Just would like to point out, the UK has had a female PM before (though some people might argue otherwise :P). So have other countries, like Finland and the Philippines. It's not really a new thing.
Voting for someone just because they're female seems to be one of the worst ways to choose a candidate, right up there with the "lesser evil" idea. Do I think it's good to have more women and people of color in office? Yes, but they also need to be candidates I want to vote for. If I was German, I would not have voted for Merkel (or rather, the CDU), if I was French, I would not have voted for Royal (I'm a Besancenot supporter), and as an American, I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
2007-04-22 13:07:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Peter M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Queen Victoria was the head of 2/3 of the globe at one point
Queen Elizabeth the 1st - another example of a female leader who stood on the shores of England and with her army waiting for the Spainish armada that was too scared to show up
Queen Anne outlawed usary in England and durring her riegn it was ilegal to charge interest on loans - The economists of her day said it would be a disaster -
She did it anyway - it worked out quite well
Boutica lead an army against the Romans - her army was slaughtered but she was the only one who tried to fight and she was considered one of the top Generals around by Tactius the famous Roman General - He respected her abilities
If a female is elected PM of President it isn't anywhere near the first time a woman was lead a powerful nation and Empire or an Army far from it
2007-04-22 11:35:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, I can only judge from the front-runner among females with the potential to be elected in 08, but the agenda will probably include Cattle Futures Subsidies, Leveraged Land Development Deals, a close working relationship with the FBI, a new crew at the Travel Office, and a new cabinet position responsible for pinning blame for anything that goes wrong on Bush.
2007-04-22 11:36:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by open4one 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
See, thats the problem. You shouldn't vote for someone just based on their gender and then ask what their agenda will be like.
A female will be elected President in the USA if and when a candidate can persuade a majority of voters that she is the right person for the job....and not before then!
Why are you in such a hurry?
2007-04-22 11:33:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Gender is no automatic qualification for office. Your philosophical musings are nothing more than sexist garbage Im afraid.
Hillary Clintons agenda simply would consist of trying to do what is popular, enjoy the praise of others, and try to push her socialist agenda whenever possible.
2007-04-22 11:35:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The difference is that Angela Merkel and possibly Ségolène Royal are decent choices to lead their respective nations. The Hildebeast is not.
2007-04-22 11:34:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rick N 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sexism, blah, their sex shouldnt matter, I would vote for a female candidate if one I liked ran for president. Their agenda shouldnt be affected by what sex they are, if it is, then they are sexist.
2007-04-22 11:34:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by cliffburtongodofthebass 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
First get a woman who should be leader.
Now because it is a woman's turn we should give it to the first woman to run.
Hillary is not the one who should be in the Oval Office.
2007-04-22 11:35:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Don't worry about Hillary. She won't be elected because she supported Iraq War.
Koreans have a proverb: "If a hen crows, that house perishes."
But I like Nancy Pelosi. This grandma is more sexy and well, fashionably, dressed.
2007-04-22 11:35:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by JOHN K 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'n not opposed to it. But we don't have a girl candidate for President.
2007-04-22 11:35:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Delphi 4
·
1⤊
0⤋