[QUOTE=tashabot]
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.
~Tasha
[/QUOTE]
It would also be legal to wote for a man just because he’s a man if he run against a woman
[QUOTE=Fern Forest]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it–purely because Hawaii is not a state with a strong past history of governors who have then run for (or attained) the presidency.
I could be wrong, of course, I don’t pay that much attention to politics. But being governor of Hawaii just isn’t as much of a selling point in national politics as is being governor of Texas, California, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia or even Vermont.
Maybe that’s in part because Hawaii has been a state for a lesser span of time?
Someone who’s been governor of a state that gets a lot of votes and who hasn’t managed to anger his constituency will have a better shot at the presidency than someone from a state with few votes (and of course than someone whose ex-governeds would like to give him concrete shoes but think it would be littering), I think.
I’m not speaking of “what the public wants.” Or whether I think Hilary Clinton will be president–or should be.
But who could be a worse Commander in Chief than the current idiot in charge? His family used pull to get him into the Guard, but he found The Battle of Ellington too taxing.
A Commander in Chief needs to be intelligent & to work good military minds. And, perhaps, know when military intervention is not the best policy.
But Bush has guarded his title jealously.
www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/n10252002_200210252.html
Folks, check out these two search logs from the leaked AOL search logs (skip the first one on the page, cus its gross)
http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4016&p=4
Those two about woman presidents is why women are still going to face an uphill battle. And you know what? We can’t tell, but I bet the searcher is a woman herself.
Are there any female presidential hopefuls who’ve actually served in the military? A female veteran running against a man with no military service (especially involving Vietnam) could have a big advantage even if she was only a WAC or nurse.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Yes, but whoever gets elected in 2008 won’t actually be CIC until January 20, 2009…
[/QUOTE]
Fine, if you want to be all technical about it!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yes, but the President-elect will not take office untill 2009.
If women can be CIC’s in Israel and England, I don’t see why it’s a problem in the US.
[/QUOTE]
And India! Let’s not forget that Third World country that still accepted a female for prez before the States. We’re still just sitting in the dark here.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
And India! Let’s not forget that Third World country that still accepted a female for prez before the States. We’re still just sitting in the dark here.
[/QUOTE]
She was a Prime Minister and if she wasn’t her father’s daughter she wouldn’t have had a snowball’s chance in hell.
The United States is not currently in a position to be knocking other countries for electing the children of previous leaders.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
But who could be a worse Commander in Chief than the current idiot in charge? His family used pull to get him into the Guard, but he found The Battle of Ellington too taxing.
[/QUOTE]
So? We’ve had good wartime presidents who never did even that much. Yes, W is an idiot, but his idiocy has nothing to do with his military nonservice.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
So which will happen sooner: a female president or a bearded president?
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean Oprah?
Hillary Clinton has a better chance than you might think. Yeah, there is substantial hatred for her from the right, but the same could be said for Bill. We’d re-elect him yesterday, if we could.
Hillary has three strengths:
They’ve thrown everything they have at her. She’s had eight years, plus another six in the senate, as a primary target for the right. At this point, she’s almost innoculated to further attack. Also, she fights back, and dirty.
Bill.
There are women in the red states who are conservative, traditional homemakers and vote Republican. But given a chance, they’d punch a ticket to put a woman in charge. There is a quiet feminist streak in middle America, and if properly approached, Hillary could win by a surprising margin.
Dammit, Wildfire, why can’t you just tell us what country you’re in?
I don’t think the U.S. will see a female of black person as President for at least 50 years. No reason why I think that, it just feels right to say that. Personally, I would love to see a black female in office. We need a drastic change. Oprah maybe?
[QUOTE=initech]
There are women in the red states who are conservative, traditional homemakers and vote Republican. But given a chance, they’d punch a ticket to put a woman in charge.
[/QUOTE]
I find that very hard to believe.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I find that very hard to believe.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to hear your explanation for this.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I’d like to hear your explanation for this.
[/QUOTE]
For skepticism that “women in the red states who are conservative, traditional homemakers and vote Republican” will switch over and vote Dem just so they can vote for a woman, when putting more women in office has never been part of the political value system that has guided their voting behavior up to this point? No, I don’t think that requires any explanation.
initech did not, of course, state in that scenario that the female candidate in question would be a Dem, but the way the problem is stated strongly implies it; there would be nothing remarkable in female Pub voters voting for a female Pub candidate, it happens all the time.