As you guys know, the U.S., the country in which the root of democracy started, has yet to have female President. The highest rank a woman ever held in U.S. government is Secretary of State. Yet, if you look outside the U.S., other countries have had/have female presidents/prime minister.
U.K. had one, the famous Margaret Thatcher. The President of the Phillipine is female. The Prime Minister of Germany is female, Angela Merkel. Ireland had female president. And many other countries as well.
I think it is a shame the U.S. has yet to have female President let alone female Vice President. I am a 24 yr old guy and I am not saying this to flatter women. I know a lot of clever, smart, charismatic women who can lead our country, such as Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi.
I think the time is overdue for the U.S. to have female President. Maybe we can make it happen in 2008 Presidential election. Does anyone have insights or thoughts that they wanna share with me?
2006-08-13 09:36:36 · 21 answers · asked by nicesinging1 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Personally... I think it's pointless and counter-productive to try to put a time on having a female president. I think we shouldn't aim for having a female president- we should AIM for being a country that will vote for the BEST candidate REGARDLESS of gender, ethnicity, or other unimportant factors. I think just because a country has had a female leader, it doesn't necessarily make them a more enlightened country or further progressed. I think being a good leader is based more on being moral and truthful and able to make intelligent decisions, than being male, female, black, white, democrat, republican... etc. Electing people based on these factors is counterproductive as you may vote or not vote for someone based on something shallow like that and the less qualified person may wind up in office as a result. People should be elected by their personal qualifications and not by titles.
2006-08-13 09:39:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would vote for CONDI! but I would refuse to vote for HILLARY. She has already had her time in the white house.....I agree that a female should have the chance as President. Women are very protective....so the welfare of our great nation would be well protected.I like Greta Van.....she could also get the job done.
Hillary is a bad choice.....she is all about keeping our country in the YELLOW stage.....the world looks at us as WIMPS anyway. We NEED the insight of General Patton and the leadership as well.....This is why 9/11 happened.....all we would do is the TALK....lets talk instead of taking care of the problem.......
2006-08-13 09:54:58 · answer #2 · answered by aulona37 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well its kinda like when you want to win the lottery...you have to buy a ticket to have a chance...how about this idea...maybe a qualified woman should run and then maybe voters, male and female, should vote for them ONLY if they feel the particular woman is the best candidate...arbitrarily saying we should elect a woman as president just because its time is both short-sighted and lacks intelligent thought...as for your suggestions, it has not been proven that Condi has the ability to do the job and why would the US want to move towards a socialistic society by electing Hillary or Pelosi...
2006-08-13 09:50:57 · answer #3 · answered by chriscrimson98 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That the U.S. has never had a female president is really a shame. However, I don't know if any of the women you name are up for the task. But then again, most of the men now considering a run for the Whitehouse aren't qualified, either. (IMHO)
Politics is a filthy arena. And we have only ourselves to blame.
2006-08-13 09:48:10 · answer #4 · answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We should hope for the best person to be President, regardless of gender. If a woman makes it to the general election in 2008, I will decide whether to vote for her or not based on her qualifications and her stands on the issues. Gender has nothing to do with it.
2006-08-13 09:45:56 · answer #5 · answered by Tim 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im a lady myself and that i ought to vote for a lady president yet i dont imagine its going to take position in 2008. I do imagine with the aid of 2012 or 2016 we will be waiting in spite of the undeniable fact that. I do imagine its accessible that Obama ought to get it this time round in spite of the undeniable fact that.
2016-11-30 01:19:43 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To elect a president only on sex of the candidate is wrong, but then again should could reduce the deficiet by turning tricks in the oval office.
2006-08-13 09:42:53 · answer #7 · answered by johnman142 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you serious?? Especially Hilary, yuck! I know for a fact she is worthless, she has done nothing for N.Y. The only time we really hear anything about her is if shes visiting another town.
There are no women worthy of the Presidential seat, as of yet any way. And as of current, there are NO men worthy to take over either!
2006-08-13 09:42:39 · answer #8 · answered by Katz 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not overdue.....I mean whoever is best qualified, period. Whether it is a man, woman, white, black, asian and they are qualified under the qualifications needed according to the constitution, then whoever America wants will be voted in. Clearly noone is overdue if the American people haven't voted them in yet.
2006-08-13 09:42:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who are the best women in American politics?
Rice? All she would accomplish as President is to make Bush look good.
Clinton? All she would accomplish as President is to make her husband look good.
There are very few people in politics who are not old, rich white men.
2006-08-13 09:44:27 · answer #10 · answered by Wolf 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋