2007-03-01 09:01:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
If we had good female candidates, it wouldn't be a problem.
2007-03-01 09:07:09 · answer #1 · answered by Carlene W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does the current situation in the middle east have to do with any decision to have a female President or not? It sounds as if you are saying that just because of the middle east it is time for a female President. The I say no....because the next President faces much more than just the middle east.
2007-03-01 17:09:11 · answer #2 · answered by iraq51 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why does the sex of the new President matter? Policy regarding the Middle East will remain on the same path as long as the lobbies keep the politician's pockets lined with funds. What we do need is a President with intelligence and a bit of morals in order to handle our affairs and involvement in the Middle East. Their sex should not matter.
2007-03-01 17:08:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no valid argument against having a woman President, no matter what area of the world she has to deal with. Countries in the Middle East, for instance, routinely and respectfully deal with female leaders of other countries - remember Margaret Thatcher, and currently Condeleeza Rice? How about Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir? Their highest officials recognize and know they must deal with other cultures and other people's ways when multinational issues are on the table. This is nothing new to the world, it is we who are playing catchup in electing women to the highest leadership roles.
EDIT: For the genius worried about PMS? Hillary is past menopause, she has no PMS. It wouldn't matter if she did. Not all women suffer from PMS and a women who has the drive and intelligence to get as far as Clinton never had to worry about it. It makes about as much sense to say a woman would be too emotional to handle a major world crisis as it would be to suggest we have to worry about a male President surfing for porn while he's waiting for the launch codes to be delivered.
2007-03-01 17:44:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
England has had a Queen since the 1950s, many countries have had Queens and female Prime Ministers, what's the big deal? The Middle East needs to move into the 21st century.
2007-03-01 17:07:50 · answer #5 · answered by smartypants909 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Anybody who thinks women are too "soft" should look at the case of Margaret Thatcher v practically any of her predecessors or those who followed. Apart from possibly Winston Churchill, Thatcher was the toughest PM the UK ever had.
We used to call her "The Iron Lady". French President Chirac said she had a will of steel and lips like Marilyn Monroe's!
2007-03-01 17:27:41 · answer #6 · answered by lesroys 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who cares? the middle east is a lose / lose situtation, whether you're 8ft tall bulletproof knuckledragging Texas neanderthal or a moderate Liberal female carpetbagging Senator from New York.
What it's NOT the time for is a pro Zionist anti secular warmonger, who uses war for religious purposes whether the American public wants it or not.
2007-03-01 17:08:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
we do not need a president with PMS.
2007-03-01 17:09:47 · answer #8 · answered by patriot07 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋