often than men? Is it just as good in one sex as the other?


----------



## AngelEyes

TRG said:


> Speak more of "inner strength". What is it and how do you tell if someone has it? Do women have it more often than men? Is it just as good in one sex as the other?


 

Inner strength is a human emotion, so I would think it's one that's accessed equally by both men and women.

Inner strength, to me, is quiet. It doesn't yell or throw tantrums, because it's made up of confidence.

Confidence in your beliefs, in your values, in your opinions, in your choice of conduct and morals.

Inner Strength is vital for any political leader to possess, both men and women. It feeds on principles, and it's guided by honesty. It allows you to stand up for what you think is right, to give in when you might be wrong, to stand strong and sure when _you're _strong and sure, even when everyone else thinks you're wrong.

If all presidents and world leaders had inner strength that was guided and nurtured by selfless interests, it would be a much better world.

Because I believe there's also a negative side to inner strength, if it's used against people, instead of for them, especially when you're the one who possesses all the power, like presidents and other leaders do.

I guess that's what it means to me. Something to cultivate, and something to respect inside myself. The good side of Inner Strength, that is.

Not just for men. Not just for women. But for all people.

What does it mean to you?

*AngelEyes*


----------



## brazuca01

CNN's Anderson Cooper recently showed a poll saying that 68% of Americans believe the US is ready for a woman as president. So be it!


----------



## TRG

AngelEyes said:


> Inner strength is a human emotion, so I would think it's one that's accessed equally by both men and women.
> 
> Inner strength, to me, is quiet. It doesn't yell or throw tantrums, because it's made up of confidence.
> 
> Confidence in your beliefs, in your values, in your opinions, in your choice of conduct and morals.
> 
> Inner Strength is vital for any political leader to possess, both men and women. It feeds on principles, and it's guided by honesty. It allows you to stand up for what you think is right, to give in when you might be wrong, to stand strong and sure when _you're _strong and sure, even when everyone else thinks you're wrong.
> 
> If all presidents and world leaders had inner strength that was guided and nurtured by selfless interests, it would be a much better world.
> 
> Because I believe there's also a negative side to inner strength, if it's used against people, instead of for them, especially when you're the one who possesses all the power, like presidents and other leaders do.
> 
> I guess that's what it means to me. Something to cultivate, and something to respect inside myself. The good side of Inner Strength, that is.
> 
> Not just for men. Not just for women. But for all people.
> 
> What does it mean to you?
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Unless you know someone personally and fairly well, I don't think it's possible to assess the depth of their personal characteristics. I would say this is particularly true for politicians who are, to some extent, actors on a stage. HRC's public image is certainly one of confidence, intelligence, and good humor. It's just impossible for me to say from those qualities that she possesses "inner strength". I have seen tears come to the eyes of our current president on national TV. Should I draw any conclusions from that about his character?


----------



## cuchuflete

* Is the USA ready for a female president?

*That may vary not only by party, but by the sex, education, and economic status of individual voters.  I haven't looked for poll data on this,
so here is nothing but a speculation:

Among better educated voters, sex of candidate is largely a non-issue.
As education may correlate fairly closely with income, for similar age groups, I wouldn't expect a candidate's sex to be an issue for the better-off voters either.
Among voters in general, I have a nagging suspicion, unsubstantiated, that men are apt to be more open to the idea of a female president than women.  I state this for all voters, regardless of age, education, or income.

Polling data is welcome in support or in opposition to my guesses.  Please provide a source.


----------



## AngelEyes

TRG said:


> Unless you know someone personally and fairly well, I don't think it's possible to assess the depth of their personal characteristics. I would say this is particularly true for politicians who are, to some extent, actors on a stage. HRC's public image is certainly one of confidence, intelligence, and good humor. It's just impossible for me to say from those qualities that she possesses "inner strength". I have seen tears come to the eyes of our current president on national TV. Should I draw any conclusions from that about his character?


 
TRG,

I can't argue with anything you've said. Who's to say Hillary's "inner strength" is of the positive or negative kind?

Only time will tell over the next couple of years, as she presents herself and her policies to the public. Then we'll all have to make our own judgements and show our conclusions at the ballot box.

As for President Bush and his public tears, well...I support the man and I voted for him. I believe his tears are real and come from a place drawn in pain.

But again, that's a matter of personal opinion. If yours is different from mine, that's fine.

But you're correct and I do agree with you about the difficulty in gauging the depth and sincerity and the ulterior motives of someone's inner strength - or character, if you will.

It does seem, though, that by the time people get to that place where the supreme power lies - the leadership of any country - they've become jaded and cynical and the original ideals and dreams that might have spurred them to seek a position of leadership in the first place are somehow lost in the process.

Wouldn't it be great to find a bona-fide hero among our leaders of today?

Is there one out there?

And cuchuflete...I agree with you that it's the women who are going to be the tough sell on Hillary's candidacy. She's going to have to work extra hard to win over the feminine vote. Women are very demanding of other women when it comes to high standards of performance. We expect a lot from each other.

I wonder if they have done any polling data yet on her popularity among women only?

*AngelEyes*


----------



## djchak

* Is the USA ready for a female president?


*Yes, but the U.S. is also ready for a black president, latino president.....but it's not because they are female, latino, or black....it's who they are and what they stand for as a person. No, really, all you cynics.... 

Just look at what happened today with Barack Obama.

It's front page news on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6349081.stm

I suppose a better question might be...when will we see Black presidents in Asia, Europe, Russia, the Middle East......


----------



## iheartflutes

Gatitalad said:


> I think my country would elect a woman as president if we had a good option for one.


 
I totally agree with this comment. Right now, it's not really a question of whether or not this country is ready for a female president, but whether or not our next leader can deal with what our last leader has left us. Personally I feel the US is in an awful predicament and it would take someone with real guts to be able to put it all back together. When a good woman leader comes along, I would be more than willing to vote for her, but I feel that now is not the right time to be determining issues of equality.

     --flutes


----------



## asm

I think our country is ready for a female president, but not every body is ready for that. There are sectors that will not vote for any female candidate, nor will accept her presidency no matter what the results are.

However, in my opinion the issue will depend more on the actual ballot; politics in the US are so pragmatic that everything will narrow to the two (real candidates) names printed on the paper ballot. Will the battle confront Clinton vs. Rice? The female discussion will be useless. Will the battle confront Obama and Rice? The race will not be "that" important, but the gender will.
Very often people say they are open to vote for a woman (or a minority leader), but when the real person is in the ballot, the real vote doesn't necesarily go to that candidate.





la reine victoria said:


> Having heard, some time ago now, that Hilary Clinton has "thrown her hat into the ring" for election to the Presidency, I've been wondering what the reaction is amongst our USA forer@s.
> 
> I've been reading quite a bit on the internet and have more or less gauged the mood, but would be interested in hearing your personal viewpoint.
> 
> LRV


----------



## etornudo

Antupiren said:


> In Chile, many wondered if we were prepared to elect a female president?  We did.  Does that mean that we were prepared?  I wonder. Some will never accept it.



I don't know how the Chilean electoral system works but here we have an electoral college. I think Hillary can possibly win more popular votes than a Republican rival (she _will _get the nomination) but I'm not so sure that she can win enough electoral votes to become president. 

If it were a "whoever gets the most votes" contest I would say Hillary can start searching for moving companies.

Hillary might very well lose states that her husband picked up when he ran if conservative Democrats (both male and female) are put off by the idea of a woman in the White House. And I think many _will _be even if they don't admit it or realize that this is the reason they didn't bother to vote this time.

A woman president, in 2008, with an electoral system? Not ready yet.

I think it's sad that we are not ready, as a country, for a woman president. I would much rather that HRC lost, and I hope she does, for her track record.


----------



## TRG

etornudo said:


> I don't know how the Chilean electoral system works but here we have an electoral college. I think Hillary can possibly win more popular votes than a Republican rival (she _will _get the nomination) but I'm not so sure that she can win enough electoral votes to become president.
> 
> If it were a "whoever gets the most votes" contest I would say Hillary can start searching for moving companies.
> 
> Hillary might very well lose states that her husband picked up when he ran if conservative Democrats (both male and female) are put off by the idea of a woman in the White House. And I think many _will _be even if they don't admit it or realize that this is the reason they didn't bother to vote this time.
> 
> A woman president, in 2008, with an electoral system? Not ready yet.
> 
> I think it's sad that we are not ready, as a country, for a woman president. I would much rather that HRC lost, and I hope she does, for her track record.


 
You make a good point since HRC's strength, as with all Democratic canditates for POTUS, is in the more heavily urbanized states like California and New York which could lead to a repeat of the 2000 election where Al Gore won the popular vote nationally, but failed to win a majority of the electoral votes. However, had Al Gore carried his home state of Tennessee, he would have won. It would be ironic if the same thing happened to HRC because she was unable to carry her former home state of Arkansas. It could happen. To avoid this, she needs to mount a campaign that will succeed in some of the less urbanized areas of the country.


----------



## etornudo

Well, if she wins all the states Kerry won plus Florida, she'll have the votes she needs. But she needs to be careful about states like Ohio which she might lose if she doesn't get those conservative democrats on her side.

On the other hand, I think states like Texas are a lost cause. There is no way she's winning Texas. And I think she might even lose Arkansas. It's just 6 votes. Tennesee cost Al Gore 11.

Hillary might get the states affected by hurricanes if those people are still mad and back to their home states. Louisiana will get her 9 votes. But I think Florida is key in this election. Picking up Ohio won't hurt but that's going to be tough.

I think one of the problems with her is that she might be tempted to use the disaster in Iraq to win but the Republicans have the perfect "come-back" for that. "But you voted for Iraq, didn't you?" Her response will be complicated and the American people don't like complicated.


----------



## cuchuflete

We are wandering from the topic, which is whether the US is ready for a female president, and getting into the specifics of campaign strategy and issues for a single person.

Why not forget Ms. Clinton for a while, and consider the question.  Suppose the Republican party were to consider Elizabeth Dole, or Olympia Snow, and they were to win their party's nomination?  Would the electorate as a whole given them fair consideration on their merits, or would their status as females derail their campaign?


----------



## etornudo

The original post went like this:

*Is the USA ready for a female president?* 
 			 			 		 		 		 		Having heard, some time ago now, that Hilary Clinton has "thrown her hat into the ring" for election to the Presidency, I've been wondering what the reaction is amongst our USA forer@s.

I've been reading quite a bit on the internet and have more or less gauged the mood, but would be interested in hearing your personal viewpoint.

---
That was my reaction. The Republicans are not ready for a woman nominee, IMHO, and they don't have an "Iron Lady", and we don't have the same system as in the UK, so I see no point in speculating about that.

That's just what I think. I'll shut up now.


----------



## breadman

I could not agree more with your point about money, relations, and lobbyism. And sadly, she is qualified, if thinking in those terms.


  Thank you.



Kajjo said:


> As far as I followed the US politics the democrats will start with either a woman or a black person. Both would be novelties for the presidency.
> 
> The "if she were qualified part" appears to me to have never played such a strong role in US elections. From an outsider's point of view it is all about money, relations and lobbyism. Please feel free to teach me otherwise.
> 
> Kajjo


 ​


----------



## TRG

One of the difficulties for a woman as POTUS is fitting into the Commander in Chief role, and this may be particularly difficult for HRC. I can just imagine that the campaign against her will try to get people to focus on her in the CIC role in a mocking fashion. It doesn't help either that her husband was all but a certified draft doger, but I think to some extent he got a pass on that because of Viet Nam. Regardless, I feel confident this would be a major campaign issue.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> One of the difficulties for a woman as POTUS is fitting into the Commander in Chief role, and this may be particularly difficult for HRC. I can just imagine that the campaign against her will try to get people to focus on her in the CIC role in a mocking fashion. It doesn't help either that her husband was all but a certified draft doger, but I think to some extent he got a pass on that because of Viet Nam. Regardless, I feel confident this would be a major campaign issue.



Ignoring all the Hilary-specific comments, why shouldn't the Commander in Chief be female?
Many of the enlisted and commissioned members of the armed services are female.  Should we dabate whether a female should be Secretary of Defense?  That office is between the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President.  

Are most Americans ready for a female with power?


----------



## GenJen54

Most of the Americans I've spoken to on the issue (friends, family, colleagues) have few qualms about "a female president" in general.  Most, however, take serious issue with the particular female in question.  (For those who don't know, I come from a traditionally "Republican" state.)  I also happen to have qualms about the candidate in question, but because I prefer another candidate or two from her same party.  Sorry, but I just don't like the gal.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for ANY woman, and I fully believe the U.S. is ready for "female" leadership, it just has to be the "right" person at the right time, and as has already been noted, Ms. Clinton has plenty of baggage. 

I think the bigger issue for most Americans as I see it is not so much how we would accept a woman in her role as Commander in Chief, but how we would deal culturally with the awkward role of the "First Gentleman/Husband/Spouse."

In discussing the issue with my circle, there seem to be more gray areas about the role of the "First G/H/S."  Somehow, envisioning the man in the traditionally supportive and less-powerful role of "First Lady" brings up more questions than does the idea of a female president.


----------



## kakashka

la reine victoria said:


> Having heard, some time ago now, that Hilary Clinton has "thrown her hat into the ring" for election to the Presidency, I've been wondering what the reaction is amongst our USA forer@s.
> 
> I've been reading quite a bit on the internet and have more or less gauged the mood, but would be interested in hearing your personal viewpoint.
> 
> LRV


I am going to vote for Hilary. I like her husband, and I like her.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Ignoring all the Hilary-specific comments, why shouldn't the Commander in Chief be female?
> Many of the enlisted and commissioned members of the armed services are female. Should we dabate whether a female should be Secretary of Defense? That office is between the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President.
> 
> Are most Americans ready for a female with power?


 
There is no reason why a woman couldn't or shouldn't be commander in chief, but it is one part of the job that will give people the most pause in terms of gender roles. If the woman had a military background or at least some national security experience, as Secretary Rice does, it would ameliorate this somewhat. It doesn't particularly concern me, but I can promise you it will be a campaign issue and it will be something that many people will have reservations about. Since the SoD is appointed, a woman would only have to get past the Senate, who, I'm sure, would be very deferential, gentlemen (and ladies) that they are.


----------



## mangohomme

Yes! I think it would be great. It might start a global 'fad'; we boys have proven soundly that we're aggressive goofs, so let's the girls a chance.


----------



## JamesM

TRG said:


> There is no reason why a woman couldn't or shouldn't be commander in chief, but it is one part of the job that will give people the most pause in terms of gender roles. If the woman had a military background or at least some national security experience, as Secretary Rice does, it would ameliorate this somewhat. It doesn't particularly concern me, but I can promise you it will be a campaign issue and it will be something that many people will have reservations about.


 
Here's an interesting article outlining the presidents that had no military experience.  A few of the names are quite recognizable - Lincoln being probably the most notable:

http://theredhunter.com/2004/08/presidents_and_military_experience.php

I can't see why military experience, or lack thereof, would be more of an issue for a female candidate than for a male candidate.


----------



## cuchuflete

Good morning James,

If you were to change the "would" in your last sentence to "should", we would be in full agreement.
Whether the voters will see it as an issue or not remains to be seen.

The very opinionated article you cited should be taken with a grain of salt.  The author equates combat with the Cold War in his analysis, which is a stretch, and he confuses the former head of the CIA with a long-serving Secretary of State with the same last name.   Allen≠John Foster 
Despite the many flaws in the essay, the conclusion is reasonable.  There is no strong correlation between having been a combat sailor or soldier and the ability to lead or manage a military organization.  As the author points out, General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces during WW II, never saw combat as a foot soldier.  If a successful General doesn't need combat experience, why should a President?


----------



## robjh22

Yes, we're ready for a female president. We have been for a long time: Jeanne Fitzpatrick would have beaten Dukakis, and Kay Bailey Hutchison would have beaten Kerry. Hillary will beat me if I run. 

I just hope that a defeat of any female candidate doesn't send a signal that the result was sexist. There are other things in play besides gender. I hope.


----------



## TRG

JamesM said:


> Here's an interesting article outlining the presidents that had no military experience. A few of the names are quite recognizable - Lincoln being probably the most notable:
> 
> http://theredhunter.com/2004/08/presidents_and_military_experience.php
> 
> I can't see why military experience, or lack thereof, would be more of an issue for a female candidate than for a male candidate.


 
The number of people for whom gender should be a disqualification from ever serving as commander in chief/POTUS is fairly small. The number of people for whom it would have some influence is substantially larger and probably significant. This is likely less of a problem if the candidate is a Democrat since most of the people who would be affected by gender would tend to be Republicans, IMO. If the candidate is a Republican and moderate, then you may have some conservatives "staying home" while some moderate Democrats might cross over. There are many ways to look at it; your guess is as good as anyones.


----------

