2006-11-19 11:00:19 · 23 answers · asked by sparks 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I would not be opposed to having a woman in office, however I would never vote for someone just because she is a woman. I think that if she represents my interests well, then great, but if a man opposing her holds more similar views than her, he'd get my vote instead.
2006-11-19 11:04:09 · answer #1 · answered by smartee 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Calling Hillary Clinton a socialist is absurd, people who paid attention to voting records and did not just go by what they hear on the grapevine probably wouldn't even call her liberal- she's further right than even her husband was- she co authored Senator Robert Bennett's flag protection act, she supports the death penalty, she voted for the Communications Decency Act whose aim it was to limit freedom of speech online.
The only things that she is outspoken on that are left of center are universal healthcare, right to choose, and civil rights- some things that her senatorial republican counterparts also embrace. Life and the pursuit of happiness are both tied to health, the right to choose is settled law, and civil rights are a no brainer in a civilized society- so where's the socialist?
That being said, I'd sooner vote for McCain than Hillary. McCain is FAR more progressive. (at least while Democrats are in power, hint hint wink wink, you want a flip flopper, Kerry has nothing on McCain).
2006-11-19 19:37:14 · answer #2 · answered by K A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personal think it would be awesome and it is alot closer then many seem to think. I may not like the choices but it will happen. Anyway just to put this into perspective how much worse off could we really be if there was a woman president...
2006-11-19 11:06:12 · answer #3 · answered by friday_roberts 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I think it would be refreshing as a country for a woman was the next president. I think it would be a nice change.
2006-11-19 11:17:24 · answer #4 · answered by some one you don't know. 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
only think of if there have been no electoral college in 2000. No Bush, a million much less conflict, much less debt, no recession. The founders of the U. S. weren't desirable. The electoral college and "winner take all" philosophy is only incorrect.
2016-10-22 09:24:35 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it wasn't that great when we had one as PM in the UK...though there was never any conclusive proof she was a woman....
I think in theory it would be great (more compassion in politics maybe?), but unfortunately in order for women to succeed in politics - and maybe in any career? - they have to behave like men. Nasty, arrogant men in fact. So I'm not sure it would make a whole heap of difference in the long run.
2006-11-19 11:06:57 · answer #6 · answered by Snowth 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It has nothing to do with being a woman. You vote for the person not the gender
2006-11-19 11:04:34 · answer #7 · answered by goodtimesgladly 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Women are more focused on their duties, they are smarter, more compassionate and they detinitely would be more careful before sending their sons and daughters into a useless war.
2006-11-19 11:24:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice to see the US catch up to the UK, Canada, Israel, India in having a women leader.
2006-11-19 11:04:55 · answer #9 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I depends on the person's ability to run the country and what their political beliefs are and what items they support (or do not support). To me, it doesn't matter the gender.
2006-11-19 11:08:46 · answer #10 · answered by Mariposa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋