[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Why yes/no?

Be honest.

[budster101]

If she were haut, like Laura Bush.

"I said Bush"... heh

[malvolio]

Why not? Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher all handled the position of national leader quite adequately.

[budster101]

I'd like to see a nice catfight. Laura Bush v. Hillary Clinton

Now that would be good.

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I don't mind voting for a female Presidential candidate, but I would not have voted for any of those three, certainly.

Gandhi suspended democratic government and civil liberties, for God's sake. If that's your idea of adequate, I hate to think of who you would consider an excellent leader.

[malvolio]

I meant "adequate" in the sense of doing as well (or poorly) as their male counterparts. Golda was pretty cool, but I am certainly no fan of Indira or Maggie.

[cpt kangarooski]

Perhaps a better word would be 'capable,' then. It seems to indicate their abilities without a position on their policies. As for Meir, she had a crappy policy regarding the Palestinians, and allowed Israel to get caught with its pants down in the Yom Kippur War. There's a reason she resigned not too long after.

[spacefreak]

I vote for candidates based on their positions and record, not sex or race. Additionally, I can not single-handedly elect anyone. Hence, I did not vote in this poll.

Would I vote for a candidate who happened to be a woman? Yes.
Would I not vote for a candidate who happened to be a woman? Yes.

[idjeff]

Sure...if she had balls

Honestly...I wouldn't have a problem with a female President is she represented my "political" beliefs.

[Athens]

Doesn’t matter because every time you elect a Married President, you really are also electing a Female. Every one knows the wife’s of the presidents are more powerful then the president themselves.

I wonder how many would elect a gay president

[von Wrangell]

You guys a few years behind when it comes to this

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir

So the answer is "Of course".

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You guys a few years behind when it comes to this

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir

So the answer is "Of course".

Hey...go figure...educated in the US.

No anti-US comment for this thread huh?

I know you don't hate the US, but why don't you humble yourself on this one.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Hey...go figure...educated in the US.

No anti-US comment for this thread huh?

I know you don't hate the US, but why don't you humble yourself on this one.

She didn't start making mistakes until after her presidency

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You guys a few years behind when it comes to this

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir

So the answer is "Of course".

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread question or anything to say for or against this woman's qualifications or performance but her name reminds me of a medical condition requiring an embarrassing creme to alleviate.

'Apply creme to the vigdis twice daily until rash disappears...'

[dcmacdaddy]

Yes!

But never for Hillary. Condoleeza Rice? Maybe, but never for Hillary.

[Twilly Spree]

Yes, if the alternative was a gay president

[zizban]

Depends on who it is; neither Clinton or Rice impresses me.

[Zenbone]

Only if she had a designer vagina.

[TETENAL]

Germany is likely getting a female national leader in september.

[tae667]

I already did.

[BRussell]

I don't think women are legally entitled to run for political office in the US. If someone changed that law, I'd consider it.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't think women are legally entitled to run for political office in the US. If someone changed that law, I'd consider it.

Welcome back from Planet 19th Century, BRussell. Anyone can run for President as long as they meet the minimum age set up by the Constitution (35, I believe).

[pooka]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't think women are legally entitled to run for political office in the US. If someone changed that law, I'd consider it.

The law is there for a reason, BRussell.

[Lateralus]

Yes, but not Hilary.

[Kerrigan]

Voters may not have any qualms with a female president, but there is quite a good chance that politicians (of either party) will begin to treat her poorly because she is a woman. That is the only real issue I see. Most politicians, as we all well know, are "old boys" who dislike working with people outside of their immediate circle.

If Hillary is president, she will have people in her cabinet, her party, and in her opposing party, who will resent working under her because she is a woman. Like Margaret Thatcher, I would not be surprised if her premiership was dragged down by scandals and appalling disrespect and uncooperativeness from her own circle.

(And for anyone who thinks that Hillary and the Iron Lady are too different to be compared, you might want to look again)

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by zizban

Welcome back from Planet 19th Century, BRussell. Anyone can run for President as long as they meet the minimum age set up by the Constitution (35, I believe).

sarcasm much?

[loki74]

Yes I would, as long as she was properly qualified. Gender has nothing to do with how qualified a candidate is if you ask me.

Hillary is not qualified in any way shape or form, in case that's what were getting at here.

[Chuckit]

I would not elect a female president. I would elect a qualified president who happened to be female, though. What the president's packing in his shorts really doesn't make much difference to me, seeing as I'm not a Washington intern.

[Kerrigan]

This poll is flawed, it should include the options to elect a shemale or tranny too.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

This poll is flawed, it should include the options to elect a shemale or tranny too.

Chicks with dicks...interesting

[Spliffdaddy]

As long as the woman isn't Hillary.

By the way...I predict she gets defeated in her next Senate race.

[budster101]

If it has a dick then it ain't a chick so the poll is just fine. Gays don't count either. Make up your mind of gender and either get the sex change or you ain't a chick either as well.

I'd like to see Hillary run for the Presidency.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by budster101

I'd like to see Hillary run for the Presidency.

I'd like to see her run, as long as she loses. But of course she will.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

As long as the woman isn't Hillary.

By the way...I predict she gets defeated in her next Senate race.

Not unless the Republicans come up with someone better than Ms. Pirro. They might be effectively "no-bidding" the senate election just to harass Hillary when she doesn't quit to run for President in 2008. Also remember that Mr. Pataki is not running for governor again (probably so he can run for President on 2008), and New York State Republicans might think their time and money is better spent challenging Mr. Spitzer, who is the only viable governor candidate out there right now.

As for the issue of a female President, I'm all for it, if she's the... um... right man for the job. But can you imagine what life will be like for the First Husband? Will he take on the same traditional roles as the First lady? Or will he spend all his time in idle pursuits? (If the first First Husband is Mr. Clinton, should we be afraid of what his idle pursuits might be...)

[NYCFarmboy]

yes, Condi Rice

http://www.rice2008.com/

[ThinkInsane]

I absolutely would vote for a female President, if I felt she was right for the job. I will NOT be casting my vote for the female that wants to run for President and is currently my completely useless representative in the US Senate. It still baffles me why anyone thinks she's worthy of the job. She has done nothing for New York, has lived up to none of her campaign promises (I'm still waiting for those 200,000 upstate jobs you came to my town and promised Hillary), and her only merit seems to be she's Bill Clinton's wife. Give me a female candidate that's worth a damn, and gender doesn't enter into the equation.

[RAILhead]

I read elect as ERECT. Ho ho ho, my bad!

[RAILhead]

[goMac]

AsLongAsItIsntHillary++;

[budster101]

Come on, HIllary would be a great Dicktator.

[Millennium]

Not solely on account of being female, no, but if she were the best candidate at the time, then why wouldn't I?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Not solely on account of being female, no, but if she were the best candidate at the time, then why wouldn't I?

So why hasn't there been one yet?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

So why hasn't there been one yet?

Because at any given point in time in the history of the US as we know it, there have been at most two or three parties with any hope of winning a Presidential election, and none of them have dared put forward a female candidate. There have been quite a few female candidates who ran in smaller parties, but by virtue of their party affiliations they had no real chance at being elected whether or not they were female.

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Not solely on account of being female, no, but if she were the best candidate at the time, then why wouldn't I?

As silly as this may sound, right now I would vote for a woman - if she was just as qualified as the other candidates (qualifications seem very, VERY goofy/mixed-up in Presidential elections), I would vote for her simply *because* she was female. If she was anywhere near the other candidates, I'd vote for her.

It would not hurt to have four years of something different - and I think having a female in office would be a very good different. Why not try it out?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by funkboy

As silly as this may sound, right now I would vote for a woman - if she was just as qualified as the other candidates (qualifications seem very, VERY goofy/mixed-up in Presidential elections), I would vote for her simply *because* she was female. If she was anywhere near the other candidates, I'd vote for her.

It would not hurt to have four years of something different - and I think having a female in office would be a very good different. Why not try it out?

Only seldom does being different simply for the sake of difference actually turn out to be a Good Thing. Even most of the best-case scenarios involve finding out that one isn't nearly as "different" as one originally thought. The worst-case scenarios involve all sorts of unintended consequences that no one bothered to think about, because they were too busy Just Being Different.

This is why I would treat a female Presidential candidate no differently from any other, by supporting her only if she turned out to be the best candidate for the job.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Wonder how a woman president would deal with Iraq.

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Only seldom does being different simply for the sake of difference actually turn out to be a Good Thing. Even most of the best-case scenarios involve finding out that one isn't nearly as "different" as one originally thought. The worst-case scenarios involve all sorts of unintended consequences that no one bothered to think about, because they were too busy Just Being Different.

This is why I would treat a female Presidential candidate no differently from any other, by supporting her only if she turned out to be the best candidate for the job.

I agree with one case being not deviating from the norm; but I think because of the US's (and other countries, I guess) incredibly long tradition of only males at the top of the hierarchy that a change would simply be healthy. I can see no unintended consequences, except possibly a huge shifting of the cabinet and appointments being women instead of men, as a female president's sort of female affirmative action/revenge on the tradition of mostly-male government. But they are people, too, and if the president would be highly qualified (near that of the other candidates - not necessarily better, maybe even slightly worse, but *near* the others), I would elect her in favor of a change; in 4 years we can decide if that change was for the better or not.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Why yes/no?

Be honest.

Is she was qualified why wouldn't we, this isn't Saudi Arabia!

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Is she was qualified why wouldn't we, this isn't Saudi Arabia!

Don't tell me the US isn't still sexist.

As for the 5 of you that voted NO or not sure. Why?

[Chuckit]

Every group in America is discriminated against — every single one. So yes, of course the U.S. is still sexist. For instance, many women I know say they would vote for a female candidate almost purely on the basis that she was female.