Will America ever have a female president?

1. 61

   lizzieBooposted 12 years ago

   I'm just curious what people think, and whether you think it would change the country and how?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah eventually, and nothing will change, women seem to be just as good as men, Argentine President is female just won her second term, doing very well got like 76 percent of the vote with the nearest opposition on 16%.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      JamesPoppellposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think America will have a female president. Men have done a good job screwing up the country and I am ready for something new. Women are just as competent (if not more) than men.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm fine with it as long as it's not Hillary. Or any other lib for that matter.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      bruzzbuzzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do think we will have a female President just as we now have a black President. Many people said that would never happen. I wonder which will come first, a female President or a Hispanic one.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      tobusinessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see why not, after all some of the world's strongest leaders are, or were women, America is just as forward thinking as Israel, India, Australia, UK, Pakistan, Ireland, Germany etc... the man's world is changing, slowly, but it is changing.
      The question is, are more women prepare to do what it takes to get the top job?

      replyreport
2. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   Most likely it'lll happen. Lots of countries have or have had female leaders. It doesn't change the way things operate.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure we will as soon as a capable one is available. But then too, we really don't have a whole lot to choose from now omong the "men" we have running. My opinion, Greg

      replyreport
3. 57

   Dame Scribeposted 12 years ago

   I think she would face a lot of efforts to 'discredit' her actions and decisions she'd have to start out as a 'sweetheart' of the people first like Princess Diana had won many over. js

   replyreport
   1. 85

      rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I definitely think there will be a female president, but I don't necessarily think she would be the Princess Di type. I would look for more of a Hillary type woman (or Hillary herself!) intelligent, strong, decisive, hard working and compassionate
      
      As far as changing how government works?  She might get more done in less time.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Women are generally better at multi-tasking!

         replyreport
         1. 85

            rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If you want something done efficiently, ask a competent, busy woman.

            replyreport
4. 58

   kateperezposted 12 years ago

   Change the country.  Good question.
   
   Start with the children.  They are our future, and we should teach them simple things like critical thinking so they are able to think for themselves, and find out facts and question "authority".
   
   I think that in addition, the hippie people had it right.... We are all one people.  We all bleed red and we all breathe through lungs, eat, drink, laugh and cry.  We are all humans and we should all be united. 
   
   We can have different opinions, because we should have liberty.  But we should also respect that others also have opinions.  Discourse should be rational and respectful.
   
   If I could change the country, I'd make it a place where everyone can prosper, rather than everyone being depleted.
   
   I don't see why a female President is a terrible thing.  I don't want one with a screechy or whiny voice, either.  Someone who is strong, yet pseudo-feminine.  She should know and understand defense, and budgets.  She should consider things as a woman, but perform them as an American, and the representative.. REPRESENTATIVE of this country... Not her mother, not her ruler, not her leader, and not "without peer".

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The hippie people? Pseudo-feminine? I'm just wondering.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         kateperezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         hippie people:  They learned that it is about more than tolerance, but absolute acceptance.  When people begin to see the equality in people's differences, a woman may become accepted as a President.
         
         Pseudo-feminine:  Yeah, I can see how that is confusing.  I think that a woman has to be a woman, but she also has to have more than stereotypical "woman" ideas and thoughts.  Family values are important, as is good hygiene and proper eating habits.  But a woman needs to broaden her horizons if she has not already done so, to include military knowledge, corporate organizational structures, and, again stereotypical "male-dominant" fields of America.
         
         That's the best I've got!    I hope that helps explain what I meant.
         
         kdp

         replyreport
5. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   It's interesting to hear that women feel that a female president will validate them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Not me.
      I'd much rather see a strong decent man lead this Country any ol' day and any future day.   That would validate not just women, but all citizens.  Key words are "strong" and "decent".....

      replyreport
      1. 58

         kateperezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Brenda,
         
         Could you clarify?   You said strong and decent man... but could you also accept a strong and decent woman?
         
         Thanks!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sure I could.  I believe Michelle Bachmann would've been a great President. 
            My position is just that a man should be the leader of our Nation (or any Nation, for that matter);  men are naturally and socially more fitted for leadership.  I don't think there's a shortage of men at all in America, just apparently a shortage of strong decent-minded ones who are willing to actually lead America the way it should be led.  So if that good decent man doesn't step up to the plate, then a woman might as well do so.

            replyreport
6. 70

   aguasilverposted 12 years ago

   Yes, just as soon as the NWO/Illuminatii think it will serve their purpose, until then they will shuffle whatever man suits them into power. Finding a truly submissive woman to obey them will be more difficult, power hungry women are more difficult to control, whereas there will always be a jackass man who will sell their soul for supposed power.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi aguasilver.  Do you really think that's who's got the political power, the illuminati?   I'm not disagreeing at all; just curious.  You could be sooo right.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who are the "NWO illuminati?"
      
      I have no doubt that there will be a woman president of the U.S. before long.
      
      We are lagging behind many other countries in having a woman head of state. Among other countries the following have or have already had women heads of state--Israel, UK, Argentina, Germany, Chile, Liberia, The Ukraine, the Philippines, Indonesia, Finland and New Zealand.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Also Iceland. Which also has the world's first ever openly gay Prime Minister.

         replyreport
      2. 70

         aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, you must know who they are, but if you have any real doubt, start with the Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, and work down to the 'Black Nobility' Aristo's then move over to the rest of the gang.
         
         Of course the really heavy NWO folk are never even named.
         
         Time to flush the toilets out and clear the blockage.
         
         No politician gets elected without NWO consent in the so called 'developed world' and if you believe differently, then you are living a dream.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We're getting off topic here. I'd never heard of the "black nobility" so I looked it up on Wikipedia and didn't find anything worrisome.
            
            "Famous members of Black Nobility families include Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII. Black Nobility families (in this instance families whose ancestors included Popes) still in existence include notably the Colonna, Massimo, Orsini, Pallavicini, Borghese, Odescalchi, and Ludovisi. Major extinct papal families include the Savelli, Caetani, the Aldobrandini family and Conti.
            
            "When Pope Paul VI abolished the Vatican City positions at court, as well as a number of privileges (licence plates and other perks), there was a fallout. In May 1977, some members of the Black Nobility, led by Princess Elvina Pallavicini, started courting traditional Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre...."
            
            [Marcel Lefebre was excommunicated in 1988, and is no longer living.]
            
            Of course I've heard of the Rockefellers. John D. was a capitalist oil man who founded Standard Oil, making one of the largest ever American fortunes. David Rockefeller, now well into his 80s was CEO (founder?) of Chase Manhattan Bank and active for many years in the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't agree with everything the Council does, but, again I see nothing resembling what you call a New World Order. It so happens one of my college roommates is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I can assure you his beliefs don't resemble anything remotely like your fears of a NWO. Here's how Wikipedia characterizes the organization's mission:
            
            Mission of the Council on Foreign Relations according to Wikipedia
            
            "As stated on its website, the CFR's mission is to be "a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries."
            
            "The CFR aims to maintain a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. It convenes meetings at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members of the foreign policy community discuss major international issues. Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars, as well as ten in-resident recipients of year-long fellowships, who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. These scholars contribute to the foreign policy debate by making recommendations to the presidential administration, testifying before Congress, serving as a resource to the diplomatic community, interacting with the media, authoring books, reports, articles, and op-eds on foreign policy issues.
            
            "The council publishes Foreign Affairs, "the preeminent journal of international affairs and U.S. foreign policy." It also publishes Independent Task Forces which bring together experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise to work together to produce reports offering both findings and policy prescriptions on important foreign policy topics. To date, the CFR has sponsored more than fifty reports.[2]
            
            "The CFR aims to provide up-to-date information and analysis about world events and U.S. foreign policy. In 2008, CFR.org's "Crisis Guide: Darfur" was awarded an Emmy Award by the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences, in the category of "New Approaches to News & Documentary Programming: Current News Coverage." In 2009, the Crisis Guide franchise won another Emmy for its "Crisis Guide: The Global Economy," in the category of business and financial reporting."
            
            Nelson Rockefeller was a Republican governor of NY and unsuccessful candidate for President. Nothing sinister there. And Jay Rockefeller is a fairly liberal Democrat senator from West Virginia.
            
            I'll leave it up to you to elucidate the sinister activities of the Rothchilds.

            replyreport
      3. 0

         Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ah, good point. All those countries suck.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            - - - ???

            replyreport
      4. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Which states are we lagging behind?... because that just sounds like more union garbage.

         replyreport
7. 60

   Friendlywordposted 12 years ago

   Hilary Clinton could have been our first female President. And she might run again. It would be just another day at the office for her. It feels so right and normal and no big deal if and when it happened.  She's just the right person for the job.

   replyreport
8. 60

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   It is inevitable that there will eventually be a female President. The question is when. There are plenty of qualified women that could theoretically be elected President in the coming years--Hillary Clinton (obviously), Nikki Haley (Governor of South Carolina), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Senator from Texas). And plenty more state senators, representatives and mayors that we haven't heard of. It's unfortunate that the immature dope Sarah Palin has become almost the ambassador of American political womanhood.
   
   But truth be told, it would probably be much easier for a woman to win the Democratic nomination than the Republican one, for obvious reasons. And Michelle Bachmann's failure tells us that any woman who thinks she can get by with the Evangelicals as her base is kidding herself.
   
   Would anything change? Doubtful. We have the first ever black President, and the country is the same as it always was.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      ngurecoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Secularist10, I understand that guy is half white and half black.
      
      And yes, Hillary Clinton could still make it as the first female president in US.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes technically he is mixed. But I think he still qualifies as black in a general sense.

         replyreport
9. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   I hope when we DO get a female POTUS the media doesn't just concentrate on her physical appearance: hair style, clothes, shoes, etc. In 2008, I got so tired of hearing about Hillary's pantsuits and about Palin's wardrobe.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You know, when a political man wears something unusual or eye catching, it is perfectly legitimate to talk about it. But men rarely do that. Women, on the other hand, wear a different outfit every single day. So it is a totally legitimate topic of conversation.
      
      George Bush had the same hairstyle for 8 years, and still does. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have changed their hairstyle at least once in the last few years that I can tell.

      replyreport
10. 58

    kateperezposted 12 years ago

    Secularist 10.   
    
    Thanks for your comments re:  Sarah Palin.  I agree a LOT with that.
    
    She does not represent what women that I grew up knowing are like, at all.  And I don't mean the hunting and stuff... I mean the way that she keeps fading out and as soon as she feels that no one is talking about her, she sneaks back in.  I call her a political tease.
    
    If we are going to have a woman in the White House, she has to be strong, and powerful, but also intelligent, and knowledgeable.    Not just a pretty face....

    replyreport
    1. 60

       secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I like "political tease," lol. Very true.

       replyreport
11. 0

    Stevennix2001posted 12 years ago

    I think someday there will be.

    replyreport
12. 67

    Charles Jamesposted 12 years ago

    We had Mrs Thatcher because she was the only man among them.
    Thank God they broke the mould!

    replyreport