Would You Vote For A Woman President?

[Panamaniac]

Should you deem her the better candidate, would you - without reservations - vote for a female as President of the United States? Would she be less qualified than her male counterpart solely on the basis of gender? Does the idea of a woman as "Leader of the Free World" give you pause?

My answers are: Yes, no and no, respectively. What's yours?

[Charlotteman]

People vote for women governors, US Senators and Representatives. why not pres?

[MadVlad]

Sure, why not, let the best ma... woman win.

[krazeeboi]

I would, but I'd freely admit with a few reservations.

[Panamaniac]

I would, but I'd freely admit with a few reservations.

Would you care to share those reservations with us?

[Snowguy716]

Gender shouldn't have really anything to do with politics. The best candidate should win.

[krazeeboi]

Would you care to share those reservations with us?

One in particular is that women tend to be led by their emotions. This wouldn't automatically disqualify her for public office (as there are many women politicians that have and are doing an excellent job), but it would still be somewhat of a reservation for me as far as the highest office in the land is concerned. Just my $0.02.

[Gusterfell]

Is that worse than being led by delusions that Jesus is talking to you, as a certain world leader has stated?

[MR-2]

I would if I agreed with her policies. That's basically the same requirement I hold for male candidates, so there's really nothing different about it.

[Cadeho]

There are female presidents in other countries. So far they haven't been lead by their emotions. And please, us guys are lead by irrational emotions too.

[AuLukey]

As I mentioned earlier in the 'Should Hillary Clinton run for president' thread, I think the general American public would have issues voting if a female ran for president against a man. As much as I would like to think it would generally be about politics and the candidate's platform, I think the vast majority of the American public would either vote for or against having a female president. It would become less about party and more about gender. The only way to get an unbiased vote would be if two women ran against each other and there weren't any third party members running against them. It was the same way when female politicians first started running for office in general. I think that after the first couple female presidents, it will become much less about the gender of the candidate, but we have to get over that hurdle first.

[krazeeboi]

Is that worse than being led by delusions that Jesus is talking to you, as a certain world leader has stated?

He isn't the first (e.g., many of our founding fathers) and won't be the last.

Cadeho, I said tend. Of course males can be and often are lead by their emotions as well, but the makeup of a woman is just different in that regard. To deny the distinctions between the sexes in the way they are "wired" just doesn't make sense (even though it isn't exactly PC--which may mean it's closer to the truth). And again, these differences do not make any one man more qualified for public office or any one woman less qualified. One of my most favorite politicians is Shirley Franklin, Atlanta's mayor.

One thing is for sure, I think if a woman ever did become president of the US, it would give the Muslim extremists just one more reason to hate us (as if they needed any more).

Good points, aussie luke.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

I don't care if they're a woman, black, mexican, w/e. As long as they can do the job, I don't care where they came from. I'd vot for a woman in a heartbeat if I knew she could do a job better than a man. Personally, I want Condi to run in 08'. I'd vote for her.

[krazeeboi]

^I would be inclined to vote for Condoleeza if she were to run in '08 as well.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

^I would be inclined to vote for Condoleeza if she were to run in '08 as well.

Yea, also, something about her being the first female, black, and Alabama native president seems awesome.

[Panamaniac]

One in particular is that women tend to be led by their emotions...

That's a sterertypical generalization. Not all women lead by their emotions and some men ("mission accomplished") lead by theirs. Margaret Thatcher did not lead by her emotions as "Commander in Chief" of the Brittish army that soundly trounced Argentina into submission of the Falkland islands...

[krazeeboi]

Yea, also, something about her being the first female, black, and Alabama native president seems awesome.

I definitely agree.

[krazeeboi]

That's a sterertypical generalization. Not all women lead by their emotions and some men ("mission accomplished") lead by theirs. Margaret Thatcher did not lead by her emotions as "Commander in Chief" of the Brittish army that soundly trounced Argentina into submission of the Falkland islands...

How did I make a stereotypical generalization when I said that women tend to be led by their emotions, i.e. they have a tendency to do so (more so than men)? This would indeed acknowledge that there are some women that are not lead by their emotions and some men that are indeed lead by their emotions. At any rate, yes I would vote for a woman president.

[Panamaniac]

A few of you seem rather euphoric on the mere idea of Condi Rice as president. She would be nothing more than an extension of the Bush administration. If that's what you want, you're clearly in the minority. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I'm sure that I too am in the minority when I suggest that for a truly radical departure from the status quo, one would cast a vote for a different female. In the tradition of JFK and LBJ, say hello to HRC.

[Charlotteman]

I guess I might be in a minority, but I think men are generally more emotional than women. Not usually an in your face emotionalism, but a pronounced emotional way of looking at the world. A lot of women don't understand that.

I agree with earlier posts--did Margaret Thatcher seem like a weeping wimp? Or Aquino in the Phillipines? Or going back in history, did Elizabeth I look like a push over??? I think not! lol

One would hope in this day and age gender wouldn't mean anything in the political realm.

A prior post said it well: let the best man win! or woman!

[somad]

A few of you seem rather euphoric on the mere idea of Condi Rice as president. She would be nothing more than an extension of the Bush administration. If that's what you want, you're clearly in the minority. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I'm sure that I too am in the minority when I suggest that for a truly radical departure from the status quo, one would cast a vote for different female. In the tradition of JFK and LBJ, say hello to HRC.

I wouldn't like to be forced to choose between Condi and Hillary. But if that was the choice and there was no 3rd party strong enough to win the thing, I'd probably vote for Condi. Why vote for increased gun control, radically expanded government with more budget crippling social programs enacted just on the eve of a social security crisis, Bill Clinton back in the White House, a continuation of a Bush/Clinton Oligarchy (hello, Jeb in 2016)? A return of Janet Reno?? Please no... I'd rather take the less authoritarian Republicans with Condi (btw, to tie it in with another comment in the coffee house, who is rumored to be gay).

What the country needs most is for the Democrats and Republicans to splinter away from the big government knows best wings into Green and Libertarian parties, or for another Ross Perot type guy to come along and ride a populist wave to election, and most of all for congress to be taken by individuals who really give a damn about the country and not whether or not they get re-elected if it means doing what's right.

I heard a rumor, one for which I have nothing to substatiate, that Perot pulled out of the race in 92 temporarily after a death threat from a cause supporting one of the two major candidates... Anyone else hear something like this?

[Charlotteman]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Perot was stalked in 1992. Remember who was President then, the former chief of the CIA--George Herbert Walker Bush (the horrible father of the current horrible pres)

[Cadeho]

Yea, also, something about her being the first female, black, and Alabama native president seems awesome.

I wouldn't vote for Condi even if she promised me personally a billion blood and oil-soaked dollars.

[GRDadof3]

Neither Condi nor Hillary would ever win. They are both far too unattractive to win enough votes. That's just the way it is. Put a semi-attractive, smart, educated, commanding woman up for the Presidency and I'd certainly have no problem voting for her, without reservation.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

A few of you seem rather euphoric on the mere idea of Condi Rice as president. She would be nothing more than an extension of the Bush administration. If that's what you want, you're clearly in the minority. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I'm sure that I too am in the minority when I suggest that for a truly radical departure from the status quo, one would cast a vote for a different female. In the tradition of JFK and LBJ, say hello to HRC.

Who's saying that she'd be an extension of the Bush Administration? Not to say that it couldn't happen. But it isn't likely that she would do exactly how Bush is doing. Condi is a very intelligent person, she's amazing. Of course I'm bias since we're both from Alabama, but still. I think that her coming from a extremely diverse, and culturally conflicting town, back when she was a child, gives her more of a sense of closeness to the people. I don't think you can do better than someone who has succeeded out of something like the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement in Birmingham.