|
I truly believe so. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think that it depends more on the person than on their sex, but anyway i don't live in America so
I'm not bothered, but i do think it would be a nice change, But i want Barack Obama to win! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The right woman would make a good president. I was excited when I heard that Clinton was going to
run for president but when I heard some of her speeched I realized that she was just another
politician. We need someone who will think more about the people instead of caring so much about
there political standing. Yes it is important but it shouldn't encompass a persons eligibility for
president. That is why I am hoping that Obama wins. He seems to be more human. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I've got no problem with a female leader, any more than I do with a black leader or a hispanic
leader or a gay leader, none of that has anything to do with their ability to lead.
I just don't want the female moron we've got running in the U.S. To be *OUR* leader. I'd rather
have a brain-dead chimp. Oh wait, that's what we have now. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think if more women were leaders then the world might be run better. (apart from the 4th week when
there will be all out war - joke) It would make a nice change for the USA so I will agree.
But, and it's a big BUT, the overriding factor has to be that the job, any job, should be given to
the best candidate, irrespective of gender, race, colour of eyes etc. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm not really bothered who is the President, as I'm not a US citizen. Although, it would be
interesting because I don't think I've seen a 'major' country with a female leader. It'll be
interesting to see how she does things... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A woman has intuition, follows through with what she promises, is strong enough for child birth, and
most of all a woman is the "dependable" one in any family. She somehow manages to schedule
everything and make everything flow smoothly. Hilary Clinton would be a breath of fresh air for
America. She would do things that have never been done before and put a stop to all the crime and
payoffs in politics. |
| |
 demo  29 Mar 2008 21:08
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
YES. America needs a Woman as President. To do so would not be something new among the nations of
the world. Israel and United Kingdom (known to Americans as England), Germany, Argentina and others
who have trusted women to lead their country.
I believe that if just the nations in the Security Council of the UN had women as leaders, the world
would be a far better place. Women see the world differently and can be stronger in taking action,
being "ballsy" to fight the opposition, cooperate with all whom are part of the solution, reaching
promised goals for their nation and standing firm until those goals are met. They would find ways
to prevent wars because women have always had to deal with males who war against them, even in their
own homes.
Male Presidents of U.S. Have never even acknowledged domestic violence as a horrible crime in
America. In fact, it took until mid-20th century to acknowledge that child abuse existed and was a
crime. Even later to acknowledge child sexual abuse and incest was a dreadful crime. Even later
that for a husband to beat his wife half to death was a crime. Even later to consider that rape was
a crime if the female said NO; even later to acknowledge that date rape was a crime.
A woman president would have led the way for children and women to have justice.
As we can understand during this election, a woman has the kind of concern for each human being that
she will demand health care for each person. And, that is just the beginning of demanding that all
persons receive benefits that improve their lives.
AT THE SAME TIME, A WOMAN PRESIDENT WOULD BE A STRONG COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO WOULD HOLD HER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE'S "FEET TO THE FIRE" TO DEAL WITH, IN THIS CASE 2008, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
SHE WOULD NOT LIE TO THE PEOPLE AS THIS TERRIBLE TEXAN HAS DONE SO MANY TIMES. SHE WOULD BE THE
KIND OF TOUGH NEGOTIATOR WHO WOULD FIND WAYS TO DEAL WITH ROGUE NATIONS WITHOUT STARTING WARS.
She would surround herself with strong, knowledgeable people with greatest of integrity. She would
be willing to choose people around her who would disagree with her in order to strengthen her
decisions; not choosing 'yes' brown-nosers like Condolezza Rice, Powell and others who went along
with Bush's lies to the American people even though they should have questioned Bush and found out
the truth. Women are willing to be a "tough bytch" if that is what it takes to get the best job
done.
Let's have Senator Hillary Clinton become, not only the first woman President in the United States,
but the most brilliant President ever to serve the country. Let's not elect a military man who is
trained to automatically seek a military response or a weak 'rock star' that cannot think of what to
do for the country---he only says "ditto" to ever proposal to serve the nation; if that isn't
evidence of supreme weakness in any leader, then what is? The country needs Senator Clinton instead
of the candidate's speech is considered "his standard speech everywhere he goes"...he has no
original thoughts, just a fantastic 'rock star' presentation of the same words over and over.
It is time for the United States of America to have a strong brilliant woman as President. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's true that women are better at communication and budgeting, so a woman president would be a nice
change, but it would have to be the right woman. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
No.
A man who actually acts like a man should would be a real change though.
Ron Paul is my man.
He is the only hope for America.
God help us all if we cannot get Ron Paul. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It would be nice but she has to know what the world stands for and not be so sentimental... To be a
president you must stand strong and show no emotion only when necessary |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am much in the same boat as mackenzie and Hidell: I agreed with the motion until I read chevyboy's
explanation.
'Women are better at communication'?
Where on earth is the evidence for that? How remarkably sexist! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It would be nice to have a woman serve as the American president, but absolutely no one should vote
for a candidate simply based on their gender. The notion that women are better with budgets and are
more adept communicators is clearly not based on fact; it is simply a generalization. Angela Merkel,
Germany's female chancellor, might be good when it comes to the budget books, but she is certainly
not a skilled communicator. Margaret Thatcher was not a great orator either.
It would be foolhardy to vote for someone, by simply looking at the candidate's gender, and ignoring
their track record in politics, their policy proposals and their ideological gravitations. Yet
sadly, I have found that many feminists and activists on the left of the political spectrum seem to
propose gender-based voting, even if they don't often come out and say it in these words. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sorry, but saying women are better at communication and budgeting is just as much an unjustified
gender stereotype as saying that women are soft and gullible. How many great poets have been women?
How many leading bankers?
These remarks are an expression of inverse prejudice which ought to be considered just as
unacceptable as the more familiar and derogatory points of view. I am sure, across the world, there
are probably many men who are denied job opportunities because of thoughts exactly like the ones you
express here. The employer says something like, "No, women are better communicators. I'll hire a
woman instead."
People should be judged as individuals and not on the basis of the presumed characteristics of the
groups to which they belong.
In any case, even looking at Hillary's track record, it's hard to see how she is a better
communicator or manager of finances than Obama. She herself concedes that Obama is a superior
communicator, deriding him as being nothing but a spouter of noble-sounding words. And the finances
of her own politician campaign ran into severe difficulties, to her great surprise reportedly,
forcing her to bail her own campaign out with $5 million of her own cash. In fact, there is an
interesting article in Politico today which shows that Hillary's campaign has essentially run out of
money and is running up huge debts, leaving legions of discontented suppliers with unpaid bills. So
it seems she isn't so good at budgeting after all. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
