For years, Americans griped about how they didn't let women run for President. And, this past Presidential election, Hillary Clinton ran for President and we all know how that turned out. She barely made it halfway before getting knocked out of the race. I'm sure people had their reasons for not wanting Hillary Clinton as President. But, I'm wondering if a similar thing will happen in the next Presidential election assuming another woman decides to run for President. Will there be a repeat of history?
I personally don't think it matters whether there's a male or female president. It's all about being able to get the job done right. If there's such a woman in politics then by all means I think she should be President. Anything to help fix the economic crisis and job shortage :/
I agree that gender doesn't matter. Its the candidates. Look at the female contenders right now. Sarah Palin. Quitter. Michelle Bachman. Nutcase. If either of those ladies get elected I'm moving to Canada. Clinton lost the Democratic primaries because she was seen as part of the establishment, and people believed that Obama would bring in change. His campaign speeches were awesome. Unfortunately he ended being just more of the same after he took office.
And, this is what I don't understand about America. There are so many REALLY smart women in politics. Why aren't those women running for office? Not every female politician is a zealot or nut or liberal. You say it's not about male or female. I But, think the major parties are preventing the really good female political candidates (who have a realistic chance of winning) from even entering the Presidential race with behind the scenes political machinations.
There's plenty of great male candidates who aren't really given much of a chance to run as well. That's the problem with a two-party system. Nobody really considers independant candidates, and the party candidates have to be on par with the parties' objectives. We have far too many party-line voters in this country, who vote for a party instead of a candidate.
Wow! Isn't that the truth. You got it right, so many people are just voting for the party and not the person cause they figure the party is going to stand up for their values. In the case of the Republicans that is ALWAYS true. From what I've seen the Republicans (US) ALWAYS support big business, (corporations) and really rich people, even if that means a couple million poor people go hungry, get sick and die. It's like they could really care less. Very sad, considering how growing up we were all Republican cause Reagan made it feel like a proud thing to be as if you're Republican so you stand for America. Now, the Republicans stand up and salute the almighty green dollar. I am sick of it.
Well, if I was an American, then I'd have voted according to the credentials of the candidate rather than looking at the gender. For example, if Mitt Romney runs against Sarah Palin (well, both are Repubs), then I would definitely vote for Romney, since he is a much better politician compared to Palin.
People who would vote for a woman because she's a woman, are as bad as those who would not vote for a woman because she's a woman. Both would be clear cases of discrimination. If you're going to vote at all, you might as well vote for the right candidate, regardless of the gender, and regardless of the color, for that matter. It would be as wrong to vote for Obama because he's black, as it would be to not vote for him because he's black. And, as the others have already indicated, it's as wrong to vote for a candidate just for belonging to the right party, as it is to not vote for the candidate for belonging to the wrong party. In every case, the vote should be for the ideal candidate. That should be the only criterion.
