Quote:
Originally Posted by Plechazunga
There's never been a female president. It's a wrong that needs righting. The president doesn't govern the country alone - he or, theoretically, she is the head of an administration. So if there's a candidate who's capable and highly intelligent, like Hillary, and you generally trust the other members of the administration, it's not unreasonable to vote for the candidate because she's a woman.
Fresno, stop voting Republican. After the last two terms, how can you even think about it?
|
Gender has nothing to do with the election, or at least my vote in it. I've voted for females for Governor, the US Senate, state offices, district attorney, judge, sheriff, and a host of lesser offices. I also rarely, if ever, vote a straight party ticket and often disagree with the official party line on the numerous other issues that surface on the California (and previously, Alaska) ballot.
I have my own opinions about whether my fellow attorney Hillary Rodham Clinton is "capable" or "highly intelligent" but, most importantly, whether I want her in the position she currently seeks. The mere fact that there has never been a female president doesn't mean she should be the first.
There has never been a male African American president either, and that voting block received the vote before women in this country. Failure to make Jessie Jackson the first (when he ran back in 1988) doesn't mean many of us wouldn't vote for a qualified candidate. In fact, among (white--I wax redundant) Republican males back in 2000, General Colin Powell was more popular than Dubya.