This is what I'd like to see! Instead of all the patronizing remarks about having a woman in the White House, let's put one in the White House, along with a woman Vice-President! Then they can patronize the male government leaders by patting them on the head and saying: "Good boy, Jimmy!" Female leaders can do the Job, as Golda Meir did by letting Israel kick Nasser's butt! Queen Victoria expanded the British Empire to where the sun never set on Britain's possessions! Women are the way of the Future for America! Hal
I totally disagree with you, @Hal Pollner , and not because I do not want to see a woman as our president. However, I don’t agree with your reasoning for having one. Just because a person is a woman does not automatically make her more qualified to become president, nor does someone being a Republican qualify them. To me, this is no different than electing a person to office (or not electing them) because of their skin color, or their religion. I agree that we need someone to properly lead our country, and I see no reason why that person should not be female , I just don’t think that she should be elected just because she IS a female running against male contenders. Some people have the qualities to be a good president and leader of a country, and some people do not, and what we need is someone with these good leadership qualities. Besides....... nowadays, with gender being a fluid thing, we could be electing a man who identifies as a woman......so does that count as having a woman president or not ?
Although it is difficult for a woman to be a PM, it is MUCH more difficult for a woman to be a President. As far as I know, the only "successful" woman presidents have been in the Philippines, a relatively small nation. While there have been female PMs in the UK, Israel,, India, and Pakistan...and probably others, they fulfill a different role than a president. While a PM is the leader of the executive in a parliamentary system, the executive is embedded within the legislature. A parliamentary system, while not as strong a government s a presidential system, it is much more stable. Presidential systems are very prone to become dictatorships, and I believe every one has been a dictatorship at one time or another in their history except ours...and that is probably because we have copious firearms in law-abiding hands. I cannot, offhand, think of any parliamentary system that became a dictatorship. That is why, when the U.S. in involved in nation-building, we install parliamentary systems, not presidential ones. The powers-that-be here understand the dangers. The very instability of the presidential model makes it more difficult for a woman to become president, although though they could be installed as figureheads, as I believe at least the Philippine head of state was after her husband's assassination.
I see no reason that a woman could not be an effective president. One prerequisite to being president is the ability to be ruthless when necessary. Hillary certainly filled that bill.
I don't know why we couldn't just ignore race and gender and vote for the best candidate, regardless.
But, having said that, if we were to run a black woman for president and a white man as VP in 2024, there is no way the democrats could defeat them.
Installed as figureheads?? Seriously? Drag yourself in to the present; women are every bit as capable of being president as any man. As others have said, the candidates' qualifications should be the only consideration.
@Ken Anderson We cannot, simply because "best" candidate conception automatically rules out women, based on the majority belief of the other sex. Frank
I didn't say it was impossible, just that it is more difficult for a woman to be president than a man. As I said, women can be very successful heads of state in a parliamentary system. I live in the present, and I understand you could be offended. Men have a hard time being successful presidents, and women would find it even more difficult. Hillary was ruthless, all right, but she was one of the most incompetent of Secretaries of State in history. She would have had even more problems as President. I guess it is determined by how you make that determination, @Ken Anderson.
If I was younger I'd want AOC as president. As I reflect on what age has taught me. Free stuff rates high on the list of what most want. I would like to be a millennial and but part of the me generation. Certainly would want to be in some progressive organization.so I could claim to be one of the leaders of change in America. Financing free stuff wouldn't be a problem. Taxing the wealthy would be a start, then government could take over manufacturing. Then all American's could live in utopia. Or like in Venezuela.
I say let's put Judge Judy as President...and Dr. Phil as Vice President. Then we would have a President who could "kick butt" and a VP who could solve all our problems ( or at least he thinks he can).