I had stated in this TOPIC...President Bush's popularity is down 38%...that tells me...a Democrat is highly likely to win next Presidential election...
Will the democrat be a woman??? I am thinking...Hillary...
As far as women running the whitehouse, I have heard, Nancy Reagan and Hillary oh yes, an astrolger, too!!!...anyone know of any other "First Ladies" that were actually running the country???
posted by MARIELORA at 03:17 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I had stated:...anyone know of any other "First Ladies" that were actually running the country???
posted by MARIELORA at 03:17 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Or an ASTROLOGER???
posted by MARIELORA at 03:22 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I would like to see Rudy, Newt, McCain, or even Zell Miller. D's I might be likely to vote for would have to be far right in their party. I think Condi for VP would be great. I don't think our country is ready for a female President. Maybe I am just old-fashioned, but the idea of it makes my skin crawl.
posted by alexandra at 03:23 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Sheeshhh alexandra anyone on your list that doesn't qualify for Social Security?
hehehe :-)
I'm not sure if Hillary is even going to run let alone get the party nomination if she did. I think it would depend on the woman, however whoever is the next president I hope they are someone relatively new to politics and have the ability to actually inspire people rather than to make them turn away in apathy.
I'd like to believe a woman could be elected, however the reality probably is we aren't ready yet. There are to many people that feel as alexandra does or even more strongly. I'm not picking on alexandra, she's being honest about her feelings and she's not alone. To me the idea of Condi as a VP makes me shudder.
Personally I think all of this Hillary hype is overblown. 2008 is along ways away and anything could happen between now and then. I just hope to God John Kerry doesn't run again.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 03:30 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I saw a history channel special that many presidents have used astrologers. They did talk about Nancy Reagan but I think they even brought up Lyndon Johnson and other Presidents.
It has also been said that Eleanor Roosevelt was a strong and influential first lady.
Several years ago John Kerry wasn't a household name, so perhaps we are up for quite a surprise.
There has been quiet talk on the Republican side of Sam Brownback or Bill Frist, either which would be refreshing choices. They are good Republicans in the mold of GWB without the political laundry of Rudy, Newt, or McCain. I really do like Newt because he has well developed ideas and is good at presenting them, but for some reason it doesn't seem like he has broad appeal.
posted by lloyd at 03:37 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
phsyce777 states: I just hope to God John Kerry doesn't run again.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 03:30 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
physce 777, I agree!!! What qualifications (NADA) did he have to win the nomination??? I, personally, would have rather seen Hillary.
With that said, I agree with both, you and Alexandra, our country is NOT ready for a woman president.
physce 777 and alexandra spoke of who makes them shudder or their skin crawl as President, for me...I shudder at the thought of Jesse Jackson as President!!! We certainly DO NOT NEED A RACIEST OF ANY SORT IN OFFICE!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 03:40 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Okay - who was the governor (southern state I think) that carried two pigs under his arms into his state house to make the point about pork barrel spending when his house and senate refused to reel in spending???
THAT's the guy I want!
posted by intrepid at 03:42 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
lloyd, my thoughts only on the possiblity of a Democrat with Bush's popularity down...agreed, there are good Democrats out there...personally, I consider my thinking more a Republican...Democrats seem to have too many give away programs...no incentive to get people off their behinds to take care of themselves, only an opinion...
I just thought of someone else that possibly used astrology...I read this somewhere...Abe Lincoln!!!
Yes, lloyd, Eleanor Roosevelt was a driving force!!! Thanks for reminding me of her!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 03:44 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
intrepid, I want that guy too!!! You know who else...I liked???
ROSS PEROT!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 03:46 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I think Hillary simply cannot win. The number of people who absolutely hate her is too high.
I would prefer McCain out of all the GOP candidates, but I think that the religious right would have a collective stroke if he were nominated.
Rudy Giuliani is making noise about a run; the guy practically walks on water after 9/11, and is moderate enough to get Dem votes. He also has a law-and-order image that might keep the right on board.
Frist seems too conservative at the moment, but he has 2+ years to hone his image.
None of the Dems excite me right now; they have to figure out what "Democratic" means. John Edwards, while charismatic, has failed to get across any image other than "Look, John is a good guy!" I need more than that to support a candidate.
Nader's moment has passed; I don't see any third party candidates who yet have me interested on a protest vote.
posted by historymike at 03:47 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Perhaps Newt lacks broad support (my perception) because he is thought of as an obstructionist. Americans don't seem to like obstructionists, for example the defeat of Tom Daschle. (my perception again)
One could say obstructionists are politicians who stand up for what they believe in...but in a two party system ocassionally you have to get along and compromise. Politics seems like such a tough game because you have to try exert your influence when you can but you have to know when to compromise or you will look like an obstructionist.
....Hence the politics of the middle.
posted by lloyd at 03:55 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I think Republicans are in a good position to win again, and again, and again. Without a major shift in politics in this country it will become very hard for a democrat to be elected. Bush's 38% approval rating is a moot point....for one he's not running again, secondly there's a lot of time to turn that around, and thirdly I think there's a sizable portion of those who disagree with Bush who are further right than he is. Bill Clinton had an approval rating in the mid-30s in 1994, and he went on to win re-election. The reason I say that it will be hard for Dems to win without altering their platform considerably is by looking at how our electoral process works. Since we're on the electoral college system it is more important to hold states instead of popularity among all voters. Southern states are not going to vote for a Democrat anytime soon, and without the South no President can win. Because of population shift Southern and Western states are becoming more imortant in the electoral college while the Northeast is losing votes. Obviously it's the fastest growing states that are Republicans' stronghold, so even if no states switch parties then you'll see the number in the Republican column grow and the Democratic column shrink. That change won't happen again until the '12 election, though because they will use the 2010 census.
I think for the Democrats to win they're going to have to nominate someone not from the Northeast and someone who is considered conservative for the Dems. That's the problem though, because I don't see a conservative Dem getting the nomination. Hillary would do more to get a Republican in office than most any other event. If the Republicans nominate Rudy or McCain then I think they'll win the popular vote by 10 points. They're far too popular among independents and conservative Dems to not be elected. The problem with Rudy is he's not staunchly pro-life, and I don't see him getting out of the primaries. Ok, rambled enough.....
posted by HeyHey at 06:08 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, (wife of Woodrow Wilson) is considered to have actually been president during the last few years of Wilson's administration. After a stroke and defeat of the League of Nations, Woodrow was a very broken man. Edith and his physician did not allow anybody to see him and she apparently forged his signature on legislation.
I recently read an interesting article comparing George W to Woodrow (http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/2005/090805a.html) both were very aggressive and had Americans in many different clashes around the world.
Dave
posted by davldavis at 07:54 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I would like to see Rudy, Newt, McCain, or even Zell Miller.
No, NO, quite possibly, and NO.
I think Condi for VP would be great.
F***ing HELL NO. Besides, she claims she doesn't want to be President... then again, most Republicans are huge hypocrites, so it's a likely possibility.
Hillary
F***king HELL NO!
ROSS PEROT
He was right about the "giant sucking sound" but a bit wrong about where it'd be coming from. Unfortunately he blew his political credibilty with that conspiracy line.
Americans don't seem to like obstructionists, for example the defeat of Tom Daschle.
Oh right... and Americans also don't like lying crooks, for example Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. Who were also obstructionists with respect to Terri Schiavo's case.
I think Republicans are in a good position to win again, and again, and again.
AHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA
HAHHAHHAHAHH
HAHAHH
*gasp gasp*
Best laugh I had all week.
Bush's approval rating: 36%
Oh wait, I need to cite another poll:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2005. N=1,202 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
"If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006 were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?" If other/unsure: "Would you lean toward the Democratic candidate or toward the Republican candidate?" Options rotated
GOP Dem. Neither/Other
% % %
ALL adults 36 53 4
Reg. voters 37 52 5
Bill Clinton had an approval rating in the mid-30s in 1994
Ahem.
"a low of 36% in 1993, to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994"
"in June 1993 and August/September of 1994. In 1993, Clinton's approve/disapprove numbers in three Gallup polls were 37/49, 39/50 and 46/47. In 1994, two Gallup polls pegged Clinton's approval rating at 39 percent -- one with a 52 percent disapproval, the other 54 percent."
Faulty Republican intelligence again, eh?
Obviously it's the fastest growing states that are Republicans' stronghold
Speaking of Republican stronghold states, what states have a net overall approve of Bush?
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1005SortedbyApproval.htm
As of 10/18:
Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Alaska
Nebraska
Oklahoma
North Dakota
Montana and Mississippi have equal approval and disapproval of Dubya.
EVERY OTHER STATE HAS A NET DISAPPROVAL OF BUSH!
Now show me how those states with a net approval of Bush are "fastest growing". Please. I'm guessing you can't or won't.
posted by anonymouscoward at 08:09 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
anything could happen between now and then. I just hope to God John Kerry doesn't run again.
-----------------------------------------
Sorry, but I believe he will. That's not saying he'll get the nomination, though. I personally think Sweet Hillary (& the Slick One-co-presidency, remember) and Gore will run, also.
posted by Foolkiller at 10:15 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Oh right... and Americans also don't like lying crooks, for example Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. Who were also obstructionists with respect to Terri Schiavo's case.
---------------------------------------------
Sure is funny to me how it's ALWAYS only conservatives who are the crooks and liars, while people like the Klintoons are given a free pass. What about that Dem who walked into that government agency and stuffed those top secret documents down his pants? Story died like a hot potato in the media, and he got off with a hand slap.
I also take it by that other comment, you were in total support of her 'husband', who was living with another woman & had two kids by her, but refused to get divorced so he could kill her (Terri). I don't know if there was any hope for any type of rehabilitation at all, but she'd never recieved any, so that didn't help matters. Her parents wanted to care for her-so he could have allowed them to do so. He was/is a filthy scumbag, and his (ACLU) lawyer is even worse. This country began to die when we began to lose respect for life & worship death. And I'm not even a very religious person, but I deeply believe that. One person's 'obstructionist' is another person's 'principled'.
posted by Foolkiller at 10:33 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Barak Obama. Because it'll piss off the NSM.
But I'll really take Colin Powell... since I am absolutely sure he does not want the job but would do it and do it well out of a sense of duty to the nation, and would be middle-of-the-road or as apolitical as possible.
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:34 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Could someone...ANYONE...please explain to me what the fascination with McPain is? I know he's the media's darling, because that would be their dream election-a liberal vs. a liberal-but I'm talking about the average person here. He's nothing but a worthless RHINO asshole to me, and the same with everyone I talk to of either political stripe. Yet, I know there are some who are infatuated with him. But what has he ever done to warrant this? Be a closet democrat? I just don't get it. I think he's as loony as Ross became toward the end (but I confess I voted for Ross).
posted by Foolkiller at 10:40 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Obama. Yo Mama. Yeah, that makes a f*^& of a lot of sense-nominate a one-term freshman to be prez. About as much sense as those morons in several towns voting in 18-year old high-school kids as Mayors of their towns in the election last week. And Powell will never run. He's said so, and I believe what he says, because he means it.
posted by Foolkiller at 10:44 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Obama does have quite a few supporters that have suggested it but I don't think that will happen till 2012.
I would have supported McCain before but not after the last election. His age is also another factor. Personally I'm tired of Presidents being so old and out of date as far as reality of the real world. Some experience, yes but not years and years of political bs.
Basically? I want someone who doesn't exist and probably won't run.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 10:59 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
I just had a thought...Reagan was a Movie Star, the Governor of California and Our President...possibly some dejavue (sp) going on today...with...
Arnold Swartznagger (sp) will follow suit with Reagan??? Arnold having a PLUS the Kennedy family...
I wonder...
posted by MARIELORA at 11:15 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
pysche777 states: Basically? I want someone who doesn't exist and probably won't run.
I know the perfect candidate...anonymouscoward!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 11:18 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Dave, I did read the article to the link you provided...interesting how the two Presidents were compared...
Also, I had forgotten of Woodrow's health, yes, First Lady Wilson would have more than likely ran affairs of our country...
Yes, behind every great man...is a woman...
posted by MARIELORA at 11:31 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Homer J. Simpson
posted by jr at 11:33 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 12, 2005 #
Marie, Arnold can't run unless they change the Constitution. (Thankfully)
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 12:55 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Does anyone here think a media-labelled centrist will be nominated anytime soon? I'm betting that there won't. Both parties are controlled by their bases, and neither are going to nominate someone to the left (or right) of them. For example, Dems will never nominate anyone who is openly against same-sex marriage even though most Americans feel that way.
AC,
Didn't you prove my point about Clinton's approval rating being in the mid-30s early in his presidency ('93-'94)? You said yourself Gallup had him in upper-30s in '94. Maybe I'm missing your point....if I am let me know.
I think you're confusing approval ratings with those willing to vote for someone in a presidential election. Since Tennessee wasn't on your list I'm assuming it has less than a 50% approval of GWB, but are you saying that Tennessee wouldn't vote collectively for him if the election were held tomorrow? He might lose a point or two, but I guarentee TN isn't going to swing to the Democratic side. The same can be said of all the Southern States and most all the Western states (New Mexico and Nevada being in question).
Marielora,
Arnold won't be entering the Whitehouse without a constitutional amendment.......and I don't think that'll ever happen in his lifetime.
posted by HeyHey at 01:08 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Marie, Arnold can't run unless they change the Constitution.
-----------------------------------------
Yep, Psyche & Hey beat me to it. But I have a gut feeling that if that were to happen, he'd win handily. I remember seeing an interview with a guy from Arnold's home town after Ah-Nuld became The Governator. They had to use a translator, but the guy was still funny as hell. He said Ah-Nuld sets a goal, and then realizes it, and he's never failed yet, due to hard work,determination, etc. He predicted Ah-Nuld would become prez. When the interviewer pointed out that the U.S. Constitution would have to be changed, the guy didn't flinch-he said, "Well, yes, but you see, Arnold will get around that somehow." :D
posted by Foolkiller at 03:48 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Didn't you prove my point about Clinton's approval rating being in the mid-30s early in his presidency ('93-'94)? You said yourself Gallup had him in upper-30s in '94. Maybe I'm missing your point....if I am let me know.
Your statement of "Bill Clinton had an approval rating in the mid-30s in 1994" was not quite correct. 39% is not "mid-30s", and the period in which it was in the mid-30s was 1993.
In any case, that was early in the first term, not a year into the second term. It's easier to compare Bush to Nixon: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000682.html
I think you're confusing approval ratings with those willing to vote for someone in a presidential election. Since Tennessee wasn't on your list I'm assuming it has less than a 50% approval of GWB, but are you saying that Tennessee wouldn't vote collectively for him if the election were held tomorrow? He might lose a point or two, but I guarentee TN isn't going to swing to the Democratic side. The same can be said of all the Southern States and most all the Western states (New Mexico and Nevada being in question).
Every state than the others I listed have Bush's disapproval rating as being higher than his approval rating. If you color the states that have an approval rating higher than disapproval red, and the states where the the disapproval is higher than approval blue, you get a really good idea how many states would probably turn against him if the election was right now.
Yes, of course that doesn't mean they'll turn for the Dems. On the other hand, compare from the other polls for which party's candidate people would vote for Congress:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2005. N=1,202 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
"If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006 were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?" If other/unsure: "Would you lean toward the Democratic candidate or toward the Republican candidate?" Options rotated
(Registered Voters)
Democratic Candidate 52 Republican Candidate 37
---
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=884 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"To begin, suppose the elections for U.S. CONGRESS were being held TODAY. Would you vote for the Republican Party's candidate or the Democratic Party's candidate for Congress in your district?" If other/unsure: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward the Republican or the Democrat?" Options rotated
Republican 36 Democratic 53 Other/Unsure 11
Two polls within a point of each other, amazing.
Signs currently point to a lot of Democrats getting into Congress next year.
If the Democrats get a majority in the House, look for impeachment to start. If they manage to get the 2/3rds majority in the Senate needed to convict and remove, I hope you can say "President Nancy Pelosi".
Speaking of impeachment, my current favorite article is http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega
Americans may have been unaware of this deceit then, but they have since learned the truth. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:25 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
"President Nancy Pelosi".
GAAAHHHAAAHHHHAAAHHHHHHH
posted by Foolkiller at 06:24 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
http://snappoll.com/poll/47226.php
Maybe ToledoTalk will nominate the new candidates for 2008. ToledoTalk is the first to report most news anyway because of it's wonderful members.
(jr, forget the email I sent you, this link works just as good as the HTML...)
posted by alexandra at 09:10 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Everyone, I wasn't thinking straight, I had forgotten...Arnold was not USA born...he cannot be our President...how did he say it...Austa la Vista BABEEE...
alexandra, I love the voting poll...did you make it??? Great!!!
I voted for...hint...she's a woman...
jr, Homer Simpson!!! He truly would fill physce777's order of a candidate that is unknown and really doesn't exist!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 11:33 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111300354.html
Article states Presidents Bush's "slumping" popularity may affect his "affect" overseas...
I honestly believe our next President will be a Democrat!
posted by MARIELORA at 11:45 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Anonymous coward,
Your ability to spew statistics from every oriface combined with your total understanding of history and politics is truly astounding.
Your parentage should be examined by scientists to find out how such a creature exists.
posted by MemyselfandI at 12:28 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Who for our next president?
The person for the job doesn’t exist today. But, if they did, they would be a blend of these qualities:
John McCain’s war and prisoner of war experience.
H. Ross Perot’s views on breaking up our, and our educational system’s cycle of raising unpatriotic, disrespectful and underachieving youth.
Pat Buchannan’s views on keeping our borders safe for America and Americans.
J.C. Watts’ youth, passion, values, and “fire in the belly.”
Condi Rice’s intelligence, self assurance, and desire to achieve.
Zell Miller’s sense of what’s right and fortitude in sticking with it.
John F. Kennedy’s understanding of how to unleash the American economy.
Ralph Nader’s understanding that we are killing ourselves with pollution, because of our greed.
Laura Bush for her understanding of how important our education, even for older adults is so important in moving our country forward.
President Regan for his ability to clearly communicate his message to us.
Thomas Jefferson for his clear intellect.
President George “W” Bush for his faith, and fearlessly seeking guidance and strength from God.
Abe Lincoln for doing the right thing, regardless of the consequences.
Newt Gingrich for his understanding of global politics.
Hillary Clinton for her loyalty against all odds.
Barak Obama’s ability to clearly deliver his message with believable passion.
Colin Powell for his calm, measured demeanor in delivering our message to our opponents and smile while biting his tongue.
Libby Dole for her grace, charm.
The list could go on for days, but I think you get the picture.
Maybe when we know more about gene selection and splicing, we can build the perfect candidate.
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 12:31 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
As far as presidential approval ratings and elections: Bill Clinton had an almost 60 percent approval rating the day before the election.
Then mysteriously, in the poll that really counts, Clinton dropped below 50 percent on election day.
Why? Because any knuckle-dragging troglodyte can be polled by a pollster (and knuckle-dragging troglodytes tend to favor Democrats).
I'm guessing that Bush beats Kerry again if the election were held today because you have to be motivated to get to the polls and the unmotivated and slovenly do-nothings tend to be Democrats.
posted by MemyselfandI at 12:34 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Again, anonymous coward, please don't participate in a conversation that you really don't understand.
If a group calling itself afterdowningstreet.com commissioned a poll, what would you expect that poll to say and how valid would that poll really be?
posted by MemyselfandI at 12:37 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
hiya marielora, you can make a free poll on snap poll. it's great isn't it? It will be interesting to see the results should everyone here on ToledoTalk vote :-)
posted by alexandra at 01:26 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
John Edwards?
Frist will have baggage from his stock sale from the not-so-blind trust. He's out.
Newt has baggage - divorced his wife when she was cancer stricken. He has had an affair plus divorce so he comes up a little short in the family values department.
Obama, not seasoned enough in the eyes of the public and he knows it. He will wait and not squander an opportunity for the right time. But, this guy is the real deal. He will be president some day. On this one I would bet hard cash.
Hillary, qualified and competant but the right wingers can't handle a competant female in the Oval office. I am certain that some republican somewhere has compiled a dossier on her in Scooter Libby style (as he did about Joe Wilson) to discredit everything and anything about her including her shoe size. My guess is she will put the party first and step aside if a strong candidate emerges.
My pick is John McCain. He scares the s&*t out of both partys. I believe that he can get both sides to work together and actually accomplish something.
Alexandra, I think I have about 20yrs on you judging on your tv appearance and I don't have a problem with a woman President. Was there some childhood trauma or something? Any logical reason?
posted by holland at 07:36 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Hooda_thunkit, wouldn't it be wonderful...if we only could put a bit of everyone's attributes into ONE LEADER...imagine!!!
I also agree with Posters comments on Obama...someday...
posted by MARIELORA at 08:42 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
holland....
Why would you judge me based on my age for the opinion I have on why there should not be a female President? It's as though you feel what I said means nothing and has no merit based on my age or that I must be crazy to think the way that I do (the result of a childhood trauma).
I stated a simple opinion, that perhaps I am a little too old-fashioned to vote for a female President. It was a simple comment, and no childhood trauma led me to feel that way. Perhaps any time you disagree with me, I should assume you had some sort of childhood trauma to make you messed up enough not to agree with me? What kind of argument is that?
I believe I have established myself enough on this board to demonstrate that my thinking is logical. Even at my young age, I have had a wealth of experiences which I feel have made my contributions to this board diverse and thoughtful. I am not emotional, but perhaps passionate at times.
Perhaps you have one-up on me with knowing how I look since you had nothing better to do that Saturday night but to watch me make a small comment as a volunteer on the "Ohio First" campaign. Maybe you find humor in my mention of being old-fashioned based on my age. I have lived years beyond many twice my age, and I am proud of it.
Engage me in a good debate on the topic of a female President, and I would be glad to respond. You may have 20 years on me, but after that remark, I feel much older.
posted by alexandra at 11:06 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Wow, you were on TV?
posted by HeyHey at 11:20 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Ya, it was like the worst comment I could have made, but that's TV for ya. I have no real TV interviewing experience and the basic thing I took away from this experience is that they look for one catch phrase that they can grab from you in order to make their point, not yours. I was participating at a phone bank for Ohio First.
posted by alexandra at 11:34 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 13, 2005 #
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but people who can't take a little ribbing make my skin crawl.
No offense was intended.
posted by holland at 12:54 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
Thanks holland; it just didn't seem to inspire any debate. Sorry I make your skin crawl :-) but I think most of us on the board try to stay away from personal attacks.
It's over. Now did you actually want to debate or discuss the topic of a female president? I am game!
posted by alexandra at 12:59 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
PS - We both seem to have one thing in common... being old-fashioned LOL!
posted by alexandra at 12:59 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
(HeyHey will probably like this one.) In 2004, apparently the Democratic Party controllers sat down and had a conversation that I'll attempt to capture in the following fictional account:
Dem1: Well, we've got to run against Bush.
Dem2: Yeah. {sigh}
Dem3: Yes, it'll be tough.
Dem1: It's not like we can beat him at his own game since we're playing it too.
Dem2: Yeah.
Dem3: I agree.
Dem1: We can't run Gore again. He's a loser.
Dem2: Sh'right!
Dem3: Obviously.
Dem1: Not only that, but Gore has said a ... few things against Bush and the war. Those things were really thoughtless. Unpatriotic. And when you get down to it ... maybe even ... anti-American.
Dem2: Ya got that right!
Dem3: Yes.
Dem1: He also keeps harping on this Global Warming thing. That doesn't go over well with our corporate sponsors.
{silence}
Dem1: Well, we need to choose somebody like Gore, with all his connections to the heart and soul of this party -- corporations -- but without all that anti-war and pro-environment sentiment.
Dem2: Now you're talkin'!
Dem3: Concur.
Dem1: We need someone who can make those difficult appearance and margin votes to keep the unions and gays mollified.
Dem2: Good idea!
Dem3: Alright.
Dem1: We need someone who will accept the natural primacy of the United Nations.
Dem2: Fantastic!
Dem3: Of course, I'm 100% behind that.
Dem1: Therefore ... I propose John Kerry.
Dem2: HURRAY!
Dem3: GOOD CHOICE!
Dem1: Now get out there, get ahold of Dean's speechwriters, and have that populist twit put into a coffin. We've got to nip that kind of popular trash talk right in the bud.
posted by GuestZero at 01:17 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
Anyhoo, I think that the #1 best way for the Democrats to lose in 2008 is to run John Kerry.
The #2 best way is to run Hillary Clinton.
You Democrats might want to think long and hard about your complete surrender of your party to the ideologies of the DLC.
Until you wake up and start being actual Democrats as represented by people like Kucinich and Nader, you'll never get my vote. I don't vote Republican, and I certainly DO NOT vote Republican Lite (i.e. Democrat).
-kthxbye
posted by GuestZero at 02:23 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
alexandra, all kidding aside, I do not see a gender competance issue in holding the office of the President. Integrity and intellect are the two core qualities followed by experience. These qualities are not y chromosome dependent. Being a female does not confer any inferiority or subtract in any way from the ability to perform the duties of the President or lead the Nation. I am aware that many religions have a tenent that the female is to be subserviant in some manner to the male. I do not labor under that misconception.
posted by holland at 08:59 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
holland, I realize your comment is to alexandra...yet, I would like to commend your thinking as far as gender should NOT be an issue of Political Leaders...I agree with you...I would vote for Hillary...I believe she has all the needed capabilities to be our President!
posted by MARIELORA at 09:32 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
Hillary is missing one key ingredient necessary to lead our country: a conscience.
posted by MemyselfandI at 06:19 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
MemyselfandI states:
Hillary is missing one key ingredient necessary to lead our country: a conscience.
Hillary...NO CONSCIENCE??? I don't believe it!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 07:18 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 14, 2005 #
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9959347/, this article an excerpt from a book...asks.."ARE MEN NECESSARY"...suggesting a WOMAN as President of the U.S.A.
posted by MARIELORA at 11:39 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
A woman president, any other suggestions than Hillary Clinton?
I liked Rudy, he did give quite the impression during the 911 tragedy.
posted by lets_talk_serious at 04:00 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
holland, and anyone else who cares - this article definitely sums up why I don't think I will vote for a female President. Like I said, i am a little too-old fashioned for it and I am not the only one who feels that way. I am not saying it isnt something for our future.
Additionally, women are not accepted as leaders in some volitale foreign nations at this time.
Additionally, I don't care what anyone says, even as a women myself - I don't want to work for a woman because they can be b*tchy, spiteful, and many decisions made are emotionally charged. I find working for a man much more peaceful, and right now is not the time for the whitehouse to go through all that stress of having to understand the role of what the First Man would be, and so on.
Now, feel free to "rib" me holland, but dont whine when I rib you back. Don't say that my argument is without logic, or irrational, or emotional.... because I will just tell you that I myself am a WOMAN! :-) and DARN PROUD of it.
As far as Hilary - and a conscience? Many agreed that she was NO saint while in office and treated her staff right out horribly. Wasnt there a hit and run that she didnt stop for? I would be so depressed if the Clintons were put back in office. Any woman that stays with a cheating man like that does not deserve my respect as a leader - if she can't even stand up for her own rights in her own marriage. It's totally a powerhouse marriage, and she demonstrates this by staying with him.
posted by alexandra at 06:33 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
For those who think a woman can't be president at this time...remember Margaret Thatcher...they said a woman couldn't be the British PM, but she did and served her country well. While some called her a b****, no one dared to do so to her face and she is now regarded as highly successful and "the Iron Lady."
And a man can be as spiteful and emotionally charged in their decisions - that's a personality issue - not just a male/female issue, Alexandra.
As for the others, those Republicans who would have general appeal in a November election (Rudy, McCain, etc) would have a hard time in the primaries. Those Democrats who would have an easy time in the primaries (Kerry, Hillary, etc) won't have as much appeal in a general.
The problem will be to find candidates on either side that can somehow appeal to the hard-core members of each party and still transcend that far right/left leaning into success with the more moderate population.
I predict that the two candidates for President in 2008 are not individuals we'd think of today as being a "major player."
posted by intrepid at 08:00 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
I don't accept the "too emotional" argument, anymore than I believe that men suffer from testosterone surges that lead to war like behavior. As intrepid pointed out these are personality issues not gender issues. I have had male and female bosses. Management style is not gender dependant. It is intellect, integrity, hustle and experience. The last 25 years I have been the boss and I know I have been called a b#### behind my back. In the same set of circumstances a man would have been called a son of a b####. No difference. It was the message I was delivering, not the gender of the deliverer. We are not a hunter-gatherer society where there was a necessary division of labor between the sexes. It was harder for the smaller statured female to take down the mammoth for dinner, especially if she was pregnant. There is no longer a need for a division of labor between the sexes. How old fashioned do you think women should be? Stay at home Mom? Less pay for equal work? Slower advancement in the work place? I would be curious to hear where women should not try to succeed just because they are women.
posted by holland at 08:39 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
holland and intrepid, well said...there are NO LIMITS as far as gender for any Management, Leadership position...
Makes me want to listen to Helen Reddy sing "I am WOMAN hear me ROAR" :)
posted by MARIELORA at 08:47 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
marielora Can I assume that you never looked your daughter in the eye and said "Honey, if you study and work hard, when you grow up you can be whatever you want to be.......except a leader because you are a girl and girls are too emotional to lead."?
posted by holland at 10:21 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 #
Holland an Marielora - I agree with you completely...but don't forget that old perceptions take a long time to change. I think Alexandra is stating a position that many people still feel - regardless of what their logic tells them.
And I do believe that there are differences in the genders (obviously). But just because you say that - in general - men are x and women are y, does not mean that all men are x, all women are y and no men are y and no women are x.
(takes me back to my logic classes in college...sorry)
This thread just goes to show that we still have a lot of work cut out for us - but we're making progress!
posted by intrepid at 09:04 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 16, 2005 #
Ugh! The dreaded logic class. Actually, intrepid, it has been a long time since I came across the x, y thing. The ones I seem to encounter are the "slippery slope" argument and circular reasoning. Thanks for the reminder that some still have those old attitudes. I am and have been an independant business owner for a long time. I have been an electded official for 15 yrs. I have done a lot of things that were made more difficult because of the erroneous perceptions that women were somehow deficiant in management and leadership skills. I fought hard to achieve what I have and I get steemed when I come across anyone who wants to limit a woman's opportunities. Society as a whole suffers when all members cannot contribute equally to the best of their individual abilities.
posted by holland at 01:07 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 16, 2005 #
holland and intrepid, I taught my daughter it can be hers...whatever it is she makes her goal as long as she...BELIEVES...and with HARD WORK AND DETERMINATION...I also, reminded her that she comes from GREAT WOMEN...that against ODDS survived...one great grandmother raised 12 children ALONE in Kentucky during the DEPRESSION (my grandfather died, leaving NOTHING)...each of the 12 including my FATHER are prosperous, decent human beings, which is an accomplishment for one little woman to achieve especially during the DEPRESSION...my daughter's great grandmother on her father's side of the family...FLED Armenia during the Russian takeover carrying both of her children (my daughter's Uncle and Grandmother) running...she had fallen and broke her arm still with a broken arm...she ran and ran carrying her children and because of her DETERMINATION her LOVE of FREEDOM her LOVE of her children...made it to America, without her husband, never learned what came of him. Her arm NEVER healed it was forever in a bent position...but, she did it...she brought her children, herself to FREEDOM!!! How luckey can my daughter be...such great women...then there's my mother...came to America from Germany with my father a GI and me, I was two years old, learned the language, divorced :(...and went on to live a prosperous life...and...ofcourse, there's me, :)...no one could every convince me that WOMEN ARE NOT LEADERS...I have known too many that against all ODDS...WON!!!
Yet, I agree with you intrepid, our country is NOT ready for a woman leader...many just don't know what GREAT DETERMINATION women have...but, we do...we know...
Thanks, for you time...
posted by MARIELORA at 04:32 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 16, 2005 #
Poor poor alexandra-yours is the usual dribble about why women should not be in power-when we are assertive,get the job done, then we a "bitchy"-hell you couldn't even write the word out..."b*tchy".... poor girl...of course we are suppose to be oh sweet and genteel,demure-bull shit I say-not anymore "we've come a long way baby! -and of course men never make decissions based on emotions-unless they are sexual and thinking with their dicks.....you have a real self esteem problem if having a women in office makes your skin crawl-or maybe you just like being submissive to men,-or maybe YOU are the one with the problem with a woman in power,because you can't use you "sex" to get what you want and that is how you get along in the business world,or what ever world you are in(actually yu could use sex with some women-how's your skin feeling now?-I've worked with powerful,brilliant women who of course were called bitches, and worse,but when men who did the very same thing they were praised as 'Powerful"...."Brave..."Real Leaders"....hell with the way the world is going I think a woman should be given the chance to show that WE CAN AND WILL DO IT BETTER in the WHITE HOUSE!-now get yourself to a shrink and find out why a woman President makes your skin crawl-you poor poor girl-but then most people who are oppressed in society as we woman are don't even know it and honey we woman are-no matter what the men say.....it's a man's world girl!
posted by divamom26 at 04:29 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 21, 2005 #
Divamom,
Maybe you should be the one meeting with a shrink to resove your issue with Bernadette Noe.
Let me guess, you're a flaming liberal. Typical of "flamers" try to surpress others forms of free speach by resorting to bullying and name calling.
Maybe thats why you and Bernedette don't get along, because you are the Bitch!
posted by lloyd at 04:56 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 21, 2005 #
Divamom, it isn't nice to personally slam anyone for what their opinions and feelings may be on issues...isn't that the point of this Forum to debate...posters are entitled to feelings of NOT being comfortable with a WOMAN President without being analyzed by anyone as to WHY??? Just as you and I are entitled to believe a WOMAN would make a great President...
You know what really scares me...your claims of being a School Teacher...you are teaching children and I hope NOT with the attitude you have showed on this forum.
posted by MARIELORA at 08:39 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 21, 2005 #
Divamom - I think you need help...just because many believe that the world isn't yet ready for a female president doesn't mean that we're submissive to men...
On second thought - I was going to respond but I've decided you're not worth my time.
Great comment, Marielora - scary that she claims to be a schoolteacher - what hatred and animosity eminates from her!
posted by intrepid at 09:48 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 21, 2005 #
The scary part of this whole discussion is the antiquated notion that a President really does anything besides serve as a figurehead for a much larger thinktank.
I don't think we're ready for a female president because we're not even ready to turn away from attack politics.
McCain should have already been President, but the Bush team went completely negative on him, going so far as to suggest that he went crazy as a prisoner of war.
In hindsight, I wouldn't vote for McCain because of his bad ideas about media control - this country is already woolblinded enough, we don't need to consolidate the mainstream media into FOX vs VIACOM.
My choice for 2006 is whoever has a solid shot to beat Giuliani, Jeb, or McCain.
Which is probably nobody.
posted by StatJugg at 03:15 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 22, 2005 #
I disagree. . McPain won't get past the primaries. I hardly think the country wants yet another Bush, any more than they want the Clintoons back. Why should we limit ourselves to two families of 'royalty'? And Guliani would have a tough time getting primary votes as well, since he's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage. The only thing in his favor would be his strong stance on national defense.
posted by Foolkiller at 07:47 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 22, 2005 #
National Nitwit Rogue Editor Billy Pilgrim has news of the GOP's decision to update its logo.
posted by Subcomandante_bob at 10:41 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 22, 2005 #
Foolkiller, you've shot down two of the three suggestions I made - so should I presume that Jeb Bush is your choice for the next prez? If not, then who?
posted by StatJugg at 11:27 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 23, 2005 #
Foolkiller, I think that you underestimate Giuliani's appeal to the average voter. People still remember the way in which he managed the city after the WTC attacks (9/11 commission criticisms aside; most people thought he walked away from those hearings intact).
The guy will be a formidable candidate for either Hillary's Senate seat in 2006 or President in 2008.
posted by historymike at 11:55 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 23, 2005 #
To Marielora,Intrepid but mostly to ALexandra, my appologies for coming on too strong- But I just hate the old arguement that women are "TOO emotional and the use of the word "BITCH" as Lloyd called me,thank you LLoyd,I take that as a compliment!!!!!--what I should have said is that I think that our society has this twisted image of women-that our "emotions" hold us back and make us weak when I think that they can actually take us forward and make us stronger-how many decissions by men are made by, or bassed on emotions-(stupid ass Bill Clinton and his sexual emotions-of course there were others too like him who never got caught).... if some men don't like someone or something then they "BLOW THE SHIT UP"i.e WAR...the present WAR.... or in the corperate world "TAKE IT OVER." But god what if a woman did this-then she is a bitch or worse. I do believe that we woman are still oppressed in many ways and that we do not even know it-....now because I speak my mind I'm a BITCH-again thank you so much lloyd -
But I do wonder why ALexadra's "Skin would crawl" if a wonmen was president? YOu must have worked for some really lousy women and that is sad.....sometimes I think that we women are our own worst enemies....And as far as me being a school teacher-and being angry
and hateful.....I'm assume I'm dealing with adults on this site and far worse has been said about people on this blogg...including someone who called Berrnie Noe a "Pit BUll".....For the record,the children I teach are my life-I am passionate about them -and yes emotional when I see then going down a road that will hurt them or get them killed. I tell them the truth-gently of course-I could tell you about the funerals I've attended for former students who went down the wrong road no matter what any one tried to tell them and about the ones I visit in prison-Many nights I have cried because of the way some of my students are forced to live-in poverty and abuse and worse...Yes I cry,not because I am a weak woman and emotional but because i am human and have a heart and- beacause I'm a FLAMMING BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL BITCH-
NOw with that I wish all of you a very Happy Thanksgiving-and again ALexandra-sorry about the psyco-babble shit-it was wrong-....guess I let my emotions get the best of me..LOL....I STILL LOVE THIS SITE AND MOST OF YOU ON IT....Next time I'm at MY shrink I'll talk it out with him and maybe resolve these alledged feelings of anger and hate ...LOL PS-Even though I'm a teacher my spelling sucks-so feel free to poke fun at me!
posted by divamom26 at 09:49 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 23, 2005 #
hey as far as those of you who want hilary to run-you know i think she would do much better if she would DIVORCE that cheating SOB-I'd have more respect for her-the whole "stand by your man thing-was such a farce-she would do just fine on her own-!
posted by divamom26 at 01:39 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 26, 2005 #
Foolkiller, you've shot down two of the three suggestions I made - so should I presume that Jeb Bush is your choice for the next prez? If not, then who?
posted by StatJugg at 11:27 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 23, 2005 #
---------------------------------------
Can you read? I SAID....that the country would not want another Bush in '08. I hope. I also hope to God they don't put the Klintons back to further soil the Oval Orifice. I would -at this point in time, I hasten to add-cast my vote for George Allen. I say 'at this time' because I don't know who'll be running, but I can tell you with all certainty who I would NOT vote for:Anybody whose last name is Bush (unless Laura ran :-D),McPain, "Judas" Guliani, or round 2 of the Sweet Hill & Bill Show. Were a CONSERVATIVE Dem to run, might consider giving them my vote-but there aren't many of them, & I therefore haven't voted for a Dem since 92(except for Herr Finkenbeiner in the recent election-and that was an anti-Block vote), because the Clintons sickened me so much (actually, it was because of what they did to the Democratic Party, which sold its soul to- those two lying con artists & now bears no resemblance to the party of say, Hubert Humphrey) In 94, I did something I'd never done before-I voted straight Republican except for Taft, Rhinovich, & DeWhine. Independendents got my votes there. I have never voted for any of those 3 phony SOB's, and never will. Most of my votes since then have gone for Libertarians or Independents. Said it before-I say it again-the Republican party of Today has become the Democratic party of 20 years ago. The Democratic Party of Today has become the Socialist/Communist party of Tomorrow.
posted by Foolkiller at 02:31 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 26, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
