If it's a Republican Woman who gets that far - rest assured . . . I won't be voting for her. Not that I believe they will run a woman the next few election cycles - but if they get crazy with themselves and do that . . .


There's no way this woman would vote for her just because she's a woman.

The good news is - they probably would run a woman who was god damned fool - and put that damned fool up against a solid pro choice man on our side - and he'd pummel her. It's a small minority of women that really want some dickeweed politician all up in our grill when we are at the gynecologists office.

. . .much less vote for one in a general election; even a republican one?

There isn't going to be a peep of support (among either party's voters) for a republican woman candidate. Their party is an anathema to women.

I can't think of any Republican females that I would think are presidential candidate material. They are all too damn stupid and submissive to their men folk!

At this moment in time, if it's going to be a woman, for me, it's going to be Hillary.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 02:16 PM - Edit history (2)

who works for the 99%, not the 1%. I don't care about the color or the gender. But we all know that's not ever going to happen. Our first African-American president sold out to the 1% before he even took office -- it's how he got to be president. I have no reason to believe that the first female president, PARTICULARLY if it's Hillary, will be anything different. Hillary is just Barak Obama in a pantsuit.

and let the grown ups talk.

. . . that's what our primaries are for. After they're over, we're challenged to elect our nominee, who I hope will be a woman candidate.

Well, you see, the problem with that? The game is rigged. Only those who the 1% approve of will get the nomination and if it looks like someone is getting too close? Dean him. Ideally the primaries would be a time to mete out the best candidate IF the political parties would stay out of it and let the process play out. But that's not what happens.

. . . we have campaigns; then the primaries; then, the general election.

There are also opportunities for folks to run as independent candidates; a lot of their successes dependent on getting their names on the ballots across the nation.

Is there some other way to elect a president that I'm leaving out?

that the game is rigged I don't see there is any grounds for debate. Personally, that became obvious during the Dean campaign where I watched it from the inside. It's the year I stopped affiliating myself with any political parties. After I gained that insight I started regarding the primaries as the dog-and-pony-show it actually is and everything became crystal clear. When you understand that they're virtually ALL working for the 1% everything makes sense. It's why in 2008 we were left with the choice of voting for one of two candidates with the EXACT same ideology so in the end, it really didn't matter who won the primary.

I see what you're saying.

the game is rigged.

They use us as the nation's ATM. Then they take all that money and spend it everywhere else but here.

I have a republican friend who told me she would vote for Clinton if she runs. The only two things she & I agree on, are reproductive & LGBT issues. Immigration, labor, finance, taxes, health care, ecology, regulation, we have very differing opinions. That pretty much says it all.

on edit: My prediction: both parties go back to all white male tickets.

She was promised it after the Obama victory. 'Course that's barring anything else unforeseen such her health taking a turn for the worse. Then they'd just replace her with another corporate lackey and there are LOTS and LOTS of those available. Republicans? Yeah, white male protestant and straight. They just can't help themselves.

Who had that power?

I am very uncomfortable with offspring and spouses of presidents being granted any kind of favored status. The presidency has no inheritance. I think we fought a war once about that.

the power brokers and the Democratic Party Machine. She was promised it in 2008 as well but Obama came along and, as it turned out, he was actually a better deal for them as he didn't have the history Hillary had.

"I'd like a President who works for the 1%, not the 99%."

Myself, I would like a President who works for the 80% and not the top 20%.

Really, Obama has been better for the top 20% than he has been for the top 1%. Hillary would probably be the same way. I complain about ATRA, Obama's tax cut abomination, not because it favored the top 1% (which it did not) but because it favored the top 20%. Same with the accursed payroll tax cut. While it is true, that the APTC gave as much to the top 1% as it did to the bottom 20%, it gave much, much more to the other 19% of the top 20%.

simply because she is a woman.

although I want to see more women in the running. I would always vote for the best candidate regardless of gender. If we had a choice between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for Warren. But if it were Hill vs. a guy I wouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, just to get a woman president. That seems all wrong. She would have to be the better candidate.

" if it were Hill vs. a guy I wouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, just to get a woman president."

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

There are many women politicians who's policies I agree with.

innovative and progressive leaders rather than recycling the same stale and corporate friendly ideology papered over by a vagina or ethnicity allowing us to pretend something is different for a short season until folks notice the same old pigs at the trough, increasing poverty, decreasing liberties, and more of the same.

The people don't advance by swapping Margaret Thatcher for Ronald Reagan, they are one and the same.

. . . as if there isn't a woman candidate would meet those expectations of yours.

electing a woman would be a move to progressive and innovative and my counter is only if the women fits the bill and that a man could also fit the bill and further that fitting the bill is the only important filter.

I see precious few that fit the mold regardless of gender and most of those are in the house and as such have not demonstrated in most cases that they can win a statewide race.

No, it isn't that no women fit the bill but rather that being a woman is nearly meaningless to the measurement and that the prime directive is progressive and innovative and not a champion of the wealthy and the destruction of our rights.

but don't know that I believe it. In 2008, in additions to totally legitimate policy criticisms, the critiques of Hilary Clinton included some nasty gender-based comments - she 'sounded like a schoolteacher', her hair and clothes were criticized, she was accused of playing on her femininity and of being too masculine...and that was just on DU.

When Palin was nominated the sexist crap went over the top - one posted here said that she needed 'thirteen inches', the debate about whether or not posters would 'do her' was a constant refrain. Again, this was on a progressive political website.

Has this changed? Just look upthread, it hasn't.

Is america like one of those RV's with a outline decal of each of the states? "My work is not done until I drive this 6 mpg piece of shit to Alaska"

I really dislike identity politics. I would be happy to vote for E. Warren or H. Clinton but I'm not doing it because they are women but because they have policies and personal qualities that I admire.

Thing is, I'm a black American who came to support Barack Obama, only after his nomination.

As for identity politics . . . I'm not going to pretend that there aren't issues
which are specifically beneficial to women which are regularly ignored by male candidates and male legislators and presidents which have been much more forcefully and diligently advocated by women.

That's not an insignificant argument for a black American, as well, to recognize, appreciate, and vote for strong advocacy for initiatives and action which is particular to them from someone who shares their 'identity.'

You were here in 2008, you know what I'm talking about.

Many people here won't vote for Hillary no-matter-fucking-what, and while they say it's for policy reasons, there are only trivial differences of policy between Hillary and Obama.

. . . DU, not so much.

I know the dynamic between the two, and, between their supporters, as well. SoS Clinton and the President brought all of those perceived differences into perspective, at the end of the election.

I also know what progressives are looking for . . . even if they don't usually, at the end of our contests, find all of those ambitions and attributes residing in our elected officials.

and not his or her corporate keepers.

Given a populist male vs a populist female, I'd say it's time for a woman.

If she runs, I'll support Hillary Clinton because she's competent and I support her policies. It won't be because she's a woman.

. . . except, maybe, Mrs. Clinton may not be my primary choice or get any substantial support from me before that (other than maybe participate in a, likely, unrepresentative amount of chatter about her on DU).

Of course I signed it as
First name: Overmy
Last name: Deadbody

Not that she or many of her supporters would consider THAT much of an impediment.


edit: TOO funny. Upon completing this post, an ad for that very petition appeared at the top of my page. YMMV

. . . a political vehicle which provides opportunity to elevate issues and concerns important to us to a point where they can be debated in our legislature and, hopefully, enacted into action or law.

I think your petition is clever, but, in many ways, alienating of so many folks who might offer needed support for those issues and concerns which are important to you.

so much of the energy goes NOT into advancing issues or causes, it goes into ELECTING candidate X or candidate Y.

Hillary, in particular, in 2008 did not seem to be standing for anything, other than getting herself elected. If you visited her website, which I did, all the news there was "Hillary picks up another endorsement from somebody famous and powerful". She rarely seemed to have news about issues.

One thing she did seem to stand for was - tax cuts for the upper middle class. Oh, and she was against raising the cap on social security because all those "middle class" people making over $105,000 a year would face a huge tax increase.

Given a choice between taking the side of
1) those making more than $105,000 a year
and
2) those making less than $105,000 a year

Hillary took a strong stand for those making MORE.

So when it came to issues and concerns that I care about, Hillary was on the other side.

. . . you find candidates for all of that and press them to represent your interests in office.

Or, you find candidates to challenge these folks to defend their positions against decidedly progressive points of view.

It's just not going to be a perfectly easy rout to get what you want politically . . .

If Obama can go from first-term Senator to the White House, why can't Elizabeth Warren?

She's a corporatist. She's more of the same.

I want a female president who'll be progressive and fight for the 99%.

Women can be mothers and this country is a baby , a spoiled baby who wants all the toys , all the food and all the attention .

is, they want a president whose policies will improve things.

identity politics is no substitute for real politics.

We are rubes who play along...who becomes POTUS has to do with friendly to corporate interests.

We need to end the corruption in the system..will not happen by voting.

at least of those in current political life.

That said I can't really think of a single man now in political life that I'd like to see in the White House either, with the possible exception of Russ Feingold and just maybe Howard Dean.

Hillary is at the bottom of my list.

Stop the presses. We agree on something.

I won't extrapolate beyond that. On the words you wrote in your OP, we agree.