Welcome to Gaia! ::

The other day in class, the instructor asked me who I thought the next president whould be. Since I don't know much on the candidates of the 2008 election, I said that if Condolisca (??? spelling) was running, then she's have a high chance of winning the election. If not her, then possibly Hilary Clinton.

The response I received was, "You think the U.S. is ready to take on a women's president."

I responded, that I didn't believe it was an issue.

According to a few responses in class, I am now aware that it is still an issue. surprised

Living in your own little world has its benefits, but then you're shocked when reality slaps you in the face. xp

It's hard to tell if people are "ready." There've been polls and the like done that say people are ready, but there's a difference between saying you'd vote for a female president and actually doing it. I believe many people would vote for a female president, but right now she'd probably have to be near perfect.

That said, I don't believe Condi or Hilary could win. Condi has the fact that she's a Republican going for her, but -- I hate to have to say this -- but she's female and black, and while someone's who's either/or probably has a chance, I just don't think someone who's both could win right now.

And Hilary has the problem that she can't really please either camp. The conservatives think she's way too liberal and more leftist liberals think she's too conservative. This is different than being moderate, because a lot of people can find common ground with moderates -- but in my experience, conservatives THINK Hilary is more liberal because they associate her with the whole Bill Clinton thing and the way the media portrays her, while more leftist liberals know her actual voting record.

Personally? I wouldn't vote for either. I obviously have absolutely no problem voting for a woman, but I'm going to vote for one I actually LIKE.

I've read from a pretty big variety of people - from LGBTs to homophobes, from feminists to sexists, from civil rights activists to racists - that the general consensus is that a black man (Barack Obama) is more like to win the presidency than a woman (Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton). I agree that that is the state of the nation, but I don't think it's right.

Hear, hear! pirate

I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat rather than Rice, although I think if they they were running against eachother, Rice would have a better chance at winning, because she's firm and seems to be able to outwit any of her opponents.

The fact that Americans are still debating whether it's a good thing to have a female president seems to me to suggest that they bloody deserve Bush. (Sorry.)

You'd have thought the existence of Margaret Thatcher would disprove all those stereotypes over female leaders. I can't abide her politics and she did very little for feminism, but you can't deny she was as tough a leader as any man. There's been a ton of female leaders in other countries as well. Why not America?

Of course, it's silly to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. It's their political beliefs that matter. But it would be nice.

My topic was on how I realized that there are still many out there who would base their judgment of a presidential candidate because of their sex. And then I felt naive because I didn't realize it was still an issue.

And then everyone goes off on why Hilary would suck or whatever and I just wish I wouldn't have started the topic in the first place! gonk

God, you can't even be an unpolitically correct feminist. rolleyes

With thew women who are running, I don't think we are ready. Obama is way better than Hillary and Rice is just a moron.

I am saying that both Hillary and Rice are bad candidates. Bush is also bad along with most republicans after Truman and some democrats. Being a president should not be a gender issue at all.