Is it really the time to be electing a female President?

Question

And I use the word "female" losely when referring to Hillary. I know Hillary has balls but does she really have THE BALLS to keep us safe in this war on terror?

"loosely"..

but, are you voting for Hillary because she is a woman or because you think she is the best candidate? answer honestly (ESPECIALLY THE LADIES)

you mention Obama but do you realize that he is all for starting a war with Pakistan. All that I am saying is PLEASE CHOOSE WISELY!

This is by no means saying we will never be ready...(i'm over myself Baba...no harm meant by asking a question is there?)

I.H.N...that is my point. thanks for clearing it up.

girly, AMEN.....enough said.

Answer 1

It's time to pick a President who can work for the people (vagina or no vagina)- Hillary is too much of a politician, I don't trust her. Go Obama!

Yes. I'm fully aware of his views. Bush let the main project go (Afghanistan) and now Al Qaida is stronger than it was prior to 9/11 in Afghanistan/immediate borders of Pakistan. If we're to fight Al Qaida and Talibans (which was the original plan) we need to finish the first project. Obama stated if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did not cooperate with the US and stopped harboring terrorists, he reserves the right to take on Pakistan as well. I see it only as logical.

In conclusion, I do my research to pick the candidate who I believe has the best ideas, regardless of their sexual organs.

Thanks

Answer 2

Honestly? Let's get a break down..

Feminism is first and foremost a political paradigm that most often finds it's home in academia. Gender studies and relations are extremely tough fish to fry, the more you learn, the more you realize how much you could never know.

That being said, most women who do subscribe to the belief of feminist ideology have at the very least some advanced educational background, (hmm maybe an academic background that would include, gee, i dunno, political science?)

I guess the point I'm making is that your average feminist is a smart cookie, and to base a vote solely on gender is not only sexist (and therefore against feminist theory) but also extremely ignorant of politics.

So to answer the question....

I don't think it is time for a female president yet, because the only one running, i feel would not be the best candidate for presidency.

When/If I ever do vote for a woman, I'll be voting for her ideas and abilities, not her vagina.

Answer 3

-Yes, it would be nice if the US could actually manage to elect a female president.
-I assume that since you said Hillary possesses part of a man's "equipment", that you think Hillary is "tough", like you think men are "tough", but at the same time Hillary isn't "tough enough" to protect the US from terror? Either she's tough or she's not. Make up your mind. Your question sounds sexist, since you are assuming only men can "really" protect us.
-Since feminists are striving for equality, the goal is to work for what's best for society. You're being insulting by assuming that women are so sexist that they would only vote for a woman, because she was a "woman", and not because she's the best candidate.
-Are you trying to be offensive?

btw:This question is asked at least twice a week in this forum, and every day in other forums. The question doesn't get any nicer with repetition.

Answer 4

There is nothing at all wrong with electing a woman president, if she is the best candidate. Such is not the case with Hillary. She is a pandering phony, who is contaminated by her "marriage" (if you can call it that), and close working association with only the second president to ever be impeached. If she had any morals or ethics she would not be married to Slick Willie." So a vote for her is just for the sake of voting for "a woman." Not a good idea.

Answer 5

What, a woman can't be hawkish enough for you? Clinton's in fact the most hawkish of the Democratic candidates, probably at least partly because of the archaic notions of people like you. Never mind that warlike attitudes have only made us more vulnerable to terrorism...

Anyway, yawn, women can, of course, be plenty warlike or bloodthirsty or violent. There's Catherine the Great, Boadicea, Queen Elizabeth I, Hatshepsut, and a host of others not only led their people in war, but also sometimes successfully led them into periods of prosperity. There's also Elizabeth Bathory and a host of other female serial killers who had quite a number of victims.

Answer 6

Yes, it is long overdue!! You don't need balls to keep a country safe. Look at the position we are in now at war, Bush is supposed to have balls and he has made a mess. I am supporting Hillary and not because I am a feminist but have you watched the debates? She absolutely blows her opponents away.

Answer 7

If all the Democrat party can offer Americans is a black or a woman-they'll vote for a lawyer everytime. Iremember a very unpolular G. Bush Jr getting a second term because anyone was better than Kerry, the 'feeling politician'.

Answer 8

Because of Hillary's questionable position on the war, I would not want to elect her at this time. If there were a female candidate with a better strategy, I'd be thrilled, but apparently there won't be.

Answer 9

Are we any safer since Bush has been in office? I really don't think gender has anything to do with keeping us safe. Don't forget that the President has a cabinet and much assistance. No one is going to make all the countries security decisions alone.

Answer 10

No, I don't think we are ready at all for a woman president, (as much as I would like one) Besides, even if every woman in the United States votes for her, she will still lose. Because I doubt that a lot of guys are going to want a woman running the country. And she doesn't have "the balls" to keep the country safe during the war, because she is probably going to drag all our troops out, (which is kind of a good thing) but then Iraq and all the other places, will attack us.