lswanson
|
posted on January 4, 2001 10:46:06 AM new
I think its safe to say we will have another Clinton in the white house. -- Chum
I borrowed this from another thread, but it brought up something I've been pondering for quite a while. Do you really believe that Americans will put a woman in the No. 1 slot in the White House anytime soon? I don't. And not because of any personal bias. I just don't believe that Americans are ready to do it. In spite of our rhetoric to the contrary, I believe that we're still highly biased against women (or blacks, or Hispanics, or gays) in that position.
What's the consensus?
|
toke
|
posted on January 4, 2001 10:51:28 AM new
Dunno. I think Colin Powell's extreme popularity with both Democrats and Republicans is really encouraging. A great many were disappointed he wouldn't run for President. A good sign, IMO...
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 4, 2001 11:01:55 AM new
Hmm, good question. I'd definitely vote for Hillary if she ran. But I do think a (sometimes) unspoken bias against women in leadership positions still exists in a lot of people, even women themselves.
I hate that fact, but admiting it exists is a good step toward eliminating it.
|
inside
|
posted on January 4, 2001 11:15:01 AM new
Only if Hilary & Bill can avoid conviction on criminal charges for another four years.
I'd vote for a snake before I'd vote for her.
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 4, 2001 11:16:26 AM new
inside... so I can safely infer that you voted for Bush. 
|
femme
|
posted on January 4, 2001 11:53:51 AM new
[ edited by femme on Jan 13, 2001 06:39 PM ]
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:02:06 PM new
I would never vote for Hilary, but it would not be safe to infer that I voted for Bush, unless you didn't mind being wrong.
|
enchanted
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:02:41 PM new
Rainy Bear, I'm not sure it's ever safe to infer anything at the Round Table
|
codasaurus
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:31:25 PM new
I try to vote for the best candidate regardless of sex, political affiliation, race, creed, etc.
I would consider voting for Hillary but only after examining her record as a Senator and scrutinizing her campaign statements.
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:38:56 PM new
mrpotatohead -- my inference about inside's vote was in reference to the snake.
enchanted -- you are, of course, right.
[ edited by RainyBear on Jan 4, 2001 12:39 PM ]
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:42:40 PM new
Hillary has about as much baggage as any male politician (interesting, considering she's been a Senator for a day so far) so it would be foolish to put her up as the first woman candidate.
What they'll need to do is find a combination of Mother Teresa and Golda Meir to win. I honestly think a female candidate would be scrutinized as badly as any male candidate (which is why Hillary and her baggage would be a bad choice), only in different and maybe even worse ways. You'll have serious pundits blathering about PMS and estrogen and nurturing and driving etc. Somehow she'll have to simultaneously be attractive but not too sexual. The standards imposed will be enormous (and almost assuredly unequal). It'll be a sick circus, which is why the first woman candidate will have to be an extraordinary person, if she's to win.
Is America ready? If such a great woman exists, I think so. It wouldn't be such a bad thing for America to have a great person for a president, would it?
|
krs
|
posted on January 4, 2001 12:55:59 PM new
I would agree with you, James, except to say that it is now clear that the standards of acceptablity have been lowered sufficiently to allow the consideration of a woman as a viable candidate in 2004.
|
Zazzie
|
posted on January 4, 2001 01:03:13 PM new
now now Kenny....look at the some of the previous choices that America has settled for. I wouldn't say the standards have been at any high level for many of them
I think you should actually be saying that America's standards need to rise to allow them elect a woman as president.
|
krs
|
posted on January 4, 2001 01:05:30 PM new
That's why I specified 2004. It's now or never!
|
fountainhouse
|
posted on January 4, 2001 01:29:24 PM new
While I agree there's still a huge amount of gender bias in our country, I'm just enough of an idealist to think that the right female could transcend it.
It'd have to be someone already well-known by the public, though. No Mrs. Doles or Ferreros. Someone who already enjoys national recognition *and* admiration. It goes without saying they must have wealth.
Now if Oprah or Rosie were so inclined, they'd have a fair crack at it. (Hey, Ronnie did it, didn't he?) But, while I wouldn't hesitate to give my support to Hillary, as james pointed out, I don't think even she can heft that baggage of hers.
(I hope she proves me wrong, though)
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 4, 2001 02:43:17 PM new
Oprah or Rosie? No way! I love Oprah but don't think she'd make a good president. And Rosie... urk, gag! The horror.
|
Zazzie
|
posted on January 4, 2001 02:48:45 PM new
hhow about Martha Stewart ???
"It's a Good Thing to bomb those bad guys"
|
SilkMoth
|
posted on January 4, 2001 03:26:33 PM new
Nah... Martha would be too busy hand-harvesting only the finest H2 molecules to use in building the bombs.
--------
not SilkMoth anywhere but here
|
femme
|
posted on January 4, 2001 03:40:26 PM new
[ edited by femme on Jan 13, 2001 06:41 PM ]
|
femme
|
posted on January 4, 2001 03:54:27 PM new
[ edited by femme on Jan 13, 2001 06:42 PM ]
|
nutspec
|
posted on January 4, 2001 03:56:31 PM new
I don't give a hoot regarding gender. If a person is good I'll vote for them - I don't think that gender makes a bit of difference.
A clever person, with a good and stout heart is all that I could hope for (And clever people with good hearts are in durned short supply in the political world)
Don't really give a damn about political party either - as nutspec hold views both on the radical right and a few that would have me burned as a heretic by conservatives.
But if your are limiting the field to the choice of only Hillary - - Um . . .
(nutspec waking up in a pool of cold sweat repeating "It's only a bad dream - It's only a bad dream - it's only . . " )
[ edited by nutspec on Jan 4, 2001 03:57 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on January 4, 2001 05:31:21 PM new
I'd vote for a snake before I'd vote for her.
That is exactly what you will be given as a choice by the 2 parties snake A or snake B.
|
scrabblegod
|
posted on January 4, 2001 08:11:13 PM new
I think we will have a Black male president before we have a Woman. I do not have any particular people in mind, but this is the general concensus among my associates.
Race or gender do not matter as long as they are good Republicans
|
krs
|
posted on January 4, 2001 08:20:11 PM new
Pamela Anderson could win by a head, but I'd vote for Tracy Needham.
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 4, 2001 09:18:42 PM new
Let's elect an attractive male president so we women could have someone pleasant to look at for four years. I nominate Mel Gibson. He's hunky but just seasoned enough to be believable in the role.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on January 5, 2001 01:50:59 PM new
Hello RainyBear,
An interesting comment. I hope that women as a group do not base their vote on physical attraction.
As a real man I certainly don't. Heheh.
Mel Gibson as President? Why not go for an actor with at least some Presidential acting experience? Say Michael Douglass (The American President) or Harrison Ford (Air Force One)?
Or even Robert Redford. At least he managed to get elected to a Senate seat (The Candidate).
Harrison Ford finally bubbled up out of my subconcious. Heheh
[ edited by codasaurus on Jan 7, 2001 08:54 AM ]
|
RainyBear
|
posted on January 5, 2001 02:42:10 PM new
Hi codasaurus, I was mostly following up on krs's suggestion of Pamela Anderson. Mel is my Pam.
Isn't Clint Eastwood the mayor of some town in California? Perhaps he'd do instead.
|
femme
|
posted on January 5, 2001 05:03:38 PM new
[ edited by femme on Jan 13, 2001 06:43 PM ]
|
