This is not a plug for the new TV show, "Commander-In-Chief" where Geena Davis is elected as the first woman President of the United States, but it does allow us to ponder the possibility.

Two things every Chief Executive had in common is that they have all been white and male. Not bashing white guys, but so many other nations have elected women and people of color to the top job. What's up with the U.S.? We lead in so many "firsts." When are we going to break up the presidential boys club?

The questions for debate?

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.

A woman without a doubt. Black or Hispanic, highly unlikely. But a Woman, such as Hillary Clinton is not impossible in a near future. But an Atheist, never, but this is not a minority so




In the U.S? Ehm, a none American? Arnold? I dont know, anyone that is not american, this would really help american society. A "New American" so to speak would be very suitable. But I dont know of any.

1. I would like to see a woman to be elected as president, or somebody from Hispanic/Afro-American decent, but I doubt that this will happen soon. The good-old-boys network is still too strong for any minority or woman to ever get to the top of the two biggest parties. Politics has always been a (white) mans world. Change is already occuring but I think it will take a long struggle before the white man will let go of his privileged position.

2. Difficult one. I do not have enough information to answer this question. Hillary Clinton is not likely to ever get elected (U.S. opinion of Hillary is in general negative, as far as I can tell) I always liked Madelyn Albright. Maybe she would be a good choice as first female president. She is a tough one, good at international politics and overal an intelligent woman.

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?

Eventually maybe, but I think men will always hold the majority of political offices. They just seem to be more into this sort of thing...

I mean (not to be sexist or anything), you'll notice about 80% of the people in these forums, are men.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.

Hillary. I think shes a bit more frank then most politicians, somewhat like her husband (mind you, most of what i've heard from her husband, has come after he left his office).

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.

As a non-American I can probably best answer this by referring to the international precedents that you mentioned in your preamble.

I think a woman is pretty likely in the next 15 years or so. It might be cool to see Hillary Clinton stand against a Republican woman (Condy Rice?) for the next presidential election, but I'm not sure how likely that is. Still, Clinton would still be young enough to run in 2012 or even 2016, so maybe it might happen.

I say this because there is plenty of international precendent in first world democracies (and elsewhere, right into poorer countries) for women presidents and prime ministers, going back some years. Examples would incude Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Benazir Bhutto, and Helen Clark. It remians to be seen, but Angela Merkel may yet lead Germany. There are enough examples that we can see that female leaders are as likely to be good (or bad, or corrupt - Ms Bhutto take note!) as their male counteparts.

On minority religion, race, and sexual orientation, there are fewer international precedents.

Off the top of my head, the only first world religious minority I can think of was Benjamin Disraeli as British Prime Minister in the 19th Century, and he was a converted Christian, and despite his "Jewish" looks he was white, so he doesn't really count as a racial minority leader.

The only racial minority leader I can think of was the Japanese guy who was President of Chile (?) in the 1980s/90s. I don't think there has been one yet in the first world (unless Disraeli counts, and that was a LOONG time ago).

And, as far as I know, there have been no homosexual elected leaders in any modern state - certainly not openly homosexual. The ancient Greeks probably had a few, and some English Kings may have been privately gay, but this doesn't really mean anything for gay politicians today.

There are quite a few openly gay MPs at Westminster now. Maybe not so many that they reflect the wider population, but there are certainly prominent members (absolutely no pun intended) on both sides of the house that are openly gay, and it doesn't seem to have harmed their careers. (Where their careers have been harmed, it's usually by not toeing the government line, or by being dishonest about their government business. Yes, you, Mr Mandelson.) Maybe Britain will have a gay PM at some point in the next 30 years?

Going back to America, and the debate questions, I think it's pretty likely there will be a woman president inside the next 20-30 years.

There may be a racial minority president inside the next 50 years, and my guess is that he or she will be Hispanic. However, given the projected demographic prediction of Hispanic majority inside that time frame, it may well be the case that the first racial minority president in US history will be a WASP.

As for gays, I don't think that there will be an openly gay president in my lifetime. For goodness' sake, even the liberal debauchery that is Hollywood doesn't think America can cope with openly gay American actors (though it doesn't seem to mind foreign gay actors too much). Out gay actors either have to settle for playing camp their whole careers, or they have to leave America (e.g. John Barrowman, who maybe isn't the best example since he was born in the UK, and has a British partner, but I reckon if it was easy for him to stay who he is and make a career in America where he grew up, he'd be doing it.) I can't think of single major American actor making his living in Hollywood who is openly gay, and the only one I've ever even heard of - Rock Hudson - was only outed when his AIDS was already killing him.

So I don't see any likelihood of a gay president this century, if even then.

I think it is much more likely that a minority male will be elected before any female. First and foremost, there aren't so many adequate female candidates to choose from. Hillary and Condi? I'd choose Condi, but please don't place me in a position in which I would have to.

It's difficult enough to find any worthwhile candidate who has a chance of winning without limiting it along gender or minority lines. Honestly, look at the last election. Not that I wouldn't like to see it. I would vote for Powell if he ran, but I highly doubt he would. Obama? I don't know enough about him. I'd vote for him over Hillary, though....

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?
As far as women, it's hard to say. Most likely not in 2008, since the only possibility I know of is Hillary Clinton. As much as she would like to pretend otherwise, she leans far to the left, and will have a difficult time gaining popular support.

I agree with A left Handed person's comment. There are vastly more males than females who want the office. That makes it more difficult to find a female who can gain public support.

As far as racial minorities I would have to say yes, eventually. Again, no likely prospects for 2008, but possibly in 2012.

I'm confident that we'll elect either a woman or a minority within the next 25 years.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.
Frankly, I don't even consider race or gender when evaluating candidates. There is no one person I would like to see elected on the basis of them being female or of a minority. There are certainly people in these groups who I would approve of.

I have a problem with affirmative action in any form, and especially if it is used (even on a voluntary basis) for public office.

1. I'd actually have to say that the minority/woman card will probably be played long prior to the US expecting it to happen. Frankly, in order for the DNC to break the republican strong hold, I think it's going to take more than a little "Tom Delay scandal". If I were a DNC strategist, I'd have my hands in every pot that Hillary stirs. I believe that conservative America is probably not going to embrace any liberal candidates, but a woman or minority could garner the swing vote. There are probably a number of women and minorities that would vote for a woman/minority simply because of his/her gender or race (sadly). This could apply to Obama, Hillary, or even Condi.

2. Of course I'd love to see C. Rice get elected, as it might aid in the GOP's quest for minority votes (actually, I'm sure it would) as well as elect someone I believe shares some of the same values that I do...not to mention she's probably one of the brightest stars Washington has seen in years (literally... Slick Willy and GW aren't the sharpest crayons in the box).

She has a Dr. of Political Science, has had a successful corporate career (serving on numerous boards), has started community org's, started college at 15, has been published in foreign affairs numerous times, and most importantly was born in the south during some of America's toughest times.

I think she's most likely to not run, but would be nearly as good a candidate as Colin Powell (even less likely to run)...

Yes, and we will do so when an American woman who isn't a hardcore conservative or hardcore liberal runs. So that rules out Hillary and Condi. I don't think that we haven't elected a woman as President because she's a woman [at least that hasn't been the reason for a while] but because there are simply no women in Congress who we would trust to run the country. I mean, look around. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Senator Mrs. Dole...I wouldn't trust them to be my President, and not because they're women, just for the same reasons why I wouldn't elect Joe Lieberman or any other person I don't think is qualified to be the Prez. As for minorities, I offer essentially the same answer, pick a minority that would be a popular Presidential candidate...Obama? He's what? 19 years-old? Charlie Rangel, perhaps? No, what about Senator Martinez from Florida? See where I'm coming from?


Colin Powell is the only one I can think of immediately...I don't like Condi, I despise Hillary and Boxer...I dislike Rangel more than Kennedy, Obama's too liberal and I know nothing about Martinez. I really do hope that a pro-liberty minority or woman does come up through the political ranks, because I would gladly vote for him/her.

CP

As usual I'll come down with the heavy hand on this one.

Women form the majority in this country and the fact that as of yet, no women have held many of the top offices including president, VP, Sec. of Defense, Chief Justice etc.

and, of course the fact that as of yet there are the tiniest handful of women even in the Senate.


Says something is deeply wrong with gender and politics in America.

Iraq has a parliament better reflecting their gender distribution that we do.

I don't think it can all be chalked up to chance. Women in America are socialized from a young age to "understand" that they do not belong in positions of power and this has only recently begun to change.

Don't even get me started on the dearth of ethnic minorities in power, the gender gap is proof enough that the system is flawed.

..and I second the nomination of Madeline Albright, she certainly seems to have what it takes.

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?

I think America will elect a women or a minority President soon. I don;t think an openly gay candidate is in the offing any time soon. Catholic aside, religious minority isn't real likely but it is possible, this is America after all. I think the conservative side has the most to gain by finding credible black and female candidates. I wonder how many African Americans would have voted for Colin Powell? The same is true for women. For democrats a black of woman candidate would be like rallying the base instead of capturing new ground.

Aside from all of the flack the Geena Davis has been taking in her new promos by being a women and stepping into a fictional presidency, I think being a female or a minority is presently a political plus, not a negative.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.

This is one of those questions my liberal heart gets all stumped by. Then I take a breath and realize the I can't think of many people at all that I think would make good presidents.

I think Barak Obama is on a good track right now to get consideration. I have been impressed by Harold Ford Jr. and that is hard because he comes from a city (Memphis) and a family that has plenty of corruption and ethics issues.

I don't think Hillary has the right stuff. She has the same personality problems Bob Dole did. Boxer or Feinstein might have a better shot of the existing high office holders. I think Anne Richardson of Texas was great. Christine Todd Whitman was in the Obama seat a while ago, she got befuddled by her stint in the EPA.

I have grown to really, really, distrust and dislike Condoleeza Rice as a candidate. I don't think she can create that common touch for an election and I think she adheres to dangerous policies.

I think the political parties are thirsty for these candidates to step forward and rally a block of voters behind us.

Personally, I would love to see the Georgia Democrat John Lewis to step forward and run. He was such a good MLK type voice in the Civil Rights movement, I always wonder why he stays so low-key in national politics.

Bio

He survived Jim Crow and Stokely Carmichael, he can survive a national political race.

Forgive all of the misspelled names. At least I spelled misspelled right (I think )

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President? I think eventually some kind of minority is bound to be elected president but I don't know how soon. It seems like it's really difficult for anyone to be elected president so just from a statistical point of view minorities have a distinct disadvantage. Hardly any non protestant white men have even been nominated. Al Smith, JFK and John Kerry were catholic, Barry Goldwater was ethnically Jewish but a practicing Christian, Taft was over 300 pounds, that's a minority.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President. I think the minority most likely to be president and the minority I'd most like to see elected is Barrack Obama. If the Democrats have any sense he'll be the 2008 vice-presidential nominee or even the presidential nominee. He seems incredibly qualified, intelligent and has a uniting quality that makes him very unhateable. I think the country is ready for a president who isn't hated passionately by half the country.

To answer my own questions...

1. I hold out hope...faint and flickering...but hope nevertheless, that SOMEDAY America will elect a woman or a Black person, a Latino person, a Asian person, a Jewish person, a openly gay person or any combination of choices (a Latino Jewish lesbian?) in my lifetime, but I'm afraid I'll be in my sunset years propped up in a chair watching soap operas before it happens. I'm hoping my kids won't have to wait so long.

2. I keep reading the name Condoleeza Rice as a possible presidential candidate. Well, she's easily more qualified than her boss, but personally instead of running Hillary against her in 2008, I'd run Condoleeza's cousin, Constance Rice instead. Connie is every bit as liberal as Condi is conservative.

Connie Rice is renowned for her unconventional approaches to tackling problems of inequity and exclusion. For example, she has teamed up with conservatives on education issues and LAPD officers to support the Watts gang truce. Rice has received more than 50 major awards for her leadership of diverse coalitions, and her non-traditional approaches to litigating major cases involving police misconduct, employment discrimination and fair public resource allocation. She received the 2001 Peace Prize from the California Wellness Foundation and the 2002 John Anson Ford Humanitarian Award from Los Angeles County. She successfully co-litigated class-action, civil rights cases winning more than $1.6 billion in policy changes and remedies during her nine year tenure in the Los Angeles office of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF).

Part of the problem is I think we need to start thinking outside the box when it comes to deciding who is qualified to become the President of the United States. Where is it written that only lawyers, military men and professional politicians can make be president?

Why not a historian or a doctor or a scientist or a CEO? What about a educator or a businesswoman? Who says a artist, novelist or (gulp) a actor couldn't do the job just as well as some of the dull-wits, half-wits and nitwits who've been president?

Not me. If we want a more diverse pool of candidates for the presidency maybe we should pick from more diverse realms than just politicians all the time.

I'm just taking a wild guess here, but I went with the majority and said about 25 years.

1. "Ever"? Well, sure, unless the United States ceases to exists as an entity within the next few centuries. I think Julian is on the right track, and that the most probable non-WASP President in the future would be a male Hispanic (probably Catholic) moderate/populist.

Openly gay or bi-sexual: Not a chance in hell, for the next century or so. Sad but true.

Openly agnostic or atheist: See above comment. Ditto for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and other theists outside of the American mainstream.

Jewish: Unlikely, but only because Jews are a very small minority in the United States. (One source I have says 2.2% of the American population.) I think that Judaism would not be much of a disadvantage.

African-American or Asian-American or Native American or Female: Maybe.

2. Since I'm building castles in the air, how about a Green Lady:

Pat LaMarche

I really hate to take the wind out of your sails turnea, but with Albright at the helm of the State Department, Osama bin Laden ran wild throughout the Middle East (he attacked us 5 times during her reign), the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes under her nose (post 1994 Clinton treaty), and we staged a pre-emptive attack solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people by Albright about a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the United States. Slobodan Milosevic wasn't even a latent, long-term, hypothetical threat. How is that what it takes?

Frankly, that's a pretty cruddy track record if you ask me....

I hate to burst the bubble, but politics and the presidential race are oft a long-term project undertaken by professional politicians whom have garnered a track record of success (in whatever form it may present itself). These people aren't in boy-bands with overnight success.

At the same time, the process boils down to comfort levels and the number of people voting; which requires a certain amount of "mainstream Christian" Americans to place their votes for said candidate. Is that really "sad"? Not really, as elections are just as the name would suggest, a reflection of the majority of the US. Until Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and other theists become a larger part of the fabric of the American blanket, they probably won't win large elections. Like it or not, this is the inherent nature of democracy.

Albright was Sec. of State.

It was not her job to determine priorities concerning terrorism. Her job was to ensure good communication between the US and the rest of the world and she did so, within the bounds of the policy directions set by the President extremely well.

She was tough (she coined the term "regime change" to refer to US policy in Iraq) and yet she was still well respected around the world.

...and engaging in a Humanitarian action to remove Milosevic doesn't require a threat to the US. He was a threat to millions of people who were not equipped to protect themselves.

I thought you like the idea of humanitarian actions...

Actually... that's incorrect to a distinct point.
Some of her duties from the state dept site were:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/96.htm

-Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries (which would've included stopping the terrorist acts on the USS Cole, the Foreign Embassies, the Saudi Bases, etc)

- Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements (in which case we should've backed out of the treaty w/ N Korea long before GW's term, as they were admittedly making nukes in the mid 90's, just after we supplied them w/ materials)

-Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States (how long were the 9/11 terrorists on our soil again?)

- Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries (if we went to Kosovo based upon a humanitarian aid mission, why not Rwanda?)

Again- Madeline Albright, being a part of the Clinton Administration was portrayed by the media as a competent leader, but failed as a practice.

That directive is for private citizens and government workers.

I am almost certain that providing safety for military personnel falls under DoD.

That leaves the embassy attacks, and really what was she supposed to do? Didn't we have a diplomat shot dead in the Middle East just a couple of years ago?

You may fault her of security concerns, but over all embassies were kept safe.

I won't argue her job was perfect, but she managed that which she was able to control quite well.

She couldn't do more or less than what Clinton told her to.

it's like blaming Colin Powell for difficulties in Iraq.

Wrong Department.

Last time I checked, the military is paid by our tax dollars and are American citizens. In this case, a good leader would've made an attempt to get to the root of the terrorist acts. In addition, our Embassies were attacked in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, in which cases nothing was done. You also never addressed my discussion of the N Korean treaty (and its inherently flawed nature), and are dodging the point.

One of the most dangerous nations in the world has nuclear capabilities of which primarily came from US involvement on her watch.

Second- The secretary of defense's website states:
The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council.

My question to you, turnea, is what did she do right?.... Kosovo was a disaster, the NK treaty was a disaster, and her handling of Iraq was even worse... (we all have heard the quote about 1/2 million Iraqi children- but here it is again) http://www.xs4all.nl/~peace/pubeng/inter/aa.html

Can we say these things about Condi??? Of course not... but she's republican and black- who want's her? (*again-tongue in cheek*)

Sorry Aeveans176 but I have problems with the way you are portraying Madelyn Albright. It looks like slander to me. (the kind of bias I constantly see when the Clinton administration enters a discussion.) Obviously you do not like her, that's fine. But your arguments against her are not very convincing.



You know what..... he is still running wild and in the last five years his followers have killed more Americans then ever before. It shows that it is extremely difficult to catch that guy and to fight terrorism in the world. This is not something you can blame on Albright!



Tell me what would you have done to prevent this? North-Korea is one of the most seclusive, brutal and dangerous countries in the world with more than enough fighting power. A military campagn would have been disastrous, economic sanctions don't scare them. Weak argument to discredit Albright for not being able to do something about the NK menace.



Hmmmmm Were did I hear this one before ..... Preemptive strike on false information ... a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the U.S .... These are almost standard arguments/rethorics normally used by people who are against the invasion of Iraq. (I hope you didn't support the invasion, cause otherwise your whole argument is gone. )



Oh no? He lived and fought a very dirty war at Europe's doorstep. His actions in the nineties (apart from all the horrendous killings and violence) could have triggered destability in other parts of Europe / Eastern Europe. Maybe eventually causing another big war on the European continent. And a war in Europe is not something that is profitable for the U.S.. U.S. support in the pre-emptive strike, aproved by the U.N., was completely justified.

All for not getting bogged down in the tangents, what we were discussing was likely the making of three separate threads unrelated to the primary thrust of this one.

To the original point I'll like to shed more light on my original comment because I think it goes to the heart of this debate.

As a few posters have already noted, the difficulty with coming up with qualified females to run for the presidency is certainly notable.

When you compare this to the less than a handful of female Senators and the track record of no Woman being either President or VP, or Senate Leader, or Speaker of the House.

In other words, not even being in the line of succession simply screams that something is wrong in the underlying factors here.

It is no coincidence that the gender to which the majority Americans belongs is drastically under-represented in American political structure.

It been a "long" time since women won the right to vote. Certainly long enough to see some results and yet...

I argue that the socialization young girls receive send them the message that they do not "belong" in the corridors of power and that's something we desperately need to work on.

I personally believe that even someone that isn't a professional politician might do well. What about some women CEO's that might have the nation back on track, with a balanced budget (but of course- a stronge defense for us true republicans!) and less partisanship? Sure, gritty old Generals would need to still head the military... but I think something could be learned from a woman that's been at the head of the board room (and the work that it probably took to get there!)

Consider the CEO of Ebay, Meg Whitman (what a genius!) or maybe even the CEO of Radio One- Catherine Elizabeth "Cathy" Hughes- the first black woman to head a firm publicly traded on a stock exchange in the United States... I imagine that these women built successful businesses and have employed "real Americans"... as opposed to going to school on Daddy's ticket or spending their lives in Washington bureaucratic positions.

Who knows something about "real life"? Someone that has lived it...

This is an interesting thought aevans176. It is one I'm sure would work well across the board. That is, I'm sure the standard should be applied equally to men and women. Life experiences as a major part of every resume works for me.

Why then hasn't this standard have been applied to George W. Bush, who has gotten where he as much as anyone by riding "Daddy's ticket?"

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?

I see no barrier to someone from some of those categories being elected now. The problem is finding someone like that with an impressive enough resume and the desire to do it. Colin Powell would have an easy time winning the general election, but he's too centrist to win either party's nomination and doesn't seem all that interested. Right now Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice are both plausible candidates, and I'd certainly say they're both able enough. Hillary is unacceptable to me for ideological reasons, but I'd vote for Condi.

Will it happen in 2008? I don't know, my crystal ball is in the shop, but it could. If Hillary and Condi are both nominated, we'll have a woman President for sure, and if so, I'd bet on it being both a woman and a minority.

Condi is a lot more likely than most people think because IMO Dick Morris' analysis is correct: she's the best Republican to run against Hillary if you're trying to win, and I'm sure the GOP wants to win. Hillary's not a sure thing though - if the anti-Iraq war sentiment heats up too much she could be in the position of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and if so, she might not be able to win the nomination.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.

As I said, I'd vote for Condi. I voted for Tonie Nathan (LP) for Veep in 1972, and she was the first woman to ever receive an electoral vote, beating Ferraro by 12 years. I also very much liked former Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA), but now that she's retired I guess that's not going to happen. I'm not impressed with most other women in American politics right now, but if we took aevans176's suggestion and looked to the CEOs I'm sure we could find some.

From the minority category (aside from Condi and Colin), I like talk radio host Larry Elder and economist Walter E. Williams, both of whom are conservative libertarians like myself and possible LP candidates. As with women, we may need to look to the corporate sector -- or maybe the military -- to find more, because most of the ones currently in politics don't impress me. Well, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) is a pretty impressive guy, but he's a Democrat and that just doesn't work for me, barring desperation. I don't guess Rudy Giuliani counts as a minority, but I don't think we've had an Italian President yet.

Ummm...BOF, because Elitism in the Whitehouse is the rule as opposed to the exception.

Consider the Rockefellers, Kennedys, LBJ, Clinton, Bush sr, etc

Contemporary exceptions are hard to find. Maybe Reagan, Nixon, and Carter would be good examples.

What I'm saying is that someone who's had to fight the odds to make and hasn't made their living in politics might be a good choice. Ronald Reagan for instance, came from meager beginnings and had a successful civilian career before finding his way into the whitehouse.

I believe that someone who's made an American dynasty (such as Ebay) understands making logical and well planned decisions, as well as the value of objectivity. I would imagine that their work-ethic (especially a woman CEO) and tenacity would be a welcome addition to the Presidency as well.... and possibly restore the credibility that G-Dub and Slick Willy have flushed down the drains...

I dont think its difficult to come up with qualified female candidates. I think its difficult to find females that would want the job. Firstly, having their entire lives scrutinized, especially if it comes to past sexual exploits (which will be much more a factor with females) and questions of handling the job and family, again something they dont ask men. Ceo's of major companies are making a great deal of money without the hassle, so where is the trade off? The Presidency just doesnt pay that well if one is not already from political families that set themselves and their friends up for life, which really might be the anithesis and reason for having a female President.

Political families have held their women under a kind of gag-order to the political men for a long time. Remember Hillary's " you dont expect me to have tea and bake cookies' comment was received as outlandish, however she has broken down quite a few stereotypes, despite that she suffered being called a lesbian for a long time.

Its just harder for a woman to consider going for the Presidency, or even for public office, not because of 'conditioning' of their minds; power structures have long broken down to include women, many who have known they were qualified long before anyone else accepted the fact, but because of the backwards nature of much of the public (that strong women just need a good bang to get them in line or are lesbians, or are too emotional for the job), the double standard affecting women for high office and the cruelty of the press. And again , why give up a half a million or several million dollars a year to get grey and turn into a stressed out hag? Washington is no cake-walk for anyone.

(IE: For example. My man asked the question of a woman President at his job, a mostly male field. The response was, 'it would be ok if she took a few days off per month', referring to menstruation of course) We have many in this country that think this way.

I dont know any female Id put up for Presidencial election at this time. I would vote for Hillary depending on who she'd be running against, but I think she is not electable in the country today, maybe in 2012. I might vote for Condi even, but right now because she thinks Bush is so great Id be less inclined. I seriously question her judgement and possibility of being pushed around much as he has. Its something Ive never understood about her. Shes 20 times brighter than Bush, but has not excelled beyond being a Bush lapdog and a pandered about mouthpiece and has not anywhere achieved her potential by being so.

Menstrual cycles aside my dear Artemise, while you have illustrated a few of the numerous drawbacks of being the POTUS, I disagree that they should discourage women from the taking on the task. There are numerous women not named Hillary or Condoleeza that could step into the White House right now and do a better job than the current alpha male dripping testosterone all over the joint.

You're right that the presidency isn't a particularly well-paying gig though it's got some perks no CEO in the world can match. What it comes down to is if women have proven they can be run cities and states, why not the whole nation? Who said the highest a woman can aspire to is a seat in the House, Senate or Supreme Court? Why not be the person deciding who sits on the federal bench? Choose when and if this nation goes to war and set the domestic and international agenda for the world's last remaining Superpower.

Do you have doubts that a woman couldn't do any worse than some of the men who have been president? Let's give it a try. A little revolutionary change might be just what the doctor ordered.

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President?
It might take a while. I took a stab and said within the next 25 years. I would guess probably a male minority before a woman. Although I think we might see a female VP elected sooner than a female president. It really depends on how powerful the religious right becomes & how long they can hold on to power.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President.
For all the talk of Condi, I'd think it would be harder for an unmarried woman to become president than a married one. At least in our current climate. If the Bush team hadn't successfully deep-sixed Colin Powell's credibility (intentionally?), then I would put him at the top of the list. These days it seems to be governors that get elected, so possibly Jennifer Granholm (MI) in a few years. She's a former prosecutor and a fiscally conservative Democrat. But she's young yet.

Bingo! Governors or Vice-Presidents. I think this is perhaps the most important fact in this discussion. And nevermind "these days", with the exception of (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe) General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960, you have to go back to Herbert Hoover in 1928 to find an electorate willing to elect to the Presidency someone who was not a Governor or Vice President (Hoover was Secretary of Commerce under two Presidents):

GW Bush- Governor of Texas

Clinton- Governor of Arkansas

GHW Bush- Vice President

Reagan- Governor of California

Carter- Governor of Georgia

Ford- Vice President*

Nixon- Vice President

Johnson- Vice President

Kennedy- Senator

Eisenhower- General

Truman- Vice President

Roosevelt- Governor of New York

Excluding Gerald Ford (*Ford of course was never elected President), 9 of our last 11 Presidents had been Governors or Vice Presidents. General Eisenhower was a "War Hero" with world wide name recognition. Senator Kennedy was a "War Hero" and he still barely won office.

Setting aside the potential spectacle of a Hilly vs. Condi Battle Royale, I believe our first female President will either have first been elected to the Vice Presidency or have served successfully as the Governor of an at least somewhat populated State (sorry North Dakota, Alaska, etc...no offence intended). I also believe this will happen within 25 years. Whoever she is, I hope she posseses a few libertarian inclinations.

Yes I think we will have a women or minority in the white house very soon

I would like to Hilary Clinton be the next president

1. I think America could possibly see a female president in the next 25 years. Women in politics in slowly increasing and i think it is fair to say that it could happen. I do not think 2008 will be the elcetion year of a woman but the future is wide open.

2. I do not think the first woman president will be Hillary Clinton. While she has been a great Senator for the state of NY I think she should leave the presidential nomination to a better democratic candidate who is more likely to win and let the democrats have some power in DC again.

Most certainly, whenever one runs who is capable of winning. Would I vote for a minority or woman just on that merit alone. If I felt they were most capable they would get my hanging chad.


How about both? I'd go for Condi Rice




Oh really
Can you name one thing that Hillary has done for N.Y.? I just moved from there (Corning) after she got elected, so I kind watch the happenings back there. For the life of me I haven't seen one thing she has done for that state, other than just being Hillary...

1. Will America ever elect a woman or a "minority" (which could include race, religion, or sexual orientation) as President? Hmm, this is a question that a co-worker and I have pondered one day. My co-worker, who happens to be African in nature said that America will never elect a woman as a president. Sure she could hold mayor offices and small offices, but nothing major. Of course i disagreed with him but he did have a valid point. He proclaimed that most nations in Africa is either on the "down-fall" or hit "rock bottom" because an African American was in charge of the country. However, I believe that eventually, when America gets out of the stupidity that white are supreme to other races, we will elect our first woman or african american president. PS. the only reason why I said "when America gets out of the stupidity that white are supreme to other races" is because one day while walking through school I heard a boy say that.

2. Name a woman and/or a "minority" individual you would like to see become President. Personally, I would like to see Condolezza Rice become president or at least have a higher authoritve figure in our government.

I think it is quite possible that the United States will elect a female Presient in the next 12 or so years. I think the 'glass ceiling' for women, though it still exists, is far more fragile than it once was, and considering the women of power with the potential credentials, I think it is quite reasonable.

However I think it will be a LONG time before the US elects a non-white, non-Christian President, and I mean a LONG time. I really do not think that parts of the nation are ready to see a minority in power, and I think a lot of people are concerned about what policies that might mean. Sad of course, but true...

I am also really annoyed with the Democrats for considering running Hillary. Not that I think she is unqualified or would be a bad President, I think (with some reservations) she would be quite good. My problem is that Hilary is strategically a bad choice. Why do the Democrats keep running New York Liberals? You know what, that state is not going to go republican, you got it.

1) This will depend on money and influence already existing in society.

2) I would like to see Rza made president really. Overall though, to be realistic, I would have to opt for Hillary Clinton. I think for change from an all male dominated arena, that she would be truly the most equipped to make a successful run of it.