|
Author
|
Topic: Female President?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sabree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7141
|
posted 21 October 2004 12:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin:
How about this:Will there be a woman president first, or a black president? (Will there ever be either?!)
female president within the next 10 years unlikely female president within 15 years…ummm maybe but probally not female president within 20 years…could be a close election but again probally won't get elected. Female president within 25 years…likely to happen but most men could still be pretty uncomfortable with a woman being president. I think we still have a long while to go before we see a woman president or even a black president. We have had Rvd. Jesse james or whatever run and Rvd. Al Sharpton but they were never even close to a nomination. I think once we get over the racial issue of a president than a woman president will close behind.
From: United States | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 21 October 2004 02:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:
*sigh* just what i was afraid of....
Well I don't make any claims of infallibility in predicting the future. A Kerry victory would have the effect of making the U.S. look considerably less backwards and boost optimism. And if the Boston Red Sox can win the pennant, anything can happen.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 21 October 2004 03:57 PM
It's possible, though like RB I suspect that for a woman to have a ghost of a chance in the current US political climate, she would have to out-macho the macho assholes.I could be wrong, but I think that we will have an elected female prime minister long before they have an elected president. It could have happened with Geraldine Ferraro in the eighties, but the stars were not aligned. A lot of people point to Hilary Clinton as a possibility, but she is so irrationally and uniformly loathed by the Christian right that she would be dumped in the primaries. She might be a running mate to John Edwards or someone else though.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 21 October 2004 04:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
You just sneered at women who sneer at feminism and are anti-choice; are you any better than them? Sneering's sneering.
Why yes.. Yes he is. Thanks for asking.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290
|
posted 21 October 2004 04:44 PM
quote:
A lot of people point to Hilary Clinton as a possibility, but she is so irrationally and uniformly loathed by the Christian right that she would be dumped in the primaries. She might be a running mate to John Edwards or someone else though.
IF Kerry loses in 2 weeks, Hillary Clinton will become the immediate odds on favorite to be the nominee in '08. She is extremely popular among Democrats across the country, and the hatred of the Christian right didn't keep her husband out of the White House. Also the Christian right being mostly Republicans will have very little effect on any Democratic primary season. Hillary has an excellent chance to become the first woman president in the next 10 years. [ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 21 October 2004 05:11 PM
Alicia Keyes answering various questions in the Independent quote:
Alicia Keys, 23, was born Alicia Augello-Cook and was brought up by her Italian mother in the Hell's Kitchen district of New York... ...her debut album, Songs in A Minor, which won her seven Grammies and went multi-platinum. Her second album, The Diary of Alicia Keys, went straight to No 1 in the American charts. She lives in New York.Is America ready for a black president or a female president?
Sue Smith, Chelmsford I don't know. America, like everywhere else, is scared to death of change. But I'll tell you what: I think a female president would whip this country into shape; it seems America needs a mommy right now.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 21 October 2004 05:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
You just sneered at women who sneer at feminism and are anti-choice; are you any better than them? Sneering's sneering.
Except I didn't sneer. Not even a little bit. I described the type of woman I thought could get elected in the current political climate in the United States. I did not disparage this type of woman or even venture an opinion of them. The sneering was all in your mind.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 21 October 2004 08:21 PM
quote:
I don't see Hillary in that role. It's true she is universally hated by the Right. And it's true she's universally loved by the Left, publicly. But it's also true that many of the men of the left wouldn't vote for her, no matter what they tell their girlfriends, wives, or pollsters.
Oh give me a break. Hillary Clinton is further right than either Kim Campbell or Belinda Stronach. The reason why the right hates her is because (1) they are totally wacko and (2) they blame her for her husband's success at wooing moderate (not left-leaning) voters. Only lunatics who think everyone to the left of Mussolini is a communist could possibly label Hillary Clinton a "liberal." Unfortunately, that precisely describes the Republican spin-machine, which is why this "Hillary is left-wing" nonesense has gotten around. I'm on the left in the US and there's plenty of women I would be happy to support for President. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Berkeley House Rep. Barbara Lee(the only member of Congress brave enough to vote, on principle, against Bush's first failed military adventure in Afghanistan. Winona LaDuke, who was Nader's VP candidate in 2000. Carol Moseley Braun (who I actually would have voted for in the primaries had she not withdrawn from the race). Oprah Winfrey. But not Hillary Clinton. I certainly have told my wife that and I also know she feels the same way. [ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131
|
posted 22 October 2004 08:21 PM
The democrats could never nominate a nonwhite, a nonchristian or a nonmale for a presidential candidate. Even a catholic is really stepping out on a limb for them. They're always facing a headwind because whether they are genuinely the progressive party or not, they are perceived in that way and the last thing the American voting public wants is progress. No sir. Americans who want progress are too busy making acerbic blog entries and hand-crafting brilliant rainbow wigs for the next local sympathy protest march to waste time with a trite symbolic gesture like voting. Ahhhhh but the Republicans... they have a free hand. Everybody knows their sticks are stuck in the mud, it's no secret. They could run the blackest gayest islamic hindu jew woman ever born in north korea and they wouldn't alienate their base. They'd just draw in misguided progressive voters who FINALLY saw a chance to redress the imbalance... (and trust me, I know whereof I speak - I'm a progressive intellectual who didn't bother voting in the municipal election last weekend and if the CRAP ran the blackest gayest islamic hindu jew woman ever born in north korea I'd probably vote for her too) it stinks. now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and crank up Grandmaster Melle Mell's ode to Jesse Jackson on the old turntables...
From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 22 October 2004 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Dignity:
Ahhhhh but the Republicans... they have a free hand. Everybody knows their sticks are stuck in the mud, it's no secret. They could run the blackest gayest islamic hindu jew woman ever born in north korea and they wouldn't alienate their base. They'd just draw in misguided progressive voters who FINALLY saw a chance to redress the imbalance...
Why else do you think Canadian Conservatives hate Scott Brison with such a passion? He would have made people overlook that they're overwhelmingly opposed to any and all rights for gays and lesbians. He should have broken with them before the merger, true. But no gay or lesbian with an iota of self-respect or integrity could have anything to do with that party and they hate him for making that clear.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768
|
posted 22 October 2004 09:43 PM
What a curious thread! quote:
Well if Condi Rice ran for and won the GOP nomination after Dubya is done...
In bridge, one plays to a long suit but in politics, one plays the short suit. I'd say a female Republican president is more likely than a female Democratic president. The press attacked Geraldine Ferraro for her husband's business dealings. I don't even know if Condoleeza Rice is married?Now, how about that: Rice vs. Rodham in 2008? quote:
female president within the next 10 years unlikely
female president within 15 years…ummm maybe but probally not
female president within 20 years…could be a close election but again probally won't get elected.
Female president within 25 years…likely to happen but most men could still be pretty uncomfortable with a woman being president.
This is a good demonstration of the distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk is the chance of getting the Ace of Spades. Uncertainty is the chance of a female president before 2030. quote:
Well it's not as if we have anything to be impressed with in Canada. How many successful female goverment leaders have we had? They all seem to inherit posts after their parties have been crushed, or are about to be crushed.
Dead on. It's not the symbolic title, it's the real world election victory that counts. quote:
I could be wrong, but I think that we will have an elected female prime minister long before they have an elected president.
Good question, but I think the Americans will go female first. I think so because Canada is a Catholic country, the US is Protestant. (*shyly mumbles* Can I say that here?) quote:
IF Kerry loses in 2 weeks, Hillary Clinton will become the immediate odds on favorite to be the nominee in '08.
On numerous occasions, Ted Kennedy was the odds on favourite and when he finally ran in 1980, his campaign fell apart.The things that irritate me most about Hillary as candidate is a) why do we refer to female candidates by their first name (ie. Maggie, Flora, Belinda, Alexa) and b) why is it so hard for intelligent people to run? quote:
The democrats could never nominate a nonwhite, a nonchristian or a nonmale for a presidential candidate. Even a catholic is really stepping out on a limb for them.
In 1960, the only non-White Bread candidate would have had to be Democrat. He won by a whisker. Now, the world is different.But the quote above highlights a major point. All of Canada's PMs for the past 40 years have been Catholic. (Campbell may be the exception?) The US has had one Catholic president. If Kerry wins, they'll have had two.
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 22 October 2004 10:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by August1991:
The things that irritate me most about Hillary as candidate is a) why do we refer to female candidates by their first name (ie. Maggie, Flora, Belinda, Alexa)
I do refer to Alexa by her first name, as I do with Jack (Layton). I can never remember how to spell her surname. I always refer to Thatcher and Stronach by their surnames. I believe Kim Campbell was commonly referred to by her surname.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768
|
posted 23 October 2004 02:44 AM
quote:
Was Mike Pearson a Catholic? and Joe Clark?
Pearson no, Clark yes.About 50% of the Canadian population was born Catholic. About 20% of the American population was born Catholic. The Catholic Michael Moore has an affinity for Canada, and Canadians for him. I think it is an affinity for the underdog minority. In Protestant North America, that means Irish. In Canada, that means French. You can draw these lines as you wish. IME, the North American Left is a peculiar beast: underdog mixed with moralism. The Italian, Russian and Indian Left, for example, are pragmatic.
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 23 October 2004 04:02 AM
quote:
How about this:
Will there be a woman president first, or a black president? (Will there ever be either?!)
There will be a black president first. In the United States there is a strong fundamentalist Christian vote and the men and women from that community would not vote for a woman in any significant numbers. quote:
I don't have any particular woman in mind, but I think the American political climate is such that the kind of woman who could get elected will be a right-wing Republican who sneers at feminism and is anti-choice.
I don't believe that people who would share that world view would vote for a woman. quote:
I'm not quite sure what I think. I get the sense that racism, especially in the south, might run deeper than the sexism. Then again, we aren't exactly a shining example of women and minorities rising to high political posts in Canada either.
I don't think not voting for a woman is sexism. I believe Canada has already had a female Prime Minister, Kim Campbell. quote:
If Reagan could get elected, Oprah could; both are performers.
She would be the last person that I would vote for..or close but I agree. quote:
A lot of people point to Hilary Clinton as a possibility, but she is so irrationally and uniformly loathed by the Christian right that she would be dumped in the primaries. She might be a running mate to John Edwards or someone else though.
Christians would never support any ticket with her name on it - guaranteed. quote:
Oh give me a break. Hillary Clinton is further right than either Kim Campbell or Belinda Stronach. The reason why the right hates her is because (1) they are totally wacko and (2) they blame her for her husband's success at wooing moderate (not left-leaning) voters. Only lunatics who think everyone to the left of Mussolini is a communist could possibly label Hillary Clinton a "liberal." Unfortunately, that precisely describes the Republican spin-machine, which is why this "Hillary is left-wing" nonesense has gotten around
I'm not a Hillary know it all by any stretch but I believe she supports public health care - whereas Belinda belongs to a party that doesn't. On what basis is Hillary right wing? quote:
Phyllis Schlafly maybe?
Mrs. Schafly's focus is not becoming President. quote:
She's 80. With any luck she'll be dead by 2008.
That's extraordinarily rude and disrespectful.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 23 October 2004 08:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
That's extraordinarily rude and disrespectful.
Too FUCKING bad, Hailey. The woman has spent her entire life trying to fight against my rights. I absolutely wish her dead, and I hope it's horrifically painful, in exchange for the pain that monster gleefully inflicted on others.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131
|
posted 25 October 2004 01:29 AM
Funny thing... on another board I post at, where I've been a member of the community for about six years and where the membership is predominantly US American, a thread popped up in the last couple days about when people thought Americans could expect to elect a nonwhite and/or nonmale president.I thought to myself "Oh, I just made a big fat post about this over on rabble.ca like two days ago! I'll just copy and paste it, I'm pretty sure it'll work here too." And so I came back over here, did a search for this thread and ready my post above... and I realized that whether I think I'm right or not, I couldn't post that on a board full of Americans. It would be arrogant in the extreme to try and tell them what their country is like in such vehement terms... and yet I had no qualms making those statements in a forum where I thought it would be read predominantly by Canadians. I guess it makes me think about... what do I really know, what should I stick to and what should I concede, and how can I express an opinion like the above without coming off like a ten pound back of cocks?
From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768
|
posted 25 October 2004 03:24 AM
I went back and read your post again, Jesse, and I agree that the style is a little too outlandish. But the idea is perfectly defendable. I too believe that the Democrats do best when they run a good ol' boy from the south. Someone from the Southwest might, just might, work now.As to the Republicans, I agree they could run just about anyone. The person, however, would have to get through the primaries and for a non-White Bread etc. candidate, this not obvious. But nevertheless IMV, the first female President will be a Republican. ---- You raise an interesting question about the comfort level of posting in different fora. I think it's a matter of acquiring a reputation for being reasonable and then sharing a similar knowledge base, if not similar opinions. Posts transmit poorly a sense of humour and transmit irony not at all.
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 25 October 2004 06:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
Reality bites, I'd really appreciate if you made your points when speaking with me in a way that excluded swear words. I don't particularly like being sworn at.
I really don't give a flying fuck what you appreciate. You want to criticize me and pass your moral judgements on me, expect me to react any goddamn way I want. I wasn't engaged in a dialogue with you or responding to something you said. I also couldn't care less whether you'd wish anyone a painful death or not. Maybe when you have millions of strangers not only wishing you a painful life, but doing everthing they can to ensure you actually have one, your attitude will be different from mine. If so, bully for you. I don't believe in a hell for monsters like Phylis Schafly to be punished in. I want her to get what's coming to her right on earth. For the suffering she caused, I hope she suffers greatly.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 25 October 2004 02:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by August1991:
I went back and read your post again, Jesse, and I agree that the style is a little too outlandish...
...You raise an interesting question about the comfort level of posting in different fora. I think it's a matter of acquiring a reputation for being reasonable and then sharing a similar knowledge base, if not similar opinions. Posts transmit poorly a sense of humour and transmit irony not at all.
I think also if you are involved in two different conversations that you can't just transfer a remark from one to the other, because the other people may not be able to follow your line of thought. My main problem with another forum I post on is that you cannot edit posts, so I have had to add posts correcting earlier ones; and the nastiest thing I've written yet could not be changed on second thoughts. Oh and August1991, the more I think about it, the more I do recall various religious issues coming up in Canadian culture history; still, the PM's religious affiliation has never been an issue for me [and I'm getting more historical every day.  ]
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 October 2004 02:05 PM
The Guardian did not give up, Wilfred. They had adopted out about 14,000 Ohio voters last time I looked. I adopted one; I'm still waiting to hear back from her.  Summarizing the exercise, one of their editors admitted it was a complex and fraught exercise, but an interesting and worthwhile one. In no sense was he giving up. We are all citizens of the world. That is how I wrote, and that is how I hope my voter will be thinking next Tuesday when she goes to vote. How could one "give up" on ideals such as that? [ 26 October 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131
|
posted 26 October 2004 07:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
If you feel they wouldn't listen to you either unless you pull your punches, what are you trying to accomplish?
Dude, what am I supposed to be trying to accomplish in a thread that asks a question as speculative as this one!? Why should they listen to me explaining to them what they and their countrymen think? Why should I be punching them on this? The majority of them are every bit as progressive on most issues as anyone on this board or in this country. quote:
originally posted by Rebecca West
I, personally, would happily appear arrogant on an American board. After all, they've (US government) been dictating to us about our domestic and foreign policy for years. They tried to ban our trade with Cuba. They (US government and many of its citizens) assume their way is best, for the rest of the planet, despite vast quantities of factual information to the contrary.Worry about arrogance towards USians? Get me one small break.
Oh did I neglect to mention they're my friends? I'm not posting on a board that Karl Rove reads. Jesus, just because I mention they're American you cats assume they're Bill O'Reilly. That's terrible.
From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
red shoes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6710
|
posted 16 November 2004 10:09 PM
Woman president? Great. There aren't enough women senators, representatives, either. But this red, white and blue insane asylum couldn't even have a woman VP the way we're going now. Look at the 5 new senators from SC, SD, LA, OK, NC. (Forgive me, Canadian friends, for the state shorthand!!). These guys are ALL white, male, God-squad lunatic young-freakazoid patriarchs. It's like the same guy got elected in FIVE states at once!! WE HAVE NO DIVERSITY in government. Condi Rice doesn't count. She's an ANDROID!!! Save us, please.
From: Harrisburg, PA, Blue States of America | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
Unfortunately, though, I think your buddies are probably right.
