Question for female DUers only, regarding Hillary.

Does the fact that she could be the FIRST woman President in US history favorably influence your ability to vote for her in the primary?

And, I think she'd be a decent choice for the first female US President.

The last couple of years, I have disliked her drift towards the middle and her speeches have often been very moderate and not the Hillary I grew up with.

I'll support her if she gets past the primary...I don't know at this point if I can support her in the primary because of a lot of issues...

I disagree with her stance on certain issues, and laud her on others. Will I support her in the primaries? Not over Gore or Kerry, but probably over anyone else who will probably run for the nomination.

Hillary and Obama down our throats. We have better, more progressive candidates to support!

and protect my childrens future. her being female is not part of the equation and has no place in my wanting and not wanting her as pres.

You need three options: "I would vote for her even if not-X", "I will vote for her because of X, but wouldn't if not-X", and "I will not vote for her even though X"; a fourth "I would vote for her if not for X" category might be worth having for completeness, but I very much doubt any DUers would be influenced to vote against Hillary because of her gender.

Your two "I will vote for her because of X" and "I will not vote for her even though X" are not sufficient to tell us much.

but felt it would be better to home in on the gender issue. If there were many choices, with other variables, it might obscure what I am the most curious about, which is whether gender will be a deciding factor, at least among female DUers. It is for some it seems. I think that is pretty significant.

Maybe you should start a poll with those other options. You might be able to word it in such a way that the gender issue wouldn't be totally watered down.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought it was pretty clearly asking if the historical significance of having a female president was strong enough to override other issues. I had the same thought in the past when Elizabeth Dole was rumored to be considering a run -- would I be willing to vote for a Repug to get a woman in the White House. My ultimate decision then and now was that, as much as my heart would rejoice at having a female president, the more important factor to me is the political viewpoints. I still think HRC is a remarkably brave smart woman but her fence riding as a senator has lessened my respect for her. I'll vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate (because I would vote for a pile of dog shit before voting for a Republican at this point) but she is not my preferred choice.

I have always considered myself to be strongly feminist but I want the moral victory of the first female president being elected because she's the best candidate not because she's female. I think it's just as sexist to vote FOR someone based solely on gender as it is to vote AGAINST someone based solely on gender (or religion or heritage, etc.)

In 2008 I think we need a candidate who is red hot, unapologetically passionate about liberal issues. I don't think HRC is that person. But with that being said, it is also my personal belief that, at this time, the US isn't ready for that kind of a woman, that our first female president will likely be someone mild mannered and agreeable. Because America is still very sexist and seemingly afraid of strong women, I suspect in order to be elected our first female president will have to be someone soft spoken and very diplomatic. Now is the time for fire and passion. Right now we need a true liberal hero more than we need a woman.

And I completely agree with you about Hillary. She's way down on my list. But I have to admit a niggling part of me would be thrilled that not only would Hillary be America's first female President, she'd be our first DEMOCRATIC female President. Check mate to swarmy Libby Dole.
:D

However, in the primaries I will select the candidate that reflects my views most closely, regardless of age, gender, race, etc.
It may or may not be Senator Clinton. I need more information on ALL the candidates.

If she were the same person, and a male, I would be less likely to vote for them.

the floor running and that requires experience. We need someone who already knows how to get things done quickly. We need someone with extraordinary diplomatic skills.....
In short, we need someone who has been there before, IMHO.

I will vote for the most experienced candidate available.




Experience may not have been as important in the past, but we have never been in the kind of mess we are now and experience is the key, plus knowing beforehand how the president might respond to ....situations, disasters, etc.

I'm tired of surprises and not knowing what some dumbass might do tomorrow that will affect us forever.


edsp

the poll is strangely worded. She is NOT my chosen candidate by a long shot, gender having nothing whatever to do with it.

but not because she is a woman. I don't want to vote for her because I think she's one of them (BFEE,et all). I'd like to see A Clark/Edwards ticket.

I do like her, but given the other candidates beginning to state their intentions I'll wait and see.

By the time TN's last presidential primary came around it was pretty much a given that Kerry would be the nominee. I voted for who I thought would make a good VP which was Edwards. I'm not sure if I'll do the same thing. There is a lot of time between now and our primary. Anything can happen.

It's still too early, IMO.

Maybe I'll feel differently if I have a chance to meet her during the NH primaries . . . I don't know. In any case, it goes without saying I would vote for her if she's the nominee. What's the alternative? Sam Brownback???:rofl:

Is that what you're asking? I would never take anyone's gender, religion, appearance, race or any other stupid criteria into account when contemplating who is the best choice to hold the highest office in the country. As a woman, of course I'd like to see another woman hold that office in my life-time, but something so absurd should never be a consideration when contemplating who to vote for. It's just as idiodic as pulling the lever for the candidate you think you'd like to have a beer with. Frankly, voting for someone because they don't have a penis is just as stupid as voting for someone because they do.

just because she's female. Or Condi Rice, for that matter. :puke:

sw

and vote accordingly. I like her but it is not because she is a woman but for the person and politician she is. I feel more strongly for her than Obama simply because of the religion issue. Who knows, he could come out with a stance on religion I could live with. I voted against Clinton in the first primary for the abortion issue but he came back with a stand he could live with and that I could live with and I supported him till the end. What a bitter end that was. To this day he has my support. I would view Hilary as her own person and not an extension of Bill.

I wouldn't vote for her as neither her politics nor her personality do anything for me. As centrists go, I'd rather have Obama. As "firsts" go, I sorta like the idea of the first vegan in the White House, but I like DK based on policy and think his ethical diet is a really cool bonus.

It does matter to me and I personally think the people who are pretending it shouldn't are full of it. Of course the first female or minority President matters. But not enough to get a bad one. If Condi Rice were running, I sure wouldn't be supporting her. So no, I won't be supporting Hillary in the primary.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to imagine that anyone who truly believes that having a penis or not has anything whatsoever to do with their vote is being somehow less than honest. Personally, I have no great need to see a woman president of the country before I die. I'd like to, it would be nice, but it TRULY is no great issue to me, and there is no way I would ever take gender into consideration when evaluating political competence. I absolutely don't give a single point in Condi's just because she lacks a penis... which is exactly the same as giving a single point TO someone because they lack a penis. She has been and always will be EQUALLY blundering and evil as any of the MEN in the administration who are EQUALLY as bad.

Frankly, I take issue with your assumption that anyone here expressing their opinion that gender is not a consideration is being less than honest. Apparently, gender is important to you in this instance, however, what is important to you in this instance is not necessarily important to every other woman however much you might wish it to be so.

Believe it or not, giving points OR taking points away based on gender is BIGOTRY any way you slice it.

And there it is. It matters. It's not the only thing or the first thing, but it matters. It Would Be Nice. Which is exactly what I said.

"It would be nice" to see a woman hold the highest office in the country sometime in my life-time hardly equates to "pretending" gender is not an issue when contemplating one's own vote choice. It would be nice if I had the convenience of a buzz-cut hairstyle, but it hardly means I'd ever contemplate cutting all my hair off... just because I may find something to be nice doesn't mean I'd ever consider it a factor worthy of any real consideration particularly when the idea of cutting off my hair even to shoulder length is something I don't think I could ever do. See? I can find something to be nice, but not actually considerate it with any amount of seriousness. Like right now it would be nice if I had a chocolate chip cookie here to eat, but there's no way on earth I'm going to waste a moment contemplating going out in this nasty cold weather to buy one. See? I did it again.

No, gender is not a consideration that MATTERS when it comes to MY one single solitary vote which will never sway an election from one candidate to another. I may never ever vote for a woman for the presidency and will ONLY vote for a woman for that office if she is the best candidate, which I will decide based on RELEVANT factors. If it ever comes down to having a hard time deciding between two candidates based on relevant factors, I STILL won't allow gender to be the deciding factor... plenty of other factors I find far more semi-relevant than gender. And even if all semi-relevant factors were equal between the two, I'd vote for the one most likely to beat the Repuke. Seeing as I've never found it difficult to decide on which candidate to support based on the most relevant factors, I don't see even the semi-factors ever coming into play (and gender sure isn't one of them). And here we are back again to gender never being a consideration for me... damn, somehow I still know my own mind better than you do - fancy that.

Which is quite a different thing than 'it would be nice'. If you truly believe something would be nice to have, then you would consider how to get it. You don't really care about the convenience of a hair style or a chocolate chip cookie, or you'd consider how to get them. Perhaps you don't really think 'it would be nice' to have a woman or minority President, but then that would be saying you're perfectly content with white male rule for eternity. I can't imagine how any Democrat would think that 'would be nice'. That would be a travesty. So as I said, I think most people are considering gender and minority in their vote, it just isn't the deciding factor. Which isn't to say it doesn't matter at all, because clearly it does because 'it would be nice'.

Ok, I'll pretend for your sake that I don't like chocolate chip coookies, and if one were to appear on my desk without my having to do anything for that to happen I wouldn't eat it, because according to you I really don't want it. Even though it's pretty stupid to pretend for your sake just so you can be satisfied that you were correct in your assumption that I or anyone else was pretending. So if that cookie were to materialize on my desk without my doing anything I'll have to come up with some lie as to why I gave none of it to you and ate it myself.

What is it that you aren't getting here? Seriously. People find all kinds of things to be nice without seriously considering them. I could come up with any number of things I'd find to be nice while not seriously considering them. I'd find it to be nice to have a totally self-cleaning toilet inside and out, but I've never once contemplated inventing such a thing, spending the money on such a thing were it available or even bothering to check if such a thing existed because I HATE HATE FUCKING HATE cleaning the toilet. Want me to go on?

Have you never thought of something that would be nice but already know isn't an option? Sure you have. We all do it all the time. And when we don't seriously consider those things we think would be nice it's because although we think they'd be nice they don't MATTER in the grand scheme of things and are therefore not an option to be seriously considered... exactly what I said in the first place.

Now that we're back again where this started... I or anyone else can find something to be nice without caring about it so much that it's relevant, and therefore aren't PRETENDING when they state such an opinion.

Perhaps you don't really think 'it would be nice' to have a woman or minority President, but then that would be saying you're perfectly content with white male rule for eternity.

That's the single most disturbing statement I think you could possibly have come up with. Not to mention offensive. No, white male rule for eternity in this country is totally unacceptable. You know that, I know that, everyone with any decency whatsoever knows that. I would love to hear your reasoning for coming up with such an outrageously stupid twist of logic. Unlike some people, I realize that some things take time however much it would be nice for them to already exist. For some people this is far more frustrating than it is for others. I have more patience and are more realistic than you are apparently.

I can't imagine how any Democrat would think that 'would be nice'. That would be a travesty.

I heartily agree it would be a travesty if this country had only white male presidents for eternity and that any Democrat would think it was "nice"... good thing I never said, advocated or anywhere near implied such a thing, isn't it? Thank you for just pulling that nonsense out of your own ass.

But I know what this is really all about... you want my cookie and if you think you will get a single crumb of it should it magically appear on my desk without my having to go out into the cold to buy it expect to be shot right between the eyes TWICE because you obviously don't know me well enough at all when in comes to me and a cookie. Be warned - I have exceptional aim and a great love of chocolate chip cookies (despite your twisted logic about not caring).

Oh... and if you break in to steal any magically appearing cookies from my desk while I'm not looking, the penalty is to clean my toilet... inside and out (if the dog doesn't rip your ass off first... he also has a great love of anything edible - or what he imagines is edible).

There! Not only have I sufficiently refuted such a silly argument and personal unwarranted inferrences about me, I've protected any magically appearing cookies for my own enjoyment, and I might even get my toilet cleaned for me as well!

then you care about women and minorities as candidates. Since it is "totally unacceptable" to you to have white male rule forever, the logical conclusion is that a woman or minority candidate would be more than just "nice".

I hope you enjoyed your rant. Probably worked up an appetite for a cookie.

request TTW to be on MY side of the debate team :evilgrin: very well stated :hi:

Edit for :popcorn:

Much appreciated, and :hi: back at ya.

And if you find a chocolate chip cookie lurking at the bottom of your bag of popcorn could you pass it over here? I'd pay for it even. ;)

It's kind of weird that you didn't include that choice in the poll. Lol.

I couldn't answer "No," because you added "I can't support her" to that option, which totally invalidates the question you asked. Maybe DU needs a polling class. ;)

whether her gender is a litmus test for women on DU. Including more variables would have obscured that.

My suspicion is that, among Democratic female voters, the possibility of Hillary being the FIRST female president, will be a significant factor. Even on DU there are some who are voting that way.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How did the noun "woman" become an adjective and displace the perfectly good "female"? Washington wasn't your first "man president", but your first "male president". I first saw this construction in the media when Kim Campbell became the "first woman prime minister" of Canada. It should have been either the "first female prime minister", or the "first prime minister who is a woman".

Bugged me then; bugs me now.

BTW -- in case you're wondering -- per your instructions, I didn't vote in this poll, being a guy.

I don't vote on gender, race or religion. Just because Hillary is a female doesn't make her any more palatable than she was when she voted for the IWR. Had she come out a long time ago....2004?.... and said she regretted that vote, my opinion of her today would be quite different. IF she wins the Primary, I will work for her campaign and vote for her, but she's on the bottom of my list of worthy candidates. Clark (if he runs), Gore (if he runs), Obama and Kucinich come before anyone who voted for the IWR....Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry (if he runs) and Dodd, all of whom NOW regret that vote. WE TOLD THEM SO! Did they listen to that "radical Left Wing" of the party? NO.

she is also quite CONSERVATIVE.

This country NEEDS a progressive President...

And... what are we going to do, go from bush to clinton, from bush to clinton? Give me a fucking break? We need new blood

Now as a VEEP she is a good candidate and that will open them doors too

First, there's the introduction in which I'm asked if the possibility of helping elect the first woman president would influence my "ability" to vote for her in the primary. I'm *able* to vote in the Democratic primary because I'm registered as Democrat. I think you want to survey our willingness or inclination to vote for her.

Also, the first two choices refer to a) the "awesome" prospect of electing a woman (any woman?), and b) the "baggage" she carries. Whoever gets elected to the presidency in 2008 will have fearsome and terrible responsibilities. I doubt she views the prospect of actually being elected as awesome, and I certainly don't. The stakes are way too high for any but the sanest most serious candidates to be considered. It would be good for the country to elect a woman, and she may be the woman, but if she is elected, she will have to work twice as hard to earn half the respect as a man would.

And Sen. Clinton has very little baggage to carry if you consider what she has accomplished on her own merits. She's a delightfully clean candidate unless you want to lay her husband's sins on her or you believe the alarmists who think she has "enabled" her husband's waywardness.

I'm not trying to pick nits here, but if we are going to construct polls, we should avoid suggesting to the population we want to poll what they're already thinking. We're trying to find out what they're thinking, not tell them what's acceptable in the way of thought. The Republicans like to do that, and it always annoys me.

the gender.

If a rethug woman runs against a Democratic man, I would vote for the Democratic man - the fact that a woman is running is a good sign. Even a rethug woman being president would be a good sign in the feminist sense but I still wouldn't support her at all over it.

A woman president would be nice, but I would prefer someone more along the lines of Barbara Boxer.

Yes, this would be so awesome that I'll support her even if I may have some reservations?

Gee, I'm so stupid I'd support someone based on gender.

No, there's so much other baggage that I can't support her in the primary?

What's that got to do with her being a woman? If she has too much other baggage I assume women would not support her because of the baggage, NOT because of gender.

These are stupid choices you are offering and I find them insulting.

I will work my ass off for her. In the primaries I will support the candidate who most closely mirrors my own political beliefs...which are pretty far to the left. But once the nominee is chosen...I will support whoever it is. And if it's Hillary I will take an extra bit of delight in working to put the first woman in the Oval Office. :)

But leaning against her. The feminist part of me wants a woman President badly. The logical part of me says that she's got enough baggage to have her own baggage car on a train. If she can steer the conversation away from the "scandals" of her husband's administration and focus on the real issues, she'll have a chance.

and I wouldnt vote against her BECAUSE she's female.

She is a brilliant and astute politician. What a funny lopsided poll!

It will not be the Dem base that elects our next President, it will be the middle one third of voters. I honestly think that too many people will not vote for her because of her name and because of how much she was vilified when her husband was in the White House. I doubt she can win in the General election.

I also am really not happy with the way the media has pushed her on the Dems, either. I saw her photo on one of the news shows the other day with a caption something like "Dem Presidential Nominee front runner" or something similar to that. Just about made me ill. We don't even KNOW who all is gonna run and anything claiming one candidate or another is a "front runner" is nothing more than spin from someplace.

I went with "other" in that poll because out of pragmatism I will not support her. I could give a crap about her gender I just want somebody that can win.


Laura

Saying women will vote for Hillary is as stupid as saying all blacks will vote for Obama.

I will vote in the primary for the politican that best reflects my leanings. I'm not a Hillary fan, so I won't be supporting her in the primary season.

the one that gets most of the press, i don't think it's all her doing, i'm blaming some of it on the media.

as a true leader and one that earned the publics trust and respect. Hillary is taking advantage of her position as a former first Lady and riding on her husbands coat tails. Come back and ask me when she decides to run as Hillary Rodam.

her or not. Now I'm thinking not.

THOSE are two democratic women I would gladly
QUIT my job for and campaign FULL TIME if they
would announce.


DLC is a disqualification in my book.

Pro-war and Pro Big-Oil (synonyms right now)
are disqualifications.

I am against dynastic successions in the U.S.


That's just 3 of the strikes I have against her.

I like Hillary.
And she'd rock the presidency.
But there is no chance of America electing her. I hope the '08 election won't come down to that because the Republican will win.

I won't jinx things with a "mark my word", I just hope it won't come to that at all.

yes, i agree that the fact that she would be the first woman president should favorably influence my vote, and it would

i'm tired of women always getting second best