General discussion


Are the Democrats ready to run a woman for President?

By DanLM ·
I just finished reading an article about Mrs. Clinton who supposedly tops every pole for Democrat Presidential Contenders. But there is a lot of speculation about electability.

Ok, let me state something up front. I think its time for a change. It's time for either a woman or a black American to run for President. And these candidates should be put forward by one of the major parties.

To give the Democrats credit, they have placed a woman as leader of the House Of Representatives. I question her wisdom on some of her choice's for leadership positions. She seems to have a reputation for hard ball politics but not much reputation for compromise. Which I think the country needs at this time, but time will tell. That is not a criticism, just an observation that can be found in any article about the lady.

Also, the Democrats have been running on change in Washington. Which I believe it is time for. But, do they have the guts to nominate a Woman to run for President? Can they come out of the smokey back room of politics of all the good old boys, and show that they really are willing to change. To nominate a Woman for President.

I find Hilary very interesting for President. Unfortunally, I am not sure she has the experience as yet to be President. But, and that is a big but. I think she can surround her self with informed/experienced personnel that can assist her if she becomes President.

What do you think?


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Vote for the right candidate regardless of race, sex, creed

by JamesRL In reply to Are the Democrats ready t ...

We've already had a female Prime Minister in Canada, though she did not win the subsequent election so Kim Campbell is really a footnote. Many conservatives voted for her based on a similar idea, because they were revved up about electing the first woman Prime Minister. But she really wasn't ready.

I've supported women candidates at all levels, and even wrote a paper in university on why women were underepresented in politics. But I've always chosen good candidates, not focussed on their sex. Same goes for candidates of "color".

I know many people make voting decisions based on some simple things. But when the person is elected and has to act in the new role, they have to be able to fill the role. Certainly there are many quality candidates who are women or black. Voting for one soley on that basis is a disservice to the country.

Hillary has some experience as a Senator - though I can think of no significant acheivements shes made to hang her hat on. I'm not a fan for a number of reasons - her personality seems to rub me the wrong way. And you don't elect someone to "grow" into the job - you elect someone who can do the job.


Collapse -


by onbliss In reply to Are the Democrats ready t ...

"Ok, let me state something up front. I think its time for a change. It's time for either a woman or a black American to run for President. And these candidates should be put forward by one of the major parties."

Does it mean the people did not want a woman to be the President? Was it a conscious decision or was it that it just so happened that there was no good woman candidate who could win? If it was the former then it is indeed interesting.

Collapse -

truthfully onbliss, I think their has been

by DanLM In reply to Interesting

I think there has been valid individuals that could have been placed on the ballot. The person that comes to my mind is Colin Powel. I understand that he did not want to run, but I also think that the various parties did not push the issue enough. I know that my post said woman, but I think it's more brode stroked then that. Black American, woman candidate, someone other then the current crop of white ethnic male candidate.

Again, I do feel their has been previous individuals that were qualified that were never put forward by their respective party.


Collapse -

Colin Powell as a politician

by JamesRL In reply to truthfully onbliss, I thi ...

While being a general in the military certainly has many political aspects, its one thing to know how a governmental bureacracy works (and he did), its another to be an experienced campaigner.

While it would be ok to be inexperienced as a VP, a presidential candidate needs to be a proven commodity to get people to line up behind him. Campaigning requires good speech making, the ability to talk to the press, the ability to network with party donors, court interest groups and many other skills that may or may not have been present in Colin.

If you watched the West Wing last season where they followed presidential candidates during an election, its pretty close to what I saw of politics in Canada at both a provincial and national level. It clearly demonstrated the qualities needed in a presidential candidate.


Collapse -

But James, he does/did have experience

by DanLM In reply to Colin Powell as a politic ...

He was the secretary of state. You may not agree with the policies that were put forth, and that is fine. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

I believe he was respected in the world community as both being level headed, intelligent, and honorable.

But, I do agree with you that he probably did not have enough experience to be president. But, again my argument is that neither political party has put forward either a minority or a a woman for either president/vice president. I know, the topic was about president and I'm expanding. I do apologize.

I just believe their is plenty of qualified, respectable, and honorable individuals of the either female or minority, or both that could be offered the position of vp. Or asked to run for president. These people could have been asked to test the waters in the past to pave the way for a future running for those offices. Neither has occurred by the major political parties. And again, it's either the old boy network not wanting to give up the power. Or just not having the guts to do it.

I know, I know. I will probably be shown that this is a baseless argument. It just bothers me that it hasn't occurred.

And truthful, I don't know if this occurring would heal a lot of wounds of the past. Or open new ones.

Ok, stupid topic.


Collapse -

Political experience....

by JamesRL In reply to But James, he does/did ha ...

Specifically, running for election, making campaign speeches, etc.

It is not the same at all.

I've worked at a national level with politicians, both on campaigns, and as legislators. Some do one well, so do the other, but any Presidential candidate has to be able to do both. And don't forget the President campaigns for every election for his party.

I think running for VP he would gain that experience.

Did you forget Geraldine Ferraro? She was a woman candidate for VP. Perhaps you might argue she wasn't expected to win. And Joe Lieberman is Jewish, hence a minority.

The thing about the old boy network, is that they like to be in power. If electing a woman or minority gets them power, they will take it.


Collapse -

Your right, I did forget about Geraldine and Joe L.

by DanLM In reply to Political experience....

Sorry, I'm glad you jogged my memory. Because that really does dispute my question completely.


Collapse -

A "woman" candidate is doomed to lose. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Are the Democrats ready t ...

..... but a good and viable candidate who happens to be a woman has as good a chance as any man to win any office. When a person runs for office (or votes for a person running for office) based only on gender or race, they're losers in every sense of the word. I would NEVER vote for a candidate just because of race or gender, but I've been supportive of great candidates who happened to be women.

(Disclaimer: I know, I know. There ARE some candidates currently in Congress who are there ONLY because their skin is a certain color; and they beat much better qualified candidates who lost only because they were the "wrong color".)

By the way, if you were to name all the women who might be qualified to be mentioned as a potential candidate for a White House run, either currently or over the past twenty years, you'll find that most of the "women" you would have to name would have a big R behind their name, not a big D. You might also be interested to see the number of minorities, women, or minority women who have been appointed to high cabinet positions in recent administrations. Who had more women in his cabinet, for example, President Bush (43) or President Clinton? And what about any other minority you might name for the same question? This notion that the Democrat Party is the party of women and minorities is ludicrous.

One of the reasons (among many) that Democrats are so distasteful to me is that they can't see beyond race or gender. Of course, that's how they keep the support of racist and sexist organizations such as NOW and NAACP. That's the" Democrat's" game, however -- race-baiting and gender-baiting. Are the Democrats ready to run a woman for President, you ask? Sure they are? Any other party, on the other hand, would choose instead to run the best candidate, and just let the gender chips fall where they may.

To the Democrats, a "woman" is only a "real woman" if she is, herself, a Democtat. The way "Democrats" have treated Condoleezza Rice, for example, is an abomination.

Collapse -

I don't vote race, gender, or religion

by Tig2 In reply to A "woman" candidate is do ...

I vote values, morals, ethics, and primarily, position.

I don't give a darn if you are male or female; black, white, or technicoloured; Republican or Democrat; churched or unchurched. I care about what your position is on issues I care about.

I care about the fact that I cannot earn a dime and still get health care. I am looking at more surgery and the only way I can afford it is to be able to go back to the theoretical health care system provided by the State. Therefore, I must be at pauper level. I can't get a job that offers insurance- I have a pre-existing condition. And I am then forced to change doctors. Assuming, of course, that I can hold out on mandatory surgery for a year or more.

I care about the fact that I have become a "target group" by FIs based on the fact that I refuse to use or support banks- no savings account, no chequing account, no credit cards- I have been burned and burned bad. But as a member of the group "un-banked and under-banked", I have become a target. To the FIs, I can only say, "Good luck- I cannot be forced to do what I refuse to do". It remains that my NPI information is being culled and retained (and potentially abused) by these institutions remains.

(Apologies for the side note rant)

Hillary Rodham Clinton has nothing new to offer me. She has no platform that I care about. She annoys me on many fronts- but that annoyance has nothing to do with my unwillingness to cast a vote in her direction. She simply does not have a platform that I can stand behind. Nor do I think that she has the leadership qualities that would be necessary in the role.

If the Democratic Party thinks that fielding a woman proves that they are in it for the change, they are sadly mistaken (I hope). I believe that people vote a certain degree of self interest and will examine a candidate based on something more substantial than gender, race, or religion.

Collapse -

Awful feeling

by onbliss In reply to I don't vote race, gender ...

"I can't get a job that offers insurance- I have a pre-existing condition."

When one stops to reflect more on that, it is just so awful :-(

Related Discussions

Related Forums