The first woman elected president will HAVE to be a conservative.

[efhmc]

It will be difficult enough for the American people to think of any woman as strong enough and brave enough to be their leader. Their ideas in this regards are already so skewed that a progressive female leader would just blow their tiny little brains out. ("*bush, is a strong Christian man who never changes his mind and protects us against terrorists, etc") Therefore, some right wing, brainy, family intact but in the background, kill the enemy type will be the only woman with a shot at the office. That type of woman has all the worse male-macho traits. The longer I live, the further away the concept of any woman as president seems to get, much less the idea of a competent one. We are going backwards faster that we can take in oxygen.

[gonefishing]

1. Have Faith Hillary in 2008

[efhmc]

6. I couldn't figure out who Faith Hillary was for a minute? LOL

Maybe because my faith in this country has pretty much run its course, I didn't get it.

[gonefishing]

12. Do you want to ease a little pain?

Next time you run into a white male gloating repug. Say this:

Congratulations your boy has the helm for the next 4 years. However, if he screws it up this time Hillary will be a lock in 2008. Then watch for that little twitch before they say "Oh Bullshit". Deep in their heart of hearts that really scares the hell out them.

[zanana]

42. Good one, efhmc! n/t

[genius]

9. Hillary is a conservative. She'll do.

[efhmc]

10. Do you honestly think that the American people see her as a

conservative? If they can take a true war hero like John Kerry and smear and smash his reputation what do you think they will do to Hillary's "liberal" voting record?

[genius]

11. She voted for the bankruptcy bill and the worst of the other bills.

I am not willing to go more conservative than Hillary. We don't need a woman if it's a bad one.

[efhmc]

13. That is not my point. My point is whether you and I and other liberals

think she is conservative, the American public thinks that she is VERY liberal. Just the fact that she went by her maiden name until she was FL freaked out many, many people.

[NewJeffCT]

70. you are 100% correct on that

While liberals correctly think of Mrs. Rodham-Clinton as a conservative, Republicans and moderates have been spoon-fed the "Hillary is a radical leftist" meme since Bill started his run for President in 1992! Heck, most Republicans think the Democratic Party has moved way way left since the good old days of JFK. Remember, the equally conservative Bill Clinton was portrayed as a radical, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, draft-dodging, hippy liberal by the Right.

It will take years to undo that image, both of our party and of Hillary.

[Zynx]

19. Why should I want Hillary?

Give me one good reason I should want her over another Democrat.

[Maple]

2. Yes, it would have to be

a Margaret Thatcher type.

[efhmc]

4. Had this conversation with a feminist relative once and she was livid at

my suggestion but MT was exactly whom I was thinking about.

[lgardengate]

32. I agree, would HAVE to be a Thather clone or she would lose

I am 46 and if there is a female pres before i'm 65 (IMO) it will have to be a Thatcher type.Someone like Condi Rice is someone i think could have a good chance as long as the American people in general see her as sucssful during this 4 years.Obviously liberals wont like her but, if the average Joe's and Jane's like her still she could be the one running in 08'IMO.If Bush is still liked by America i can see him doing everything to help her be his sucessor.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Dick C. resigns before then and Bush makes her VP.

[efhmc]

47. Now that is an interesting thought. I am not sure about that process.

Would she be appointed by the pres. or would the repukes as a whole have a say in that?

[lgardengate]

63. I think if Dick C. resigned due to health reasons that

Bush could just appoint her to the job, but i could be wrong.maybe congress would have a say. I think it would work whatever way it was done as long as America in general liked her and there was nothing effective to be used against her by the Dems and/or media.By that i mean that she would have to do well as Secretary of State (no obvious screw-ups).

[blackangrydem]

44. Closest thing to Maggie in our party is Landrieu?

Repugs have Dole and Rice.

[efhmc]

48. I don't know enought about her to know her political leanings. Are they

toward the right?

[blackangrydem]

69. Not sure either

but I'm assuming that she would not have been elected in LA if she is seen as a liberal.

[radwriter0555]

3. The election process in the USA is over as we know it. The voting is now

owned by the GOP and they will forver be the ones who decide who is the new leader....

Face it, the GOP is now using the Constitution as toilet paper.

[efhmc]

7. Seems to be the general consensus around here. Loud cry of sadness.

[Telly Savalas]

23. Then why bother talking politics?

[efhmc]

26. Can't answer for the other person but as for me I am always hoping for a

change for the better.

[Telly Savalas]

60. Me too.

In fact, I believe I can play a tiny role in such a change for the better. The other poster, however, seems to be of the opinion that we're doomed and nothing can be done. If this is the case, then it's senseless to discuss politics. Furthermore, the only thing such fatalist posts achieve is to dampen morale of others. What's the point of doing that?

[radwriter0555]

73. To be the voice of dissent. I can't totally roll over, I may as well try

raise the awareness in others.

And it's GOOD to piss off the Republicanazis.

[McKenzie]

5. interestingly the UK's first female premier was a tad right wing

Thatcher adopted all the worst behavioural traits of male management in the UK...macho, long hours, aggressive etc. (The UK has some of the longest working hours in the EU though I believe we are outstripped by the US on that account. Don't have facts to support that BTW.)

The fact that a woman had to (or possibly chose to because she was very clever) adopt male behavioural traits to succeed says quite a lot.

I wonder how a female labour candidate for the premiership would have fared? I think I know the answer to that.

[efhmc]

8. The same traits in a female liberal would be considered to be very

unlady-like and emasculating. In a conservative, they are strong and dependable.

[NMDemDist2]

14. england has a long line if Queens that paved the way for MT

if you look at other EU countries who don't have a history of strong female leaders you will see they have not hired a woman CEO yet either

i fear it will be a long time for a lady Prez

Pelosi is a start tho......

[efhmc]

16. You are right. Even though QE2nd is a figurehead, she is a woman.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

24. But that's true of many other European countries, not England alone

Many European nations have a history of strong, prominent female leaders in their histories and have had them recently as well; England is hardly alone in this respect. Austria for example had the brilliant, strong, and even militarily adept Maria Theresa, who personally supervised her troops on the battlefield. She issued direct orders and crafted strategies that even modern military historians are impressed with. Russia had Tsarina Catherine the Great, who had some failed policies with the serfs but was overall a quite intelligent and effective ruler. Spain had Queen Isabella who, while she unfortunately founded the Spanish Inquisition, also had many genuine achievements and was famous for being strong-willed and in control of her government along with her husband Ferdinand.

Scotland had Mary Stuart, the Dutch had Queen Wilhelmina, Denmark had Queen Margaret, Poland had Queen Hedwige, Portugal had Queen Maria. France had probably the world's most influential female political/military leader, Joan of Arc (whole history of northwest Europe would have been very different without her), as well as Catherine de Medici. And these are just the most well-known and recognizable names. Germany and Italy both had a number of strong women leaders in the territory which they now comprise, although since they weren't unified nations (split up as little principalities until the 19th century), neither their male nor female leaders had much power. So most Euro countries have a history of mainly male leaders but some impressive female rulers in power as well. If anything, among Western countries the US is the exception rather than the rule in having so very few female leaders. (Modern Euro nations also tend to have high percentages of women in their legislatures-- in Germany e.g. it's over 30%.) Anglophone countries I guess have a mixed record on this overall, with New Zealand of course being the trailblazer, but the US definitely is much more conservative on this than the other nations.

I'm also not sure that having female leaders in the past has made much difference in a Euro country having such a leader in 20th-21st centuries. Remember that Britain e.g. is a parliamentary democracy and so people do not vote for the Prime Minister him- or herself-- they vote for candidates who are affiliated with a particular party, which then rules alone or in a majority coalition. It's the party that picks the leader, unlike the case in the USA. Thatcher herself never quite won the endearment of the British people, and remember that she was unceremoniously forced out of office in 1990 rather than retiring on her own accord. Many Western parliamentary democracies have also had women leaders recently, and they didn't necessarily have women rulers in their history. The Scandinavian countries probably lead the world in women's status and leadership in general, with Vigdis Finnbogadottir in Iceland ruling for 16 years (even though Iceland didn't really have a history of this before). Gro Harlem Brundtland led in Norway, and then she took the reins of the WHO. France had Edith Cresson. Ireland has Mary Robinson. And so on.

We also see this outside of Europe and the Western countries. Despite the stereotypes, Muslim countries have had perhaps the highest levels of female leadership in the past century. Bangladesh has been led by women prime ministers since 1990-- Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed. In fact, since Bangladesh became independent in the 1970s, it may soon become the first nation for which the majority of its political leaders have been female. (Zia and Wajed are also highly respected outside of Bangladesh itself.) There was Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, and Tansu Ciller (an especially strong leader) in Turkey. Indira Gandhi in India, Corazon Aquino and Gloria Arroyo in the Philippines, Violetta Chamorro in Nicaragua, Golda Meir in Israel. Queen Liliuokalani ruled powerfully in Hawaii before we in the US conquered the islands and overthrew her from control there. :( Japan hasn't had female leaders recently but historically, it's had more women rulers than any other country. And they were powerful, too-- Japanese empresses like Suiko and Kogyoku were among the founders of the Japanese nation. So I guess the upshot is that there's nothing unusual about countries having female leaders with substantial power. Many countries have had them and they've often been formative in their nations' histories. If anything the USA is an anomaly in this respect.

[efhmc]

28. Thanks for the great history lesson. Why do you think the US is so far

behind in this area? Even when more progressive people have power here (remember that?) we still lag far behind.

[PDittie]

15. Unh-uh. Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to be first

She's running for Governor of Texas in 2006 and President in 2008.

Texas has assumed control. Haven't you been paying attention?

[efhmc]

17. I am a Texan whose family has been here since the early 1800's and

I sure don't feel in control.

[PDittie]

20. Well that's because you aren't GOP n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

45. The scary part is

that she's too "liberal" for them since she's *nominally* pro-choice. She'd never make it out of the (2008) repub primaries.

[efhmc]

49. I think that much of that might be overlooked if she had a little more

charisma. She does not.

[Zynx]

18. Edit: Wrong spot

[rug]

21. Then why bother?

[efhmc]

25. Why bother what? Voting, trying, hoping, striving? What?

[rug]

43. Why bother electing a conservative, female or otherwise.

[efhmc]

53. Well oviously you and I and the others here would not elect her . I

was making an observation about the state of mind of our country, (scary conservative)and that observation could apply in almost any election but does not necessarily have to.

[Telly Savalas]

22. Sexist assholes tend to vote conservative anyway

It will be difficult enough for the American people to think of any woman as strong enough and brave enough to be their leader. Their ideas in this regards are already so skewed that a progressive female leader would just blow their tiny little brains out.

Nah. People locked into this 18th century view of gender roles wouldn't vote for a progressive male either. Once we can muster up enough votes to get a progressive candidate elected, it won't matter what gender that person is.

[efhmc]

30. A wonderful thought, but there are plenty of borderline voters that would

support a charming, although liberal man, that would not ever consider voting for a women.

[Telly Savalas]

58. That's pure speculation.

Al Gore didn't win the popular vote in 2000 by promising to kick some ass and take down names. It's highly unlikely that a noticeable segemnt of the people that trusted Gore with our national security, wouldn't trust someone else solely on the basis of that person having a vagina.

[efhmc]

67. Humm, not so sure about that but I like the way you think.

[stepnw1f]

27. Wrong... She Must have Equal MEDIA Time

without fascist corporate spin shills. "Mainstream" is perception... a false one. So is "conservative" or whatever the hell that means.

[efhmc]

29. The interest in a woman running would get plenty of coverage but

what kind of coverage would it be? The label of conservative may not mean anything specific or even be of interest to us but it will to all the corporate shills that work the talk show circuits and therefore will be communicated negatively to the mainstream voters. You can bet on that.

[gottaB]

31. Carol Moseley Braun

I learned in the course of following her campaign that women get less coverage than men, and that coverage of women politicians is more often about personal matters than policy issues. That's a statistical pattern, though it certainly applied to CMB's candidacy.

[efhmc]

33. I do not think her candidacy was taken seriously. And when I talk about

candidates, I mean those that are heading the partys' tickets. The media did not see her as a possible winner. It would have been interesting to see how/if the coverage changed if she were the Dem nominee for pres.

[gottaB]

34. well, I'm talking about institutional sexism in the media

It was a factor in the primary. You might be interesed in this research from the White House Project: http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/research/frame_gender_sum.html

[efhmc]

46. Thanks, I am on the fly this afternoon but WILL read it later

[JVS]

35. Yeah. It's the Nixon-China syndrome

[efhmc]

52. Please explain that concept. Thanks.

[JVS]

62. Nixon was able to normalize realations with the Communist Chinese govt.

in large part because as a right-winger he was safe from criticism of being soft on communism. Clinton benefitted from a similar effect in areas like welfare reform, which would have had a harder time passing public scrutiny if done by a conservative. .

[efhmc]

65. So doing something progressive can be soften if one is

considered okay by conservatives?

[NewJeffCT]

72. that is correct

For years, we had Republicans accuse Democrats of being taxers & spenders, yet it was a Democratic president in Bill Clinton that came along & balanced the budget, cut welfare, signed Nafta, etc.

Nobody seems to care that Reagan gave nuclear technology to the Chinese because he was tough on communism. However, just the thought (incorrect as it was) that a corporation that supported Clinton gave some missile tech to the Chinese caused a huge scandal.

[Blue Wally]

74. Jimmy Carter

as a Democrat was able to face down the civil service unions and make a change to the civil service retirement system (sold as improving it, but actually screwing the future civil servants).

[TheWraith]

36. Am I the only one here

Who thinks that an attractive female candidate could swing some male voters? Like it or not, some men are run by their little head rather than their big one, and if some vote on which candidate they'd rather have a beer with couldn't they also vote on which candidate they'd like to bang? Perhaps I'm just being biased--our side, after all, seems to have the large majority of attractive women.

And I don't think the first female president will have to be a conservative. She'll have to be beloved, a national icon, to make it past the primary for either party, and that means she could make it as a D.

[JVS]

37. That would be more than offset by women who refuse to vote for her...

because she is attractive. If she looks good there is likely going to be resentment along the lines of well we'll see how she looks after having 4 kids/ her breasts are too perky, they must be fake/ she's too skinny she must be anorexic....and so on

[imenja]

39. here's a shocker

Women vote on policy. We have minds. Women voted Democratic in larger numbers than men. In fact, if men had stayed home on Nov. 2, John Kerry would be our president-elect. Spare us your bigotry.

[JVS]

40. There are people of both sexes who vote based on stupid things

Just as the person that I posted in response to thinks that some men may be swayed by a female's attractiveness, I believe that some women may vote against her for the same reason.

[TheWraith]

68. Hmm. Point taken. Like I said, national icon is the way to go. NT.

[imenja]

38. I think this is exactly the kind of attitude that holds the country back

I see no reason why a woman couldn't be elected president--Democrat or Republican--provided she was the right candidate with a message that appealed to voters, has charisma, and experience. A military background wouldn't hurt either. Women are in combat in Iraq today, and no one questions that. Most men who have spent any significant time with women know that they are every bit as tough and strong as men.
This reminds me of a friend of mine who insisted that the Democrats had to choose white male candidates, because minorities couldn't be elected. I reminded him that two major Dem senatorial victories this election involved minority candidates--Obama and Salazar, the latter from a Red state.
The only thing keeping us back from a more inclusive government is the assumption that it isn't possible. We need to take advantage of all available talent in the party--rather than excluding 50% or more of the population in advance.
Pakistan and India have had women prime ministers. Israel, Britain, Argentina, the Philippines, and doubtless others. Do you suppose the US and the Democratic party might be willing to join the civilized world?

[efhmc]

51. So you are saying that the right person with the right qualities will

appeal and have a good chance for election if we can find that candidiate and convince her to run. Sounds good to me, any suggestions?

[imenja]

54. it's too soon

I think it's too soon to start looking for presidential candidates. I think we have a lot of work to do first. We need to work on building the party at the local level. We need to think about what the core principles of the party are, and how to effectively communicate that message. We then, after 2006, choose a candidate that best embodies and articulates that message.
I like a Hillary Clinton a lot, but I tend to think she wouldn't be the best presidential candidate--not because of her sex, but for other reasons, including her close association with Bill Clinton.
I'd love to be wrong on this issue, because I think she'd be a first rate president.

[efhmc]

55. I also agree about Hillary. Too much baggage from Bill. She would do

a good job but so would Kerry and pretty much any of our other candidates.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Either that or a damn good liberal hacker.

n/t

[efhmc]

50. How in the world could a candidate get far along to have name

recognition and still be a secret liberal? I do like the idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Actually, I was more referring to the fact that Diebold is tabulating

something around 30% of the votes in any given election... Which is a depressing reality.

[efhmc]

66. And that many votes will always go to the repukes?

[cyn2]

56. I would hesitate to predict who...

will be the first woman president.

I don't think it will be Hillary, but the political climate will change...it always does....does anyone else remember the 60s and 70s when goverment overstepped it's authorities....Latin American Secret Wars, covert assassination attempts, a horrid losing war?

Things will change.....I'm just not sure when.

[efhmc]

57. I sure hope it happens quickly but with the media CONTROLLED by

the bushies, I think it will be a long time coming.

[InvisibleBallots]

59. Elizabeth Dole will be the first female President

or someone very much like her I think.

[efhmc]

64. She seems to fit the mold that I see the voters finding as

nonthreating.

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. I'd rather have Cynthia McKinney, thanks. :^)

[efhmc]

75. Who is? (Am I showing my stupid here?)

[GreenPartyVoter]

76. This lovely gal

http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/about.html


http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/