Who will be the first woman to serve as a U.S. president?

Several possible choices are listed, including one slot for 'OTHER.' The question asks which woman will be, not which woman you prefer as, the first female president, and is therefor bipartisan. Many prominent names are included; some are excluded. There are only ten slots.

Comments always warmly welcome below.

TIA

where the 3 million funding hillary thru the clinton library

they are not eligible for this poll, gglor.

The poll is not asking for that information.

If you can't tolerate Hillary, at least have the guts to say so.

and -- god knows -- mixed reactions. And who's in a position to judge?

make any sense.

And don't tell anyone else, either. It will just have to be our secret.

You know how angry Mr. McGregor gets when the bunnies have nibbled in his precious garden.

Republican uncle. He didn't like my politicking generally but my affiliation with Democrats especially.

The 3 considerations weren't really connected to that political tension, as it happened.

Baseball (we agreed that it still mattered);

Gardens (if someone had the health it was a life-long joy); and

Women in politics (surprisingly, we agreed there, although naturally we split along party lines.)

Not so bad for a Republican uncle, eh?

Hillary is perfectly capable of getting her own funds.

At the moment it is officially a senate re-election campaign but there are no illusions in or out of that circle that it is in fact a presidential platform-springboard.

The media, for better and worse, believe she is on a course to the White House, or at least the Democratic nomination.

She certainly has a higher-percentage shot at it than most Americans right now.

But I am personally calling for her to finish in the middle of the pack in the Iowa caucuses.

I take her side when Limbaugh and the other rightwing kooks belittle her by denying her her title (all male prominent figures tend to get 'Senator' Jones and 'Congressman' Miller and 'Governor' Smith, while the fundies deny her those titles representing her brains and accomplishments and call her only 'Hillary.).

I take her side against them, but if I were in Iowa, I would likely support Feingold/Gore/Kerry/Edwards/Boxer instead.

Still, the woman is within striking distance of the White House.

won't.

I try to get it on the web.

But hey, that's me.

Several possible choices are listed, including one slot for 'OTHER.' The question asks which woman will be, not which woman you prefer as, the first female president, and is therefor bipartisan. Many prominent names are included; some are excluded. There are only ten slots.


_ _ _

If you would prefer it in another language, you will have to provide the translator.

But that's what it is in English.

You've asked 3 times so far in this thread, so here's a repeat of the information for your perusal.

in the universe is not listed prominently in the poll.

Ten slots.

If you are using a software, Erika, that has MORE than ten slots, by all means pass it over and I will be DELIGHTED to use it.

If you wish to vote for Senator Clinton, do so in the OTHER slot, as indicated in the summary material before the poll.

special for 'em, no matter what.

Even if all their ingredients are in there. They still just won't eat it.

Others are very predictable.

If you want to begin threads on chosen topics, do it.

You've wrecked two consecutively tonight.

Nice piece of citizenship on these boards, Erika.

Gleaming.

Where are you coming from?

try to derail threads.

You've done it twice tonight.

i'd love it if you stuck with the topic, Erika, but you are in one hostile mood this evening.

Read the posts respectfully, respond respectfully, and you'll get the respect you deserve back.

history, not only in regard to their quest for political power but in some cases their ability to sustain that power and influence generations to follow.

Several good examples, but don't underrate Cleopatra. She was a remarkable soul, quite apart from the "Hollywood" image.

Actually Elizabeth Taylor did a pretty nice job. Am not knockin' Liz here. Far from it.

Just saying that Cleopatra was a multi-dimensional soul.

in an author called Mary Renault. You may already have read her stuff, for all I know.

She is a South African, of all people, and a glorious writer. Not something out of the New York City grinder mill of writers, but someone with a sweeping look at ancient history.

One of her many concerns as a writer is myth, and the female/male archetyhpe vein running through those in power. Alexander is her chief subject, and she finds an absolutely revealing life of an almost-forgotten and little-known figure.

My thoughts of the modern day woman candidate, or Sec. Rice for example, has much to do with the field work and lyric writing of Mary Renault.

I'm not choosing her because she's a woman, but because she's one of the most brilliant and talented people I've ever encountered.

Highly recommended.

a bowling league. That's just a particularlity of this poll. You see, it's a special poll, and you need to allow for those mysterious nuances, Erika.

It's what enrichens politics, frankly.

More to the point, when Senator Clinton used to bowl -- she's actually an Illinois woman from the heartland -- well, she was good at it. Maybe some male bowlers there could tell us how good, but I'm told pretty darn good.

I'm not a very good bowler myself. I grew up in Ohio and I bowled here and there, but I don't think at the level of intensity Hillary Clinton did. I think she's probably a lot better than anybody realizes.

Anyway that's just one way of interpreting it. Bowling is kind of a blue-collar thing, in a way. I'm comfortable with it but I'm not saying it's going to be a factor for Senator Clinton's quest for the nomination.

Several possible choices are listed, including one slot for 'OTHER.' The question asks which woman will be, not which woman you prefer as, the first female president, and is therefor bipartisan. Many prominent names are included; some are excluded. There are only ten slots.

_____
When it says "Many prominent names are included; some are excluded. There are only ten slots" it would be ok for you to infer that she might be among the prominent names excluded, but for slot ten, which covers anybody you care to vote for, Erika. Anyone at all. Now by god you just can't get much more democratic than that. I'm giving you unlimited miles on a fine car. Get in and drive.

to confer with on some of these presidential questions.

Perhaps not with funding per se, because -- and I worked for the man -- it frankly was not his long suit.

But he was a good soul overall while he was in his office and I admired the way he treated women in his party. As equals.

A truly loyal patriot.

family and friends, hanging out over the long holiday recess.

Or she could be seeing MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, which isn't a bad way to spend an evening.

Just because the lead isn't a U.S.-born Hollywood actress doesn't mean it isn't splendid acting. It's a fine film if you ask me.

I hope Senator Clinton is doing something she enjoys, in any case.

have seen this passage:

Several possible choices are listed, including one slot for 'OTHER.' The question asks which woman will be, not which woman you prefer as, the first female president, and is therefor bipartisan. Many prominent names are included; some are excluded. There are only ten slots.

It wasn't just put in there after your posts (three of them) in this thread. It was there from the start.

You missed it.

Senator Clinton is wherever you want her to be. Try Slot 10 if you want to vote for her. The other 9 slots are currently filled. No room at the inn, etc.

..."Where's Hillary"...simply muddied the water for me...too confusing.

Anyway...the first woman president WILL BE (of course) Nancy Pelosi. She will become majority leader when the dems win the house and President when Bush is impeached....simple!

the show. She's great!

And you are quite right to suggest that all the "Where's Hillary" responses are a poor interpretation of the poll's intent and an apparent decision to ignore the instructions and summary material in the OP.

Right on.

The sons and daughters of famous folk often go farther than mom or dad.

In this case, she could go as far as either and again -- who knows -- be tremendous.

Competence will not be enough; to win she will need to have broad appeal and inspire. None of these candidates qualify at this time.

in any case, I believe a path to the presidency could be made case-by-case for each of them.

As well, a tenth slot labeled 'OTHER' is there for you if you choose to use it.

but that (D-Californa) next to her name is a death sentence. She would be called too liberal and, at least for now, the country isn't interested in a female, California liberal. But a lot can happen and,in time, who knows?

My fingers are crossed for the future.

Hillary is no where to be found.

Ape, but if you want to throw your vote her way, use slot 10.

Thinks the world of him, in fact.

with black female slaves. It doesn't matter if Hillary or W liked Jefferson.

At NO TIME WHATSOEVER have the two threads you've tried to wreck mentioned Jefferson's relationship with his slaves.

You singlularly brought it into play and you stubbornly are pushing it against the stated thesis of both threads.

That's rude.

Stick to the subject or begin your own thead on Sally and Tom's banging in the barn.

away from snide remarks on two consecutive threads this evening.

I'm not asking you to AGREE with the points i make in my journal. I am asking you to understand better who you're talking to before you spout off about respect after having offered none in return.

their summary material in various posts and polls.

Some on Du take care to make sure they've done the best they can to convey the intent of the post or poll.

While all of us have different skills in that department, just as JFK was at ease in front of a crowd and John Kerry was a bit nervous, both were big minds with good hearts who earn allegiance.

And attention to detail.

I posted my intent for this poll in the summary material. As DUers click on the thread those intents and instructions are clear.

You didn't pay a lick of attention to the poll summary or instructions. You didn't read the OP in the thread earlier this evening either, about the 17 Univ of VA students.

Read the material first, then respond. You'll find the response is a lot more respectful.

would want to unergo gender-reassignment surgery, with all the therapeutic counseling involved, just to be a president, in this poll's case, the first woman U.S. president.

Plus, Jefferson's dead, so that makes it an even MORE insurmountable task.

So for the purposes of this poll, and as stated IN the original post summary instructions, I think we'll just stick with live female possibilities.

I think these 9-plus options cover a truly wide range for consideration of the intent of the poll.

you would have to devise a strategy for Virginia.

Would you have her show up at the Courthouse in Appomatix to re-claim her Southern roots and denounce Lincoln? She'd make a headline or two in the Deep South with that strategy.

Or, she could go to the University of Virginia -- just as an example, I mean -- and declare that Jefferson was probably a heathen jerk, a HUMANIST subversive, and in the same fell swoop, she could announce that she opposes stem cell research. With Jefferson being one of our most prominently pro-science presidents, that should create quite a stir among the fundies.

She could have a high-profile meeting with Jerry Falwell. He hangs out near Lunchburg, I believe. That would give McCain sojething to think about, since McCain has completely sold out on that issue already. No sense giving John McCain the upper hand when it comes to far right nutcases, I say.

And so forth.

You'd have your hands full. Virginia leans Republican. The cradle of presidents, the Old Dominion, etc. John Warner is much loved there. Senator Clinton would need some special magic to crack the code of a state like Virginia. The bumpersticker says Virginia's for lovers. It's even more for Republicans.

Reginald A. Wilkinson, before a conference of the American Correctional Association -- its winter conference in January of 1998, spoke about King's legacy to civil rights and U.S. justice.

His address in its entirety is here: www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Articles/article30.htm

--and here is a brief excerpt:

_ _ _

'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' When Dr. King used those powerful words, the words of Thomas Jefferson, as a mantra for granting Civil Rights to all Americans, even naysayers had to sit up and take notice. It was Dr. King’s genius to take the words of a slave owner, and hold our own country’s Bill of Rights up as a mirror to our society.

_ _ _

I include them for your perusal in consideration of where we are today. I think Wilkinson and King know how to focus on a thesis point and know also how to establish it in context.

Similar quotations are to be found throughout the civil rights literature since at least the peak of King's public career in oratory.

inappropriate to this poll and post, you might want to consider this site:

http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/mayer-hemings.html

--which is an address by David Mayer on the subject you hold dear.

Needless to say, he finds your argument wanting.

have to carry Virginia if she is elected president.

If not Virginia, then some combination of other post-industrial states like Michigan and Ohio.

I'm not sure she has the statewide support in states like that. The demographic is not there for her in the way it might be for McCain (yes, I shudder at that thought) or, for the Democrats, a moderate conservative Democrat like Warner or Bayh.

Either of those last 2 Dems might fare better in Virginia, with Mark Warner the heavy favorite because he's a native son.

for anyone who supports this war.

We like you around here.

And you have a great username too, if I may say so.

I put a lot of thought into that name. Anyway, I make a killer BBQ sauce so I'll be a real hit at your picnic.

To hell with the election. I'll bring the Sam Adams, how's that?

I like the Boston Lager the best.

done a bad turn for the poll itself in forgetting her.

(If you blame me for wishful thinking that she'll never be elected, I stand guilty as charged!)_

Thank you for point it out. You're right. I'm wrong. And i appreciate the heads up.

I might change the poll if the software hasn't timed out.

to Sec. Rice.

Again, you were headsup and alert to it and I dropped the ball.

Thanks again for the clear view.

Karenna Gore Schiff, one of Al Gore's talented and charismatic daughters (he has more than one talented and charismatic daughters), the one who wrote the women's book recently. She's got Bill Clinton's charm and grace.

She's 33, and she'll be about right for 2016, at age 43.

young woman. Her parents appear to glow when she's on stage or in other public settings.

I have a lot of respect for her and I think you are right to suggest that we have definitely not heard the last of her yet.

Good catch.

she's got an attraction on the TV that few people have

That's not to slam her dad. I'd vote for him, no problem. If he runs, I think he will clear the path of almost any takers, including Senator Clinton.

Gore could be at the threshhold of the presidency ()the presidency he won outright before Jeb and Katherine and Dubya stole it from him, I mean).

And I see his daughter as a shining beacon in that campaign, and maybe one of her own not long afterward.

It could definitely happen. It even feels like it will.

I'm not really a player in the horse race right now. I believe you have to see who puts together the money and the team, and find out who emerges from the pack.

Gore is battle tested. He's got more cred when he speaks than any Dem senator.

you describe his chances and cred, etc.

And you know, I was a Bradley delegate to my state's convention, so I'm not just whistling Dixie when I offer praise for Al Gore.

I think he's earned the thing big time and he'd have my vote, no question.

I have always liked Bill's politics, but think he lacks the fire in the belly to make the full run for president. His wife speaks with a heavy accent, and she's not at all into the public scene. He's too ethereal, too intelligent, for his own good when it comes to verbal expression. Ya gotta know when and how to dumb it down.

But I've always liked the guy.

popular approval.

But had he gotten the nomination and the presidency, I would surely have preferred hearing his State-of-the-Union addresses over Dubya's!

oops, missed again.

dp

I hope.

There are plenty of women in America capable of doing it on their own.

Totally agree. A very healthy development.

And it's not so long away, either, I don't think. In our lifetimes, even.

I appreciate your post.

now, though, but I would admit that it may be wishful thinking.

But if it happened that both major parties nominated females nominees, the odds of one of them not becoming president would be astronomical.

Of course they have to get the nominations first.

Good point, LSK. And thanks for posting.

you left out "none."

I don't think it's possible for a woman to be elected president of the US in the foreseeable future, so all this speculation is more or less irrelevant. We do not live in a country that is anywhere near trusting a woman with the job. Things have gone backward so far. We're living in the Dark Ages now. It's just not a topic worth discussing. All this Hillary talk is just to scare the Bushbot base.

support a woman candidate for president.

Here is one link attesting to that shift in public opinion from past polls:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml


My poll isn't about Senator Clinton or the media hubbub.

I didn't forget 'none'; I chose not to use it to reflect that sentiment among adult voters in my country.

Cheers.

because it's not PC to discriminate on basis of sex. Americans like to look good on issues like these, but often go the other way if it comes down to the crunch. I don't think liberals are buying "Hillary for President" whatsoever, on the reasonable argument that she can't win in the current environment. ANY woman, especially Hillary, scares conservative voters silly. And Hillary is the most viable female candidate to date.

You post a nice list of qualified women, but you are dreaming if you think any of them would ever win the nomination. What's more, they know it. Why don't you poll some of these prominent female legislators and ask if they realistically think they, or any woman, could become president? They might be able to give you a reality check.

Your poll certainly IS about Senator Clinton--she is present by glaring omission. Why include Condi and not Hillary?? Senator Clinton will pave the way by being the first woman to make it to the primaries most likely. By placing women such as Condi in high positions, a woman may get to the presidency by default someday. But a woman running from the outset will not be taken seriously, not in post-Boosh mysogynist fundamentalist America. It's just not realistic. A woman may be able to be elected in more stable times.

It's probably historic that a woman president is even being talked about, many decades before it will come to pass.

demographic than the women you suggest I poll instead.

Will gather these women, or provide me with their email addresses? I'd be happy to contact them in that event. Absent that, that's not the intent of the poll.

If you were here earlier you would have noted that I omitted Condoleeza Rice from the first batch of 9, then added her later on. She is the Secretary of State and in fact is in the line of succession right now to be president.

Arthur Godfrey is also absent from my poll, yet my poll is not about him. Doris Day is also not in the poll. Neither are a lot of people. Since it's my poll, I think I should have a vote in that matter, don't you?

Were both major parties to nominate female presidential nominees, the electorate would indeed be choosing between two women. Very much within reach, in my view. Dr. Rice and Senator Clinton are more strongly possible candidates, but that is not to say that Senator Lincoln could not be a candidate, a viable candidate, or an electable candidate.

Rice vs Clinton...oh yeah SURE. Gimme a break. There are LOTS of qualified male candidates for the Dems to choose from. No reason to stick their necks out running a woman, esp a woman with an unbelievable amount of baggage. And Rice, a black woman, representing the Rethuglican party--that's an even bigger stretch. The Rethugs aren't in a good enough position to risk it, even though Condi does rise to their required level of sleeze and she's a team player (ie. easily manipulated).

This is all just cocktail party speculation...same as it ever was.

Ask the congresswomen what they think. Their opinions would tell you more than random samples of voters. Polls of the American electorate often reflect issues other than the one being presented. Maybe the voters are "ahead of the times" or maybe they are somewhat disingenuous on this issue. It would take further research to understand the meaning of the poll. You can't just take it literally at face value.

So what's your reason for promoting a woman president? Why at this time when any woman would have such an uphill battle? What's the real point here? I just don't get why the emphasis on it. I think the Dems would be extremely stupid to run a woman in '08. I don't think a woman president is symbolic of anything (other than 'the first'), as the first woman president will behave exactly like her male counterparts. Haven't you ever noticed that women who do get to high places get there BECAUSE they proved they are exactly like men? What's the big deal...

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/o/card/specials-politics/odds/722602x/sid/469713

Senator Clinton, among betting people who watch their money carefully and only lay it down when they feel pretty good on a bet, says she is a 5/4 finisher -- top of the heap.

McCain is at 6, Allen 7, Giuliani, Warner and Edwards at 10, Bayh at 16, Richardson at 20, Frist at 22, and Rice at 25.

Do you reject CBS polls only, are you questioning the verity and reliability of the poll mechanism, or do you object to a woman being president?

The poll is overwhelmingly in support of the notion of a woman being electable.

Sorry it's riled you up so much. I hope one of your male candidates triumphs, if this is how testy you get about a woman.

or even slightly worked up. Saving that for important stuff. I do question the reliability of any poll--been around statistics too much.

Find it interesting that you do not answer my question about your reasons for being so gung-ho for a woman candidate, sidestepping the Q entirely. Maybe you don't know why? Is there ANY reason you can give WHY a woman candidate would be seen as a plus, or why we need to even think about it with the government in such disarray? WHY is the question relevant? Does a woman candidate have ANY special advantage that would overcome her great disadvantage in being female?

Another Q re. bettors--How come you leave Clinton--the bettors' top pick --OUT of your poll) -eh? I also noticed the bettors left out Al Gore entirely, while including Dark Horse loser Ahhnold. Judging by these picks, centrist Repugs have the edge, which I just don't buy. (The bettors also picked John Kerry to win in 04--after that they kinda lack credibility). In a volatile political climate such as we have now, all bets are off IMO.

Re. women --As much as I'd love to see a woman get the chance, I want to WIN this time! After the Boosh administration I have NO such romantic pie-in-the-sky hopefulness left (Golly gee, Beaver, do ya think a woman could be prezzydent?). Those ponderings are for more benign times.

I just want to see this country turned around. And in a hurry. In 08 the Dems are our only chance. And I don't want them to blow it. There are several male Dem candidates that are reasonable on women's issues. Not a time for risk.

the intent of this post.

All good wishes to you and yours.

I strongly doubt that the swing vote states are ready for a Woman president. When Ferraro was a VP presidential candidate, I believe that was an overly optimistic nomination by the Dem party which had probably listened to people within the party rather than having a clear view of the culture.

swing state assessment, skyblue.

Sorry.

Only 55% of voters say America is ready for a Woman President. Only 44 % of Seniors (who I think, but am not sure vote more often than the younger set) say that America is ready for a Woman President. What I'd like to know is if a Woman candidate went against a Male candidate would they be more likely to vote for the Male candidate in the swing vote states. My guess is in the swing vote states they'd be more likely to vote for a Male Candidate.

Sorry Sir....

You may also be wrong, as the poll data indicate.

If you hae other data, share it with us for discussion.

If not, the CBS poll is long-running across several years, and the trend is plain.

I don't have the data it's just my instinct. And, I don't think they polled for that, they only polled if someone would vote for a Woman Candidate for President in their own political party. So, if I can find data on Would they Vote for a Male Candidate or a Female within their party each representing the same viewpoints as they do, I believe a Male would be their choice over the decision gender doesn't matter to me. Or, If they polled: Do you think a Male candidate would have a better chance than a Female in a general election or does gender not matter. Then they'd probably say a Male candidate would be more likely to win. Also there's a huge difference 61% of Democrats believe vs. 48% of Republicans believe we are ready for a Female President. That's another problem.

Sorry again there!!!

:patriot: :) :) :)

you can't think about what they did to her without wincing. And have things really changed since then?
It would take a lot more research to convince me that running a woman wouldn't automatically give the election to the other side.

Look AT this culture! That has to change first, before a woman could be taken seriously as the ultimate leader. In congress, women can still be seen in women's traditional "assistant" role relative to the presidency.

If Americans considered electing Boosh, what kind of woman would they elect--certainly qualifications and record in congress or governor wouldn't matter. Or is that the barrier--? A woman could ONLY get elected on her service record, and that's not really how we choose candidates. It would be difficult to get the right combination of responsibility and charisma in a female candidate. Those are seen as mutually exclusive in women.

I'd start there.

Then I'd go to the obvious electability of women in both chambers of the state and federal Congress.

Your match-up between a male and a female may prove out. But equally, it may prove out with the opposite result.

It is not impossible at all for Senator Clinton and Secretary Rice to be the nominees. I'd favor other candidates myself on ideological grounds, but tactically speaking, both are eligible, both are prominent, and if both were their parties' nominees, ONE of them is very likely going to be the next president.

That construction would work also for Blanche Lincoln and Kay Baily Hutchison. Why does it have to be a boys' club at the top rung all the time?

The poll asks which female you thought would be the first to serve as a U.S. president.

If you believe no woman will ever serve as a U.S. president, say so, and if you want, you can vote in slot #10.

I don't know, but I don't think any of them will be president in the near future. I'd be thrilled to cast a vote for my former Senator, Barbara Boxer, but I don't know that she'd get the vote on a national level.

I think we'll have a female VP first. It would be nice to have a female president in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe in my sons', probably in my grandson's.

is a figure on the national landscape for years and years to come.

Liked your post very much.

in any way by this poll, whose intent you have completely misread, she can sue me.

Absent that, you might try reading the summary material of posts before you insult people.

couldn't do the same for Hillary, despite way more people asking about her than Condi Rice.

BTW, I didn't insult you. If I did, you'd know it.

You strike quite a few folks as someone who doesn't like being disagreed with.

You might be in the wrong country. Or not. Who knows?

you also seem to enjoy putting your words into other people's mouths, since it's YOU who obviously doesn't enjoy being disagreed with. Nice try at turning the tables...

The oddsmakers place her chances better-than-even to get the party's nomination.

You can always sing her praises in your own personal terms on a post of your own.

Have a great Easter.

me.

You have a good one, too.

... perhaps still in grad school volunteering on a bigger fish's campaign and ambitiously learning the ropes. Mid to late 20's, early 30's at the most.

I don't think any of the current crop of women in the political limelight - left or right - can get to the White House. It's going to take another generation or so.

JMHO ~

I like the romance and mystery, too, of an heretofore unknown candidate.

90% of the candidates in the field, male *or* female, and would make one of our best Presidents in decades. I'd love to see her run in 2008.

Regrettably, I think it would likely be someone else, though not anyone very recognizable among political leaders today. Not Hillary, and definitely not Condi Rice. It's still mind-boggling that some people still float Condi as a possible GOP nominee. She's both in favor of abortion rights and racial preferences, the two biggest no-nos of the Republican base. She also has Iraq increasingly as a noose around her neck, bitter anger at her about her Israel policy, not to mention an utter, entire lack of electoral experience. There is a very narrow, already shrinking, tiny section of the GOP (a few public policy wonks basically) that likes her, but the base is diametrically opposed to her candidacy.

Boxer and Feingold are my two favorite Senators. Even if they don't reach the Oval Office, I hope that they come to be regarded as some of the finest examples of people that our legislative branch can produce.

only that the country might not be evolved enough for her, but I have no problem with her becoming president, and tomorrow morning would be too late for me. How about right NOW?

She's a great, great U.S. Senator.

;)

women in elected office. It needs to feel achievable and near.

Senator Boxer, however her first name is spelled, will not be the first woman president. The first woman nominated by a major party to run will be brutally treated by the opposing party, a sexist media and populace responding with ingrained hatred of women. It will be the ugliest campaign ever in the US, as has been evidenced here at DU by the gratuitously hostile and shameful treatment of Hilary Clinton, and the delerious, delusional paeans to perceived good looking male candidates who take on attributes that neither their actions nor history in any way support.

Condi Rice couldn't even carry one red state, either, based on her race and wealth.

shameful" anything about Senator Clinton in my poll OP.

If other DUers, or myself, prefer other candidates, we are quite permitted to say so. I have posted many, many, and one more many times on Senator Clinton on DU. You can look at the evolution of my position on her possible candidacy for higher office if you have a moment to spare.

I like Senator Boxer a lot, by the way.

It's all the same election. The 06 and the 06 and the 10 and the 12 and the 2016 elections. All the same. All must build party unity. All must have grassroots support. There is also -- don't forget this -- EMILY's LIST (Early Money is Like Yeast). Presidential preparations are always important.

If you didn't care to be distracted by this thread you could have ignored it.

she and her husband are the ones in my area stealing lawn furniture.

It tends to happen at night, when everyone's asleep.

After a double-impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Appreciate your post. And I love Nancy Pelosi.

And, anyone who thinks it will happen in any of our lifetimes is, in my opinion, optomistic in the extreme.

Just an opinion, but I am very pessimistic about the state of WOmen's Rights in this country today. Whole groups of (mostly male) people think we shouldn't even run our own uteruses, let alone a country!

TC

There are males who fit the description you offer, but not as many on DU as at the Republican Club brunch in Cincinnati, Ohio.

I'm all for a woman having the same chance at the White House as a man.

You, sadly, are in the minority.

In a perfect world, the first Woman President would have been Geraldine Ferraro. She was smart, principled, articulate and fearless. But... alas, this is not a perfect world, so it was not to be.

Thanks for your really nice post, and for your optimism. I hope YOU are right and I am worng about this.

TC

with you on Congresswoman Ferraro.

She would have been a magnificent vice president.

Or president.

How could you possibly have omitted her?

I would venture that

or
as Tom Hanks would say,

babraedlund, babraedlund.