I can’t say as I know anything about women that makes them any less able to strategize, nor overview military tactics. Either you have the troops and plan to win or you don’t. Determining that is just up to brain power.
This isn’t a forum for polls, it’s for debates. At this point, you’ve failed to respond to any questions or challenges, or present any sort of argument, which leads me to believe that you may just be trying to stir things up.
It’s a legitimate question. There will be people who will not vote for a female presidential candidate because she is a woman. And there’s a good chance 2008 will be the year this moves from being a theoretical concern to an actual issue.
“As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
How could a woman NOT do better?
In previous decades the common wisdom was that the average American would have a problem with seeing female soldiers’ remains coming home in body bags. As it turns out, the average American doesn’t seem to much mind.
I think we’re ready for a female president, too.
Really? I’m no ultraliberal, but I find her to be too damn moderate and a flagrant panderer.
Sure, but by framing McCain as ‘Bush Lite’, an easy task, Hillary will get you to vote for her anyway.
I think Clinton could do the job, though she isn’t exactly my first choice for the nomination.
If it’s Rice, then we’re all doomed, doomed, doomed.
Concisely- I don’t really think that much about ‘A Woman’ as President- it depends on the specific woman. Like men, they vary widely.
Saturday, listening to one round of political commentary or another, I had a moment when I was smiling over the prospect of Hillary Clinton as President and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Wow! Two of the most important (and symbolic) people in Washington D.C. being female and Democrats in power at the same time? How exciting!
And then I came back to earth. I question whether Hilary Clinton is electable. And, in the event that our next president is a Democrat, I give more than even odds to the prospect that people will vote for a whole bunch of Republican House of Representatives, in the interest of keeping power split between the two national parties.
(If a Republican wins the Presidential race, it ups my odds of Nancy Pelosi being able to stay Speaker of the House for more than 2 years.)
I think we are on the verge of having a serious woman candidate for Commander in Chief where her gender will not be the single most talked about issue in the campaign.
But I’m not sure it will be 2008. And I think the female equivalent of Barak Obama, someone who is highly visible and popular but without the baggage of other high political positions is more likely to be that candidate. (“high political position” is perhaps an akward way to describe both Secretary of State and First Lady, but so be it. I don’t feel like thinking of a better one). I have no idea how electable Pelosi would be as a candidate-- but I think she’d be silly to run for President in 2008–she should focus her energies on her role in the House leadership, and on what she can do for her party, and perhaps for women from that position. And she’s none too young to run for President in any subsequent campaigns.
Oh, I think it could happen. In fact, I know a lot of feminists (not all, I might add, so this is purely anecdotal) who would vote for a woman - ANY woman - on the pure basis that she’s female and not male. There are a lot of feminists out there (both male and female), keep that in mind.
The problem is the same problem you would have with a male political candidate - anyone who is ruthless enough to be capable of getting themselves elected to office should not be allowed to do it, plain and simple. Douglas Adams had it right. Any woman who is capable of getting herself elected scares me just as much as any male does.
Of course, you’ll get the ones who will vote against it because they think that anything with a uterus doesn’t have what it takes to manage a country. And of course, you’ll get the ones who’ll vote for it because of the pure novelty of the idea. There’s a definite lack of informed voters in this country.
I, personally, don’t think a woman could screw it up any better or worse than a man has. But I will say that Hillary Clinton scares the bejesus out of me.
~Tasha
Agreed. Both Clinton and Pelosi are hate magnets for the right, who revile them at any opportunity. I think only Ted Kennedy draws more flames. The problem is this: any person capable of running this country is going to have to be strong and opinionated, and many people tend to equate that quality in women as being shrill and bitchy. I don’t see a candidate like you describe anywhere on the horizon, which means that there needs to be a shift in perceptions in this country for a large number of people. The likelihood in 2008 is iffy, but I still have no problem with a woman in charge. Hell, we just elected the first female governor in our state’s history.
I expect we’ll have a woman VP before a woman POTUS. Maybe whoever gets the Dem/Pub nomination could draft Pelosi/Rice as running mate.
People keep throwing Rice’s name out there, but I just don’t see it. Her only national experience is with the Bush administration’s foreign policy, and how is that going to help her?
What? You mean you can’t see the resounding success that is Iraqle? Why do you hate freedom so?
And for the record, I don’t believe for a moment that Rice has even the slightest shot at the nomination. Hell, Giuliani has a better chance, and he has no chance whatsoever.
What Republican woman would have a chance, for the prez or for the veep slot?
Olympia Snowe. Susan Collins.
Both very moderate Republicans that would pull the midstream voters and even, were the Democrats to nominate someone of limited appeal and charisma, lot of Democrats. Both happen to be Senators from Maine, but unless it’s something in the water up there, that’s irrelevant.
I’d rather see Hillary Clinton in the office, but I’d vote for either of those Republicans over John Kerry (now that there’s no theocratic Republican Congress that they might be expected to work a little too closely with, etc).
Neither of them could be easily tarred with the Bush-legacy brush. Less so even than McCain.
There are also some relatively moderate Republican governors who are women.
Less moderately, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, maybe?
So which will happen sooner: a female president or a bearded president?
Why not have the Bearded Lady as POTUS? Actually I would have no prob with a female CIC but I think she would have to be a brass balls lady ala Thatcher. I cannot see any way that a very liberal or even moderate female candidate would be accepted. I think people would at some level expect a woman to be easy going on defense unless she was overtly hawkish. Rice would be acceptable to the pubs but not the Dems. And I don’t see it happening any time soon. Maybe 2012 or 2016. And it would require her to be accepted as VPOTUS first, not directly as the CIC.
I believe that boat has sailed
I’m curious. Does Linda Lingle’s (R. Gov. of Hawaii) name ever get bandied about? Republican Governor in a Democratic state who easily, very easily won reelection.