With Liberia having elected Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as president, Africa's first elected female head of state, and with conservative Catholic Chile having elected Michelle Bachelet, a self-proclaimed "agnostic", a divorcee, a single mother with a out-of-wedlock child, to be the country's first female leader, the question to ask is: Is the United States ready for a female president?

By the way, Condy Rice has denied any speculation of her running for the presidency or even the vice-presidency in the near future. But on the democratic side, we still have Hilary ...

No, not even American women want a woman president. They want a daddy figure, a strong guy who protect the nation. I could care less if a woman is elected...well, so long as she isnt a militant feminist.

Why? Where does that electra complex come from?

They were chosen by God.  The people would not dare say there was a miscount with God!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ellen_Johnson-Sirleaf - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ellen_Johnson-Sirleaf

BBC News calls her (Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf) "Africa's first elected woman leader". Has there been an unelected woman leader before Africa or is she the first of any kind?

* de:Carmen Pereira was pro forma Head of State of Guinea-Bissau for few days in 1984 and Ntombi of Swaziland was a kind of Head of State but not elected. --OY href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserOY">POY 09:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

*There have also been several female prime ministers, but in their respective countries the Prime Minister is appointed and is a secondary role to that of the President (i.e., the female PM isn't the actual leader of the country). --atadyBag href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UseratadyBag">PatadyBag 13:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

* Maria do Carmo Silveira is the prime-minister of Sao-Tome and Principe. Sao-Tome and Principe are islands off the west coast of Africa, very close to the continent... would that still be considered Africa, politically? --IronyWrit 19:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)  - Yes it would, but agains she is a Prime Minister, and I would guess that she was appointed by the President, not elected. (69%29">Jamandell (d69) 19:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

* Canada has had Kim Campbell as a female prime minister. However, the prime minister is the head of government, not the head of state. The Queen is represented in Canada by a governor-general. At least the last two have been female.

Hillary isnt tough...she a BSer and I'd rather she not run.

Get a woman like Margret thatcher and i'm cool with it.

At present? no. Ever? probably not.

The way I see it is America is in the means of a war, or whatever some would like to call it. So I would have to agree with Constantine in the aspect that America at present and will for some time need and want that powerful figure, something a woman cant give. Now Im not sexist or have anything at all whatsoever against females but in most crucial situations I would say that men generally handle it better. This is just how the two genders are made. Women generally are more emotional people and act on emotions more just as some men do as well but as a whole I would say men are more analytical. In truth if my decision was on two candidates that both had good sound points and opinions on the way a country should be ran and I was in the middle of the road with the two votes and one of those candidates happened to be female than I woukd more than likely vote for the male ONLY because generally I would believe that the man would handle a significant life-threatening/saving chose especially regarding war, in a more non-emotional way. Notice how Ive used the word "generally" a multitude of times.

Not to be outdone by their male counterparts, women leaders tend to be a more radical and ruthless so as to avoid the general stereotypes associated with women in positions of power.  

Having said that, I am all for Hillary Clinton to be the next US president.

Yes, God chose the Israelites to go to war against their pagan neighbors.

I swear I've heard this before ... Oh, yes, in one of the PBS "American experience" documentaries on the history of "Miss America". I don't know which candidate was that but she gave almost the same answer (with the same reasoning) that arch.buff did when she was asked the same question that's asked on this thread.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/pt.html - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/pt.html

"PAGEANT BROADCAST: Parks "This is a presidential election year. If a qualified woman were running for president, how would you feel about voting for her and why?" Contestant: If the men candidates running were qualified, I feet I would vote against her. My reasons being that women are very high strung and emotional people. They aren't reliable enough when it comes to making a decision, a snap decision. I believe that a man in such a predicament would be able to make a more justifiable and better decision. "

As you see, I didn't make this up!!!!! The documentary doesn't indicate which year that was, but from the look of it (it's in Black and White - but you can definitely tell the contestant in question was blonde as everyone else at that time ), it must be in the late 50's or early 60's.

I guess Americans' perception on gender hasn't really changed that much since the 50's ...

Unless it is a time of exterme national emergency, it is of no importance who the president is.  The real power to affect policy and decision making is always much more invisible than it is transparent.

Big oil runs this country now as the railroads ran it 100 years ago.

I do not say it is the best situation, but it is what drives business, mobilizes capital, has created wealth that exists so people can aspire to it, and frankly big business and its perception of interest has historically been more beneficial for our strategic security than have social programs.

This is only my view.  I can just imagine the reaction tomorrow.

Some:

Elizabeth I

Catherine the Great

Golda Meir

Indira Ghandi

Margaret Thatcher

War acknowledges no gender.  Never has; never will.

I agree. The gender of a leader has nothing to do with whether he or she is willing to involve his or her country in an arumed conflict or not. A war is a war. The desire to protect one's own interests is the same in any country whether the leader is a man or a woman. So I think it's absurd for anyone to argue that if the world is run by women, it would be a better place. The world just hasn't given women enough the chance to show their real colour ...

Originally posted by arch.buff ... Im not understanding the above posts but are we suggesting that more women(when in a position of power) have gone to war as opposed to men???

Not more. The above posts just demonstrate the fact that female leaders are no different from their male counterparts when it comes to their willingness to involve their own country in armed conflicts.

And rtightly so if you're gonna spew the tired sh*t about gays being evil, the devil's minions, etc, etc as the typical wackjob bible belters in America do.

Let me quote my esteemed self (please make a note of letters displayed in bold):

Unhealthy lifestyle? And what is so healthy about the lifestyle of any other average American? And who are you to deem the lifestyles of gays unhealthy? Seriously WHAT difference do you think it's gonna make?

Gays will be gays no matter what... How is preaching hate against them gonna change anything?  Constructive criticism? Sure that is helpful, but calling them evil and preaching hate against them?

Isn't a lifestyle usually a choice of living? If it is I'm missing something, because someone who is gay doesn't choose it neither do they have to live by any guidlines on being gay. Do you consider being straight a lifestyle too?

It'd be odd because everyone lives their lives differently, sexual preference isn't a way of living nor is it a choice.

I believe the US will not be ready for a female president for at least 8 years. I believe a black president will take over 12 years. A latin american or mexican president will take 20 years.

I also believe we will not be seeing a middle eastern president (Indian, Morrocan, Turkish, Arabian) President for at least 50 years.

No insults intended to anyone, it is just what I believe to be true.

It seems we are getting off the subject so this will be my last post on this issue.  Very valid points Constantine. I to a certain extent  agree with you but lets again take a step back and look at this equation.

As you have already stated homosexuals come in every different shape and color and have all types of different personalities. Some like sports, others prefer less physical activities. Some are masculine and others passive so thus concluding they are just like straight people, and to that token i would have to agree wit you. So whats different about them? Their sexual preference. So if the above said facts are true then we can conclude that because homosexuals only differ from heterosexuals in sexual preference that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the same sex. The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the homosexual life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the homosexual community is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.

Not true. Among a minority of people in the gay culture there exists a hedonist attitude which leads some to not use sufficient protection. You won't simply contract an STD from changing your sexual preference. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have an STD.

Not true. Homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy provided the parties involves take proper care. Exactly the same rule applies to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals contract STDs from eachother as easily as homosexuals. The issue is one of encouraging safe sex among the minority of both heterosexual and homosexual people who do not take proper care. If you have unprotected heterosexual sex or homosexual sex with someone who has an STD you are as likely to contract the STD either way.

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. 

Teenagers only differ from non-teenagers in age that this is the reason for their higher percentage of sexually transmitting diseases, doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You can be the most filthiest person ever and still not contract an STD if youre careful or if apparently you dont sleep with the opposite sex. The only other conclusion I can think of is that if the teenage sex life isnt more lets say "risky" in the aspect of contracting an STD then the teenage cohort is more careless when it comes to protection, either way more of a percentage have STD's. nuff said.

So let's start sending out hate messages to those filthy teens for having sex.

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. 

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?).

Source please?

If a person - whether he or she is a sex educator, a teacher, a pastor, a social worker, etc. - is criticizing unprotected sex or prosmicuous sex, NO ONE will get arrested. But if someone uses whatever excuse to criticize any group because of its ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc., it should be a hate crime. But isn't this something that all countries should aspire to? Isn't the protection of minority, be it ethnic, racial, inguistic, religious, or sexual, be the basis of a fair and just society?

Why are all of you right-wingers so fixated on sex and who's sleeping with whom? This is something that I really really don't understand.

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.

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.

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

Alright I'd hate to bring it more off topic, but it seems at this rate it's just going to be closed anyways.

Most STDs are transmitted through vaginal intercourse, oral, and anal. There was also a study that found that gays have as much anal sex as straights. All thats left is oral sex which most straight couples practice also.

So about gays having a higher percentage, any smell that??? I smell bullsh*t...  that'll never get old...

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.

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 - 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."