In another thread, we have been discussing Carol Moseley Braun. In this one, the question is posed,

Are we ready to have any woman President of the U.S.?
Or, put a little more negatively (and coarsely), is possession of male genitalia mandatory to be elected Commander-in-Chief?

I'm ready, though not about to vote for anyone just on the basis of gender. Issues, character and ability come first, but all other things being equal, I'd definitely vote for the right woman as President.

I don't know of any way to judge how ready America as a whole is for that. It strikes me as something people would be likely to lie about to pollsters. But I don't see why not: we have women as Governors, Senators and corporate CEOs, and a country with a similar culture, the UK, recently had a woman Prime Minister who was obviously a strong and capable leader, though of course unpopular with many because of her politics.

I think all it takes is for the right woman to be a candidate at the right time.

As long as a woman candidate shared my political and social views, I would have no problem voting for her.

I don't think too many people have a beef against women candidates.

To be President, however, you need a certain mindset. If you are too dovish, people don't want to vote for you, since defense is the #1 priority of the President. Case in point : Michael Dukakis. He was never viable since he was viewed (correctly or not) as a softy.

That being said, I think any woman has the female stereotype to overcome. Which means she needs to be sort of hard-line. Margaret Thatcher had that.

She would also need a proven track record of standing her ground on issues. She shouldn't have any history of being bullied.

It's a tough role to fill, but that's why I believe the first woman President will be a Republican. It won't be anytime soon, but it's coming.

Molly Ivins for President!

Rattlesnake, if you were watching Jeopardy and Alex Trebek read the answer, "Molly Ivins for President!", how many people do you think would respond with the correct question, "What is 'are we ready to have any woman President of the U.S.'?"



Personally, I am not opposed to having a female president. I see no reason why a woman couldn't lead the country equally as well as a man.

For the general public, though, I'm not too sure.

Many people will say they would vote for a woman, but, come on, who is going to say they wouldn't vote for a woman just because she's a woman?

And to add an other-than-political spin to the question, I wonder if men would vote for an ugly women to lead the country. It may seem like a very shallow question, but it is something to consider.

Mike

I would never vote for, say, Madeline Albright, no matter WHAT her political views were. Sorry to be bluntly honest.

If you believe in issues and principles, how could you choose to not vote for someone, even if they completely matched your own views, based on the fact that they are ugly? How horrifying.

Sorry for being so bluntly honest.

Issues and principles are not embodied in one person. She is actually a naturalized citizen and unable to be elected .

I did vote for Bob Dole...perhaps I violated my own principles there (or I am gender biased).

Nice bit of misdirection in that response, Amlord. Somehow I don't think you were referring to the state of her citizenship...

You're right, issues and principles are not embodied in one person. Right, but meaningless. The point is, you seemed to be saying that an ugly woman who matched you on every issue and principle would still not get your vote. I suspect that is not true. I believe in you more than that, amlord.

I'm sorry.

I think Molly Ivins would make a good President because she's brutally honest, Progressivly minded and has a much better sense of humor than you However, I doubt the men in America would elect any woman President when they have such a problem even electing women to Congress.

Yes, appearance does matter in politics, more than it should, unfortunately. Along with other trivia, I read that Presidential candidates who were taller than the other guy won the elections.

I think a woman who looks healthy and isn't dowdy (like Janet Reno) would stand a better chance.

Brains/experience/leadership qualities should all weigh more heavily in the decision to elect a woman, obviously. They should with male candidates, too.

(BTW, have you seen Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan? I'll bet my Governor is prettier than yours! )

In a heart beat!

Condelisa RIce
Kay Baily Hutchenson

and if her views were not so skewed to the left Opra!

So do you hate women or Jews? If you've got some problem with either, then by all means, stop beating around the bush and come out with it.

To be fair, I think he just hates ugly women.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

I suspect we are probably even less gender-blind in the US than we are color-blind. I would imagine that there are many people who would not vote for a candidate just because she was a woman, regardless of her politics - as there would also be those who would vote for a candidate just because she was a woman.

For this reason, I suspect it is unlikely that the first female presidential candidate will be Republican. Am I suggesting that Republicans, being more conservative, are also likely to be more sexist? Let's be realistic for a moment: sorry, yes, I am.

I would also disagree - big surprise - with another point which amlord made:

I think that would only be true of a conservative candidate. Granted, some female heads of state have overcome their gender "deficiencies" by their political extremism: Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi were among the biggest hawks of the 20th century. They all represented hard-core conservative constituencies - and might just as well have been men with breasts (clearly beauty is not always a factor, Mike ). But other female heads of state have not entirely contradicted the stereotype (if, by that, we mean a more humane, nurturing sort of gender difference), such as Benazir Bhutto or Cory Aquino or Mary Robinson.

I suspect that when America does have a female presidential candidate, it will be more someone of the latter ilk because, in America, most liberal to moderate women would reject a Thatcher-type candidate on the grounds of her politics, regardless of her sex, and many moderate to conservative men (and some conservative women) would reject such a candidate on the grounds of her sex, regardless of her politics - however gender-blind they may claim to be. Were such a candidate conservative enough to overcome the gender bias, she would probably be too conservative to be electable. A left-leaning moderate would have a much better chance of winning a candidacy and an election. Such a candidate wouldn't have to fight the stereotype much at all. Such a candidate would, by definition, also be a Democrat.

If there were a left-leaning moderate Republican woman that the RNC would support, she would stand the best chance of all. But such a creature simply does not exist.

I think being a woman will be a political asset for the right candidate. I also think that the Republican Party is most likely to win the first presidential election with a female or a minority candidate because it will be a move that takes away votes from the heart of the democratic party and that is good politics.

I thought Condaleeza Rice might be a posibility but she seems light on personality and she is connected to a pretty contraversial administration.

As with most good models of leadership, I think we are simply waiting. The next Eleanor Roosevelt or MLK Jr. will find fertile ground for politics awaiting them.

Interesting theory, Wertz. But experience with lesser offices in this country doesn't seem to bear that out. Female Republicans and conservatives are as electable as female liberals to the House, Senate, and Governorships, given constituencies that would elect any Republican or conservative, and are equally likely to be attractive and "humane, nurturing" types.

Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) is one such woman -- attractive and more in line with the softer but still tough enough Bhutto/Aquino type of persona than the hard-as-nails Thatcher/Meir kind, as well as highly respected in the House for her leadership ability -- who would IMO make a fine President. Of course from my PoV it's a big bonus that she's a libertarian-leaning conservative rather than the more statist kind.

I agree with Eeyore that having a woman or minority on the ticket would be smart electoral politics for the GOP, and Republican leaders already know that. They're just waiting for the right candidate, as are Democrats (and no, Hillary isn't the right one for the Dems; she is and will remain too much of a polarizing figure -- in pollsterese, "her negatives are too high" and will stay too high).

Glass ceilings have been cracking for several years now.

I believe that the Democrats may end up with a woman on the ticket in 2004. The media have so overwhelmingly conceded the 2004 election to George W. Bush that I was listening to a televised debate about the 2008 election the other day. The question being argued was: Could Bill Clinton defeat George W. Bush in 2008, if the Constitution were amended to allow a third term? On the right, it was argued that a man of Bush's stature would still be able to defeat anyone in 2008. On the left, it was argued that Bill could certainly defeat him; but that Hillary was more likely to be the Democratic candidate in 2008.

I can visualize George W. Bush as chauvinistic enough to dismiss a woman candidate as being inherently unqualified, and saying as much. Perhaps treaties and legislation are negotiated in the men's room, but the debates I see televised usually have a large audience. The men's rest rooms I have used are rarely a conversation pit.

Carol Moseley Braun stood out in the first Democratic debate as someone who was sharp-witted, on top of the issues, and not afraid to take on George W. Bush. A lot of money will be spent on the primary campaign, hoping to gain name recognition in the next few months. Contributors want to believe in their candidate, but also need to believe their donation is not a waste. Any strong male contender, who is willing to concede the election to Bush at this point, will be unwilling to throw his hat in the ring for 2004. He will plan on running against Karl Rove in 2008.

That leads us to Rattlesnake's nomination of Molly Ivins. I would like to second that nomination because I very much enjoy the way she serves me George W. Bush with my breakfast. He does not seem to intimidate her, and she seems quite capable of staying on top of the issues. She will be speaking at a fundraiser here in Michigan next month. They're charging $75 a ticket. I only heard one question raised the first time I heard she was speaking: "That's about an hour's drive from here, who wants to car pool?" I don't know whether or not she would be willing to set aside a job where she has a large audience which she can influence, and likely a very good annual income, to run for President,. I also don't know if she's a native born American citizen or not. Would I vote for her in a primary race, or the race against George W. Bush? I'm certain of it.

Carol Moseley Braun, Hillary Clinton, Molly Ivins... It seems to me, that the women are the Democrats with the most name recognition this year. I can see a scenario where no one fights the idea of a woman on the ticket because it's an election the Democrats expect to lose anyway. I can see a lot of women voters saying, "This will probably be the only chance I ever have to vote for a woman for President." By Election Day 2004, the Republicans may be the only ones who still hold a job. If November 2004 finds Bush campaigning for yet another tax cut to raise funds for his ongoing "War on Terrorism," being fought by then in Mexico with plans to invade Canada; even his most loyal supporters may think twice before voting for him.

I can't. Bush's opponents still underestimate Bush's political savvy.

Ivins and Braun are too far left to be electable. Hillary has a high negative rating among potential voters. I do not see any moderate female Democrats with name recognition. I could see a woman VP on the ticket, particularly if the winner of the Democratic nomination feels he has to roll the dice in order to have a chance at winning the election, similar to Mondale in '84.

I think you forget who President Bush had to go up against to get his political start. He did not show any signs of dismissing Gov. Ann Richards.

Yes, but a Senate seat or a governorship is not quite the same thing as the presidency.Such a candidate would not simply have to be able to win the party's nomination in her home state, she would have to have the stature - and the policies - to carry the RNC as a whole.


I would agree that Dunn is the type of candidate who could stand a chance of carrying a national election - but I don't think she's the type of candidate who would make it through a Republican primary. Maybe as Vice President...


True, but I suspect that the public might see through the tokenism. Then again, this is the American public we're talking about.


I'm not as convinced that Hillary Clinton is quite as much of a liability as you imagine. I think, even now, she could probably carry most of the states that Gore did in 2000 - including Florida - though I think she'd be a fool to try for it in 2004. Depending on how her next several years in the Senate go, however, she could have a very good chance in 2008 - especially if she were running against Karl Rove!!!

If anyone would be able to get a woman to be president, it would probably be the Republicans. After all, they're pretty much the ones who are making it impossbile right now by not supoorting them, aren't they? Therefore, if they finally decide that they'd like to see a woman as president, then they would choose one as their candidate and vote for her, and many Democrats would also vote for her as well. Therefore the issue is finding a woman that the Republicans would support as a presidential candidate.

Care to clarify?

Right now, the Republicans are predominately the ones making it hard for women to become president by not supporting them. Thus, if the Republicans finally decide to support a woman and make her their candidate, they'll vote for her, and chances are that many democrats will to. Thus, you have solved the problem of women having a lack of support from the republicans, and she will hopefully get into office by being backed from both parties.

Bean's argument makes sense if only it were factually correct. But Republicans do support women candidates who are in line with their policies, just as Democrats support women candidates who're in line with their policies. If you think Republican party leaders don't love to have a good woman candidate whenever they can find one, and don't try hard to recruit them, then I guess you haven't attended many GOP strategy sessions. Well, I have and I can assure you they do.

I see no reason why a woman could not win the position.

It all depends on HER not her gender.

Your response is just a repeat of your previous one. How, SPECIFICALLY, are the Republicans not supporting women? That is a gross, blanket generalization (stated twice) which you should qualify.

Bean, mrspigpen (and anyone else interested in constructive debate) was asking for evidence, proof, references, anything to support your claims. How did you arrive at your opinion?

I found a useful website that would in some ways support your position, Bean, and in others negate it. Fact Sheets on Elected Women (Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers Univ.)

In support:


Against:


So, it appears, on the state office level, more Republican women hold office than women of other parties, but is the opposite for the national level.

Of course, the small representation of women vs. men in office in general is glaring. The causes for that are inherent to this debate. I have tried to find references/studies comparing the win/lose ratio of women who ran against men for a specific office to see if one gender tends to win more often, but I could not find one. I think that would help determine if women can't win or if they just aren't running. I'll keep looking.

Well then, I suppose it really just depends on the woman and her stances on the key issues. Not much more to it than that. And if she has good stances, then I suppose more people might vote for her, because it's getting to a point in time where everyone wants to see what it would be like to have a woman in office, I think.

I recently retired and now have much more time for intellectual pursuits, and politics is one of those. I am, for the time being, ignorant of some of the names presented. I know enough about Hillary to be scared, though.
I do remember listening to the late Barbara Jordan a long time ago, and was impressed.
Someone of her caliber would be needed.
Probably the color barrier will be broken first. Colin Powell has an excellent chance if he decides to run.

If a state as conservative as Texas can elect a woman for Senator than the nation can elect a woman President. In fact Kay is politically centered perfectly to be a candidate. unfortunately she lacks a certain charisma that is needed.

Important points:

#1 Looks matter. Better looking candidates do better, whether male or female. This is why Janet Reno doesn't have a snowball's chance in the Keys of being elected Governor or President. This is also part of why Hillary remains a consideration. If she were as plain as Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations would be a non-issue.

#2 Direct comparisons of State vs. Federal office counts aren't terribly valid because of the dynamics of political career progression. "It takes time to get to the big leagues." Look to the States to see where we're GOING, because that's where the next generation of Feds will be coming from.

#3 America is ready to elect a woman President, or more likely, Vice President, just as its ready to elect a black. The only trick is for one party or the other to come up with an electable candidate. In one sense, its simply a numbers game. Blacks, with 12% of the population, are only going to have 1 "electable" candidate for every 6 white candidates. Given the overwhelming bias of black politicians to plant themselves firmly on the left end of the Democratic Party, that whittles the number of electable blacks down substantially. Of all the potential "national" black candidates, only three that I can think of are electable today, and they're all Republicans. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and J.C. Watts, all considered to be center or moderate Republicans. Sharpton and Mosley-Braun don't stand a chance. Perhaps the Democrats have some other black politicos in the hinterlands who aren't utterly tied to race issues, but I've yet to see them.

For women, its the same challenge. While they comprise slightly over half the population, they don't make up more than half the political class. This hurts their numbers. Fewer of them have the executive experience that we seem to want in our Presidents, another factor that hurts their numbers. More of the women near the "top" of the political heap (i.e., those likely to have a shot at President) came into politics as narrow issue activists, which will hurt them. I'm not sure whether this will continue to be a challenge for women as the second and third generations of female politicians move into the big leagues, often with wider ideological bases. Voters for President aren't interested in a candidate who has built their political career on a single issue. They want generalists.