Would it affect your vote for a woman or Hillary?
2007-01-29 13:28:35 · 15 answers · asked by j615 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I think any person would have a better chance at talking more effectively with other nations than Bush. It makes no difference whether it's a man or a woman. And yes, Hillary would get my vote. I'd be a Democrat if I lived in America.
2007-01-29 13:33:21 · answer #1 · answered by Aussie Chick 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think any woman would be able to do a better job then what is being done now.. I do not see any problems with a woman running the country even if it is Hillary or another woman.. its time for a change since we all have or should have noticed the white men has done a terrible job..
But hillary has my vote so far..
2007-01-29 20:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think a woman President would be as effective in Middle East policy in general, not because I don't think she could do it, but because they as a culture tend not to take women seriously as leaders. The exception that proves the rule, of course, is Golda Meir.
2007-01-29 14:37:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see why not. Margaret Thatcher didn't seem to have any problems. I'm glad you said "a woman or Hillary". I would vote for a woman. I would NOT vote for Hillary.
2007-01-29 14:28:13 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The people of the Middle East do have great respect for women. It is expressed in ways not familiar to the West. Nor would most of us want the lifestyle. Still, when a government whom they wish to associate with has women in power they respect the fact. They do not believe in authority from any but their own religious beliefs either, but that does not prevent those who are also wishing good government and a safe world to deal with countries that are not of their faith.
Women leaders, religious beliefs, these are all internal affairs. Not brought to the table of world leaders who are true leaders.
2007-01-29 13:40:27 · answer #5 · answered by graysmoke 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a woman president would put leaders in the middle east on the defensive right away, as soon as she walked into the room, probably before that. it goes against everything they believe and that would push their buttons and THAT is a position of weakness: a woman president is something they cant confront or have never had to confront. she would be in a better postion to dominate the conversation and define the rules of diplomacy.
2007-01-29 13:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I actually have not in any respect understood is why the substances are not directed to providing new residing quarters for refugees remote from the conflict. If human beings want to die ad infinitum over a plot of land(no count number what the religious importance) that is a regretful difficulty, yet do not stress it upon everybody.
2016-12-03 05:29:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A classical liberal woman president with the balls of Patton would be the ultimate leader for this country right now. Just imagine the humiliation in the Muslim world stoner Hitler from Iran would be dealing with after B-1 strike ordered by her.
2007-01-29 13:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I would vote for a woman as President.. especially Hilary!!! No way.. the country will fall apart even more if she becomes president.. It may not happen during the 4 years she will be in. It may be right after she is replaced.
Just like her husband Clinton, Terrorists use liberal presidents as planning to attack time. History may repeat itself!
2007-01-29 13:38:51 · answer #9 · answered by YourDreamDoc 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes and Hillary has my vote
2007-01-29 16:36:41 · answer #10 · answered by anna 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋