Is the United States ready for a female president?

The following "news" is "fresh from the oven". It's about whether the United States is ready for a female president (the topic of this thread in case you have forgotten)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060118/pl_afp/uspoliticswomen

After Liberia and Chile, could US elect a woman president?

Americans are getting used to the idea of being led by a female president, with political observers dreaming of a showdown between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election.

If polls, a television show about a female president and a prediction by First Lady Laura Bush are any indication, Americans appear willing to follow Liberia and Chile in electing their first woman president.

Before attending the presidential inauguration of Liberia's Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first elected female president, Laura Bush predicted last week that a woman would lead the United States someday soon.

"I think it will happen for sure," she said, adding that it will occur "probably in the next few terms of the presidency in the United States."

Reality may imitate art in 2008. "Commander in Chief," which stars Geena Davis as the first female president, became a hit television series after appearing last year. Davis won a Golden Globe for her role on Monday.

A recent Gallup poll for USA Today and CNN showed that 70 percent of Americans said they would probably vote for a woman in 2008.

But before Clinton and Rice can battle for the ultimate power seat in the Oval Office, they would have to become the first women to win the nomination of the top two American political parties.

Republicans and Democrats have yet to pick a woman as a White House nominee, although Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic vice presidential candidate during Walter Mondale's failed presidential bid in 1984. And Elizabeth Dole tried but failed to win the Republican nomination for president in 2000.

Laura Bush has already made her view on the subject known. She told CNN last week that Rice would be a great Republican candidate to succeed her husband, President George W. Bush, who wraps up the first year of his second term on Friday.

"I'd love to see her run. She's terrific," she said of Rice.

Rice, however, has said she does not want to run for president.

Clinton, who has led potential Democratic candidates in opinion polls, has yet to declare her intentions.

Although neither has said she will run for president, political observers are already pining for a battle between the two powerful women.

Dick Morris, a former adviser to Clinton's husband, president Bill Clinton, co-wrote a book titled "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race."

The book imagines a political duel between "two highly accomplished women, partisans of opposite parties, media superstars and quintessentially 21st-century female leaders."

To Morris, only Rice has the potential to reach across the political spectrum to stop Clinton from winning the 2008 election.

While Rice's boss saw his popularity rating plunge last year, the chief US diplomat remained a popular government figure.

After Johnson Sirleaf's inauguration and Chilean president-elect Michelle Bachelet's election victory this week, it is becoming easier to imagine the United States being led by a woman, analysts said.

"It's perfectly possible," said Stephen Hess, a George Washington University professor.

"We're talking on a week in which a woman president was inaugurated in Africa and a woman was elected in Latin America, so this is not any longer so unique," Hess said.

"Here, polls show that gender doesn't really make that much difference anymore," he added.

Women have made gains in the US political landscape, although the United States remains in the 63rd spot worldwide in terms of female legislative representation.

There are 69 women in the 435-member US House of Representatives and 14 female senators in the 100-member Senate.

Clinton has an edge over Rice because she has won an election, while the secretary of state has never run for office, Hess said.

"The odds are greater that it would be Hillary rather than Condi," he said. "You would have to go very far to find a president of the United States who hadn't been elected to some previous office."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy There was also a study that found that gays have as much anal sex as straights.

 

I find this hard to believe. last I heard %60 of straits admitted to having anal sex (of course the number is probably higher). Gays have only 1 choice when it comes to their sex lives. I'm not saying straits don�t go through the back door, but certainly gays do it more.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by arch.buff Dude, youre missing it. The issue we were talking about(which has gone enuf off course) was the issue of homos and heteros and their percentage rate on STD's. The sex is different, that is what should be focused on, among other things, when this issue is addressed. So you dont think the actually sex being  taken place betwwen gays and straights is different? very naive outlook on the issue  The issue was whether community religious leaders are justified in making hateful and offensive statements against the gay community. Eaglecap brought up the fact that a higher percentage of gays have STDs. I didn't deny that fact, but merely stated that it was an invalid justification for hate attacks on the gay community. The issue isn't whether the STD fact is accurate but rather if it is a valid justification for hateful and offensive behaviour towards homosexuals. We have clearly demonstrated that it is not.

If that is the case then NO, it is certainly not justified in advocating violence against homosexuals, nothing is.

Originally posted by arch.buff Its not hard to contract an STD, be it homosexual or heterosexual. I have had partners where the relationship expands and we gradually get away from using protection. I am just fortunate that i havent been with anyone that has been with anyone else in their past that has transmitted the disease on to them and in turn on to me. You see it can get tricky and quite easy to transmit one i guess. I have three gay cousins and have heard the reason for gays having a larger percentage of STD's is because *graphic* when you have anal sex sometimes you tend to bleed inside which then enters into the penis, swapping blood basically. The reason it bleeds is because your anus isnt really meant to endure all the stretching that a vagina is. Sorry for the graphics, and I do believe we have gotten off the issue enough.......

Well there are more than enough heterosexuals out there who happily enjoy anal sex, don't worry about that. So the question then arises why not speak out against all people having anal sex, why only against homosexuals?

The reason I am pointing out the flaws in portraying homosexuals as a filthy stereotype is because eaglecap is citing that inaccurate stereotype as justification for religious leaders spewing forth hate upon their congregations in order to encourage homophobic activity and attitudes. I have properly conceded that a greater percentage of homosexuals have STDs than heterosexuals. However, the number is still a small percentage of homosexuals overall and is in no way proper in justifying offensive or hateful attitudes against the gay community.

Those who evidently care about public health would advocate that the small percentage of irresonsible homosexuals (along with the irresponsible heterosexuals) simply reform their unsafe sexual habits. Education and proper sexual health awareness is what is needed, not some psychotic priest baying for blood from his altar.

Dude, youre missing it. The issue we were talking about(which has gone enuf off course) was the issue of homos and heteros and their percentage rate on STD's. The sex is different, that is what should be focused on, among other things, when this issue is addressed. So you dont think the actually sex being  taken place betwwen gays and straights is different? very naive outlook on the issue 

Originally posted by arch.buff And your example of teens makes no sense regarding this issue. The issue of difference in teens and non-teens(heteros) is just age, whereas the issue of difference in homosexuals and heterosexuals is there in in the issue of the actual sex at hand. Heterosexual teens and non-teens are still having sex with opposite sex so the percentage of diseases lies there in there regard to safety or protection( as it also applies to gays and straights) but the main point being with homos and heteros is the actual difference in the sex being had between the two.........one has a higher STD rate per capita.

This is exactly where you are wrong. Homosexuals are not just people defined by whom they sleep with. They are people, like you and me. They eat. They sh*t. They have friends. Some are promiscuous. Some are celibate. Some are Democrat, and believe it or not, some are even Republican!!!!

And by the same token, as you implied, teens shouldn't be defined by whom they sleep with because they are people too, like you and me. They eat. They sh*t. They have friends. Some are promiscuous. Some are celibate. Some are Democrat and some are Republican.

Do you get it? The fact that you are focusing so much on who is sleeping with whom shows that you are fixating on sex too much. Sexual orienation is no different from age or ethnicity or race. You don't single out teenagers for being promiscuous and engaging in unsafe sex, do you (you do know that the STD rate of teenagers is A LOT higher than other age groups). If you don't, why do you single out the whole "group" called homosexuals?

Play some sports or read a book. That might get your mind off sex a little.

Originally posted by flyingzone Why single out the homosexuals? Why not single out heterosexual people who live a promiscuous lifestyle? Why not single out teens who have unprotected sex? The fact that you are singling out one particular group, in this case, their sexual orientation, demonstrates that you are in fact a homophobic in denial (or not so much in denial?).

I like how you cast your judgement on me but thats fine, youre entitled to your opinion.

And your example of teens makes no sense regarding this issue. The issue of difference in teens and non-teens(heteros) is just age, whereas the issue of difference in homosexuals and heterosexuals is there in in the issue of the actual sex at hand. Heterosexual teens and non-teens are still having sex with opposite sex so the percentage of diseases lies there in there regard to safety or protection( as it also applies to gays and straights) but the main point being with homos and heteros is the actual difference in the sex being had between the two.........one has a higher STD rate per capita.

Originally posted by eaglecap There are some Pastors in jail in both Canada and Australia.

Source please?

Originally posted by arch.buff Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they homosexual or heterosexual. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of homosexuals have some form of a STD than heterosexuals do, then the quote "homosexuals in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than heterosexuals" is completely valid. Whether we agree with homosexuality or not, the statement has validity.

Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they teens or non-teens. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of teens have some form of a STD than non-teens do, then the quote "teens in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than nonteens" is completely valid. Whether we agree with teenage sex or not, the statement has validity. 

Oh Im not in any way condoning religious leaders to oppress or encourage violence on ANY group, be they homosexual or heterosexual. What I thought was the question under the microscope was that Eaglecap was talking "hate speech" and I simply disagreed. You can give all the excuses you want Constantine but if the simple fact is that more of a percentage of homosexuals have some form of a STD than heterosexuals do, then the quote "homosexuals in general lead a more unhealthy sexual life than heterosexuals" is completely valid. Whether we agree with homosexuality or not, the statement has validity.