If not Hillary Clinton, which other contemporary woman could be your choice for American Presidency, or none?

Question

Great apathy and negative feelings are being noticed in Yahoo Answers Forum towards Hillary Clinton's presidency. Most of the criticism is not based on any firm and consistent facts / convictions. But they are the voters and power lies in their hands for choosing. The damage may be done.

One wonders whether the apathy is specific to Hillary Clinton or the American society has not yet evolved enough to accept a woman as their president.

Experience is some thing which can't be wished away.That Hillary as wife of Bill Clinton, President for 8 years preceded by his tenure as Governor , Arkansas state is some thing solid. Most of the women chief executives of countries across the world have been the popular choice of their people by virtue of being the wifes / daughters of the earlier leaders of the nations.
Take the case of the longest reining British Queen Elizabeth II, though a constitutional ( ceremonial )Head of the state is there by virtue of being daughter of the previous king.

Answer 1

In truth I think both are true (the dislike is specific to Hilary/and America isn't ready for a woman president).

It can be difficult to explain what I mean though.

In essence, from what I've seen Hilary Clinton is at least as qualified as any other candidate out there and in many ways is better than many (if not all) of the other candidates. But I don't see her winning. The main reason I don't see her winning is that she is too unlikable. People won't vote for someone they don't like on a personal level.

But the reason she is unlikable is that she is a capable leader who happens to be female. In essence, I am saying that it is possible for a woman to win; but no woman who is capable of doing the job can win. For a woman to win she has to fit into what we want to see in a woman, and that basically means she has to be a nurturer (basically we think of our mother or our wives--the mother of our children and our own support).

We don't want to see a woman who can make the hard decisions (like going to war). Not because we care if she can or not (and in fact on a conscious level we do want her to be able to make those decisions), but for her to be capable of those decisions she has to be tougher than the stereotypical woman (which we do not want thrown in our faces all the time).

I would venture to say we would want someone more like Barbara Bush, an obvious mother figure; or Condoleeza Rice (who has been marginalized as of late after she showed signs she didn't agree with Bush). Basically she shut up when the men were talking (even though it looks like she knew better than they did), and unfortunately that is what many men want to see in a woman. That is the kind of woman they would vote for, but of course that is precisely the kind of woman who couldn't do the job.

I hope I am wrong and Hilary can make it, she would make a great leader; but I am not holding my breath for her as president. She might stand a better chance making it to vice president (though she would be a better choice as president and not vice president).

Answer 2

Secretary of State Rice would make a very successful president. Former Governor Whitman of New Jersey would also be very good.

The problem with Hillary is not that she is a woman, but that she does not have the proper experience, is against property rights and only says what is politically expedient (i.e., no real identifiable convictions). Being first lady is no experience at all because being married to someone does not prepare you for their job. My wife is a teacher and even though I hear a lot about her experiences in the classroom, I would make a terrible teacher. Skill comes from doing or doing something similar, not from being a passive observer. Any introduction to cognitive psychology textbook will show you proof of that (look up "procedural memory").

Answer 3

Hillary Clinton has proved time and again to have VERY liberal points of view. She has vowed to raise taxes, she wants socialized health care and she will not be a strong leader on the war on terror. This is just to name a few.

If I were to chose another candidate that was female, I wouldn't mind seeing Condi Rice on the ticket.... Female and black! She has more experience with international issues and I think she has great integrity.

I think there is some truth to America not being ready for a woman as President and I'm not sure I don't disagree. There are many world leaders who just don't have the level of respect for women as we do in our country and I feel that would hurt us greatly in world politics.

Answer 4

Most of the criticism of Hillary is absolutely based on firm and consistant facts. That aside, I am not about to pick a woman to vote for just because it's "trendy", and being the wife of a leader in no way qualifies her for anything.

Answer 5

Barbara Lee!

Hillary is a horrid choice, and I believe this for firm rational reasons:

Hillary voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, renewed it in 2006
Hillary voted for war in Iraq at every opportunity
Despite the myth of "Hillary-care", she refuses to support a national not-for-profit health care system. Personally, I find it absurd that people are afraid of our government actually spending money to help people, while they are perfectly ok with giving money to spy on citizens, conduct wars, and give kickbacks to friendly corporations.
Hillary supports "free trade" policies such as NAFTA, the WTO, and CAFTA, and as president would continue to fight against protections for workers (American and internationally) and for the environment. If you care about immigration or job security- fight the problem at its source. Stop undermining real fair trade by ravaging weaker nations for labor and resources.

Whether America has evolved to support a woman president is, I think, not the most important question of this election. The question is- can the American people support a candidate who is not from the top 2% of the richest people in this country and does not run a campaign funded by the most wealthy. Will the bottom 80% elect someone who will truly fight for them, and, most importantly, have we evolved past McCarthy-era politics that denounce any social project as socialist and evil (lacking any other rational refutation)?

The really sad part is that we have forgotten what made America great in the 20th Century- the New Deal politics of FDR, strength through community and public works. The belief that the highest good is the public good is what allowed society to flourish and become great, building schools, parks, libraries and other public works. These days, cultural projects are dismissed by the wealthy and the right (including so-called liberals such as Clinton who are, as most polls show, far to the right of the democratic base if not all of the American public on issues ranging from health care to civil liberties to the war and the environment).

Anyone who believes two-faced politicians like Pelosi or Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards) represent progressive America are sorely mistaken and probably not paying attention.

But really, the reasons why people need to support people like Kucinich over Clinton have nothing to do with sex. Clinton is vacuous, nothing but empty rhetoric, and that is why people are apathetic towards her.

Answer 6

You must be living in a dream world if you think that the negative feelings towards Hillary have anything to do with the fact that she is a woman rather than her extremely poor record, history of corruption, use of intimidation on political opponents, conveniently forgetting everything important when she is being investigated. You are also living in a dream world if you think this nation is going to put up with another four years of that crap.

But if you want a woman who could make an excellent President :Sheri Dew.

Answer 7

OK ! Thanks for the reality check ! I thought I was lost in Orwell's 1984, only "Big Brother" was now called "Fox news".

As for your question, I agree completely about the experience, and about the apathy, and I think Hillary has the knowledge and political skills to be a great leader.......But, I guess were in a real tiny minority here in Y/A land!

I mean real-real small! Please go look at my question: "Why do so many people believe all these horrible things about Hillary ?"http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AukcvDiCArnXV2KrBMcdrVXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070908173636AAVqW1A

You won't believe the hatred and venom this question stirred up,....although I imagine you'll catch a lot of the same nut-cases with this question too !

Good Luck

Answer 8

Hillary is pretty contemptuous of American women. She made a comment a few years back implying that stay at home moms are wasting their lives. Something along the lines of, "I'm not the type to just stay home and bake cookies all day."

Answer 9

Given the world created by George and the boys, a woman's time at the helm would be detrimental to our society. we are fighting, like it or not, a people who have not respect for their women. If Hill were to become president, they would view us as weak, and when she tried to pull us out of Iraq, we would be seen as severly weak, and should she stay, Osama could publish another "see I told you so" video. There are very few advantages to having hill as president.
One of the most damaging is the fact that no one respects her. Even her supporters call her Hillary. Bush the most demonized president of all time is still called by his last name. unless your me and just like to get a ruse out of people.

These statements are simplistic in nature but relevant nonetheless.

Answer 10

Condoleezza Rice