I think that we should have a woman President. It is absurd that in an era of supposed gender equality we haven't already had one. I agree with Ms. Clinton about the need for gender equality in the nation's highest office, therefore. However, there is no chance I will vote for her or for Condoleeza Rice- and that is not because they are women but rather because they are not unlike Kerry and Bush, respectively- a populist-leaning Democrat and a neocon. I would definitely vote this woman for President, for example, but unfortunately she isn't running. Here is a link and the beginning of the article:

SENECA FALLS, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, standing outside an abandoned knitting mill that will become the new home of the National Women's Hall of Fame, said Thursday she hopes America is ready for its first woman president.

"It just depends on when and if that happens," the former first lady said. "Stay tuned."

Clinton continued to duck questions about whether she will run for the White House in 2008, saying yet again she is completely focused on her re-election this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060831/...e_race_clinton

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

would have a natural inclination to want to vote for a woman atop the presidential ticket, regardless of party affiliation.

it would be an advantage due to its novelty, the first time out.

that said, i am no longer confident that hillary would be the one who could benefit from that advantage, because of the strong negative vibe she has cast (within both parties).

it might prove difficult for a woman not to cast a secret ballot for another woman who is running for president - if it's not hillary

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushfan http://www.politicalforum.com/images...s/viewpost.gif Pelosi calls Mr. Bush a Failure in Eeverything. You just can't hide a public eduation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusticus Rove is s the slime on which this whole administration slid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha And spending money is nothing more than another form of voting.

Next: Homos, negroes, Lesbians (double wammy for HIllary), transexuals, amigos, asians, Indian, Indian (enjun version), one with aids, one with cancer, what other types of cards are there? A stutterer. Abe abe abe abe abee thats all folks.

So just to clarify, the only type of person who should ever be President is a White Heterosexual Male - who, like you, hates everyone who doesn't resemble himself?

lol, I think I am just misunderstood, thats all, see.

I don't think so, bubba.
The more I see of the average woman (at least younger women and Gretchen Wilson-types), the more I start to think they are ten times more hostile toward other women than to any man. And there are still quite a few sexist men out there. And women like my wife who would vote for a woman wouldn't if her platform paled in comparison to the opponents'. Basically you have a small number of heavy-duty feminists who will vote for a woman no matter what vs. a rather sizable coalition of people who wouldn't vote for a woman unless only women were running.
I believe that in order for the first woman to become president, she will need to have a military background rather than a political one in order to win over a good chunk of the male vote. Condi might have a chance due to experience in foreign policy (but is too smart to run- thank God!)You'll still have a fairly big group of women whose first inclination when seeing another woman do anything is to go "That b%$$#$! That c%#$%!"

I'm pretty sure Hillary will be talked out of running by her party. Unless the Crats really are that stupid. They should start grooming a female Iraq vet for a political position- Think ahead!

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Look how Democrats judge someone based on their sex and race. How sexist and racist of Democrats.

For every Crat that will vote for a woman only for being woman there's a Pub that will vote for a man or not vote just to avoid voting for a woman. Then you can mix in all the Crats that would never vote for a woman and I'm certain somewhere there is one Pub that would vote for any woman (I know only one radical feminist Republican- scary thought, but they exist).

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Let me venture an opinion here – knowing it will not be popular with the “All-American woman”. I am old enough to remember when women stayed home and raised the children, did the housework, etc. Men went to work and brought home the paycheck. In college, the women stayed in dorms (not apartments like the men) and had curfew hours.

That all started to change in the late 60’s early 70’s – sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, the Woodstock generation. Woman from that era had a hard fight to break the barriers that kept them in a defined role. Hillary is of that generation. Women have been fighting the “glass ceiling” battle every since. While the cause may (or may not) be just, it clearly has produced several generations of very angry women. In many women’s eyes, men are viewed as beasts, crude barbarians that use raw power to hold women back.

From what I have deduced in talking to younger women in their mid-20’s, women are still fighting that battle. If you subscribe to the “subservient woman” cause, then the battle is not yet won – several major hurdles remain in their path, including being President.

Looking back now over the past 40 years of woman’s liberation I still see a major quandary for women. That is, no one, man nor woman, can have a high-paying job, raise children, and keep a nice house. Many women aspire to “have it all” and it cannot be done. Women who attempt this impossible task ask their husband to share the responsibilities. Morphing a husband into becoming an assistant housewife is a very difficult task. Some couples have made the quantum leap, many more have failed (as we see with the divorce rate).

I personally think there are some tasks that women are genetically bred to perform, and visa versa for men. I cannot name one man who mindlessly gets up in the middle of the night to feed the baby a bottle, change the diapers, rocks the child back to sleep, and then falls back into bed again instantly dead asleep. I had two wives who could do this seemingly without effort – there must be many more women in the world with this innate capability.

The point here is that women have rebelled, but they have yet to produce a suitable new role for man and women. A car can only have one driver, but the nouveaux woman has yet to figure out if she wants to drive or ride as a passenger. Of course, most women will reject that paradigm of marriage, but they only offer instead this crazy idea that two people can drive the car at the same time!

Women are leaving the rebellion stage, but can’t figure out where they are moving to. At heart, they are still angry with men and the man’s world as they see it. Hillary just pointed out this fact in her example of the White House. But as things stand right now, we have a bunch of women in America all dressed up to be angry with no place to go. If you look beyond the glitter, even Hillary has her fair share of dysfunctional family traits. Hillary’s relationship with her husband is famously lurid, much of which may be only gossip. Suffice it to say their marriage is not a young person’s model of the living “happily every after story”.

As long as power women continue to wander in a state of flux, without a realistic role in marriage, work, or life in general, they will continue to carry a tone in their voice that signals discontentment. This subtle message comes through loud and clear when Hillary and many other women speak. To me it signals insecurity and perhaps instability. As long as this lack of a role in life continues to produce angry women, none will be able to inspire confidence in a majority of voters. From this deduction, I predict we will not see a woman president in the US for another generation or longer.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

Hobo, you are the one that sounds insecure about the role of women in modern America. I'm sorry you feel you have to pigeonhole over half the population of America into a stereotype that used to be accepted, but I don't see how that makes all the women in question insecure. Perhaps you should find your certainty by joining the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints and get yourself a couple of wives never exposed to television, magazines or radio.

As for you, Righty, women are not a minority. They are 52 out of every 100 Americans. It says something about your thought processes that you thought they were a minority. No doubt you treat them the way you do the real minorities, which, judging from your posts, means you treat them badly.