Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quite simply, there has not yet been a female candidate to come to the platform presenting enough quality in leadership, integrity and forward vision to secure a majority of electoral votes.
They're out there. Hillary is not one of them. I have no problem voting for who I feel could be the right woman for the job. The right women just hasn't 'run and won' yet, that's why.
American exceptionalism. And perhaps, the fact that America is/was a patriarch. Americans don't care what the rest of the world does or thinks. We're not interested in being like you, we are the superpower, you are not. We have our own political system that works (or worked) for us well enough. Now stop obsessing over us.
LOL. We're last in the developed world, and even behind several MUSLIM countries, and you call that "exceptionalism?"
Quite simply, there has not yet been a female candidate to come to the platform presenting enough quality in leadership, integrity and forward vision to secure a majority of electoral votes.
They're out there. Hillary is not one of them. I have no problem voting for who I feel could be the right woman for the job. The right women just hasn't 'run and won' yet, that's why.
Hillary is just so highly manufactured she is more of a product than a person to be president. She has the media and momentum behind her and she knows it, that's why she can make up stories and hide her emails from scrutiny.
She overshadows any other candidate. There are a couple principled 'real' women who can do the job without all the hype. Susana Martinez and Carly Fiorina come to mind.
This is just one of those accidents of history. I think Condi Rice could have run and won in 2008, but she didn't want any part of it. US Presidents are a small sample size. There has never been a female Teamster president either, but I don't see people up in arms about that.
Per OP question - because in no presidential election has a female been the nominee for either major party. Mondale and McCain both tried the VP trick, but in both cases (showing how non-partisan my history is) the VP nominee got savaged by the opposition and became an anchor around the neck of the POTUS nominee.
EDIT - and to echo others, a lot of the time, women ascend to national leadership after a male family member paves the way, which is THE ONLY REASON Hillary Clinton is relevant. She accomplished nothing as Senator minus great speeches and votes in favor of war with Iraq, and even more nothing as Secretary of State. She's been around politics long enough to have name recognition, but has actually accomplished very little. If she's elected President it will be because of three things:
Bill
her vajayjay
the stupidity and banality of American voters.
Any of the current crop of female governors is a better pick for the office, D or R, with Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Mary Fallin (R-OK) being the far and away best two of the entire bunch. But HRC has the name to go with the vajayjay, so apparently, that makes this her time.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 04-22-2015 at 10:40 AM..
the OP makes it sound like women have it bad in the U.S. because there hasn't been a female U.S. President while ignoring the women in the governorships, senate, house, Supreme Court in the federal and state levels.......the OP also ignores the many women in power in the private sector and CEOS making lots of money. In many 3rd world countries that is unheard of.
Women in the U.S. are doing very well regardless if we elect a female president or not,,,,that is not our measuring stick to evaluate how well women are doing.
Many countries who have a female top leader (figurehead) most women in those countries are doing very poor economically and socially. In Argentina they have a female socialist leader and she is darn awful with 40% inflation rate but they have to give her pass because she is a woman.
the OP makes it sound like women have it bad in the U.S. because there hasn't been a female U.S. President while ignoring the women in the governorships, senate, house, Supreme Court in the federal and state levels.......the OP also ignores the many women in power in the private sector and CEOS making lots of money. In many 3rd world countries that is unheard of.
Women in the U.S. are doing very well regardless if we elect a female president or not,,,,that is not our measuring stick to evaluate how well women are doing.
Many countries who have a female top leader (figurehead) most women in those countries are doing very poor economically and socially. In Argentina they have a female socialist leader and she is darn awful with 40% inflation rate but they have to give her pass because she is a woman.
Absolutely. Madeline Albright, Condoleezza are very influential names in recent decades.
If its absolutely needed just for the sake of it, Kate Upton is my choice. Even Putin will listen to her.
As a country which has seen strong advocacy for universal suffrage, women's rights and liberation, and a society which sees itself as progressive, it seems odd there has been no female president.
Many western democracies including Canada (Kim Campbell), the United Kingdom (Thatcher), Australia (Gillard) and New Zealand (Shipley and Clark), and a smattering of Scandinavian and European countries (Angela Merkel of Germany), have had one or two female leaders. Several Asian countries (Corazon Aquino of the Phillipines) have had female leaders, some have had several, or the same female leader more than once. This would include Indira Ghandi of India and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.
South American countries such as Argentina (Christina Fernandes de Kirchner and Evita Peron), and various African countries have all had female leaders.
Perhaps Pakistan is the most surprising as our image of Islamic states is that women typically have limited access to political rights.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton will be the first?
How many women have actually run? Hillary is the only one I know of so far, and her campaign fizzled. It's likely to fizzle again because of the numerous scandals and criminal behavior she has been involved in. She's a liar and a cheat. She cannot be trusted.
However, I see no reason why we have to have a female President. For what reason?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
