Is America Ready for a female president?

[srs83]

I think it is possible for a woman to become President sometime soon. I don't think it will be Condoleeza Rice or Hillary Clinton though. If the Iraq war takes a turn for the worse, that will damage the reputations of all of the top cabinet aides of the Bush Administration, including hers. Hillary Clinton is far too divisive. Half of the country will be with her, while the other half will be against her.

Because of the turbulent political environment of the primaries and general elections, any female candidate that emerges to claim the presidecy will be tough. She may actually be tougher than most men on security issues because she would have to prove to all of the naysayers that women can indeed be tough when it comes our nation's security. Sombody mentioned Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir. All of these leaders were strong on foreign policy,and all of them led their respective nations through a major war. Bottomline: A woman president will be strong on key issues and can actually shake up the status quo in Washington.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

This is to reiterate something that was sent 03-25-2006, at 10:32 post meridiem, in a PM to humming20 that obviously has been disregarded:





To wit: If you can accurately spell "opinion," and if you can accurately spell "democracy," and if you can accurately spell "discussion," and if you can accurately spell any one of a hundred different words, then you obviously have within your means the capability to accurately spell the word "you" and should also have enough sense to realize (or even realise—we'll let that one slide this time) that the letter "I" is always capitalized—maybe even capitalised to people in other hemi-spheres—but no matter where you do it or what you do with it, "I" is always capitalized! "I" That's the way it looks. Been that way for years. Get to know it.

I've tried to tell him too Dr. but the fucker won't listen. Great post.

And ********** - how do you know we haven't had a gay president yet? And now that I think of it why does a presidential candidate's sexual orientation matter in the least bit? Aren't we discriminating when we let that factor into how much we support someone? I thought the whole thing about tolerance and diversity was to accept someone no matter what their color, race, or lifestyle. Showing any preference at all just because he's gay is a glaring example of discrimination.

Plus, from a practical standpoint, a gay president would be of no help to the issue of gay rights. Presidents, and congress for that matter, don't make policies based on what their heart feels or what they believe is right, they do it based on what will get they feel the majority of their voters would prefer.

Regardless of any of that, if we have (or have had) a gay president we would never know it.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

I want a black, female, gay, foreign president, because the sooner we have one, the sooner people will start realizing that it's not about what you are but how well you run the country, and that black, female, gay and foreign shouldn't even be factors taken into consideration

So, do we need a black,gay,female,foreign president or should those factors not even be taken into consideration?

 

[9inch]

Is America Ready for a female president?

I hope they are ready to, but wish they will choose Hilary instead of Condy

 

[reidman]

There will never be a female president. I don't think any major party would risk running one either.

 

[DrMotorcity]

There will never be a female president. I don't think any major party would risk running one either.

In the Presidential election of 2008, neither party can afford not to run a female for president. Unless there are matters regarding her health or that there is some "CREEP"-style character assassination imposed by the other party, Hillary will be the candidate for the Democrats. It is simply a matter of marketing a personality, because the majority of voters are going to be influenced by a personality, a name, a face, and yes, an outright celebrity whom they can identify with, not by any vaunted platform expounding government reform, social services, and economic recovery. Once the candidate is elected and does take office, they are going to do as they want to (due to the actual realities of the limitations of their own authority, adherence to their own party's ideals, and from budgetary constraints, as examples) despite the promises made along the campaign trail.

The American political process is about money; there are fortunes to be made in any political campaign, most notably for media-related concerns, specifically advertising. Don't kid yourself. If Hillary can't run for the reasons as stated above, the Election Campaign Industry will dig up some female candidate to run in her stead. Far too much money at risk not to. Bet on it.

 

[bodie54]

Re: Is America Ready?

Agree with many here that america is still far too conservative, fundamentalist christian and patriarchal to elect a female president at this point.

It's not a matter of whether the citizens are ready, it all comes down to which political party will win the "battle" to claim title to having the first female elected as president,

Granted that would be a major kudo for either party, but considering that imo Hilary isn't electable the best the Dems could hope for would be winning the claim as the first party to nominate a woman for president. They won a very minor victory along these lines when it was so obvious Mondale had no chance against Reagan that for political gain Ferraro was chosen as Mondale's runningmate.

just as the Republical party enjoys the distinction of claiming themselves as the "Party of Lincoln."

That "party of Lincoln" claim always cracks me up considering it's in name only. Lincoln's Republican party was the LIBERAL party of it's day. The Democratic party was the conservative one. What's now the solid republican south was then the solid democratic south; but in each instance it's been the solid conservative south.

 

[humming20]

hi all, i think that there are some people here who have real problem with me,I think that they can not tolerate my presence over here.Anyway i don't mind this at all because they can't help it,and i don't give a damn to whatever they say.I know who i am and what i am capable of,and one thing that i ve learnt over here and which is very funny is that most of the people think that english is a standard of someone's capabilities,this is really strange.

 

[Ax3C]

hi all, i think that there are some people here who have real problem with me,I think that they can not tolerate my presence over here.Anyway i don't mind this at all because they can't help it,and i don't give a damn to whatever they say.I know who i am and what i am capable of,and one thing that i ve learnt over here and which is very funny is that most of the people think that english is a standard of someone's capabilities,this is really strange.

To answer the unspoken question, I'm thinking it's because of seemingly argumentative posts such as this, coupled with the fact that you seem to flagrantly ignore the admonitions and advice of well-respected members.

Virtually every single post you have ever made to date, humming20, has been in direct contravention to one or the other specific Board Rules that have been pointed out to you time and again by members of longevity as well as short-timers.

This is an international community with a membership that comprises virtually all countries across the entire globe. People know and understand that English will be a second language for many folks, however, as per the Board Rules, English IS the official language of the Board. Plus, when you use 'Net-speak, show a blatant disregard for the use of proper punctuation, and apparently just don't give a damn about the effect your hard-to-comprehend-and-read posts have on the general populace of this Board, then yes, I quite honestly suspect the members WILL have issues with you ... especially since you're practically thumbing your nose at everyone in the above quoted thread.

My :2 cents:

You really need to review the Board Rules, understand them, and abide by them just like everyone else does.

Posting Guidelines

Make sure that you know the rules as well as the forum etiquette before posting.

1. Please consider using the search function before starting a thread about any specific model or subject.

2. Do not use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and use proper punctuation in your post.

3. The board language is English. We do not accept posts that include deliberate miss-spells such as “Iz” (is), “u” (you), “2” (too) “R” (are). If you make many mistakes in spelling, the moderator team may ask you to run your posts through a spell checker before submitting.

4. Post topics in the appropriate forums. Otherwise the moderators will move or even remove it.

5. DO NOT post with the only purpose of posting. Posts with only smilies, only one or few words, only punctuation, etc, may be deleted by a moderator, and possible MYFreeones points may be deducted.

6.Do not hijack or deliberately divert the topic of threads.

FreeOnes Official Board Rules

 

[nylo]

Re: Is America Ready?

No. America is far too dominated by Catholicism and Catholicism hates women and views them as an unfortunate necessity to perpetuating life.

I take exception to this remark. This has nothing to do with Catholics, this has to do with those bible-thumping lunatics in the mid-west(by the way which aren't Catholics). These are the same people that believe our current situation is ok with what is going on in the mid-east and all. Unfortunately this country is not ready for a female president because this country is still dominated by those that still believe in the puritan attitudes about life, these are the same people that think sex is dirty, nudity is something to be ashamed of and can't be seen on tv,that God can't be mentioned anywhere, oh I might OFFENDED someone. Well here's what I have to say to all those pansies, FUCK YOU. But its ok to show someone getting thier fucking head blown off on the tv. Hmmmm I wonder what wrong here?

The problem is people have gotten wayyy too sensitive and they would like us all to live in the middle ages. Let me explain something here, we were ALL created equal, personally I dont see what the big deal is. If they can do the job and better than what we have now, then let it be.

 

[4G63]

I'm worried, if a female was president would she still have time to cook and clean?

 

[DrMotorcity]

To answer the unspoken question, I'm thinking it's because of seemingly argumentative posts such as this, coupled with the fact that you seem to flagrantly ignore the admonitions and advice of well-respected members...

...You really need to review the Board Rules, understand them, and abide by them just like everyone else does.



FreeOnes Official Board Rules

No need to burn up a "time-out" to review this one, as once again the Commisioner has spoken. Thanks again, AsianxxxChick.

Say, in the event that Hilliary is unable to run in '08...

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Re: Is America Ready?

I take exception to this remark. This has nothing to do with Catholics, this has to do with those bible-thumping lunatics in the mid-west(by the way which aren't Catholics). These are the same people that believe our current situation is ok with what is going on in the mid-east and all. Unfortunately this country is not ready for a female president because this country is still dominated by those that still believe in the puritan attitudes about life, these are the same people that think sex is dirty, nudity is something to be ashamed of and can't be seen on tv,that God can't be mentioned anywhere, oh I might OFFENDED someone. Well here's what I have to say to all those pansies, FUCK YOU. But its ok to show someone getting thier fucking head blown off on the tv. Hmmmm I wonder what wrong here?

The problem is people have gotten wayyy too sensitive and they would like us all to live in the middle ages. Let me explain something here, we were ALL created equal, personally I dont see what the big deal is. If they can do the job and better than what we have now, then let it be.

That's what I meant to say but you put it much better than I did. Good post.

 

[fedexguy316]

Were over Due we should have had one like 10 years ago then we wouldnt be in the shit that we are now

 

[ckjedi66]

Well, i have no problem with a female president, she couldnt do any worse than the current bozo we have in office, and with a female in the white house, there would never be any wars, just some severe negotioations every 28 days

 

[jumbo_jim]

The best person should get the job regardless of age, race and sex. If she was a hotty then all the better.

 

[accessspecialex]

America ready for anyone who gives a shit about the environment, be it man, woman, or martian.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

I would vote for a well qualified women for president for sure. One of the biggest issues is not always men, but will other women vote for one? Surprisely allot would not. I think if other countries have women prime ministers, the U.S. public should really consider a female candidate

 

[Clarkie25]

If she's well qualified then I sure let's have a woman in the white house. Can't be any worse than having bobo the wonder chimp in office. People thought he was qualified enough.

 

[Member2019]

there would never be any wars

Excuse me? Hillary is actually a war hawk. She's been backtracking ever since Iraq started going south. You should read some of her statements from 2001-2003.

Just because she is a woman doesn't mean she's not a war hawk. In fact, it typically takes a headstrong, aggressive woman to get through all the political non-sense. So they aren't any less likely to deploy troops than a man.

Again, read up on Hillary, or even Rice for that matter. I wouldn't like either of them in the White House. Hillary less than Rice because Hillary believes in penalizing responsible middle class tax payers. E.g., she pushed forth the bill (much to her redicule) that to pay for a social medicine program for the poor by taking away the pre-tax benefit for those who pay their premiums through their employer.

You don't pay for programs by penalizing the responsible middle class. It's one thing to say you're "penalizing the rich." It's another thing to penalize anyone who is above the poverty line (which Clinton/Gore did in 1993). But it's a slap-in-the-face to say, "oh, you pay for your healthcare, so we're going to sack you with additional taxes on those premiums, so we can pay for those people who don't."