Women President

[tater03]

I was just wondering if you think society is ready for a women president. I myself would love to see a women become president. I just think that a female might be able to bring something to the office that would be a fresh prespective. That is not to say that I am all for Hillary because I am really not sure on who I would like to see win the office. Just curious to see what you all think?

 

[mtatum4496]

I would willingly vote for a woman for president, provided I felt she was the most capable candidate for the job. Unfortunately, most of the people I know would (a) vote for the woman based on her gender, or (b) vote against her based on her gender. I don't hear anywhere near enough discussion about credentials or capabilities, which I think is the only important part of the discussion.

 

[tater03]

I would have to say that alot of the people I know would not vote for a women just based on the fact that she is a women. Which to me is ridiculous. I am like you if she has the backround and the ability to run the office of president that I see know reason a women should not be elected.

 

[mamab]

I don't know if a woman would be able to make some of the hard decisions that have to be made. I mean, what kind of mother would purposely send another mother's child into war? I don't think I could choose to do so. I would feel responsible for every one of their deaths, should they occur. I think the nurturing nature of a woman might be her downfall in the political realm.

 

[dong]

So if a woman is enough like a man, then a woman can become president...

Sorry, I'm being facetious. I just had to poke a little fun there because the important thing to remember is the implications of sex on gender. That's about it. So I'm with the people who say that the consideration of all characteristics should be made irrespective of gender. And sex.

 

[FourBear]

I think it's possible that we may be ready to see a female president, but the right woman needs to come along.

 

[framed]

I have to go with mtatum on this one. If a person came along who was the right candidate, and was female, we would be ready for a female president. Otherwise who cares? In my book the same applies for a black president, a gay president, etc. What matters is what the person will do for the country in office, not whether they wear pants or a dress.

That said, just about regardless of the issue there are people somewhere in the country who are not ready for the <whatever minority> president. They'll get over it.

 

[Andy D]

I have said on other places in this site that I would love to vote for Condi. I am from South Carolina. If I can say that, then I think if the right <insert minority here> candidate comes along, they will get elected.

 

[tater03]

I am surprised that Condi didn't run. Has anyone heard why she choose not to? But bottom line for me is I wouldn't vote on gender, religion or race. I am more into what they are going to do for the future of the US.

 

[mtatum4496]

There are more of us here in the South that are interested in performance tahter than gender, race, or sexual orientation than many people realize. I've long been of the notion that we need to be more vocal, since way too many folks don't seem to know we are here.

 

[mamab]

There are more of us here in the South that are interested in performance tahter than gender, race, or sexual orientation than many people realize. I've long been of the notion that we need to be more vocal, since way too many folks don't seem to know we are here.

Unfortunately, those of us who are vocal in any way, shape, or form don't have the money that really is what drives politics today. I mean, Hillary's already saying she wants $X to "support" her.

 

[mtatum4496]

Yes, that is true. I am not well to do by any means, and most of my friends do not fall into the millionaire category either. But, we all can and do get behind candidates we believe in and all of us vote. it just seems like most of us are more behind the scenes rather than in the forefront.

 

[framed]

I ran across this cool article today.

Check out the polling:

For A WH '08er Who Was ___, Would You Vote For That Person?

Yes No
Catholic 95% 4%
Black 94 5
Jewish 92 7
A woman 88 11
Hispanic 87 12
Mormon 72 24
Married for third time 67 30
72 years old 57 42
A homosexual 55 43
An atheist 45 53

Some disappointing numbers in there, but its interesting data nonetheless.

If the race is even remotely close, cutting off 12% of the voters just because of your gender would be enough to widely swing the outcome. So maybe the country isn't as ready as you'd like to think. Too bad they didn't poll on Muslim, I wonder if it would beat Athiest or not.

Edit: Bleh, it keeps taking the spaces out when I post, sorry it doesnt line up well.

 

[mamab]

I can see a couple of groups that have been "disenfranchised" in that list. Do you think the vegetarians, Asians and Native Americans will get mad?

 

[mtatum4496]

I guess the main thing I see in the list is that an individual could identify with several of those classifications, and it would still boil down to where they stood on the issues and if I felt the person had the chops for the job.

So if you know of any Black Jewish lesbians who are in a committed relationship with a Hispanic Catholic who has been married three times previously, why not invite her to run? She may end up being the ideal person for the job.