I actually think it'll happen pretty soon. Hilary did break some barriers. She got us "used" to the idea. To where you didn't hear so much "Oh she's a woman" talk regarding Palin or Bachmann. There's no argument against it, women have lead many nations. No reason it can't happen here.

I also would have voted for Hilary. I would never and will never vote for Palin.

If the right candidate comes along - I don't think gender would matter as much. I don't recall anyone I know making a single remark about Hilary's wardrobe or appearance - only her politics. Palin was another story.... but then again I never took her seriously as a candidate.

Right now you could put anyone in there - it wouldn't matter, the House and Senate prevent change and bicker over everything. They litter anything they can with their "pet" projects so that nothing passes and things just stay the same. They sway whichever way the money does. Quid pro quo.

At this point, I don't think Americans as a whole have a problem with electing a female president. I don't think it's a question of "waiting" any longer--it's just a combination of a numbers game and random chance. By that, I mean there are just not that many opportunities for ANYONE to become POTUS.

Had Hilary Clinton won the Dem nomination in 2008, she would have won the election as easily as Obama did, so, again, it's not like the US "wasn't ready" for a female POTUS.

And, right now, with our current polarization and tribalism, a huge number of people are going to vote for a party label no matter who the individual is.

Despite the protestations of her feminist followers, I think her gender had very little to do with the fact that Clinton did not win the nomination. I don't mean this at all in a negative way, but I don't think most people thought of Clinton as a "woman candidate" at all. Given her public image from Bill's presidency, and her career in the Senate, I think most people looked at her at "one of the guys". I certainly did. Looking at the debates between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, it never caused me to think "oh, look--there's a black guy and a woman up there, too!".

Hillary's failure to gain the nomination had more to do with her politics and her campaign strategy than it did her gender.
I spent a LOT of time on various Democratic and liberal websites during that campaign. For progressives, it was felt that Clinton represented the politics of a past age, a strategy of "triangulation" that would not really challenge the status quo. She ran the traditional campaign (at first) of a front runner--staying aloof, making lots of "back room deals" with local and national party leaders, projecting an image of "entitlement" about receiving the nomination. And,at least in the beginning, she ran a HORRIBLE campaign. She surrounded herself with some of the most loathsome advisers imaginable, mismanaged finances, seemed incapable of being decisive or managing a campaign staff, and completely misread the mood of the voters. By the time she found her voice, it was too late.

And then there was her husband. I appreciate a lot of what Clinton accomplished as President and he is a brilliant guy, but his oversized personality just wears your *kitten* out after a while, and I think many people were reluctant to have him back in the national spotlight again.

In short, too many people felt that a Hillary administration would be the third term of the Bill Clinton presidency, and felt that, while that was fine for the time, we needed to move on as a country. A lot of people just didn't have the enthusiasm for a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton hold on the Presidency over an entire generation.

I'll leave the reasons why I think people ultimately preferred Obama for another time.

I don’t know why you would assume its because she is a woman or because he is bi-racial. They were not twins as far as campaign promises were concerned, they did have different takes on a few things. Things that were important to me when I was choosing. I would have for sure voted for her, supported her, if Barack Obama would have lost the nomination. I certainly wasn’t going to support McCain...or palin.


I also, at least for me, was not excited about the prospect of political dynasty’s taking turns as POTUS. It was not a deal breaker, but I wasn't excited about it. At the time I saw it as potentially, Bush1 as VP/Bush 1 as President/ Clinton/Bush2-2 terms/Hillary Clinton/Possibly Jeb Bush. <<That scenario didn’t seem like a great idea to me. lol But again, if she would have won, I would have supported her.

On a side note, I remember the board I was on during the election and I remember many Republicans in real life being soooo excited that McCain picked Palin. Many of the Republicans I knew thought that many liberal women would vote for McCain because he chose a woman. *facepalm* I don't vote for people based on their skin or any other body part.

I would love to vote for a woman for POTUS, if the right woman came along. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run for president someday.

I don’t know why you would assume its because she is a woman or because he is bi-racial. They were not twins as far as campaign promises were concerned, they did have different takes on a few things. Things that were important to me when I was choosing. I would have for sure voted for her, supported her, if Barack Obama would have lost the nomination. I certainly wasn’t going to support McCain...or palin.


I also, at least for me, was not excited about the prospect of political dynasty’s taking turns as POTUS. It was not a deal breaker, but I wasn't excited about it. At the time I saw it as potentially, Bush1 as VP/Bush 1 as President/ Clinton/Bush2-2 terms/Hillary Clinton/Possibly Jeb Bush. <<That scenario didn’t seem like a great idea to me. lol But again, if she would have won, I would have supported her.

On a side note, I remember the board I was on during the election and I remember many Republicans in real life being soooo excited that McCain picked Palin. Many of the Republicans I knew thought that many liberal women would vote for McCain because he chose a woman. *facepalm* I don't vote for people based on their skin or any other body part.

I would love to vote for a woman for POTUS, if the right woman came along. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run for president someday.

My daughter and son-in-law both get to vote for Warren this November. I can only enjoy the experience vicariously.

Yay!!! I really hope she wins!!

I think we vote based on policy over here more than we're portayed in the media. Yes, everyone has an agenda and want to try to make drama where it does not need to be, magnifying the superficial. Frankly, as a conservative, I wish Clinton were in office right now because I believe her to be a better leader. Obama has pleasantly surprised me in a few areas (some aspects of the military, including finding bin Laden), but has lived up to my expectations in most (I don't like most of his world-view for how it affects the society in the long term). But, women will always be judged at the superficial level, even in politics, more then men. Until that changes, I believe it will be a while until we see a female potus.

It's wonderful and refreshing to hear any conservative say a few positive things about President Obama. I mean of course you don't have to love the guy and I'm sure you'll vote against him. It's just so nice to not always hear "Any clown off the street would be better than this guy in office now! He's destroying the country!!"

It's a sign of a rational and thinking person to know that the "other side" is of course not all bad. People who treat politics like team sports are the worst.

I think we vote based on policy over here more than we're portayed in the media. Yes, everyone has an agenda and want to try to make drama where it does not need to be, magnifying the superficial. Frankly, as a conservative, I wish Clinton were in office right now because I believe her to be a better leader. Obama has pleasantly surprised me in a few areas (some aspects of the military, including finding bin Laden), but has lived up to my expectations in most (I don't like most of his world-view for how it affects the society in the long term). But, women will always be judged at the superficial level, even in politics, more then men. Until that changes, I believe it will be a while until we see a female potus.

It's wonderful and refreshing to hear any conservative say a few positive things about President Obama. I mean of course you don't have to love the guy and I'm sure you'll vote against him. It's just so nice to not always hear "Any clown off the street would be better than this guy in office now! He's destroying the country!!"

It's a sign of a rational and thinking person to know that the "other side" is of course not all bad. People who treat politics like team sports are the worst.

As I like to say, if we each take the worse of our own "sides" and try to help them become better we'd be a better country. There are plenty of policies I would like to see the Republicans change to be in more agreement with the Democrats (like most Republican politicians need to make their economic policy more family friendly, I like the DREAM Act and I disagree with the Patriot Act - though that was bipartisan, both sides can be blamed for that) but I wish the Democrats weren't so aligned with the likes of abortion and euthenasia supporters and were at least more Libertarian on the government's involvement regarding marriage as well as some other issues. I'd like to see the states fight more for their powers back instead of always deferring to the federal government.

As I like to say, if we each take the worse of our own "sides" and try to help them become better we'd be a better country. There are plenty of policies I would like to see the Republicans change to be in more agreement with the Democrats (like most Republican politicians need to make their economic policy more family friendly, I like the DREAM Act and I disagree with the Patriot Act - though that was bipartisan, both sides can be blamed for that) but I wish the Democrats weren't so aligned with the likes of abortion and euthenasia supporters and were at least more Libertarian on the government's involvement regarding marriage as well as some other issues. I'd like to see the states fight more for their powers back instead of always deferring to the federal government.

See this is exactly how politics is SUPPOSED to work! Yes both "sides" have their ideaologies. But then they have to find a way to compromise and come to a solution that people can live with. That's the tricky part.

I agree with you completely on the Patriot Act (scrap it) and a more libertarian attitude towards marriage. Getting the federal government out of the marriage business would solve a number of problems. I don't really think marriage or children are anything the government needs to "encourage" (tax breaks). People get married and have kids all on their own without deciding to do it because the government says so and offers a tax break.

I am sorry, but I just have to say that this is a VERY refreshing conversation you all are having.

Doing exactly this at a government level is all it would take to fix a lot of problems in this country.

I don't really think marriage or children are anything the government needs to "encourage" (tax breaks). People get married and have kids all on their own without deciding to do it because the government says so and offers a tax break.

I agree to an extent, but the government does have an interest in children being born. You need them, when they are old enough, to work and pay taxes to support the systems that depend on tax revenue. What will Japan look like in a few decades with their ever decreasing population? Economically, it more than likely will not be pretty. Governments need citizens, therefore they need to encourage the population reproducing themselves at the very least.

I agree to an extent, but the government does have an interest in children being born. You need them, when they are old enough, to work and pay taxes to support the systems that depend on tax revenue. What will Japan look like in a few decades with their ever decreasing population? Economically, it more than likely will not be pretty. Governments need citizens, therefore they need to encourage the population reproducing themselves at the very least.

But there's already a very effective mechanism for that. Sex. Trust me, WAAY more influential than tax breaks. We're not pandas. We will continue to procreate, regardless of government influence.


Well we'll TRY anyway...:grumble:

For sure. I just wanted to point out that the government does have interest in people reproducing.

For sure. I just wanted to point out that the government does have interest in people reproducing.

Noted in the official record.

Glad someone's keeping tabs! :happy:

Hillary's failure to gain the nomination had more to do with her politics and her campaign strategy than it did her gender.
I spent a LOT of time on various Democratic and liberal websites during that campaign. For progressives, it was felt that Clinton represented the politics of a past age, a strategy of "triangulation" that would not really challenge the status quo. She ran the traditional campaign (at first) of a front runner--staying aloof, making lots of "back room deals" with local and national party leaders, projecting an image of "entitlement" about receiving the nomination. And,at least in the beginning, she ran a HORRIBLE campaign. She surrounded herself with some of the most loathsome advisers imaginable, mismanaged finances, seemed incapable of being decisive or managing a campaign staff, and completely misread the mood of the voters. By the time she found her voice, it was too late.

This.

Being rather a liberal dem myself with various shades of dem friends, there was also an attitude against having a Clinton dynasty in office.


This seems off topic, but I thought I'd chime in:

For sure. I just wanted to point out that the government does have interest in people reproducing.

True, but the de facto primary point of marriage has nothing to do having kids. Reproduction is only ever a secondary concern at best, as far as the government is concerned. I think this probably indicates that any incentives, or lack thereof, towards procreation should probably be separate from marriage in some way.

What does it say about America that it was (from an outsider's viewpoint) more ready to have a non-caucasian male president, than a female president?

The more I think of it, the more I think this question is pretty insulting towards Americans in general and I would like to turn it around for a bit. Obviously most of the posters here say they would vote for a woman. In the last two presidential elections women and black Americans have made serious attempts at becoming president in BOTH of the major political parties in the US, some fared better than others but all made waves. In addition to that I have no doubt that if Marco Rubio ran for the Republican ticket in 2016 that he would have a great shot at winning the Republican nod considering the praise and encouragement he had to run this time around.

Having said that, would it be fair to assume that because there has never been a black Prime Minister in the UK, that they are uncomfortable with the idea of a non-white person as PM?

If the majority of Americans are voting based upon skin color or sex of the candidate, we are in bigger trouble than I thought!!

Not only that, but I see so many Republican candidates for office scratching and crawling over each other to pander to the fringiest fringe of religious extremism. They want to shred our secular Constitution and make America into a Christian theocracy......because that's what they think will get them elected. The Democrats are complicit in this as well....too much spinelessness and backing down to encroachments on the separation of church and state.

This is what scares me the most,it seems we are turning from a nation of christians to a christian nation. its frigtning

And that's what makes me wonder the most. Why would any christian want this to be a "christian" nation. There are so many sects of christianity it would be impossible to get them to agree on a myriad of issues. If we decided to make this a christian nation, I give it less than 10 years before violent outbreaks spread across the nation as christians clubbed each other like baby seals over whether or not we shoule mandate confesssion or outlaw divorce. It's a historical fact that this always happens. It's sort of the reason the puritans came here in the first place.