Skip to main content

In "The Ascent of a Woman," Ann Kornblut of the New York Times asks and examines why we have never elected a female President.  As she pointed out, other countries, like Pakistan, India, Israel, and Britain, and trusted the chief executive position to women. Yet here, in the greatest democracy on earth, the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office is on a fictional drama on ABC.

I think Kornblut does a good job of running through the possible explanations and pointing out their shortcomings. The excuse that the right woman hasn't come along, as she points out, "would seem to explain everything and nothing."

Rather, some think that the cause is a "pipeline" problem; there are not enough women in political positions to work their way to the highest executive office in the land:

"There are very few women in the pool when you think about it," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "The pool that candidates tend to come from in this country are U.S. senators and governors, and until recently we've had very few women in those positions. That's something that's really held us back. It's the whole pipeline that's been problematic, and frankly, our pipeline hasn't been doing that well lately."

There are just 14 female senators.  At the state level, there are only 8 female governors. A pipeline problem, indeed.

The article continues with an analysis of Hillary Clinton's prospects, pointing out that it may well be her position on the Iraq War rather then her gender that keeps Clinton out of the White House. But I think asking the Hillary question muddles the issue a bit, because obviously, she comes with more baggage than the baggage claim at O'Hare airport.

So Hillary aside, why do you think we haven't had a female President?

Personally, I think the pipeline problem provides a partial explanation.  Not just at the governor and congressional level, but with respect to politics as a whole.  

The political arena is dangerous and cutthroat. It requires an offensive, aggressive posture, which, when assumed by males, comes off as a strong resolve of character. But when women adopt a similar posture, when they participate in politics with the same vigor as males do, I have too often seen the reaction to be one of disdain. The bottom line is that an aggressive male politician is viewed as a leader, while an aggressive female politician is viewed a bitch.  I've been called the same for holding strong political views, as if the uterus inside me somehow requires silence or at the very least muted acquiescence to the world around me.  

Watching CSPAN and seeing the Senate in session is sometimes like peeping into a treehouse, with a "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" sign on the door. Do you ignore the sign and bust in, or stay on the sidelines?

The internet I think will revolutionize the role of women in politics. Because online, behind asexual monikers, women of all faiths and colors and experiences can pull up a chair to the national table and participate--indeed, even lead--the political discussion without having to deal with preconceived notions of what a female in politics must do, or say (or look like!). And if and when we do decide to remove the anonymous veil or reveal the fact that we are indeed, women, and damn proud of it, there is a sense of accomplishment.  

You see, because here, in the online world where you are judged by the content of your writing rather than by your gender, there are no boundaries.  Revealed as females or not, we participate with passion and resolve, and no barrier--least of all that of gender--will prevent us from effectuating change.  And who knows. Right now, there may be a feisty female netroots participant reading this on her monitor who just might become the first female President of the United States.  Yes, I'm talking about you...

And if you're out there, just remember to pick a neutral color for the White House drapes, will you?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:38 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Be careful what you ask for... (10+ / 0-) might just get it. And it might be the kind of female President that shops for Ferragamo boots while American citizens drown.

    Character and intelligence, not gender.

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

    •  of course (14+ / 0-)

      certainly, no one is advocating a female President just because she's female.

      What I do know is that there a hell of a lot of women with more character and intelligence than the current White House occupant, but they never had a shot at the Presidency.

      •  Governor is a better springboard (5+ / 0-)

        to the WH than senator. The last incumbent senator to win was JFK.

        Ann Richards was the kind of female governor who might have been able to do it.

        Non mi placent, O Pincerna. Virent Ova! Viret Perna!

        by quaoar on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:38:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Too Bad Karl Rove Ruined Richards (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Be sure to rent Bush's Brain if you haven't already...

          •  AnnRichards is one of my ALL TIME FAVORITES (6+ / 0-)

            Why can't women like Ann Richards and Molly Ivans just eliminate all those other so-called Texas women like Laura Bush?

            "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

            by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:21:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because they're bigger than life (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wonkydonkey, georgia10

              and can't be stuffed into the kitchen baking cookies.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:45:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is why I disagree with georgia10 (4+ / 0-)

              This whole "aggressive women are percieved as bitches" thing doesn't ring true to me. For one thing, most male candidates for president go out of their way to seem as personable and "just folks" likeable as possible. The aggression is meted out through others (often the VP candidate, or front groups).
              I think it really is a pipeline problem. The simple fact is, I for one have never been presented with a credible female candidate for president. By credible, I mean someone I think has the qualities I want in a chief executive. HRC is out for me because she's a little too Liebermanesque for my taste, although I think she's a lot more electable than anyone seems to realize. But she and Ferraro are the only two women that have ever been presented to me for consideration. (I know GF was up for VP, but I consider the VP candidate a presidential candidate as well.)

              What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

              by strandedlad on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:52:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

                the countries that have had women leaders don't necessarily have a lot of women in politics.

                I think it's because the MEN controlling the party don't want a woman to run. They will destroy her before she even gets a chance to build up momentum.

                •  Why ask us MsG10? Step up to the plate! (0+ / 0-)

                  I hear so many women complain that there are not enough women in politics.

                  Then those same women refuse to run for any political office and even refuse to participate in the political process, other than to "go vote" once in a while.

                  If women won't run for public office and women won't support other women who want to run for public office, then there is little reason to expect a woman president any time soon.

                  Besides, with so few women in public office right now, a woman president won't make much good, especially for you women. This is because you won't be able to get laws passed to gain complete freedom to do what you want you want to do with your own body.

                  We men are rooting for you because we also want complete freedom to do what we want to do with our own bodies. That won't happen until you get your freedom first. Until then, we all will continue to be legal wards of a government that is free to decide, good or bad, what is best for each and every one of us, whether we like their decisions or not!

                  Women in this country make up over 50% of the population. The fact that women don't hold over 50% of all elected political positions in government is collectively their own fault.

                  If you women want more women in public office, you will find the best women candidates to run for public office by looking in the mirror!


                  Then call Gov. Howard Dean over at the DNC. His job is to help you get started on a successful career as an elected official of the federal, state or local government... and he's very good at his job too!

                  Ladies, for a rewarding career in politics as an elected offical, start here:


                  •  See Dr. Howard Dean Naked!!! (0+ / 0-)

                    Just kidding! Sex sells.

                    Don't you remember? Medical doctors get to see you naked. You don't get to see them naked, especially Dr. Dean, unless of course, your name is Dr. Judy.

                    Here's the real story:


                    The Womens Leadership Forum
                    of the
                    Democratic National Committee

                    invites you to attend our
                    13th Annual National Issues Conference

                    Thursday, September 28th - Friday, September 29th, 2006

                    The Mayflower Hotel
                    1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
                    Washington, DC 20036

                    More details are coming soon.

                    Please email Julie Ide at with any questions.

                •  This is exactly the problem... (0+ / 0-)

                  sentiments like that. Some men have a hard time voting for women as canidates, because the women intend to run on, well, being a woman. Not too many men run on being a man (or white canidates say "vote for me, I'm white"). Pretty rare. This is the difficulty in having a marginalized group try to capture the national vote, it doesn't work for someone who is obviously part of a marginalized group, and running as such. By trying to represent that marginlized group, they alienate the non-marginalized sectors of society, and then certainly lose. Marginalized groups are so for a reason, trying to win based on their vote is almost always self defeating, if they had majority voting power, they wouldn't be marginlized.

                  Exhibit A: Colon Powel and Condi Rice. Neither would run for president as a black canidate (or a woman really), but just as yet another canidate, which is why they might have a chance to win. Contrast this with Sharpton, never going to happen. Contrast this with someone speaking like mmacdDe, not going to happen.

                  Exhibit B: HRC can win specifically because she's never shown any inclination to play the gender card. As long as she does not, she will fare well. Once she does play that card, a lot of people are going to seriously reconsider their willingness to vote for her.

                  This is the lesson to take away. If you want to run for office, run as an american citizen trying to represent your fellow citizens. If you run as a woman (or man, or catholic, or, whatever...) trying to represent that group, and hell bent on making the majority pay for all those years of marginalization,  you will lose.

                  End of story.

              •  Maybe a female Veep first (0+ / 0-)

                It might be better to have a female vice president as a prelude to a female president.  And again, I don't want La Hill to be that person.

                When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

                by The Truffle on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:57:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Right on! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wonkydonkey, historys mysteries

              A strong, educated, socially liberal woman with a sense of humor!

        •  Governor or Veep (0+ / 0-)
          The last few people elected president and their last political jobs were:

          Bush, governor
          Gore, vice president
          Clinton, governor
          Bush, vice president
          Reagan, governor
          Nixon, vice president
          Johnson, vice president

          J. F. Kennedy wouldn't have had an electoral majority if votes in Chicago and the Rio Grande valley were counted legally.  He didn't have a popular majority even as the votes were counted.

          Previous to that, Eisenhower was a very famous general, Truman was veep, and Roosevelt was a governor.

          So the only viable routes are through governor or vice president.  Senators lose.  Always.  Unless they can get picked to be vice president first.

          3.39/-3.27 * Save the Moderates

          by ChetEdModerate on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:02:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Janet Napolitano/Kathleen Sebelius (0+ / 0-)

          Both are popular, effective red state governors, and both would be great choices.  Alas, Janet Napolitano may be hindered by the fact that she's an unmarried woman.  Apparently, people like their candidates happily married.  And "apparently," any never-married female is a--SSSSHHHHH--lesbian and thus unelectable.  Which means people would be more inclined to support Sebelius, who has also proven good at peeling away moderate Republicans.  Two of her running mates are ex-GOPers.

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you're not Georgia, but some people really are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        advocating for any female president. I've seen groups that have drawn up lists of any potential female candidate, right across the political spectrum.

        •  That sounds like Unity. (0+ / 0-)

          If there's any group that's brains are out of whack, it's Unity.  They want a McCain/Clinton or Clinton/McCain campaign... of course the two could never decide on who gets to be Prez, but still...

          •  Outtawhack? Is that somewhere in Massachusetts? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jlove1982, vtpeace

            "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

            by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the scariest thing I've ever seen (0+ / 0-)

              Good god why???!

            •  And THIS is why... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wonkydonkey, Caldonia

              ...we'll never have a woman president.

              Because even if our friends like wonkydonkey refrain from publishing the most unflattering portraits they can find, the wingers will certainly not be so inhibited.  

              Never mind that judging Hillary's fitness for the office by that picture makes just as much sense as judging Howard Dean's fitness to be president by The Scream.  Image is EVERYTHING in politics, and the sexist right wing will ensure that the image of any female candidate is a negative one.

              2008 is going to be a very ugly campaign.

              Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Looks like 2006 is going to be a "rebuilding year" for Al-Qaida.

              by Brother Love on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:55:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's a LOT of women I would support... (0+ / 0-)

       run for President on a Democratic ticket.  Hillary isn't one of them.  I'd start selling my blood to contribute to a Boxer for President campaign.  Even Oprah would be better than Hillary...

                Don't make this about sexism when it is obvious I posted an equally silly picture of McCain along side in reply to a comment about them running on a Unity ticket.

                "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

                by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:02:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I would support Oprah (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  if she would support the ERA in Illinois!  She's been asked many times.

                  •  Has she said why she wopuldn't support ERA? (0+ / 0-)

                    A lot of female politicians shy away from ERA because of the whole "the sexes are equal but different" philosophy, and the horrors of the Unisex toilet.  There seems to be good evidence, that separate schools for young girls helps them avoid the self-esteem crash that women often experience at puberty.  It may be that ERA is too simplistic a tool and one that could be easily abused.

                    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

                    by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:38:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I think a LOT of people would vote for Oprah. (4+ / 0-)

                    Lots and lots of them. Partly because she's not a politician, and partly because they feel they know her, and they feel she's like THEM.

                    Never mind that she's probably the richest black woman in the world, and has been for years, she wasn't raised that way.

                    I think the best presidents have had to overcome huge handicaps. Some financial, some physical, but the WORST presidents seem to be the ones who never really had to face up to ANYTHING, and who never had anything go totally wrong in their lives.

                •  Why would she settle for President (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  when she already thinks she's God?

          •  The Unity folks sound like... (0+ / 0-)

            ... a group of Republicans who want to sue for peace.

            They know their party faces the potential of being severely punished by the voters, and they want to distance themselves from the Right Wing wackos who have led their party in that direction.

            The wackos they enabled for years...

            NOW they want "unity"? They want a lifeboat, an escape hatch, a "do over." I say no quarter!

            "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

            by pat208 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:07:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. There is a good chance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ice Blue

          our first female president will be of the Maggie Thatcher variety.

          •  I fear you're right... (0+ / 0-)

            I think the conservatives will slander any democratic female candidate too severely to run an effective campaign.  They'll pull out all the stereotypes possible from too bitchie, to too emotional, to too sensitive, to inadequate to be commander in chief of the armed services, etc.  

            They'll slander her with every stereotype imaginable just to hinder her prospects becoming president.  And, for them it won't matter because a lot of their female base buys into these stereotypes of how women can be.  

            I think the democrats would be less likely to use ugly stereotypes out of fear of alienating a more independent minded female base.  And, consequently, when a female president is elected, my money is on her coming up through the GOP.

            •  What if she's 'one of the guys' ? (0+ / 0-)

              The trouble with war is that it kills off the best men a country has.-Rep. C. A. Lindbergh (R-MN)

              by Ice Blue on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:45:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess I shouldn't be too pessimistic... (0+ / 0-)

                about a left leaning lady taking the presidency.  I for one would like to see it.  And, would much rather see it over a female GOP candidate.

                And, to be fair, there are strong women democrats like Ann Richards that can carry votes in pretty conservative places.  People like her give me hope that the dems could put someone forward that has the strength of character to win a national election.

          •  naw (0+ / 0-)

            See, we also have never had a nonChristian, nonwhite President either. Why? The Religious Right will never vote for anyone who isn't a white Christian man. It's against God's law, doncha know.

            •  Not true... (0+ / 0-)

              Most of the orignal presidents were dieist. Maybe vaguely christian, but not nearly what you think when you hear christian today.

              Thomas Jefferson actually came up with his own versions of the gospels that stripped out all the miracles, because he didn't think the version in the bible was believable. See "The gospel of Thomas" from the New Yorker. He was the rule, not the exception.

              And, of course a non-white president could only plausibly have come about in the last 40 years or so (about 5-6 presidents worth), so there hasn't been much chance for it to happen.

              So, I guess what you said is true, but horribly misleading.

        •  Same thing applies (0+ / 0-)

          To any male candidate. It's called the 'good old boy' system--hey let's put him on the list he's a 'good old boy' or in some cases a 'good old girl" all ideologically based.

          Having said that, within feminist theory there exists different 'camps'--one such group-radical feminist group-- thinks that the election of women, regardless of their values, because the most important values is that women begin 'crashing the gate' into elected office. And even if that first woman elected--as Thatcher in England--is some how not within a given ideology--so what? At least she has set the stage for more women in the future to enter into the political arena.

          Now what i have stated above is not what I think nor am I 'promoting' it, it is an explanation as to why some people have drawn up lists of women across the political spectrum.

          Hey, thanks for your comments, they were really helpful--:)

      •  I think we are ready for it..... (0+ / 0-)

        ...just watch out for the Irony Express.

        "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

        by Bensdad on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:41:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Looking at this Bush administration (0+ / 0-)

        Full of cronyism, ideological standards, and in the  case of my state KY where the fist Republican  governor since 62 created high paying jobs within the government to reward his 'supporters' in violation of the 'Merit System"  which he has been indicted for--

        Well, there are far more principled, educated, experienced females who could/would have served the people much better.

      •  That's part of the problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In the countries you mentioned, at the time women were chosen, things weren't so mediated and scripted as they are now.  Women were chosen because they had charisma, a family power base, ability, toughness, whatever.  

        The power of the media in this country and the kinds of people it likes and dislikes is a big factor.  In addition, we seem to be in one of those periods where gender roles are getting more differentiated, not less (compared with the '60s-'80s) and let's face it--this is a competition for very scarce resources, and most of the poliitcal establishment is sexist.  They are not about to promote women--in some ways the Repubs do a better job. (Look at the blogosphere criticism of Nancy Pelosi vs Harry Reid, when Pelosi is far more progressive ans runs a far more disciplined caucus.) And with all the emphasis on national security, women seem to come up short again.

        So don't hold ypur breath.  It will likely be another generation.

        "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

        by Mimikatz on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:18:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you know they never had a shot? (0+ / 0-)

        How many did really try so far?

        Could it be that your primary process is sooo difficult that the reason that a women hadn't tried and hadn't won yet has more to do with your system of how candidates are chosen than anything else?

        I just wonder if the other countries that had successful women candidates had to go through such a cut-throat process along the way?

    •  On the other hand, those who were clearing brush (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nancy in LA, Stampy51, righteousbabe

      and hunting weren't all that, either.

      Defend the Fourth Amendment And the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985 from all barbarians, foreign and domestic...

      by Fasaha on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:35:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Geraldine Ferraro (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stampy51, 2liberal, paige, altscott, Fasaha

      has been a major factor in the last twenty years. Mondale's pick was transparently a ploy, and it soured the nation to some degree on gender politics at the presidential level.

      As for Rice as a candidate, it's hard to think of a bigger joke.

      •  We laughed at Reagan, too. (6+ / 0-)

        We snickered at Quayle. We shook our heads at George W. Bush.

        All he has to do is appoint her Vice-President.

        I stopped laughing when she had security remove a citizen from a shoe store in New York who expressed outrage at her shopping while Orleanians were being steamed to death on --or under-- their roofs.

        "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

        by Bensdad on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:44:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is truly a scary thought. I can only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          hope that GWB has ruined it for mediocre candidates everywhere.

          Defend the Fourth Amendment And the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985 from all barbarians, foreign and domestic...

          by Fasaha on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunately not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Unfortunately not; they now know that they can crap in a bucket and get it elected President of the USA.

            You know something?  The words "President J. Danforth Quayle" now make me think "Good, there's an adult back at the helm."  That's not good.

    •  Agreed! (0+ / 0-)

      We could and probably would end up with a Margret Thatcher kind of women. Or worse HILLARY !

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

      by Blutodog on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:51:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Queen Latifah to Become Senator? (10+ / 0-)

      Rapper and actress Queen Latifah is considering turning to politics and running for the U.S. Senate.

      The rapper -- real name Dana Owens -- was making an appearance on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., to endorse a National Women's Confidence Day on Wednesday, when she revealed her political aspirations.

      She said, "You know, maybe I'll run for Senate."

      The 36-year-old then told a congressional press conference that her own self-confidence came from her supportive family.

      She says, "I have always felt strongly about empowering women. I'm living proof that, with confidence and by believing in yourself, you can accomplish any goal."

      I'd rather have Queen Latifah than our current Queen George...

      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

      by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:10:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse me...I thought this thread was about... (3+ / 0-)

      ...the first FELINE President....never mind...

      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

      by wonkydonkey on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:28:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Never ceases to surprise me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikidee, Fasaha, Invisible Paradigm

    Amid all the discussions about revealing the personal identifying details about each other, one thing never ceases to surprise me. And that's when I find out that my perception of someone here is completely wrong. All this time I think I'm arguing back and forth with a man, and it turns out to be a woman, or vice versa.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:32:22 AM PDT

  •  Heh (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Loquatrix, georgia10, newfie

    "Pipeline" problem.

    Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

    by darrelplant on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:32:46 AM PDT

  •  In India (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Indira Gandhi was the daughter of the nation's first prime minister, Nehru, and advised him when he was prime minister.

    That explains a lot for this example


    by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:34:26 AM PDT

  •  I'll settle for a President with (8+ / 0-)

    Brains and heart. I don't much care about the panty-parts.

    Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip. -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

  •  nit picking (0+ / 0-)

    I would say that women are doing slightly better on the governor level.  Women make up 16% of governors vs. 14% of senators.  Either way this is a very small number when looking at the total pool of presidential candidates.

  •  Hillary Clinton (6+ / 0-)

    Well, to get a female president, we need to be willing to accept women are human beings, and when they're in political office they need to make tough decisions just like men do.

    This morning Kos remarked in the New York Times that many Kossacks dislike Hillary Clinton because she initially supported the war in Iraq. I don't like that particular decision, but I like a lot of other things Hillary has stood up for. She is also in a strong position to run for president. It's been bothering me that Kossacks have been undermining her, and this seems even more strange in light of this call for a female president.

    (If it looked feasible, I would vote for Barbara Boxer, though.)

    •  Every time she comes up, I feel compelled (10+ / 0-)

      to state that my thing about her isn't personal.  If she were a man with the same profile, I wouldn't be all that enthused.  She has a chance to change my opinion by addressing health care for all, election law, a foreign policy not based on the idea of pre-emption, etc., etc.

      I'm just sayin'.

      Defend the Fourth Amendment And the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985 from all barbarians, foreign and domestic...

      by Fasaha on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:39:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Burned (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, fireflynw, Ice Blue

        She was burned by Hillarycare and the cookie baking thing. We, the country, taught her that form of Republican attack was affected. Now she's compromising on a lot of things.

        I'm glad she's standing up for tying the minimum wage to congressional pay raises. That's a long-needed stand against hypocrisy.

        I do think Boxer has more on the ball in terms of fighting for a cause, though. But do Kossacks think she has a chance to run for president? No - because she's "too active". We can't have it both ways.

        •  The Republicans have been villiflying her (6+ / 0-)

          from the start and have affected national opinion to such a degree I doubt people have the ability to make an independent decision about her.  I think that her decision to support the war in Iraq is being used to scapegoat a her because people just don't want to support her.

          Watergate was a conspiracy theory but that didn't cause Woodward and Bernstein to give up their investigation.

          by altscott on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:01:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that you are right (4+ / 0-)

            Yes, she supported the war, but so did a lot of potential candidates. She is a woman and because of that has to walk a razor sharp edge when it comes to anything that has to do with defense if she wants to be Pres. If a man comes out and denounces the war people either hate it or love it, but they don't hang the "she's a weak woman, Cindy Sheehan wannabe" lable on them. They will with Hillary.

            The health care thing was a debacle, but I think that the Harry and Lois, (or whatever) commercials and the right wing did more to destroy it than she did. Also, I think it was a mistake to put her in the position in the first place. It was like painting a large target on her. She is a liberal, always has been, she is the person who came right out on National TV and said that there was a vast right wing conspiracy and has taken shit for telling the truth ever since.

            I doubt that she is electable, I think that in her drive to win the nom. she has been way to transparent in her pandering and comes off as very un-genuine. I don't hate her, I respect her, but I hope she is not our nominee.

            •  Also - Ann Richardson (0+ / 0-)

              Richardson became governor of Texas not just because of her own political agenda, but because the man she ran against was an irredeemable jerk.

              A lot of people assume a woman can't win because of cultural stereotypes. However, men can run afoul of their own stereotypes. Let's not count women out before the fight!

            •  pandering (0+ / 0-)

              Please explain how she panders any more than other political candidates.

              Paul Tsongas didn't pander.  Paul Wellstone didn't either as far as I know.  Ted Kennedy doesn't bother pandering anymore because he knows he's got a lock on his seat.  

              I can't think of another politician that doesn't pander every now and again.  Maybe there are other pols in Kennedy's position out there but they aren't running for President.

              •  Frankly I don't believe (0+ / 0-)

                that she does pander anymore than many pols do. Biden is the number one example. But, pander she does and for me that is a check mark against a candidate that I want. The insane flag burning deal, is a good example and so are her speeches on choice. I understand why she's doing it, I just don't like it. It may prove to be exactly the right track to take, but only time will tell.

                I remember a more genuine Hillary, I liked her. I dont' much like this one, and I wish that pols would get that they are more electable when they are themselves. Kerry became something else, (manly quail hunter), Gore did to, (more earth tones), and it cost them. After, when they returned to who they really are, they became more popular.

          •  I second this (0+ / 0-)

            And I want to correct the typo in my comment - where I say "affected", I meant to time "effective". What a strange swap!

    •  Hot And Cold (6+ / 0-)

      I have run hot and cold on Hillary.  Mostly cold now.  As the lead-in thread indicated, she has more baggage than one really wants to confront.

      She is now a bona fide, card carrying DC insider, which is a huge problem.  

      She plays the overly cautious, self-defeating game of centrist blandism.

      Her relationship with her husband remains a HUGE issue.  She should have dumped the dork and moved on.  She loses massive integrity points for not doing that, at least with me and many others.

      She is a lightning rod for the rabid right.

      And those are just to start...

      Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday.

      by Long Haul on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The question to ask (0+ / 0-)

        Would you vote for Boxer? Or would you decide up front she doesn't have a chance and put your vote where it has more chance for success?

      •  Her approval ratings actually went up... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        during and after the whole impeachment thing.  If you read Bill's book, you'll find out that she just didn't forgive him right there.  He slept on his office couch for two months and they went through a lot of marriage counseling.  But yes, you're right, their relationship still remains a big issue for her.  

        The Dems have great VP candidates for 2008: Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius, etc, but who's going to head the ticket?

        by DemBrock on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:06:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we don't know if (0+ / 0-)

          their (her's and bill's) relationship is still a big issue for them. it appears to be for some people here.

          what does it matter? did jfk's/jackie's relationship affect his ability to govern?

          is hrc's relationship with her husband any of our business? what about his relationship to her? why is this her problem/issue particularly? Am i misunderstanding this?

          i'm not ulitmately thrilled (presently) with her probable candidacy, like others I find some of her politcal choices distateful/suspect. but this particular perspective is unfair to her, I think.

 of mirth in a brave new world...

          by lily bart loves her soma on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:26:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I'd have thought much more highly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of her if, after the Lewinsky scandal broke, the President had appeared with a black eye.

        (Not that I'm advocating domestic violence or anything, but still.)

        The trouble with war is that it kills off the best men a country has.-Rep. C. A. Lindbergh (R-MN)

        by Ice Blue on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:02:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Hillary's Iraq vote... (2+ / 0-)

      ironically makes her somewhat weaker in some ways. If she voted in favor of it to appear tough on national security but then has to constantly explain her vote, then ultimately it might make her look indecisive.

      But I think thats what Bush had in mind in this war compared to the Gulf War. Hillary may have thought this war might have been conducted competently like Sr. did in 1991. She might not have predicted it would have turned out as bad as it did which might make her explain the vote 4, 5 years later.

      Only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:43:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am willing to forgive her (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, MO Blue, breakingranks

      older views on Iraq, just as I did John Kerry or even Evan Bayh.

      But what of her views right now on Iran? As a Kossack, though rather a new one, I would like to know if we are "undermining" her, or she is undermining us.

    •  I think just permitting ANY type of minority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to run for president, be it gay, african american, jewish, whatever.  Anyone who ISN'T a white 'christian' male.

      Watergate was a conspiracy theory but that didn't cause Woodward and Bernstein to give up their investigation.

      by altscott on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:59:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forget symbols. America needs substance. (8+ / 0-)
      Much as I'd welcome a female president, I don't welcome the anti-democratic continuation of political dynasties.

      Since 1988, we've had either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House. It's time -- past time --for real change, not more of the same non-choice for the same tired dynasties.

      Besides, we have much, much, much better choices than a war-supporter who panders with anti-flag-burning amendment and attacks on video game violence.

      Russ Feingold, for one, has shown immense -- un-politician-like -- courage in opposing the so-called "Patriot" act, opposing the war, and unequivocally supporting equal rights to marriage.

      Bypassing that heroic man just for a symbolic woman President, is nothing less than foolish posturing.

      Sure, I want a woman president. But far more importantly, I want the best president we can get. One who isn't afraid to take a stand on principle, one willing to make tough choices. And that isn't Hillary.

      Accountability moment, my ass!

      by orthogonal on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the thing about hillary (5+ / 0-)

      ins't that she does not express all the qualities that a president needs. that has nothing to do with why kossacks don't like her (even though that's what a lot of people are saying). hillary does have all the qualities to be an amzing president. she has power. she's forceful. she takes a stand.

      well maybe not. but i can tell you she has a HELL of a lot more presidential qualities than the monkey sitting in the oval office right now.

      the reason why we dislike her so is that she's SO SO SO willing to sell us out in order to look "moderate." she teamed up with Newt fucking Gingrich on healthcare, abandoning her promising hillarycare plan(s). she had a fundraiser with Rupert foxnews Murdoch. and most of all, to the chagrin of progressives universally, she refuses to withdraw her support of the war. this godawful motherfucking war.

      -5.38 -4.95 - "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov

      by b1oody8romance7 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

      And it's damned refreshing to read that comment here.    

    •  I wouldn't vote for her.. (0+ / 0-)

      I read her platform, and quite frankly we REALLY don't need someone who will ban abortion. FEMALE or Male. I won't give my support to someone who thinks it's just fine and dandy that she can do what she wants but no one else can attitude.

      No. Won't happen.

      America Freedom to Fascism Be a solution not a problem Loosely Twisted

      by Loosely Twisted on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:11:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem isn't necessarily worse at the state (0+ / 0-)

    8/50 is a higher percentage than 14/100

  •  Well said (9+ / 0-)

    As the political process becomes more gender-neutral, I expect that the old discriminations will begin to fall away. Take Janet Napolitano, for example. She could be typecast negatively, as she's vetoed more bills in her first 4 years than any other governor in Arizona history. But she remains highly popular and will be re-elected easily.

    Progress is slow, but let's keep in mind that we still have some ways to go. Civil rights was only put into law 40 years ago, and equal rights for women in every sense of the word is still ambiguous (it's a shame the ERA failed).

    As for this:

    Right now, there may be a feisty female netroots participant reading this on her monitor who just might become the first female President of the United States.

    I think my irony meter shot through the roof when I read this.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:38:14 AM PDT

  •  A female President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I agree that the USA is behind the times when it comes to promoting a woman to the leader of the free world.  One could argue that the creators of "Commander In Chief" are supporters of Senator Clinton and wanted to ready the country for her probably 2008 run.  I would absolutely support her in a heartbeat if she were the Democratic Party nominee, but I think nominating a woman for the sake of doing as such would be wrong.  If the right woman comes along, that's fine, but until then, my top three choices for 08 are Sen. Feingold, VP Gore and Gov Richardson.

    •  The 'anybody but a woman' syndrome (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little Red Hen, Kingsmeg

      Well, how can you say on the one hand that you "support her in a heartbeat" if she were nominated, and then declare that she isn't even on your shortlist of potential "top three choices"?

      But, I'm not picking on you -- your statement is exactly the expression of the "there aren't any qualified women" syndrome discussed in the article.  It's B.S.  Nothing particularly against Feingold but I don't believe for a minute that he's the best the party has to offer for the White House.  He could be a great President.  But you have absolutely no evidence that he would be better at the job than H. Clinton (whom, btw, I don't like one bit).

      I think I could give you one bit of evidence that H.C. would be better than Feingold, however:  he's not a leader.  She is.  Again, that's just an observation.  Being a leader is more than being on the right side of an argument, or even being willing to stand up for what's right.  Being a leader means getting other people to follow you.  And I think Feingold fails that test.  

      That doesn't mean he couldn't step into the role, if elected, though.  But, it is a crapshoot.  You just don't know.

      My own opinion on this topic is that the majority of voters in this country are deeply misogynistic.  We talk the talk but we don't walk the walk.  When a political cesshole like Indonesia can elect a woman Prime Minister and we can't even get a woman on the ballot in a party nominating convention, we should hang our heads in shame for the hypocritical phonies we are.


      Michael Powe Naugatuck CT
      Katrina Cleanup
      -7.0, -6.15

      by pdxlooie on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:15:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Commander in Chief (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stampy51, OWTH

    It's unfortunate it got cancelled - not only was it a good show, but I also think it would have gotten the American Idol-watching public more used to the idea of a female CIC.  Geena Davis's character was a darn good role model, too.

    I don't really know the answer to this - partly a pipeline problem, and also perhaps (feeding into that) is an American culture that still has a "good ole boy" flavor to it.  It's insidious but when a bunch of Republicans from the south are running things, it ain't looking too good for the dames.

    "I think we miss that touch so much that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."

    by Nancy in LA on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

    •  It seems like... (0+ / 0-)

      just as in the CIC, if we were to have a woman president she would have to be be vice president first before being elected.

      Only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:50:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is something that is being discussed... (0+ / 0-)

        for 2008.  Many democratic political advisers/analysts would like to see a female VP candidate if a male candidate is chosen in the primary.  Someone like Gov. Napolitano of Arizona or Gov. Sebelius of Kansas.

        The Dems have great VP candidates for 2008: Richardson, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius, etc, but who's going to head the ticket?

        by DemBrock on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:11:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Can't understand why people didn't watch (0+ / 0-)

      Commander in Chief was a damn good show.  All their episodes are downloadable on ITunes -- maybe CIC would be brought back if enough people downloaded it or bought the DVD.

      I've never watched American Idol, and I never will.

      Disaster 2004 is a case study in why Democrats must change media coverage of their candidates

      by bobbypelgrift on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:55:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the same in the boardroom and in the media.. (6+ / 0-)

    Isn't it amazing that the press and many women's organizations analyzed Katie Couric's rise to read the news on CBS to death. Meantime, women are leading countries, as you mentioned!

    Since I focus on the media, here are a few numbers to add to your list (this must be factored in because it impacts the overall picture of media and politis):

    When W first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

    Those numbers haven’t changed much. According to the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, on the three main U.S. broadcast networks, 87 percent of expert sound bytes are provided by men.

    On the Sunday talk shows, it’s worse. The ratio of male to female guests is 9 to 1. After 9/11, the frequency of women guests on those shows dropped an additional 39 percent, according to the White House Project.

    The picture isn’t as bleak when it comes to women in management. Women currently hold 35.5 percent of newsroom supervisory positions, according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. That’s slightly better than 33 percent in 1999. Overall, women make up 37.7 percent of the newsroom.

    And then there are magazines. A great website,, tracks the ratio of male to female writers in national general interest magazines, including The Atlantic, Harper’s, The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. The ratio of male to female bylines in those magazines is 1,037 to 355. That’s 1,037 male writers and 355 female writers.

    We have a lot of work to do...but at least we're talking about these issues, rather than saying, "Well, what do you expect?"

    •  There is a potential that someone like Couric (0+ / 0-)

      good step from media into the role of Governor (have to hit her hard enough in the head to knock the sense out of her first) but with the name recognition it could go that direction.

      Watergate was a conspiracy theory but that didn't cause Woodward and Bernstein to give up their investigation.

      by altscott on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:05:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In other words, it still looks like/ (0+ / 0-)

      sounds like/walks like a male, eh?

      While the political pipeline is assuredly weak on women, the media pipeline is not much better.  If we haven't figured it out by now we never will: we need a bigger, broader (pun intended) voice.  And the blogesphere is it.

      It's the Constitution, stupid.

      by mikidee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:11:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's the potential for a midwestern female gov (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as someone mentioned.  Blanco's damaged goods due to Katrina and her about to sign the abortion ban, and Granholm was born in Canada, but Napolitano or Seibelus may be possibilities, unless there's something I don't know.  

    I think there are questions about some people being willing to accept a female President.  The whole power dynamic of gender and all that.  I think that if it's the right person, I'm all for it.  Hillary is not the right person.  We'll have to see how things develop.

    •  I really like Napolitano (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stampy51, jlove1982
      A lot.
      •  Napolitano has real potential (0+ / 0-)

        She's dealt with the immigration issue better than Schwarzenegger or Bush; she's in a conservative state (home to Barry Goldwater himself); and she's able to work quite well and is considered popular across the state.  She's a definite possibility.

        I ended up checking out the Wiki page on her, and came across something from one of the aforementioned "Any Female President" groups The White House Project.  They've got a list of 8 possible female Presidential candidates:

        (in order of popularity)

        Condoleezza Rice
        Shirley Franklin (Mayor of Atlanta)
        Karen Seibelus
        Kay Bailey Hutchison
        Janet Napolitano
        Susan Collins
        Olympia Snowe

        Of those, I'm not sure about Franklin, Hillary and Condi have been discussed to death, I don't think Snowe would want anything to do with the race, and Collins is waiting for someone to appoint her Homeland Security Director.

        Of the other three, I'd be cool with Seibelus, but I don't know too much about her.  Napolitano would be much more acceptable.  Hutchison frightens me.

        •  ok (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Nice aggregate list, I guess.  But is any one person supposed to find all of those acceptable?  I'd almost be afraid of the weird pseudo-ideology that would be required to lack cognative dissonance on that one.

        •  What about... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington?

          Only the dissatisfied can make change

          by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:55:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think Gregoire has what it takes, not yet (0+ / 0-)

            If she can win over the state moderates and gain a healthy reelection victory, and make good policy along the way, then she might be ready in 4-8 years. Also, like most Washington governors of either party or gender, she seems a bit charisma-challenged, but probably not fatally so.

            I worked in the Attorney General's office for a year and a half when she was the AG, and she was well-regarded as a leader and administrator. I only met her once, in an elevator.

            It's also harder to make an impact as a national politician coming from Washington state, because we're a medium-size state far away from the political media in New York and Washington, in a region that hasn't been a presidential battleground. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson is the only Washingtonian I can think of who ever seriously considered a presidential run.

            But I think Washington state could lead the way for women candidates, because women are relatively well-represented here. We've got 60-70 women in a state legislature of 147. We're not quite to parity but we're getting there. Two women US Senators. A woman governor. We've only got one women US representative, and she's a Republican, so we can do better there (go Darcy Burner!)

            My political compass: -7.38, -8.00

            by seaprog on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:29:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I've heard good things about Franklin (0+ / 0-)

          from Atlanta. She has really turned around their city on many measures, including (IIRC) balancing the budget, reducing crime, addressing poverty. All the basics that our Chimperor-in-Chief seems to have forgotten.

          I believe a woman who's seen as an effective, common-sense leader has a real shot. Yes, there will always be a percentage who are prejudiced against a female candidate, but they are not enough to automatically defeat her. No more than the true wingnut percentage could win an election, if they voted alone.

          "Soon the time will come to choose between what is easy, and what is right." - A. Dumbledore

          by epluribus on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 03:03:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Lisa Madigan, the current AG of Illinois. I figure she'll run for either Durbin's seat or Blago's post in the next cycle. And yes, I AM way over my skis on this one...

      "...I need a little quiet time to think; I need some rest from irony..." -- Emily Curtis

      by Newton Snookers on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:31:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My son, born in America but (6+ / 0-)

    raised in Libya after being kidnapped by his father, once had a jaundiced view of women as president (or senator or in any major political post).

    When he, me, my husband and daughter traveled down the West Coast in 2001 - just before 9/11 - we discussed many issues, including the role of women. At that time his comment was that women are "too emotional" to be president. They could not, he said, be trusted to make a rational decision under stress.

    My husband, bless his heart, asked my son, who used to fly into screaming rages, if he thought instances of out-of-control anger should be considered for excluding someone as president. There was a long silence in the car.

    My son has, in the past four years of discussion, changed his mind about many things. He now definitely would prefer a woman, just about any woman, over the president we now have.

  •  g10 for president - all the way (5+ / 0-)

    i am your soldier.  give me marching orders, and let's roll!

  •  Well said, g10 (5+ / 0-)

    I think a lot of it still has to do with how unequal our representation in government is- 14% of the Senate vs. 51% of the population.

    As it is, we depend on  largely male "allies" in government to advance our interests. I find it somewhat ironic that the amazing progressive vision for our Senate (i.e. Lamont, Sanders, etc.) is still largely a male vision. Don't get me wrong- I'm certainly not denouncing these candidates or saying that it's their "fault" for being males or that they don't deserve our support due to their gender or that they deserve to be judged as a candidate based on their chromosomes. I don't mean that at all.

    I just think it's a commentary on our current state that our idea of an ideal government is still, at this point, representative of a very distinct minority (not just mostly male, but mostly white, mostly wealthy, presumably mostly straight) creating policy to affect the entire population. Maybe it will change when our "allies" are elected, and enact policy in favor of the interests of women and others, and then the oppurtunities are created for advancement.

    At the same time, I think it's very possible that  if we ever do elect a female candidate, she will be used to judge the entire gender- i.e, if she's incompetent, the MSM won't paint it as  "So-and-so is incompetent" so much as "Women are incompetent."

    So we better pick a good one. That's all I'm saying.

    "The mistakes of each generation will just fade like a radio station if you drive out of range." -Ani Difranco

    by righteousbabe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:47:05 AM PDT

  •  Sad As It Is..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nasarius, breakingranks

    .....I can't believe a female President would be electable in this country for at least another generation.  There is so much macho symbollism attached to the Presidency that the only way I could see it possible is in the unlikely event that two women square off against each other.....or if some tough-talking female (Margaret Thatcher) went up against a milquetoast male.  

    And I also expect the primary achille's heel for women Presidential candidates will be women voters.  Women will cross party lines in large numbers to vote against female Presidential candidates because women seem more likely than men to attach cultural symbollism to the Oval Office.  I hope I'm wrong about this, but the trend seems to hold to some extent even in lesser offices.

    •  I couldn't agree more. (0+ / 0-)

      For a modern country, we still are backwards on many things.  I'm in my 40s and have seen men prejudge women and other woment turn on women.  

      It will be at least another generation before you see a female president (regardless of the caliber of the candidate).

    •  WRT Thatcher (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, mikidee, Ice Blue
      Don't forget that England has had a long tradition of strong Queens as the head of state going back to Boadicea in Roman times through Victoria at the zenith of the Empire to Elizabeth now.
      •  Goodness, please don't forget Elizabeth I! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries, Ice Blue

        She is the favourite queen of many feminists.

        •  Damn Straight (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loquatrix, nasarius, bablhous

          I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading once that many leaders of countries think that she's just an old lady with a silly handbag.  Until they meet her, and realize that she's been right at the centre of world politics for more than 50 years.  She's a very smart and very tough lady.  

          I'm an Irishman.  My grandfather was a lifelong republican (in the Irish sense) who carried guns in his schoolbag so that his children and grandchildren would never have to bend the knee to an English King or Queen.

          He thought that Elizabeth II was a great lady and a fine leader. (Of course that fact they both loved the horse-racing might have had something to do with that...)

        •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

          Wrong Elizabeth, sorry!

        •  Elizabeth I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          was one hell of a great leader. Here is the speech she gave when the Spanish Armada attacked England.

             My loving people, we have been persuaded by some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

             Elizabeth I of England - 1588

      •  Recommend for mentioning my blog namesake n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKos.

        by boadicea on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:03:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Several reasons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, matt2525

    a) the pipeline problem
    b) the redneck factor
    c) americanisms- seeing the world in black/white
    d) the slow turn of history- and americans lack of respect for it
    e) americans lack of respect for what other countries do- ie, margaret thatcher would suggest that women can be tough (okay maybe we dont like her but she was tough)
    f) lack of national introspection and questioning of our beliefs

    •  If the movement to go around the EC (0+ / 0-)

      is effective (that is, if California and several other states form a pact to give 270+ electoral votes to the popular vote winner), I wonder if that would dilute the "redneck" factor.

      •  no- because the redneck factor (0+ / 0-)

        is hidden amongst the population. honestly- its like thinking racism would end if we cut off the South. The real reason these things are taking so long to deal with is that all AMericans- including members fo the group in question- ie, in this case other women- participate in the belief that women can't lead. Redneck is a state of mind. ie, think Ann Coulter

  •  Such a shame... (0+ / 0-)

    ...That women have to deal with this gender BS when running for high profile office in alot of countries. I saw it alot when following the recent federal election in Germany. Angela Merkel had to deal with alot of chauvinism within her party, and then constantly had to be compared to the primadonna Chancellor Schröder as the boring, not so attractive woman opponent. A few more enlightened countries (AKA Scandanavia) don't have this problem (or at least to not to the degree of most other countries). For example, in Denmark, three of the five major parties in parliament are headed by a woman, including firey Pia Kjærsgaard, head of the far-right anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, the ultimate bitch/prick position in European politics. She's damn good at what she does, and her party gets lots of votes, much to the chagrin of the other parties.

  •  First off, I want hot-pink drapes when I move... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat208, historys mysteries, lmd71

    into the White House.

    Secondly, do we really have the greatest democracy on Earth?  We led the way, yes, but I think we are frighteningly close to oligarchy right now.

    Thirdly, Thatcher wasn't popularly elected, was she?  It does make a difference.

    What will keep America from having a woman president in the near future?  I agree entirely with you that aggressive women are still seen (unfairly, wrongly) as bitches.  Running for office takes aggressiveness.  It's a killing process, so if you don't have the chutzpah (notice I didn't say "balls"), then you're going to find it rough going.

    In 2003, I ran into Carol Moseley-Braun in a bathroom following the Des Moines debate.  Usually I leave people alone, but no one else was in there so I told her I admired her policy stances and wanted a woman to be president some day.  I was wearing a Wes Clark button.  She responded that we won't have a woman president until women are willing to vote for a woman.  I think she had a great point, although I also felt I was being chastised (gently).  I'd love to vote for a woman for president, but I'm also terribly pragmatic in a political sense.  We have to win.  There was no way she would win.  I do not want Hillary to run - she's fine as a senator, but she's a lightning rod for the right.  The ensuing battle would be horrible to watch - and not worth it even if she won.

    I'm waiting for the woman who comes out of the ranks or pulls herself up on her own.  That's one thing I love about Wes Clark.  And I'll love it about a woman in that position one day.  But yes - the pipeline problem.  It's harder for a woman to get into that pipeline absent a family connection.  Things are improving in that arena, but veeerrry slowly.

    •  Yes she was (0+ / 0-)
      > Thirdly, Thatcher wasn't popularly elected, was
      > she?  It does make a difference.

      She was, at least in the consituency where she stood for election and was elected.  And also her party won the popular vote for many years at the individual level of constituencies.  

      She was the Majority Leader in US terms, while the Queen filled the 'Head of State' position. (Of course the relative powers of both positions are very different  between the UK and the UK.)

      I don't know if they won a majority of the national vote, but that doesn't matter at all in the British system.  Or in the US system.

      •  Thatcher (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Yes, she won in her constituency, but NOT in a country-wide election.  Of course, neither did Blair.  Their system is different.  

        Or in the US system.  Sad but true.

        •  It is a curious feature of the British system (0+ / 0-)

          Although Thatcher was not up for election country-wide, her party was. In modern politics one votes as much for the party as for the particular candidate on the ballot paper, to the chagrin of many, but to the delight of the campaign strategists. As such it is fair to say that Thatcher did win elections, two to be precise. The elections of 1983 and 1987 may be viewed in large part as referenda on her governance (and condemnation of the Labour opposition), and she won them both. The same applies to Blair's victories in 2001 and 2005.

          •  Point taken (0+ / 0-)

            Why do you think Britain has, in effect, elected a woman as leader, when the U.S. hasn't?  

            •  Because they don't elect their leader (0+ / 0-)

              directly. It's the party leader of whatever party has the most seats in the House of Commons.

              Her party had the most seats, she was the leader of her party, so she was Prime Minister.

              If this was the UK, and the Dems win control of the House in Nov, Nancy Pelosi would be Prime Minister.

              Now, to be fair, everybody in Britain knows who the party leader is, and that that person will be PM, so it's not a surprise. But the only people who get to elect them to anything are the party members and the people in their district.

            •  I think... (0+ / 0-)

              Britain has elected a woman leader because of the legacy of the monarchy.  Two of England's best known, most influential and longest ruling monarchs have been Queens.

              Queen Victory reigned over Britain when it sat at the height of its glory.  She oversaw the empire where the sun never set.  Unfortunately for her, she also saw the beginning of its collapse as well.

              And, Queen Elizabeth reigned during a time when England (Britain by then?) went from merely being a country in Europe to being a world power.  I would even go so far as to say, it was her shrewd politics that created the British colonial super power.

              •  :) (0+ / 0-)

                I almost added in my question to leave out the monarchy.  But then I didn't, because it could indeed have something to do with the British people's (and those of other European constitutional monarchies) willingness to be gender-blind.

                The reason I almost said leave out the monarchy is that it is hereditary, and no one gets to vote for that position (well, behind locked doors, sometimes the nobility got to vote...).

                Then again, doesn't that seem like the way America is going?  Politics and power is often a family business in America. If Jebbie Bush ever runs, I'll puke.

                •  I'm with you (0+ / 0-)

                  There's no way I could stomach another Bush in the white house.  For a while there, around the time of the Terry Schiavo (sp?) dispute, it seemed he was gearing up for it.  

                  He seems a bit more quiet these days.  Hopefully it stays that way...

      •  Majority of UK vote (0+ / 0-)

        No UK government has had the support of a majority of the voters who participated in an election since 1935 (the Conservative Party and its allies in the National coalition government got 53.3% of the popular vote).

        The governments of the 1940's and 1950's were usually only a percent or two below 50%, but multi-party competition has increased since then, so now victories with less than 40% of the votes are becoming the norm. Parliamentary majorities are increasingly manufactured because of systematic flaws in the electoral system rather than the real opinion of the electorate. This is not because of gerrymandering as such, although Wales is still a bit over-represented and Labour inclined seats in urban areas (with declining populations) do tend to have smaller electorates than rural and suburban seats, over the whole period that a distribution of seats is in force.

        Most of the problems are due to things like the Labour Party having the most concentrated support of the three major parties, so that it tends to either come first or third in particular constituencies and wastes fewer votes in near misses.

        Systematic flaws caused by the spatial distribution of support are incapable of being remedied within the Anglo-American system of single member plurality elections. They become a major problem with the fairness of national election outcomes, when there are more more than two significant parties.

        There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

        by Gary J on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:26:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

          Somewhere lately I read that Scotland is getting rather over-represented, too.  Not only in PMs (Blair, with Brown in the wings), but also because they now have their own parliament, which functions independently of the remainder of Britain, while at the same time Scotland still has representatives in the British parliament, where Scots can and do have a say in things that affect all of the UK.

          Your comments remind me of how certain US states are over-represented in the federal government.

    •  You're following the right-wing spin... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She's a lightening rod for the right.

      The media always declares that Bill/Hillary were lightening rods and 'divisive'. I think they confuse the fact that the right hated her meaning she provoked the hatred. Theres a difference. Same with Bill. If you look at his presidency, how could you say he went out of his way to be divisive or piss off the right wing. His welfare reform? His nomination of a Republican secretary of defense? Please.

      And what evidence do you have that Hillary provoked divisiveness?

      Only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't provoke it, but got it nonetheless. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The polls about both President and Senator Clinton show how widely and deeply the feelings of hatred and disgust are.

        You're absolutely right -- she did nothing to warrant this -- but the Right was very effective in salting the earth pre-emptively, in anticipation of her rise as a potential candidate.

        The only right wing spin on this is that somehow "she deserves it." Unfortunately, the low public opinion of her is a fact.

        "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

        by pat208 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:01:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't think Hillary has all that low a public opinion rating.  Lots of people are very impressed with her as a senator.  Personally I'm glad she won the seat.  I disagree with her on some things, but hey, I disagree with Clark on some things.  Overall, HRC is a smart, talented, good person.

          Problem is, there's a threshold she can't cross.  Polls will take her only so high, but not high enough to beat someone like McCain.  One might argue that a national campaign would give Americans a chance to see and appreciate more about her, and I'd agree.  Yet that same national campaign will draw the ire of the right-wing like nothing we've ever seen before.

          We need to be pragmatic.

          Incidentally I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm completely in agreement except for the "low public opinion" part.  Low to the right-wing, but not to Democrats.  But drawing in all Democrat votes isn't enough; I don't believe she can draw sufficient independent votes, which is the real problem.

      •  huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "Lightning rod" does not imply provocation. Just the opposite. She's got a lot of baggage and preconceptions to overcome, moreso than any other candidate. It's not her fault, but it's there and it can't be ignored (Gore and Kerry tried that...).

        Oh God, I haven't read your book; I'm sure it was divine
        Especially the part where you turned water into wine

        by nasarius on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:04:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct.... (0+ / 0-)

          /"Lightning rod" does not imply provocation. Just the opposite./

          Of course, but thats not how its presented in the media. Its presented as Hillary provoking the lightning.

          Only the dissatisfied can make change

          by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:03:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, I never follow the right-wing spin (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The lightning rod is not responsible for the lightning hitting it.  It's just there.  Possibly you could say that the lightning rod attracts lightning because it's placed higher than other things, but still, it's not CAUSING a thunderstorm or CAUSING lightning.

        So, no, Hillary does not cause the divisiveness.  Nevertheless we can't afford her candidacy.

        •  Valid point.... (0+ / 0-)

          But you cant blame a person for being a lightening rod and say she is not a viable candidate because of it. Yes, there are many people that hate her and much of that hate is irrational hatred. But that is not her proble, its the problem of those that hate her. But the media makes it seem like its the opposite.

          Why dont they focus on the fact that many people on the right irrationally hate her rather than the fact the she provokes hate.Really, go up to a right winger and ask them why they hate Hillary. And see what they say and see if it makes any sense.

          Only the dissatisfied can make change

          by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't talk much to right wingers (0+ / 0-)

            I've no doubt it would make me really mad to try having a Hillary discussion with them, in part because I would defend her very rationally while they would be making nasty ad hominem remarks and lying their asses off. So on the whole I avoid them.

            Still, though, no one is entitled to run for president.  Legend has it that any native-born child in America can grow up to be president.  While that's (vaguely) true, reality means that I, for one, never had a chance.  Nor will I ever have a chance even to run for president.  It's my bad luck I'm obscure, and it's Hillary's bad luck that the right wing has chosen to vilify her.  She is going to have to be content with the Senate, and Democrats might re-take the White House.  If she lets her ego outweigh her concern about what happens in this country under more Republican presidents, then I will be extremely angry at her.  If her name winds up on the ballot in the general election in the slot for the Democrat, I will vote for her even while feeling despair.

            <small>Without meaning to be snarky, lightning is the stuff in the sky, while a person is lightening her load when she removes a few books from her backpack.</small>

  •  I don't think that enough are... (0+ / 0-)

    ...getting into the pool to begin with.  Of course there could be many reasons or that.

    In any case, I'd love to vote for a female if she had the best qualifications.

    "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lot of an empty mind." -- Ayn Rand

    by dov12348 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:50:16 AM PDT

    •  that's the key (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brown girl in the ring, mikidee

      I'd love to vote for a female if she had the best qualifications.

      A qualified person of character....who happens to female.

      I'm sure we have a couple of them in the 300 million or so people among us.

    •  The pool... (0+ / 0-)

      gets even smaller with the all the silly requirments that we place on candidates both male and female.In 2004 the media's conventional wisdom was that a presidential candidate had to be strong on national security after 9-11. If a candidate didnt have national security credentials, they would be trounced by the strong military prowess of George W(even though Bush had no militrary experience before or after 9-11 it hadnt occured to the media that Bush shouldnt be reelected because he didnt have the credentials to deal with post 9-11 threat).
      And also the media conventional wisdom didnt apply to Bush in 2000 where Gore had much more national security experience than Bush. The media yawned and said Gore was a know it all.

      So many of us got freaked out by the media conventional wisdom that the only way to win was to nominate Clark or Kerry because they had prior military experience.  This is a trap because whoever we pick would not satisfy the conventional wisdom.
      Lets not fall into the trap in 2008.

      Only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'Media conventional wisdom.' Heh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        An oxymoron now.

        Anyway, hopefully the prior military or security experience bullshit will soon be a quaint little notion of the past.  The President can always surround herself with experts here.

        Far more important are good character:  E.g., honesty, intelligence, integrity, respect for individual rights, and a sense of justice.   Plus knowledge/experience in law and government.    

        "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lot of an empty mind." -- Ayn Rand

        by dov12348 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:53:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ann Richards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, historys mysteries

    My first thought too was Ann Richards.  It IS personality, I believe.  Richards has unbelievable charisma, is fiesty as all get out, and just oozes that "git 'er done" attitude that people of all stripes love.  She may have lost Texas but i could see a candidate like her being embraced on the national level in a big way.  Hillary pales in comparison, and therein lies her problem.  We need the feisty, funny grandma.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:51:40 AM PDT

  •  India's female leader (7+ / 0-)

    was named Gandhi. England had female leaders prior to Thatcher. America has never, never, ever had a female leader. Period.

    The pipeline argument has some validity but it skirts (nice pun if i do say so myself) the issue.

    Why is there a pipeline problem?


    Plain and simple.

    Why does Hillary have an Iraq problem? Because she has to prove she's as tough and macho as the big boys. She dare not take the right stance on Iraq because if she wants to that first female President she has to out macho the boys.

    Plain and simple.

    Sucks doesn't it.

    America remains a male dominated society but the hand writing is on the wall and many of us men can't wait for the barrier to be broken down. Many other men are scared shitless at the prospect of women in charge. Absolutely scared shitless. Look at the fundies. They are working as hard as they can to keep women in their place. Look at all the anti-Hillary rhetoric? What has she really done worse then any other lefty politician? Not much frankly. Yet, the anti-Hillary rhetoric from right and often left is virulent. What makes her stand out?

    She might actually win. She might actually break down that barrier.

    America needs to continue to the march toward equality and equity.

    White men, whether they know it or not, need that march toward equality to succeed. We are as enslaved by the inequalities of America as anyone else is. The chains that hold down those we oppress chain us down to that same spot of oppression as well.



  •  Chris Matthew's compulsive ranking on Hillary (4+ / 0-)

    just perpetuates the aggressive women = bitch mind set.

    Remember this taped, but off the air conversation?

    MATTHEWS: ...and Hillary did not do well. Kerry did well.

    DELAY: You're kidding.

    MATTHEWS: I am NOT kidding. They didn't like Edwards -- they thought he was a rich lawyer, pretending to care about poor people...

    DELAY: Too slick. Too slick.

    MATTHEWS: ...and Hillary was a know-it-all.

    DELAY: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all

    •  'Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all' (9+ / 0-)

      There you go.  That's it in a nutshell.  Shitheads like Delay can get elected, and he and other shitheads like him have opinions like this.

      How the fark is a woman know-it-all worse than a man know-it-all?  Only if you're wretchedly sexist can you have an opinion like that.  And I'll bet lots of people (male and female) agreed with that statement.  I've no doubt Delay also has a bad attitude about black know-it-alls.  He must hate Obama.

    •  That piece-of-crap slam is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries, Ice Blue

      a perfect example of the power of the rightwing to pander to every bigot out there.  It ranks right up there with Willie Horton.

      And it really pisses me off.

      It's the Constitution, stupid.

      by mikidee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:21:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes it's all in the eye contact. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries

      I've known some brilliant women who have trouble with that and it reduces their credibility immensly.

      Maureen Dowd has it down, but her trouble is she's acting like she's ready to fuck the guy she's talking to.

      I've noticed that when Sen. Clinton is being asked a question, she sticks her nose in the air and nods with that grating smirk on her face.  Annoys the hell out of me.  If she'd only sit still and answer the damn question without sounding like she was the smartest little girl in the class it'd be an improvement.

      Just my two cents worth.

      The trouble with war is that it kills off the best men a country has.-Rep. C. A. Lindbergh (R-MN)

      by Ice Blue on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:33:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My 'Dream' First Female President. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1.  Holds a B.A. in history, with a minor in one of the sciences, from a State college (it's the egalitarian in me that eschews the Ivy League thing).
    1.  She's conversant (fluency's not a requirement) in one Asian and one Romance language (German or Russian will do, too).
    1.  She was an entrepeneur who grew her own company into a wealthy one, but has a Sorosesque social responsibility streak in her (uh, she would be a Democrat).
    1.  She ran for, and was elected, a state senator, then Lt. Governor or Governor.  
    1.  Back in college she did a summer or two staffing with a Member of Congress or Senator.
    1.  She decided to get a law degree and, indeed, did so over the course of 4 years night school, though she's never practiced.
    1.  She's married to a musician, artist, or humanities professor; they have one girl and one boy.
    1.  She realizes that embarking on a Green Technology revolution in the U.S. (from tax breaks, to funding, to, bully pulpit) will make the Apollo Mission look like a trip to the corner store; but she'll believe that it will help make America safe and prosperous for generations to come.
    1.  She's well travelled and genuinely likes other cultures -- one, because she's open-minded; two, because it helps her love and appreciate her own "Americanness" all the more.
    1.  She's well read (of course) and has a sense of humor -- though never at anyone else's expense.
    1.  Her dad was in Viet Nam, her grandfather in WWII (helps with the empathy) and may have a brother in the service (again, empathy for, and appreciation of, and jealous guarding of the interests of, our brothers and sisters in uniform).

    I could go on . . .


    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:53:39 AM PDT

    •  Sort of but not exactly.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1.  She has a double major - English (18th Century lit.) and physics.
      1.  She's fluent in German (BTW - it's not a Romance language), Spanish and Korean.  She learned Spanish in high school and during college while studying and working in Mexico; German in the Army at the Defense Language Institute and while stationed in Germany; and Korean, again while in the Army, while stationed in Korea.
      1.  She has a law degree, and did, indeed, work while in law school. She's practiced law for 14 years - her first 5 as a prosecutor in a large city, five years in private practice (her own firm), and has served as the state Attorney General for the last 4 years.
      1.  She's single/divorced, and shares custody of two children with their father.

      Although she doesn't "know it all," she certainly knows a lot.

      And she's not just a dream - there are plenty of women out here like this, and some of them might be named Hillary.  Many of them (of us) remember how pleased we were when we first met "the" Hillary, before the MSM and the rightwing pissant machine and DLC wusses got to her.

      It really pisses me off.

      It's the Constitution, stupid.

      by mikidee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:51:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why couldn't SHE be a vet? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We do have women in the military, you know.

      And if she graduated from one of the military academies, all the better.

  •  My wife & I were (4+ / 0-)

    watching CSPAN the other day, and it was some hearing on something I don't remember, and the camera panned back to show all the senators on the panel. My wife remarked that not only were they all white men, but they all kinda looked alike.

    To me, it's not so much a gender or race thing (although it would be absolutely cool to have a minority/woman president), but more of a class thing. Someone who actually comes from where I come from. Knows what I know. Experiences what I experiences. Last year's vote on bankruptcy reform comes to mind as a glaring example of the class disconnect with our elected officials.

    To quote the teacher on the last day of school in one of the best movies of all time, Dazed and Confused:

    Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

  •  Embarassment (3+ / 0-)

    It is an embarassment that Pakistan, Ireland, India, Israel, Liberia, Chile, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, etc. etc. etc. have all been led by women, not to mention most Industrialized nations. But America still asks the stupid quesion whether "America is ready for a woman president." If Liberia and Pakistan are ready and America isn't, that is a condemnation of America.

    For the record, Finland was the first nation to give complete sufferage to women and has the most gender mixed government. Finland may be a bit boring and conservative, but they beat the pants off us when it comes to women's rights.

  •  We'll get a black President before a female one (0+ / 0-)

    My "proof?"

    The movies.

    People seem to have no problem with a black man as the President in the movies or TV, but women just aren't taken as "believable". Sure, it's how the character is written more than their gender, but we haven't been "trained" yet to accept a female president. Until we convince the Hollywood writers that a female President is cool, it's not going to happen.

    I only caught a couple of episodes of the Geena Davis series, but I thought it horribly written in terms of portraying her as a professional leader. She spent way too much time worrying about what people thought about her instead of worrying about what the right decision was. Sort of the Capt. Janeway problem.

    So, you heard it here first. As soon as Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert run, they're in. Geena Davis? Not so much.

    "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

    by Mad Dog Rackham on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:54:31 AM PDT

    •  black men got the vote before all women (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ice Blue, RainyDay

      which was a disapointment and caused a rift in what had been a united movement for justice

      Truth without proof is just biting comedy. ~~ TimeTogether

      by TimeTogether on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:57:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hypervisuality (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Of african american males in hollywood movies or on TV doesn't necessarily equate to America's readiness to have a black man(or woman for that matter) to become president.

        Some have argued (in visual studies) that rather, hypervisuality only works to subvert difference (that is, in hollywood, leadership roles played by black men end up following the same script - and look at the same).

        •  Black female judges (2+ / 0-)

          Ever noticed how TV shows and movies are full of them?  Yep.  Black female judges. In entertainment-land, it seems like African-American women are not just well-represented in our courts but in fact over-represented.

          Now why is that?  

          Because the protagonists of these shows and movies are  overwhelmingly white men. The producers want to seem diverse, so they toss the minor role of the judge to an African-American actress.  Because the big role of the tough, smart defense attorney or police officer already went to a white guy.

          •  I've noticed that too. (0+ / 0-)

            Female judges are all over the place in "Law and Order."  Never knew there were so may female judges in New York!
            However, 30 years ago, producers would never have considered casting a black or female actor in those roles.  Nor would anyone have been bothered by it.  I'll take "token" diversity over zero diversity.  

            "Silflay hraka u embleer rah!" --Bigwig

            by Reepicheep on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:40:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Token diversity in entertainment venues... (0+ / 0-)

              helps get the general populace used to the idea of real diversity.  People laugh, but I've always said that it's valuable to lead the way in movies and TV and books.  Look what Will & Grace - cheesy and flawed as it is - did to make middle America more comfortable with gay people.

              I just wish it didn't take SO DAMN LONG.

          •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

            The tough and sassy version of the 'mammy'. Why I think it's equally important to name what we mean when we say - Yes - let's have a woman president! Exactly what ethnic/shade of woman are we speaking of and what kind of 'difference' is America really ready for?

        •  Defintely doesn't equate... (0+ / 0-)

          But I would argue that until people are comfortable with seeing fictional images on the screen, they won't accept the real images.

          Consider it "necessary but not sufficient."

          And Hollywood copies itself regardless of the color of the actor. Presidents are almost always wise, caring, and above mere politics, whether played by Henry Fonda, Cliff Robertson, or Morgan Freeman.

          "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

          by Mad Dog Rackham on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:22:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting -never felt Janeway had that problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She seemed like an excellent example of leadership. She seemed more connected emotionally to her crew than Picard, but the nature of their situation, being stranded in an unknown quadrant of the galaxy, would call for a different leadership style.
      Do you watch the Sci-Fi series "Battlestar Galactica?" Interesting female president.  (Really good actor IMHO.) Not all good, not all bad.  Not all leader all the time.  Vulnerable, makes some stupid decisions, some smart ones.  She can be decisive and hard, but she doesn't come across as "bitchy" or "shrill." She gets smarter and politically sharper as she gets more experience.

      "Silflay hraka u embleer rah!" --Bigwig

      by Reepicheep on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:35:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it should be (0+ / 0-)

        against the rules to use sci-fi for examples. It just re-inforces the geeky blogger stereotype.

        Don't get me wrong, I love sci-fi, always have. But I always cringe when I see it.

        "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

        by Mike S on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:45:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous, Reepicheep

          ...but in sci-fi the writer gets to portray the world the way they want. In other dramatic fiction, they have to plausibly portray the world the way it was or is.

          Raising sci-fi as an example isn't geeky. Arguing over who'd win in a cat fight, Capt. Janeway or Pres. Roslin is geeky.

          "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

          by Mad Dog Rackham on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:10:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's no argument there (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...because Roslin would totally send Janeway out an airlock.

            All kidding aside, even if sci-fi reinforces a geek stereotype, I do think these two are better examples of what I would hope a female President might be like... I'd take Janeway or Roslin any day, vs. what they came up with for Geena Davis to play on "Commander in Chief."  I really wanted to like that show, but it drove me nuts.   They wrote a slew of ridiculous characters -- the husband pouting if he couldn't be one of her advisers -- and had a juice commercial moppet for the youngest daughter -- and a mustache-twirling villain.  Bleah!

            •  You think Roslin would win? Hmm. (0+ / 0-)

              No, just kidding.  But here's why I bring up sci-fi: I believe in the power of the Story. And when our stories started telling us about female lawyers, surgeons, cops, detectives, judges, scientists and vampire slayers, then girls began growing up with the ability to see themselves as those things. Our ideas of what we could become were expanded.  Whoopi Goldeberg talked about the impact it had on her as a girl to see a young black woman on the deck of the first Enterprise in the 60's. Our stories are just starting to have strong older women playing presidents and Captains. We change the story, we change the way the world is imagined.  Change the way the world is imagined, then we change the world.  

              "Silflay hraka u embleer rah!" --Bigwig

              by Reepicheep on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:44:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  georgia your opinion please (haditha) (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry Georgia this is off-topic but I wonder what your take on these articles might be, no need to answer here. Right comparing Time to Mary Mapes on Haditha.

    Truth without proof is just biting comedy. ~~ TimeTogether

    by TimeTogether on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:01:43 AM PDT

  •  Parliamentary vs. Direct Elections (9+ / 0-)

    One unmentioned but key factor here is that most female leaders of other countries have been Prime Ministers, meaning they were the leaders chosen the party in the majority, rather than by direct elections.  This makes a huge difference, in a number of respects.

    When lawmakers chose someone they know personally to be in charge of them, they are likely to value qualities stereotypically associated with women--the ability to compromise and so on.  They may even be sympathetic to women leaders from a chauvinistic habit of not seeing a woman leader as much of a threat to their own individual power.

    Direct elections in the US rely more on the feeling of voters about leadership, as conveyed in 30-second commercials.  These less informed "from a distance" personality judgments are more liable to be decided on the basis of traditional misogynistic ideas of what "heroic" leadership looks like.

    •  excellent, excellent point n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Ditto that (0+ / 0-)

      I've always thought it was the number one reason for the whiteness and maleness of our presidents.

    •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raddark, pat208

      British friends have lamented to me that they can't vote directly for their prime minister.  I tell them to stop wishing for that, because then their leaders will wind up being white men with family connections, money and corporate backing, and the campaigns will be about sound bites and who looks prettier on camera, not issues.

    •  Right! (0+ / 0-)

      Parlimentary systems are fundamentally different from the system we have in the US.  This is not to say that all the other reasons don't apply - particularly the bullshit macho stuff that passes for a demonstration of toughness. Maggie Thatcher and/or Golda Maier could not demonstrate enough toughness to win over the American public the way we run our presidental elections.  Members of their respective Parliments, who knew them, would necessarily have a different understanding of their characters.  

    •  an interesting deduction (0+ / 0-)
      i'm missing the key differences in parlimentary and congressional elections which create coalition allegiance and apparently determine the characteristics of women within these elected legislatures.

      the title assumption that differences in legislative systems produce a preference for certain attributes of "leadership" jumps a distance from respective mores and the currency of modern "heroicism" to describe advertising in the US.

      i prefer that ol' saw, "who you know is  more powerful than who you are" to proximity in chambers to explain the ascension and obscurity of women in either system.

      for power is measured not merely by votes but by financial wealth. walk that cat back, from the vantage of  franchise and property privileges of a woman. is it appropriate to ignore these qualifications of participation in the world in order to explain qualities of political leadership? it is not.

      who will deny that the westminster parlimentary system is underground here and sustained by the relentless polemic of incumbent authority in these instances:
      (i) the US constitution (electoral college)
      (ii) party delegations
      (iii) congressional rules and procedures
      (iv) discretion of the house speaker

      "direct democracy" is a condition liberals hope to achieve, given the structure of political discourse that exists. "character" per se of one candidate cannot alter structure. even bush needs others, like rice, in the chambers.

      there have been some excellent diaries on their mediating powers in electoral and legislative processes. and i would characterize coalition allegiance in this instance as a "shadow market", if you will, of "democracy" that limits selection of representaives whether they appear on teevee or not.

      gender studies are irrelevant in political systems that do not value the economies of half the population (damn, that was awkward :) and in societies that not recognize the sovereignty of persons.

      Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

      by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:25:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  g10 - yes (!!!) but why (0+ / 0-)

    did you leave out ethnicity? As a black woman, I see the double bind of both race and gender complicating the matter....

  •  Thatcher's thrid election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Key, georgia10

    I was in London as a graduate student in Political Science, and had graduated with a BA in Poli Sci and women's studies--to give a bit of a background.

    My professor had family there who were involved with the Labour Party, so naturally we spent a lot of time with the Labourites.  

    One class session centered on the Labour Party Female MP's discuss 'women in politics' in the UK.

    I was astounded at what they said concerning Thatcher--they referred to her as 'more male than the men'--having more 'testosterone than the men'--needless to say the male classmates ribbed us few women in the class saying that the Labour female MP's were nothing more than sexist towards Thatcher, rather than speaking for her as having a female lead one of the most important country in the world.

    Of course we stood our ground by saying that it was unfortunate that the first female PM was so ultra conservative and that's what the female Labour MP's meant--but they didn't say that exactly.

    The conclusion I drew from this example of Thatcher is that the election of any woman into the highest position in the land should not be paramount in the selection of a president.

    What is paramount is that the candidate share the common values of the people which results in good governmental policy.

    In my own KY-03 district I have a Female Rep--Anne Northup--I vote against her every time--why? Because I think her values and those policies that result from her values are leading towards the destruction of this country.

    Good post and thank you, Georgia10!

  •  it's not just women... (0+ / 0-)

    there are less black senators now than there were 100 years ago.  there are as many Indians as Jews in this country... how many Indians are in Congress?

    I strongly believe in principle, but this is not principle the Democratic Party can win on.  Latin America and India are far more sexist than we could ever imagine here.  Not to mention the Muslim world.  All of whom have plenty of female officials--1/4 of Afghanistan's parliament is female.  And the fascist thug in charge of the Phillipines is a woman.

    How do they get elected?  They play on the double standard.  The racially and male-dominated majority isn't interested in the whining of the oppressed.  When has it been?  Elizabeth I made plenty of rhetoric about "oh I'm just a woman" "if only I were  a man" and she dispatched her male henchmen to do her dirty work.  

    Do you think Sonia Gandhi, or Indra, or macapagal got elected by being aggressive like Hillary?  No.  They play to the demure, wise-mother archetype, and it works.  Encourage that.  A Hillary campaign or a campaign of any aggressive female Democrat may open the minds of 5 million Americans towards the reality of sexual prejudice, but it won't win the country.

    •  I think you're right (0+ / 0-)

      and I think we're ready for a nurturing mother, who will bring down some hurt on anybody who comes after us.

      I can see that going over well. I think people are sick of a strong FATHER figure. Maybe a strong MOTHER figure might work.

  •  Bottom up, not top down problem (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, mikidee, pat208

    Rather, some think that the cause is a "pipeline" problem; there are not enough women in political positions to work their way to the highest executive office in the land

    This is the crux of the problem and it calls for a nationwide strategy that gets applied at the local level.  It's not about whether we have a woman candidate for president, but whether we have enough local women candidates for local offices.  Not to mention the fact that we need something like a 50 State Strategy for women.

  •  the primary system (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Parties have more control in Europe who they run in which constituency, and in some like Germany they can even fill a good many seats which represent overall party vote rather than constituencies,  completely at their discretion, so if they want women in parliament to balance things out that's what they have (also as racial politics are becoming more important they're making sure that minorities, say Turks and Kurds, get an "appropriate" number of seats) .  Here we have the primary, so I wonder if sexism on the voters part isn't part of it but at a lower level of the process than many people seem to think.  More democracy isn't always a better thing.  Call me an elitist but it's true, action from the top of the party rather than from the people is also the reason  no European country has the death penalty.
    The whole parliamentary system also makes a difference.  Keep in mind that women prime ministers have risen through the ranks of parliament where one on one politicking with other elected representatives is more valuable.  If we were like most European countries, or even India, Nancy Pelosi would get the PM job if the Dems took over the House.

  •  Cutthroat because of men? (4+ / 0-)

    Maybe the reason why the political arena is cutthroat is because of the high percentage of men.  My experience has been that once the percentage of women in a group drops to about a third or less, this nasty male "who's got the bigger dick" competitiveness starts to seep into the group dynamic.  When the two genders have parity, the competitiveness is much more muted.  I certainly saw this in graduate school.

    The sad thing is that until we reach some sort of parity, the people who enter politics and stay in politics, male or female, are going to have to be aggressive just to get things done, because that's the mindset right now.  Only when the male to female ratio gets close to one will we see more consensus-driven lawmakers join the fray in great numbers.

    I hope, though, that you are not confusing aggressiveness in politics with participating in politics with vigor.  Non-aggresiveness is not a sign of weakness.  Consensus-building is not a poor strategy for getting your way.  These are all mindsets put in place by our current and past patriarchal society precisely because, statistically speaking, they favor men over women.  We need to overcome this way of thinking, and not reinforce it.  The problem of aggressive women being viewed as "bitches" is a big one, too, but both sides of this issue — the stereotyping of women and the stereotyping of effective leaders — need to be addressed.

  •  America is somewhere between (5+ / 0-)

    20 and 50 years behind Europe in terms of gender neutrality, and this is a bad thing, obviously, but it's actually not a fair comparison.

    It makes more sense to compare gender neutrality in American politics with the situation in other "superpowers".  Female leader in China?  Nope.  USSR or any of its breakaway nations?  Nope.

    Why?  Well, I'm no social scientist and nor do I play one on TV, but I felt like joining in with the postulations anyway.

    First, all these superpowers have large uneducated peasant populations.  These groups are not amenable to change and modernization.  They are traditionalists and conservatives.  They like men in positions of power and women in positions of domesticity.

    The women in these uneducated peasant populations seem to actually support this arrangement too (whether it's because they have some kind of voice and do actually agree with the notion, or have no real voice and basically say what their husbands tell them to, because of the traditionalism of the situation.  I tend to think the latter.)

    Next, these countries are built on militarism and we all know all militaries contain large quantities of a country's uneducated peasantry.  The top brass, while not usually themselves having risen from the ranks of the peasantry, nonetheless share the traditional, conservative attitudes of the rank and file, because for another hundred reasons they, too, are protectionist about the "tradition" and "conservatism" in the military that maintains the status quo.

    And because these superpowers are built on militarism, these military superpowers are in a state of active or suspended aggression all the time.  And because these countries are always in a heightened state of anxiety as a result, the large population of uneducated peasants in each country lives in fear, and seeks a Big Daddy to protect them.

    As always, educating the uneducated peasants would go a ways to solving the problem.  Problem is, Big Daddy won't do that, because in 20 years it will result in everything he knows and loves, all the tradition and conservatism that protects the top jobs for men like him, having disappeared down the drain.

    •  Pakistan has a large peasant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      population, so does Phillipines, Indonesia, Turkey... there was a woman elected president in a country in Africa recently, women elected is South America - and those countries all have large peasant populations too.

      What they don't have is 24/7 in your face media pundits who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but whose every word gets taken as gospel by some people.

      That's the big difference.

  •  Woman. Not woman. I don't care (0+ / 0-)

    at this point,  I just don't want Hillary Clinton to run.

    She and Bill oversaw the great, fake, stockmarket bubble of the late '90's.  (and yes, thank you Robert Rubin) .

    I'm sure we were all happy to finance the "over supply" of fiber optic pipes that has facilitated the out-sourcing thing. (check your IRA}

    Margaret Thatcher was a woman, last time I checked, and she gave her county managed care and a love of the Ray-gun.


    Simplistic thinking-bad.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:19:55 AM PDT

  •  Women are invisible on panels at YearlyKos (6+ / 0-)


    When a woman asked the panelists at today's "Communicating the Progressive VIsion" session a question about how do you respond to a misogynist co-worker who discounts anything a woman has to say, it suddenly dawned on me that she was asking that question of a panel of men who have  never had the experience of being discounted like that.

    Then I took another look at the whole schedule for today... where are the women on the panels?

    Elect a woman president?  How about starting with getting visible representation at a progressive convention like this one.  (And no - I don't mean tokens.... are there no women who can speak to these issues?)

    •  Yes, and the one woman panelist yesterday... (5+ / 0-)

      ... who actually got singled out in a diary was described by that diarist using a particular offensive, sexual term.

      Which brings me to another piece of the dilemma that Georgia is highlighting: We're not perfect ourselves.

      I am reading a lot of "they" language in this thread. You know, it's "those people who aren't ready to elect a woman," and "those sexist so-and-so's," and so on.

      Last night that aforementioned diary led to an all-night pie fight, in which some members of our community were defending the right to call a female Kossak panelist a, pardon me, "milf." Because they would mean it "as a compliment." Because it's "sexual," not "sexist."

      Yeah, yeah, chalk it up to trolls... but look at UIDs carefully before you write it off that way.

      Some of the men in our own community don't know that "No means no." When members of the community (say, women) say that a term is offensive to them, they don't need any further justification. They don't need their reasoning picked apart. You just accept that the term is offensive and move on.

      A simple respect for other people -- and that includes women, folks -- dictates that we act that way, and that starts with this community.

      "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

      by pat208 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  can't have it both ways, what is fair game? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, Ice Blue, Wary, breakingranks

    As the prospect of a Democratic majority gains credibility and Ms. Pelosi is more visible, she is also subjected to the speculation and analysis about her hair, makeup and clothes that any woman positioned for such a big job often must endure.

    BagNewsNotes, a great site with more on this, applies to men and women alike.

    Here at DailyKos I also posted these links and called for us to stop taking apart the appearance of conservative women (Coulter) or women critical of the left (Maureen Dowd).

    We can't have it both ways.

    Truth without proof is just biting comedy. ~~ TimeTogether

    by TimeTogether on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:25:41 AM PDT

    •  Agreed. Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris... (0+ / 0-)

      ... are despicable for what they do and say, and we should pull no punches about either of those things. Plenty of ammo there.

      I think we should avoid public references to their anatomy. We hate it when the other side comments about Senator Clinton's hair, other candidates' lack of "femininity," etc.

      If we stick by our principles about respect for women, what's good for the goose is good for the... no, wait, uh... what's good for our goose is good for their goose, as well.

      "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

      by pat208 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:20:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Academic Perspective Says... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, edamame

    you may be more right than you know, Georgia, when you say, "The bottom line is that an aggressive male politician is viewed as a leader, while an aggressive female politician is viewed a bitch."

    Running for office requires aggressive behavior, but it also requires the feminine "tend and befriend" behavior for building connections (raising money). Here comes the science (with scientific language removed):

    Just about everyone, male or female, reacts more negatively to women in traditionally male roles than to men in traditionally female roles. I know this seems counter-intuitive because we're a lot friendlier to lesbians than to gay men, but forget sexuality for the moment. Sensitive men = good; aggressive women = bad.

    I don't think we'll ever get to 50-50 male-female office-holders -- not while politics works as it does today -- but I'd like to see 60-40 or at least 70-30.

    I tell you truly, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. -- Matthew 25:40

    by mSnook on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:27:24 AM PDT

  •  Maybe another reason (3+ / 0-)

    Maybe intelligent, courageous, and humorous females have choosen the safe path of avoiding politics. Women like to teach and nurture and so we have some really great professors and scientist. Look at Katrina V of the Nation. She can debate with the best of them but she choose to be a magazine editor. I believe she is the type of woman we would like to see out there. Someone who does not have to consider everything she is about to say but can think on her feet and say the right thing without advisers. Maybe that is what we are looking for. I do not see Libby Dole as being a good candidate.  I do not see what people see in her. She has a name and she had money behind her, but I would not vote for her even if she was a Democrat and heaven forbid I would be in that position. And then there is the Ann Coultier type, WACKO. A bad image for women.

    As for Hillary, although she is really trying for the new image, it is hard to get past the cold and hard woman from the past. Maybe she is a very warm person and just was never able to convey that message. A cold and hard man (think Cheney) can get away with it. It is a guy thing. Strong and hard man equals leader and cold and hard women equals witch. Look at Condi and her wicked evil looks.Then again, a goofy looking idiot can get elected as President but he's fun at a bar with a beer. Go figure.

    I believe the right female candidate has just never come around yet. Oh, she is out there right now and in the past. She is just not in the political spotlight yet. I do hope she is one of our little family here.

    Everyday GW does something stupid. Mission Accomplished.

    by BarnBabe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:29:38 AM PDT

    •  I'm taking deep cleansing breaths right now, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tryptamine, bree, Ice Blue

      but what I really want to do is find a metaphorical two-by-four and smack you - hard - upside the head.  WTF is this?:

      As for Hillary, although she is really trying for the new image, it is hard to get past the cold and hard woman from the past. Maybe she is a very warm person and just was never able to convey that message.

      It's waaay past time to dump this kind of thinking. Not all women like to teach and nurture. Strength and confidence do not mean "cold" - in men or women.  Leadership does not depend on "warmth" or "softness" - competence, however, would be a nice change.  <snark>

      I am not a fan of HRC - she bugs me a lot right now, because, to quote someone much calmer than I am,

      I also no longer have a sense of where her passion lies--except in winning.

      Sorry - I have no right to go off on you like this, but after too many years of hearing the same old shit every time a competent woman steps up to the plate, well, it's getting a bit old.  As am I....

      It's the Constitution, stupid.

      by mikidee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:20:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, my head hurts from being smacked (0+ / 0-)

        I don't go into arguing here on Kos and we both have been here a while.  I think you might have misunderstood. I was not talking about all women,I just do not think Hillary can win over the vote. I admire her as a Senator and that is where I believe she shines. As a Democrat, we have been following Hillary for quite a while now. I think she actually had a decent health care package but because of the way it was presented and the critics making more noise over that rather than discussing the plan, it was knocked down and she never got a chance at another shot. I could be very wrong, but I think Hillary has a history and it will be in the spotlight if she runs rather than what she could do for the country. I want to have  a leader who was the best candidate and Hillary might end up being that one. I would vote for her because I am a loyal Democrat, but I think her winning over the independents will be a tough road. A lot of people voted for the war. The smart ones had the guts to say they were wrong.

        I explained how many great women out there just do not enter the political arena but I will give you one example of a female that I think would be a good candidate. Elizabeth Edwards. I enjoyed her speeches and admired her intellegence and I was a Dean person.  I hope she is doing well with her battle with Cancer.

        Madelyn Albright is someone I admire but she was not born in this country. Barbara Boxer is another example of a leader who is willing to say what is on her mind but she has been labeled also. And don't tell me labels don't stick. GW has done more flip flopping than any one. McCain too. But Kerry got the nickname.

        There is no reason not to have a woman President and in fact there should be one. There should have been one a long time ago but that is the past and we have to look forward. Unfortunately, women still have to try harder. I have tried to watch Hillary speak so many times but it just does not flow. Of course, I would prefer the intellegent Hillary as President and the leader for the last 6 years rather than the smirking village idiot we got.  

        Everyday GW does something stupid. Mission Accomplished.

        by BarnBabe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:34:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Katrina, (0+ / 0-)
        She is an excellent example, and can hold her on with the best of them.  However i think  we need to change the media back to really fair first.  Americas ideas of women have always been circular as the need arises, so to speak.  Meaning say world war 2 when the women ran the factory's and homefront, strong competent women where more acceptted.  Unless of course they were the first group to fly planes, some of whom encountered sabatoge in the airforce.  
        After the war they shoved women back into aprons. We need to educate our population, but we really need to slap down the corparate culture, that want's women titillating but powerless.  And the Netherlands have had women queens as precident.  I think it's fairly pathetic i won't see a women elected in my time.  Hopefully things will change, it warms my heart to see so many brilliant women here.  And if we do elect a woman i sure hope she is on our side.  Great post Georgia.

      Democracy is not a spectator sport

      by Sophie Blue on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why dont we also... (0+ / 0-)

    have a female defense secretary? Chirac just named Michele Alliot-Marie his defence minister. It seems we are behind the times in that respect.

    Only the dissatisfied can make change

    by pharoah on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:39:23 AM PDT

  •  You should be happy you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    get to vote. Plenty of fundies don't even think you should be able to do that. Including some women fundies.

    "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

    by Mike S on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:40:09 AM PDT

  •  A DLC'er please NOT! (0+ / 0-)
  •   Sure I'd love a female president (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    georgia10, edamame

    but right now  I'd be really happy just to have a decent Democrat of any gender.

    "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

    by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

  •  A good start (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gentle vixen

    would be if we on the left would stop making jokes about catfights (wonkette) etc. whenever female pundits and politicians are trying to engage in a serious dialogue.
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^

  •  Children (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, mmacdDE

    I'm surprised that I've just read an entire thread about the lack of female candidates in which not one word is said about children. I suspect that a major part of our "pipeline" problem is that most women want children and, even in the unlikely event that they can afford a nanny or have a house-husband, really want to be a major part of their children's lives. For that reason, I don't think the pipeline problem will ever entirely disappear, regardless of whether actual bias disappears.

  •  Sometimes the answer to an inscrutable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    question is simple, though difficult to accept.  American politics is driven by fear, prejudice, stereotypical and lowest-common-demominator talking points, overt religiousity, and lots and lots of money.  Why hasn't the "greatest democracy on earth" elected a woman president?  Because, it is really not a democracy; it is a republic; it is a corporate-driven empire with a political engine that is never seen by the "electorate".

  •  Our political process selects for sociopathology (0+ / 0-)

    And sociopaths are by and large, male. In order to get to the top, you have to be willing and able to lie effortlessly, happily, charmingly, whenever necessary, whenever it will benefit you.

    JFK - liar
    LBJ - liar

    Nixon - liar

    Ford - pardoned liars
    Carter - look what honesty gets you
    Reagan - liar
    Bush 1 - liar
    Clinton - liar
    Bush 2 - liar

    You won't get too close to the goody basket in America by attempting to tell people the truth - just ask Howard Dean.

  •  it would pose a dilemma for wingnuts (2+ / 0-)

    We can't very well expect Limbaugh and O'Reilly to do their entire shows left-handed, now can we?

    "[L]et me just put it in graphic terms. It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left, and the drive-by media to finally take us out in the war against Iraq. Make no bones about it."  -Rush Limbaugh

    "With a female president, it would be much harder to keep my sexual fantasies from creeping into my insightful commentaries."

    "Ditto, Rush! A female president would probably spend all of her time in the shower anyway, sensually tasting a juicy, sweet slice of mango as she soaps her taught belly with a falafel dipped in hot coconut oil."

  •  The glass ceiling eventually will shatter (0+ / 0-)

    The pipeline argument is right on the mark. Things are changing for the better as university and college enrollments are shifting. More women are enrolling now and eventually that will have a tremendous effect on the power structure in America.

    Hillary is not the answer in 2008.

    With all of the important issues America faces-- the best Senator Clinton could do last week was issue puffery on the “internets” and video games. Ridiculous.

  •  Pipeline? Not enough women actors! (6+ / 0-)

    This "pipeline" nonsense is ridiculous!  Apparently, the pipeline for governors leads from Hollywood sets and WWF wrestling wrinks, and failed baseball teams to the governors mansions.  Since there haven't been enough female B-actresses, wrestlers, and failed ball team owners, that's why we haven't had a woman president? Gimme a break!  

    The problem is SEXISM!  And the lack of objective criteria applied equally regardless of sex!

    If the selection criteria for the next president were:

    1.  Has participated in a national campaign in a position of responsibility;
    1.  Has experience in the White House;
    1.  Presently or recently has held an elected position in national government;
    1.  Has at least 20 years of experience in public service with increasing responsibility at the State or national level;
    1.  Received a graduate school diploma in a relevant field, scoring in the top 10% percentile of her/his graduating class, or has a 10% percentile bachelors degree plus 5 years of relevant experience.
    1.  Has a name that is well-known nationally before applying for the position.

    If these criteria were applied, then Hillary Clinton would be eligible and few or none of the male pretenders would be.  

    Reagan, Bush, Carter, Feingold, Vilsack, Schwartznegger and a host of others who are constantly talked about would be excluded by one or more of these important and entirely reasonable selection criteria.  Meanwhile, the woman who meets all of these criteria is meeting with "can she?" skepticism.  

    (Yeah, I know Arnold wasn't born in the US.  So, who's got a better chance?  Arnold, who meets only one out of six above criteria AND is constitutionally ineligible or Hillary Clinton, the woman?

  •  Finland too I think (0+ / 0-)

    have female presidents.  Here's more:

    What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail? unknown

    by moon in the house of moe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:15:26 AM PDT

    •  One (0+ / 0-)

      She won the elections two times, still has some 5(?) years in office.

      Finland also had a female prime minister(prime minister has more power, president is the head of the army), but she had some shenanigans and was kicked out. Same parties continued in the government, they just named a new prime minister.

      And the first female minister served in 1926.
      First female MP was elected in 1908(?).

      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

      by allmost liberal european on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:41:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the sad fact is (0+ / 0-)

    the first female president will probably never be able to play to the base enough to please the base.

    so the first female president will not come from the netroots.

    it's a little sad that we could have a woman president in three years and the story won't be that she's a woman.


    maybe that's the point.

    but no.  that warmongering bitch of a shrew coward whore bitch.  that's the kind of support she can expect from the likes of the most progressive minded people in the world.

    and come 2020 we'll be wondering why the such a progressive country never had a woman president.

    we'll be scratching our heads about pipelines.

    "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

    by BiminiCat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:45:19 AM PDT

  •  Run Georgia, Run! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beet, historys mysteries

    You have my vote!

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:22:41 PM PDT

  •  Let me start with a 'Thank You,' (5+ / 0-)

    georgia10.  Great topic, fairly decent observations, marvelous optimism.  And then I read the comments.... Too many men and women and who-knows-which-or-whether-gender are still caught up in that unimaginative web of sexist stereotyping that you already know too well:

    I've been called [a bitch] for holding strong political views, as if the uterus inside me somehow requires silence or at the very least muted acquiescence to the world around me

    I've been doing this for over 50 years now (living, that is), and, sadly, I'm still being called a bitch - or worse - for holding any strong views, political or otherwise. [True story - at my current job my first review criticized me for being too articulate, which intimidated people; the next year I was too confidant, which intimidated people; the next year I was too opinionated, which intimidated people; the next year I told my manager to shut the fuck up and just give me the raise I know I deserved, which she did.]

    As long as even our political peers want to tie us down to "warmth" and Romance languages and loving husbands and children we will never see a woman as president.  These same peers are part and parcel of the pipeline problem.

    You are young, georgia10, and, hopefully, you won't have to deal with as much of the obvious sexist bullshit too many other women attorneys and politicians have dealt with over the past 20/30 years. (I doubt there are many judges left who will call you "young lady" just because you're female....  And, hopefully, no senior partner will accuse you of not taking your job seriously when you bill "only" 3000 hours during the year you take 6 weeks off to have your first baby.)

    But - as you and I and many others can see by some of the comments here - we have a long, long way to go.

    It's the Constitution, stupid.

    by mikidee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:11:53 PM PDT

  •  Chance, opportunity, seizing the moment (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to me the United States will get a female President when a credible candidate sees an opportunity and goes for it.

    Few politicians in a generation get a serious shot at being President. So far none of them have happened to be female. Senator Clinton may be the first to reach the launch pad as a serious candidate, which is a significant step in itself even if she was not nominated or elected.

    Credibility could come from being related to a male political leader (as has happened with many female national leaders in other countries) or the female candidates own achievements or some mix of the two. It may be produced by having a female Vice President. Just because Geraldine Ferraro was not elected does not mean that another female candidate would not be. No female candidate so far has been in the right place at the right time, to be credible as a Presidential candidate.

    Of course a politician with the opportunity and the credibility has to decide to go on and run to have any chance.

    The British example

    Before Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party there was no female British politician who was thought of as a really plausible candidate for Prime Minister.

    Margaret Thatcher was also not really thought of as Prime Ministerial timber in the early 1970's. She got the leadership not because the Tories thought she would be a great leader, but because she was ruthless enough to challenge her predecessor Ted Heath when better placed male candidates held back out of loyalty to the existing leader.

    Thatcher had the opportunity to challenge an unpopular leader, the minimum credibility (in British terms) of having been Education Secretary (at the time it seemed a thin resume to be a major party leader but in the age of Blair and Cameron she looks overqualified) and the ruthlessness to go for it.

    Having become party leader, the unpopularity of the Labour government propelled Margaret Thatcher to the Premiership. This course of events would have been predicted by few people even three months before her leadership challenge.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

  •  Women? Heck, I'd settle for a Greek Orthodox (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, bree, paige

    The fact that all 42 people to serve in the White House are men is remarkable but that's only the tip of the diversity iceberg:

    All 42 have been white.
    All 42 have been Christian.
    41 of 42 have been Protestant.

    And let's bring the losers into this.  In the history of the Republic, only 6 Non White Male Prorestants have even appeared on the TICKET:

    Al Smith, Democratic nominee in 1924
    JFK, of course, 1960
    Gerry Ferraro, Dem. Veep nominee in 1984*
    Mike Dukakis, Democratic nominee in 1988
    Joe-Mentum, Dem. veep in 200
    John Kerry, Democratic nominee in 2004

    *A woman and a CATHOLIC too!

    What else do these six people have in common?  OH, right...they're all Democrats.  The closest the GOP has come to diversity was Barry Goldwater, a half-Jew.  (The half that doesn't count, if you ask a rabbi.)

    "Nation, this may free ball it." Stephen Colbert

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:52:41 PM PDT

    •  Vice President Charles Curtis (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, historys mysteries

      A Republican Vice President, who was not exclusively Wasp.

      From Wikipedia

      "Charles Curtis (January 25, 1860 - February 8, 1936) was a Representative and a Senator from Kansas as well as the 31st Vice President of the United States. Curtis was of American Indian ancestry. His mother was Kaw. He spent part of his early life on a Kaw reservation, and is the first person with acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the two highest offices in the United States government's executive branch. Of less significant note, Curtis was the last US Vice President or President to wear a beard or mustache—in his case, a mustache—while in office".

      There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

      by Gary J on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:49:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Greatest democracy - no way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Key, bree, paige

    I know this point has been alluded to upthread, but I couldn't find a specfic place to pt this.

    Yet here, in the greatest democracy on earth, the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office is on a fictional drama on ABC.

    I read that and thought - amazing.  Despite all evidence to the contrary, somehow even reality-based Americans still believe this bullshit.

    How, how is American democracy greater than the one I live in??  Sorry but IMHO this is jingoistic bullshit.

    Also, on the subject of how Thatcher was elected - in most countries the premier is nor directly elected, precisely because it puts too much power in the hands of one individual.  A party, and a set of policies is elected.  The leader of that party becomes the premier, and the rest of the cabinet are also elected representatives, rather than just being good buddies of the one guy the electorate gets to pick.

    Sorry for the rant but this unquestioning belief that the US is somehow inherently superior to the rest of the world is a lot of the reason why Bush has gotten away with so much.

    Climate change, peak oil, nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, electoral fraud, and on and on... or the mystery prize?

    by lmd71 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:55:37 PM PDT

  •  'Right now, there may be a feisty female...' (0+ / 0-)

    Yes! I like my ambitious women candidates lusty and spunky as well, full of verve, pluck and tenacity.  In this TV age, it would also help if she's elegant and well-coiffed, and isn't afraid to bare her claws when challenged.

    Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

    by turbonium on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:39:39 PM PDT

  •  'It's the piplelines' is commonly said in the (0+ / 0-)

    area I've had some experience looking at critically:  women in science.  I think that people who are really examining the issues think that the problems with the pipelines is really not the serious issue.  Let me say why and then I'll ask if government is comparable.

    First of all, to the extent there is a pipeline problem, it may be being caused by all sorts of prejudice and discrimination.  So appealing to the pipleline really disguises the real problems.

    Secondly, one reason why there are fewer women trying to get into science is that it too often is geared toward male lives, male values and male agression.  Too many women come out of science grad schools determined to never set foot in a univesity science department again (and that's where our precious basic research is largely done).  The science funding agencies are waking up to the fact that something has to be done about this, because 50% of the nation's talent is being wasted as far as science goes and we need it.

    Is the field of poplitics comparable?  
    I would be suspicious of the appeal to the pipeline.  It looks like we need more women moving up, but the mere low numbers of women may not be the fundamental issue; the most serious problem may be that entry to the pipleline is blocked.  And do we want to accept that politics has to be so feisty? There are plenty of excellent women lawyers.  That ought to be feisty enough!

  •  Wonderful Words (0+ / 0-)

    And if and when we do decide to remove the anonymous veil or reveal the fact that we are indeed, women, and damn proud of it, there is a sense of accomplishment.  

    You see, because here, in the online world where you are judged by the content of your writing rather than by your gender, there are no boundaries.  Revealed as females or not, we participate with passion and resolve, and no barrier--least of all that of gender--will prevent us from effectuating change

    I remember when I was young and I read The Outsiders bye S.E. Hinton, one of my favorite books as a child that I read numerous times.

    I was floored when I grew older and found out that S.E. was Susan Eloise and surprised how "fooled" I had been in thinking it must have been a man that wrote it, since the narrator protagonist was a young teenaged boy, whom I related so well to I thought I knew him.

    That was a valuable learing experience for me. Gender and roles are what we make them out to be.

    How much do we discount and choose not to see or see differently based on the gender of person speaking? Too much, I'd venture.

    "History will judge the GOP's abdication to the NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

    by BentLiberal on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:47:44 PM PDT

  •  I realize she's too young, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Angelina Jolie would make a wicked awesome president. Too bad she'll be two years too young to run in '08....

    There's always 2012... :P

  •  The First American Female President (0+ / 0-)

    Will likely be the American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher. She's out there, oh yeah, roving like a shark towards a sea of young penguins and seal pups. Pray she doesn't follow Bush, we really need a break to repair our country and the world.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:11:40 PM PDT

  •  The Long Pipeline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think it's truly a pipeline problem, but not in the sense that there aren't enough female politicians. The real reason, I'm affaid, is that U.S. society is fundamentally biased toward males.

    Think about who runs the company you work for, or, if you aren't an employee at the moment, the one you are most familiar with. Who is the CEO? The CFO? COO? Chairman of the board (and I do man chairman of the board)? I'm sure that all these companies have a crop of dedicated women working in the management ranks. In fact, when I consult with companies, I often find that the majority of the middle managers I work with are women.

    But if women can't scramble up to the Cxx spots in corporations, how are they going to get to be President of the United States, an office typically filled by those who own those same corporations?

    This, frankly, is where someone like Teresa Heinz Kerry could do more good than by getting her husband elected. There are women with money. Where are they putting it?

    If we are going to have women Presidents we have to first have women presidents. That's the real pipeline, and it looks like a long one to me.

    Liberal Thinking

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:20:28 PM PDT

  •  We haven't had a black president yet, either... (0+ / 0-)

    We're not ready for it yet. This country, via duly elected or appointed proxies, appointed for the presidency a cokehead fratboy favored by a secretive cabal of Nixonian racists, twice. A black man would be probably be assasinated. A woman would absolutely be belittled by our so-called press.

    The answer is to develop more honest, progressive young women into positions of power, period, and to wait for the inevitable. It'll take thirty years, but it'll happen.

  •  Poor Rich White Women... (0+ / 0-)

    Only 14 Female Senators, huh?

    How many non-White Senators are there?

    •  Right now, none! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And. . . Wow!  You're blaming that on the handful of white female Senators currently in office?

      How would kicking out the "Poor rich white 14" help get more minorities elected?

      •  Yeah, that's my point. (0+ / 0-)

        Brilliant retort!

        So, you'll vote for Condi if she runs?

        •  Gender and race are separate issues (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Anti-feminists' most absurd argument is that "we cant think about sexism because what about racism"? Hello? We can think about both. There's no reason to bring up race every time someone mentions gender because that's a separate discussion, and neither issue will be addressed if they are conflated.

          With regard to Condi, the fact that she is a black woman would yes, make her ascension to the presidency more remarkable and even have a progressive tint, though she is a reactionary Republican. Of course policies matter more, but I'm not denying that facet. However the discussion in GOP circles of her candidacy is not very serious, given that she is prochoice pro affirmative action black woman who has never held elected office. I dont think GOP primary voters will go for that. Tokenism is only useful so far.

    •  Actually, there are 5 (0+ / 0-)
      One African American (Barack Obama)
      One Asian American (Daniel Akaka)
      Three Hispanics (Salazar, Martinez, Menendez)

      In all of US history, there have been 19 non-white Senators (5 African Americans, 5 Asian Americans, 6 Hispanics, one Kaw, one Cherokee, and one Cheyenne). There have been 33 women.

      Both sets of numbers are appalling, and nothing is served by minimizing either problem by comparing it to the other. One thing to consider is that if all those people were in the Senate today, the African American, Hispanic, and women populations would still be underrepresented.

      The Democratic Party needs to do more at the local and state level to recruit good candidates who are also women. It's certainly possible to recruit more women, because some states have better women representation than others. Another barrier is money--there simply aren't as many independently wealthy women, and the Senate is a body of mostly wealthy people. Public financing of political campaigns would make a difference, as would social efforts to pay women more, move women into corporate boards, and take other steps to bring more women into the wealthy class. The same goes for ethnic minorities, but each problem is important enough to be considered on its own.

      My political compass: -7.38, -8.00

      by seaprog on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:12:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jennifer Lawless, RI Dem Candidate for Congress (0+ / 0-)

    ...wrote a book, It Takes a Candidate, about why women don't run for political office.

    ...And then she decided to run herself.

  •  And as president (0+ / 0-)

    be sure and worry about what color the drapes are.  I know it's a joke but if you start it that's where it will end.

    Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by jasfm on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:55:39 PM PDT

  •  Woman Pres. (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but for now American culture kills the idea. Mix womens' roles in the Bible, the frontier/West, soft porn and womens' tendency to vote against WOMEN (!) together and you get a stalemate. Even countless disasters from male rule don't dent the myopia. It's so friggin' sorry!

  •  Traditional 'values' (0+ / 0-)

    I would not underestimate the role that so-called traditional "values" plays. According to a large minority of the country, women are unfit to make important decisions, except for homemaker decisions. They are dependent on men to be the "decider" for them.

    I think it is mostly prejudice, with a small amount of pipeline thrown in. What is needed is someone to break the ice: either a conservative woman candidate or someone who is nearly perfect. Once the ice is broken, I think it will become increasingly easy. But until the ice is broken, it is going to take a special set of circumstances for a woman to get elected president.

    Dubya = il dunce, the American Mussolini

    by shargash on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:19:57 AM PDT

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE F@*#ING NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE F@*#ING NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

  •  ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

        Having Hillary Clinton run for President would be SUICIDE.  Even if she ran against JEB BUSH she would get killed, and Jeb wouldn't even need much support from his Republican base.  Now that W has given amnesty to illegals EVERY hispanic voter and their madre who can vote will VOTE FOR JEB in 2008!!

        If Hillary Clinton and her globalist compadres get the Democratic nominee for President, not only will I NOT vote for her, I will re-register as an Independent and vote 3rd party in 2008.

        It's really simple, do the math....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site