218 years or so of men as presidents!

Isn't it about time to end this malarkey, and elect our first woman? So, Barack has to wait another 4-8 years, big whoopee! He'll get his day, he's still a youngster.

So, if we pass up this chance to get a woman, we might have to wait another 50-100 years before we get another chance to break this 218 year dominance....43 men. Let's make 44 a woman!

Should we pass up this opportunity to elect an African American president and possibly wait 50-100 years for that chance to come again?

I'm not following you there.

were you just trying to use that as a legitimate argument or were you just joking?

Actually their not - i'm just trying to point out the stupidity of this entire post.

DON'T VOTE BASED ON SEX/RACE/RELIGION/SEXUAL PREFERENCE.. Vote based on issues, character & integrity!

But when someone says that it's time for a woman president, someone will always say it's also time for an African American president. Actually, I agree, it's high time for BOTH.

However, women are more under-represented in government than any other group, and that's just a fact.

Obama is the only African American in the Senate, and only the 5th in US history.

We just got a female Speaker of the House too.

For the record, I am a woman (white, if that matters) and would like to see a woman president, but I don't feel that we as women are any more entitled to see "one of our own" become president than African Americans are, especially since they have been a much more loyal voting bloc.

Since African Americans tend to break 80-90% Democratic anyway, while a woman on the ticket would bring us lots of female Indies and even, yes, Republican women. There are millions of voters who vote for superficial reasons... hell, how many said they voted for Bush because they could have a beer with him? There are also a lot of women who would vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I would wager there would even be many Republican women that wouldn't tell anyone they were voting for her, but when they get in the booth, that's the lever they pull. Not to mention, most voters are women over 40.

Just something to think about.

> Women are THE most under-represented in government.

So, does that mean we MUST vote for any/every woman candidate, regardless of her fitness for office? Just asking...

African Americans voted for Kerry 88-11. He only won women by 3 points, 51-48.

I disagree with the notion of casting the issue like that, but, if you insist.

Would you be saying the same thing if Ann Coulter was running?

She would lose instantly. Especially with POW hater Gloria Steinem by her side.

I'd prefer to wait for a woman who got to the top unaided by her husband, but thank you.

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html

How Hillary Clinton Betrayed the Children's Defense Fund for Political Gain: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

How about their positions on issues? electibility? who has the best chance of winning.

:rofl:

Wait... what am I saying?

:eyes:

You're absolutely right. We should be choosing our elected officials based on their plumbing.

By then, he'll have what he needs, more experience.

By then he'll be unstoppable.

Having a vagina is all that matters.

and on edit: We've had WAY too many black presidents too. Vote Vagina!

We need Clagina... it's the perfect match for Clenis...

:silly:

:rofl: :spray: Clagina it is! Brilliant! :toast:

If we were talking about Barbara Boxer, or if Anne Richards had taken a run back in the day - I would have been solidly in their camp. I won't though, regardless of the primary outcome, vote for Hillary

We're all using the word "vagina" a lot more.

It has to be the right woman. After Bush you just can't elect anybody, honesty is a prime concern wiser option is to pressure Barack to take a woman VP. He, is, leading after all.

I prefer this:

Even Pakistan, PAKISTAN!!!, has elected a woman a leader. FREAKING PAKISTAN!

By then she'll learn how to be 'populist'.

:silly:

We've had 8 years of the best years we're ever(?) had with Bill Clinton.
It's the Bushes who had a mini-dynasty. (father and son...blood relatives)
Hillary isn't a blood relative...she's his wife! If Jeb were to run..I'd agree that'd be a dynasty. How many times have wives replaced their husbands and no one yelled...Dynasty!?

any more than you want a man who protects the Bushes and sides with closed government?

I support the Democrat who sides with Open Government accountable to the CITIZENS.

Why do you want the protection of Bushinc to be assured into the next decade?

When does TRUTH Matter?
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

but I'm sorry to say, you also sound very silly. Just because Hillary is female, doesn't mean we should all jump on the "Let's Elect the First Woman President!" bandwagon.

Aren't there better ways to end anti-semitism?

And contrary is true of course too.

on the person who I believe can make the best President. Right now, I believe that Barack Obama is that person.

That's exactly what blacks have heard throughout American history: "Wait your turn, boy."

Isn't it about time to end this malarkey, and elect our first African-American? Hillary has to wait another 4-8 years, big whoopee! She'll get her day, she's still kinda young.

So, if we pass up this chance to get an African-American , we might have to wait another 50-100 years before we get another chance to break this 218 year dominance...43 white people. Let's make 44 an African-American!


Sounds just as ridiculous.

Let's vote for who we believe can get things done.

If you think Hillary is our only chance for a 100 years to have a female president, you really don't think much of other Americans do you?

Frankly, a Clinton nomination will scuttle any chance for a female president for decades: after she gets clobbered in the GE, people will only remember that she lost because she's a woman... and they won't want to risk that again.

Stop trying to put a body-part in the White House, and work towards putting a Democratic candidate there. Clinton is the worst possible Democratic nominee. Period.

Your reasoning is pathetic.

"Let the white woman go first. You'll have your chance, boy."

:sarcasm:

to cast your vote based on gender.

:eyes:

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/woman_presidential_candidates.htm

Lists women candidates not only in the US, but other countries as well.

If that's what you're thinking.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Hillary becoming president will help the cause in the long run, but then I have this thing about making my decisions based factors other than race and gender, so what do I know.

If your main reason is simply because we have not had a woman president then it is a bad reason. The question is who is the best candidate. We are probably at one of what will be considered a very important juncture regarding human relations on the planet. This requires the best candidate, not one chosen primarily due to gender. Now if you think Clinton is the best candidate then it makes sense.

Try picking one that isn't a borderline sociopath.

all the men in the room. Who wants a liar for Prez? Not me.

hilary sealed her own doom when she voted for the IWR without reading the NIE>