What is really holding the U.S. back from having a woman president? Is the rest of the world that much more liberal in allowing a woman to hold the highest position in government?
Whaddya mean “the rest of the world”, mongrel? Offhand I can think of a number of other nations, in both the developed and developing world, that have never had a female chief elected official: France, Germany, Russia, Mexico, and the People’s Republic of China among them (I feel confident that my fellow millions will correct me if I missed a female prez or PM in any of these :)). Sure, the US is probably not the most gender-egalitarian nation presently existing in the world, but I doubt that we’re exhibiting some unique bizarre resistance to electing a female leader; seems much more likely that, like most cultures, we’re still going through a transition from considering women to be second-class citizens (hell, we only got the franchise early in this century), and we haven’t yet hit the combination of circumstances that will produce a female presidential candidate that most of us want to elect. Have patience.
Because the US’s first female president has to serve a term as senator from NY first. Be patient.
Many of the countries who have had female heads of government do not have direct election for the position. Prime Ministers in Sri Lanka, UK, India, Pakistan and New Zealand are all elected by parliament (or in practice by the party with a majority in parliament). They have emerged if you like as captains of successful teams. I think this probably makes a difference because for directly elected positions party machines tend to look for things that might disadvantage a candidate, and being the first female might be one of those things.
The sooner we get a female president, the sooner I can apply for an intern job in the White House …
Woman president of the US…let’s see…
I think the Republicans could have had the first a few years back if they’d gone with Jeanne Kirkpatrick after Reagen’s second term for instance.
Among Democrats, Madeline Albright and Janet Reno have an outside chance, although Reno has a lot of detractors and enemies.
It is way too early to think of HRC as a potential candidate for the White House; she is unproven in office, and has yet to acquire an office.
Me, I wish Bella Abzug was still a possibility… 
The reason we have not had a woman president is there have not been any qualified candidates run. If Hillary wins in NY then we will have one in '04, but if she does not we will have to wait a while.
If Mondale had won, we would’ve had a female VP.
(Don’t know much about Mondale, however…being as I was only six years old at the time…)
Albright’s chance is pretty slim unless Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution is amended.
Pat Schroeder ran, briefly, in 1988. Elizabeth Dole bowed out early this time around. The problem will be finding a woman who doesn’t polarize people, which I think both Dole and HRC did/will do.
**panache45 wrote:
Because the US’s first female president has to serve a term as senator from NY first. Be patient**
You noticed that, too, eh? 
When do you think she’ll run? In the '08 or '12 elections? And will Bill be with her? That’s the question I have.
Nitpick: Dole dropped out in December because she didn’t have the money to compete with Bush. She wasn’t ever given the opportunity to explicate her stances on the issues; why, then, would you think she polarizes people?
That wasn’t how I saw it. Elizabeth Dole had plenty of opportunity to “get her message out” etc., but stuck with empty platitudes in all the NH debates no matter how detailed the questions were.
Here’s my (breathtakingly-cynical) take: She wasn’t really running AT ALL. Rather, the RNC understood its gender gap problem, decided to preempt it as best they could, thought a presentable woman candidate would be the best way, and talked her into it. Remember that she’s married to one of the GOP’s elder statesmen. She “campaigned” (if you can call it that) long enough, then dropped out rather than interfere with the anointed Bush’s chances.
It’s hard for me to see her as a serious candidate primarily because of her resume - a couple of minor Cabinet posts long ago, with no notable accomplishments, then a politicized turn running the Red Cross, with a lot of Georgetown cocktail parties in between. Sorry, but even GW Bush has better preparation.
Oh, um, the OP was about the identity of the first woman president. The notable thing to me as that we can give actual names now, and consider them seriously qualified. The discussion is no longer abstract. There has been an incredible amount of progress there in just the last decade or so.
As for women I’d consider voting for, if they ran:
Dianne Feinstein - ready now. Multi-term Senator, former multi-term big city mayor, good dealmaking and infighting skills.
Christie Whitman - but after some Senate time, and she has to get a few NJ state issues “fixed” with her name credited.
Hillary Whatever-her-last-name-will-be - after a Senate term or two, but not until 2008 (I expect Gore to run for re-election in '04).
Madeline Albright is ineligible, and Janet Reno’s health won’t permit it; plus, I think their experience bases are too narrow.
My two cents: Kay Bailey Hutchinson. From what I’ve read in the papers, KBH would have been the Republican’s choice for VP if it weren’t for the little problem that W and KBH are both from Texas. Yes, Cheney is from Texas, but he has a house in Wyoming. AFAIK, KBH doesn’t.
So you think he’s going to go back to being a Congressman from Tennessee?
I think the only thing really holding the U.S. back from having a woman as President is the assumption that something is holding women back from running for President. Pat Schroeder’s campaign self-destructed in '88 because she was seen as too feminine (i.e., she was willing to cry in public) and not “strong enough”; compare that to today, where our President’s main slogan was that he could feel our pain, and both Gore and Bush worship heavily at the Temple of Oprah.
Still, though- there’s enough fear that a woman would have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously, and compound that with the belief that should a woman run and lose it’d set back women’s rights (see: Kennedy, John F. and the Catholics who begged him not to run)- it’ll probably be a while before a woman decides to seriously run for the Presidency (I’m not sure I consider Dole’s campaign this year particularly serious).
Better take a look at the state-by-state polls, friend. Gore looks to be over the top where it counts.
Re Pat Schroeder: She never actually filed as a candidate. Instead, she seemed to have daydreams of the Presidency (like most people who have been elected to something, probably). After finding she’d have to actually work for it, that she wasn’t simply going to be handed the job due to her own natural superiority, she ducked out. A lot of folks do exactly what she did, and they therefore aren’t qualified either. The crying didn’t help, of course, but that was after the fact.
I really can’t agree that “the country isn’t ready yet”, or words to that effect - that’s what the old guard usually says before being forcibly shown otherwise.
Which is, just to make sure everyone’s clear on this, my exact point. I don’t think a female candidate would have any tougher of a time getting elected than a male candidate- probably a different time (facing some issues that men wouldn’t, while avoiding issues that men wouldn’t), but not necessarily a tougher time. I also think that many people in a position to run for the Presidency do believe that the American people aren’t ready for a female President yet.
Trivia for the day: As far as I know, the first woman to be elected head of government by popular vote in recent (modern) history is Vigdis Finnbogadottir of Iceland.
Jeane Kirkpatrick would have made a terrible candidate. She does not exactly radiate warmth and she is only an expert on foreign affairs and not an expert on domestic issues.
The Democrats would have loved to run against her.
I do think that the first woman president is likely to be a Republican. I hope it’s not Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
I can also say that as a loyal Democrat and a Californian that Dianne Feinstein would most likely make a terrible president. She’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. Our other senator, Barbara Boxer, is a lot sharper, but is far too liberal to get elected president. She’s also very short. Feinstein is quite tall (about 5’10" or so I believe).