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.
I have a question. What does Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro have in common? They are all women who were canidates for high level national positions (President and VP). They also lost pretty badly (well Hillary did best out of them all). My question is that is a major reason why they lost is because of their gender? I know this may sound childish but just think about it. Now, I am an independent and didn't think Sarah Palin was the best canidate...but I definitely don't think she deserved the treatment she received. She had an impressive (too short) track record before the campaign. She fought a lot of corruption and did better than her predecessor Governor Murkowski. Now I sorta liked her but don't agree with all her policies. I think another thing that hurt her besides her inexperience and being unprepared was her conservative views. Now Hillary on the other hand was completely qualified to be president. Now I know she is doing well and has a high position, but she was appointed...not elected by the people of this country. The media was kinda hard on her too, but not as much as Palin. I think things would've been better if Hillary would've been president. Bill Clinton may have hurt her, not sure. Hillary had a lot more experience than Barack Obama and is strong, smart and prepared. Now I don't know much about Geraldine Ferraro but I know that her and Walter Mondale lost miserably to Reagan in 1984. I was a baby then but I am curious as to why all these women lost and I really think it had to do with their gender (well gender, inexperience, media bashing, and difficult to deal with press like Couric, and conservative policies for Palin). Please elaborate on this, especially with Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
Also will a woman ever be President or Vice President? What does it take for a woman to be ELECTED for a top national position like this?
If ever there was a time when a woman could have been elected President, it was in 2008. In fact, Hillary herself thought it was a foregone conclusion. I am of the absolute belief that she didn't divorce Bill Clinton over the highly embarrassing Lewinski scandal because she knew full well that a political career outside the coat-tail of the former President would be nearly impossible. Afterall, who knew or cared about Hillary Clinton until she and Bill burst onto the national scene in 1992? So she stayed with Bill, carpet-bagged her way into the New York politcal scene, and was all but ready for that "3 am call" until she was blind-sided by HopeyChangeyNess. The political winds just didn't blow in her favor, and personally I think she's done after 4 years with Obama.
Will there ever be a female President? Yes, I think there will be. But to be completely honest, I believe the American people are seeing that stepping outside of the norm (ie. electing Barack Obama) is a risky move. And as a result, I think it will be along time before there's another black President, or a woman, holding the world's most powerful position again. As much as they are despised in this society, old white men have ushered in the most powerful and prosperous nation in the history of the world, and I expect it will stay that way for a long time to come.
In the case of Geraldine Ferraro, the issue wasn't gender, the issue was Walter Mondale.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that there were a number of issues that lead to her defeat, however gender wasn't one of them.
As for Sarah Palin... she contributed a great deal to the defeat of John McCain who was already handicapped by the two terms of George Bush. However, had McCain run with a credible woman candidate, it is quite conceivable that he would have carried the day.
I don't think that gender will keep a woman out of the White House in the future, if they are perceived as a credible candidate. Unfortunately, the only women who presently possess the grativas and experience to lead a successful campaign for the presidency, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (66) , Hillary (62), Kathleen Sebellius (61), would be on the have age issues in 2012 (Hutchinson) or 2016 in the case of any Democratic female candidate.
I have a question. What does Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro have in common? They are all women who were canidates for high level national positions (President and VP). They also lost pretty badly (well Hillary did best out of them all). My question is that is a major reason why they lost is because of their gender? I know this may sound childish but just think about it. Now, I am an independent and didn't think Sarah Palin was the best canidate...but I definitely don't think she deserved the treatment she received. She had an impressive (too short) track record before the campaign. She fought a lot of corruption and did better than her predecessor Governor Murkowski. Now I sorta liked her but don't agree with all her policies. I think another thing that hurt her besides her inexperience and being unprepared was her conservative views. Now Hillary on the other hand was completely qualified to be president. Now I know she is doing well and has a high position, but she was appointed...not elected by the people of this country. The media was kinda hard on her too, but not as much as Palin. I think things would've been better if Hillary would've been president. Bill Clinton may have hurt her, not sure. Hillary had a lot more experience than Barack Obama and is strong, smart and prepared. Now I don't know much about Geraldine Ferraro but I know that her and Walter Mondale lost miserably to Reagan in 1984. I was a baby then but I am curious as to why all these women lost and I really think it had to do with their gender (well gender, inexperience, media bashing, and difficult to deal with press like Couric, and conservative policies for Palin). Please elaborate on this, especially with Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
Also will a woman ever be President or Vice President? What does it take for a woman to be ELECTED for a top national position like this?
I thought people were unnecessarily tough on Palin, but I really dislike her scare tactics and hate speeches. I thought she was at least going to be classy. That whole announcing her plan to run in 2012 before McCain lost seemed really tacky to me. I thought he deserved better than that.
In the case of Geraldine Ferraro, the issue wasn't gender, the issue was Walter Mondale.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that there were a number of issues that lead to her defeat, however gender wasn't one of them.
As for Sarah Palin... she contributed a great deal to the defeat of John McCain who was already handicapped by the two terms of George Bush. However, had McCain run with a credible woman candidate, it is quite conceivable that he would have carried the day.
I don't think that gender will keep a woman out of the White House in the future, if they are perceived as a credible candidate. Unfortunately, the only women who presently possess the grativas and experience to lead a successful campaign for the presidency, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (66) , Hillary (62), Kathleen Sebellius (61), would be on the have age issues in 2012 (Hutchinson) or 2016 in the case of any Democratic female candidate.
I watched Keith Olberman during his show about Ferraro's comments about Obama's race and how that is helping him..and Keith said that Ferraro helped Mondale loose 48 (I believe?) states to Reagan. So her being on the ticket did hurt Mondale...and I agree about Kay Hutchinson and Hillary. Now sure about Sebellius. But I don't think McCain could have won because of the large turnout of young people, blacks and hispanics who voted for Obama. It showed in my state in 2008 but for the 2009 governor election, very few young people and minorities came out. McCain just didn't connect with the majority of Americans unlike Obama.
In the case of Geraldine Ferraro, the issue wasn't gender, the issue was Walter Mondale.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that there were a number of issues that lead to her defeat, however gender wasn't one of them.
As for Sarah Palin... she contributed a great deal to the defeat of John McCain who was already handicapped by the two terms of George Bush. However, had McCain run with a credible woman candidate, it is quite conceivable that he would have carried the day.
I don't think that gender will keep a woman out of the White House in the future, if they are perceived as a credible candidate. Unfortunately, the only women who presently possess the grativas and experience to lead a successful campaign for the presidency, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (66) , Hillary (62), Kathleen Sebellius (61), would be on the have age issues in 2012 (Hutchinson) or 2016 in the case of any Democratic female candidate.
Sebelius sealed her fate the day she took over as a henchman for Barack Obama. All you have to do is listen to the woman talk; all she needs are a few strings attached to her and she'd be a bonafide puppet. That is, of course, assuming that liberals have the ability to decipher bullsh*t from fact.
In the case of Geraldine Ferraro, the issue wasn't gender, the issue was Walter Mondale.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that there were a number of issues that lead to her defeat, however gender wasn't one of them.
As for Sarah Palin... she contributed a great deal to the defeat of John McCain who was already handicapped by the two terms of George Bush. However, had McCain run with a credible woman candidate, it is quite conceivable that he would have carried the day.
I don't think that gender will keep a woman out of the White House in the future, if they are perceived as a credible candidate. Unfortunately, the only women who presently possess the grativas and experience to lead a successful campaign for the presidency, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (66) , Hillary (62), Kathleen Sebellius (61), would be on the have age issues in 2012 (Hutchinson) or 2016 in the case of any Democratic female candidate.
you are partly right, but certainly not totally:: yes, gender still plays a part and Ferraro was way before her time. And all those you mentioned do have age against them, plus Katheen probably would never be a serious contender regardless.
I have a question. What does Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro have in common? They are all women who were canidates for high level national positions (President and VP). They also lost pretty badly (well Hillary did best out of them all). My question is that is a major reason why they lost is because of their gender? I know this may sound childish but just think about it. Now, I am an independent and didn't think Sarah Palin was the best canidate...but I definitely don't think she deserved the treatment she received. She had an impressive (too short) track record before the campaign. She fought a lot of corruption and did better than her predecessor Governor Murkowski. Now I sorta liked her but don't agree with all her policies. I think another thing that hurt her besides her inexperience and being unprepared was her conservative views. Now Hillary on the other hand was completely qualified to be president. Now I know she is doing well and has a high position, but she was appointed...not elected by the people of this country. The media was kinda hard on her too, but not as much as Palin. I think things would've been better if Hillary would've been president. Bill Clinton may have hurt her, not sure. Hillary had a lot more experience than Barack Obama and is strong, smart and prepared. Now I don't know much about Geraldine Ferraro but I know that her and Walter Mondale lost miserably to Reagan in 1984. I was a baby then but I am curious as to why all these women lost and I really think it had to do with their gender (well gender, inexperience, media bashing, and difficult to deal with press like Couric, and conservative policies for Palin). Please elaborate on this, especially with Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
Also will a woman ever be President or Vice President? What does it take for a woman to be ELECTED for a top national position like this?
Besides being Bill Clinton's wife, what stellar qualifications does Hillary Clinton have?
Sarah Palin took on corruption in her home state and proved herself to be a competent and honest leader, and, of the three, she is the only one who has ever run anything. We are seeing now how a lack of a track record as a leader is a good indication of future failure in a leadership position. I will agree with Hillary that the office of president doesn't lend itself to on the job training.
The biggest problem Sarah Palin had in the last election was being joined to McCain's wagon. I like McCain and find him to be a trustworthy moderate, but long-serving Senators don't get elected president because they always have too much old political baggage. They get hammered with negative ads like McCain did and Kerry and Gore did before him. McCain was also hurt by his age. Most voters are reluctant to vote for a presidential candidate who is past his or her prime. Race, on the other hand, actually helped BO.
We have yet to see what Ms. Palin has in store. The book comes out in a few days and she is doing the talk shows. I hope she runs in 2012 because I am so sick and tired of being lied to by slick Washington insiders who throw us under the bus every chance they get. It would be nice to have a leader with integerty in the White House for a change as well.
I have a question. What does Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro have in common? They are all women who were canidates for high level national positions (President and VP). They also lost pretty badly (well Hillary did best out of them all). My question is that is a major reason why they lost is because of their gender? I know this may sound childish but just think about it. Now, I am an independent and didn't think Sarah Palin was the best canidate...but I definitely don't think she deserved the treatment she received. She had an impressive (too short) track record before the campaign. She fought a lot of corruption and did better than her predecessor Governor Murkowski. Now I sorta liked her but don't agree with all her policies. I think another thing that hurt her besides her inexperience and being unprepared was her conservative views. Now Hillary on the other hand was completely qualified to be president. Now I know she is doing well and has a high position, but she was appointed...not elected by the people of this country. The media was kinda hard on her too, but not as much as Palin. I think things would've been better if Hillary would've been president. Bill Clinton may have hurt her, not sure. Hillary had a lot more experience than Barack Obama and is strong, smart and prepared. Now I don't know much about Geraldine Ferraro but I know that her and Walter Mondale lost miserably to Reagan in 1984. I was a baby then but I am curious as to why all these women lost and I really think it had to do with their gender (well gender, inexperience, media bashing, and difficult to deal with press like Couric, and conservative policies for Palin). Please elaborate on this, especially with Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
Also will a woman ever be President or Vice President? What does it take for a woman to be ELECTED for a top national position like this?
Hillary did the best of all? Hillary didn't secure the nomination, but the other two did, so I think it would be more accurate to say that Hillary was the most ambitious, seeking the highest office, not that she was the most successful.
Besides being Bill Clinton's wife, what stellar qualifications does Hillary Clinton have?
Sarah Palin took on corruption in her home state and proved herself to be a competent and honest leader, and, of the three, she is the only one who has ever run anything. We are seeing now how a lack of a track record as a leader is a good indication of future failure in a leadership position. I will agree with Hillary that the office of president doesn't lend itself to on the job training.
The biggest problem Sarah Palin had in the last election was being joined to McCain's wagon. I like McCain and find him to be a trustworthy moderate, but long-serving Senators don't get elected president because they always have too much old political baggage. They get hammered with negative ads like McCain did and Kerry and Gore did before him. McCain was also hurt by his age. Most voters are reluctant to vote for a presidential candidate who is past his or her prime. Race, on the other hand, actually helped BO.
We have yet to see what Ms. Palin has in store. The book comes out in a few days and she is doing the talk shows. I hope she runs in 2012 because I am so sick and tired of being lied to by slick Washington insiders who throw us under the bus every chance they get. It would be nice to have a leader with integerty in the White House for a change as well.
I'm wondering if Sarah's most appealing quality may be her vacuity.
It helped both her and GWB garner votes from rednecks.
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.
