Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic First Woman President - When?

In the 'civil rights comes of age' thread, I mentioned my hope that we'll very soon see a female President of the United States. Others are more pessimistic that this will happen any time soon.

For me, it is a little surprising that it hasn't happened yet; the UK had its first female prime minister in 1979, Ireland's first female president was in the 1990s and her successor was also a woman; other European countries, including Norway, have had female prime ministers, as have had other countries including India, Pakistan, the Central African Republic and even (briefly) Canada. Of course, it can always be said that there hasn't yet been a qualified candidate, though I think most of us could name candidates who are qualified but who did not run, or who may have run but were not selected. Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice for starters; I remember at one time Elizabeth Dole was talked about as a possibility; and of course Geraldine Ferraro was a VP candidate. I'll just add here that when I say 'qualified' I'm talking about their experience and demonstrated ability in government/public life; it's not an invitation to comment on their political views and partisan orientation and use those as a reason to say they're not qualified!

So, throwing out a few points for discussion - and let's try to leave the partisanship behind, please?

• Why hasn't there yet been a female president?
• How long do you think it'll take before the first woman is elected president? Four years? Eight? Twelve? More?
• Is there a woman in public life today who you would like to see as president? Who do you think will be the first woman president?

Have fun debating!


Wendy

I think it will happen soon, possibly as soon as 2012. If Obama does poorly in the next four years, I can easily see both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin running for president. It would be fascinating if both won their nominations.

I don't think Condoleeza Rice will ever run for president. I know politicians change their minds all the time, but I think she actually means it. She jokingly says that she'd rather be NFL Commissioner than president. I would definitely consider voting for her if she ran, Palin as well.

Liddy Dole will never be president. She ran in 2000 and had very little support. She's not a very dynamic speaker and has two big anchors around her neck. She is the wife of failed presidential candidate Bob Dole and she just lost her Senate seat in North Carolina.

Another possibility is Democratic Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. She's one of the rising stars in the Democratic party and appeals to conservatives and moderates. I don't know a whole lot about her outside of that, but she warrants a serious consideration for president.

On the Republican side, there's Linda Lingle of Hawaii. She is very popular in a very Democratic state and has cross appeal like Sebelius does. While not mentioned normally in discussions for presidential contenders, I could easily see her getting significant support.

Another one is Republican Jodi Rell of very-Democratic Connecticut, who also has a very high popularity rating.

The only problem Lingle and Rell could have is that they come from very small states. Even though they're successful, like Sarah Palin, they would get knocked for having very small constituencies.

Notice that I've basically been mentioning governors. Governors usually have a much easier time becoming president since those are high executive jobs. Historically, senators have had a very difficult time. This time was an exception as both candidates were senators.

There are a couple of other Democratic governors and an ex-governor who might be considered.

Janet Napolitano won election in Arizona in 2003 and successfully won re-election by a large margin in McCain's home state.

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is also a candidate who was talked about a little while ago. Her main problem is that Michigan's economy has been a mess during her entire tenure, so that could cause problems with winning the nomination. She's been governor since 2003.

Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire was a very popular governor (1997-2003) who just toppled John Sununu in the senate race two days ago. Being from New Hampshire could give her a huge leg up in the nominating process as the winners of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary instantly become the front-runners.

I should say that Jodi Rell has been governor since 2003 while Linda Lingle has been governor since 2002. Kathleen Sebelius has been governor since 2003.

2003 was a big year for women governors.

I'll say it'll happen within the next 20 years. 2012 may be a little optimistic, but then, who could have guessed we just voted in a black president? You never know.

I can guarantee that Elizabeth Dole wouldn't get the nomination. She completely shot herself in the foot in the past 3 weeks, and this campaign will haunt her if she ever tries again.

I absolutely agree with you about Elizabeth Dole, Karen.

Roger, thank you for such a great list of women contenders on both sides of the political fence. Of them all (other than Hillary Clinton, of course), I think Kathleen Sibelius is the only one I really know anything about. Jean Shaheen came to my attention on Tuesday night after beating Sununu, but the others are complete unknowns to me. I'm going to have to find out more about them

And that's fascinating that so many of them became governors in 2002/3. Was that just the last year that a lot of gubernatorial posts were up for election, or pure coincidence?


Wendy

*cough* You forgot to mention another country that still has (until Saturday) a female Prime Minister.... New Zealand. :p
I love how the nations below the equator are always forgotten.... *sighs*...

To quote Wikipedia (which is normally not the best source, but true on this occasion):
"New Zealand is the only country in the world in which all the highest offices in the land have been occupied simultaneously by women: Queen Elizabeth II (Head of State), Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, Prime Minister Helen Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives Margaret Wilson and Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias were all in office between March 2005 and August 2006."

Anyways...
I think if Hilary is up for another go and Obama doesn't stuff things up during his term(s), then 2016 is the obvious choice for her to have a go.
I have to admit I'm waiting for the US to pass that law that allows Austrian Actors who govern California to run... because I can see it now...
Arnold VS Oprah!!! The ultimate battle... US Presidential Election 2016...

Seriously though... I don't know if and when the US will be ready for a woman... it's taken 50 years for colour to no longer be an issue. And the fact is, you don't want someone elected just because she is a woman. You want her elected because she is the best PERSON for the job.

I am not convinced the USA is in a position yet where it can handle having it's muscles flexed by a woman... but I look forward to cheering when the day arrives.

2002 was the year many called, "The Year of the Woman," and I think it was appropriate (the winners in Nov. 2002 took office in 2003). Many women did win gubernatorial races that year. One additional woman won a Senate seat in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole, who unfortunately ran a terrible campaign and lost this year. Since numerous governorships are up every two years, I would say that it was a coincidence that so many women won that year.

I personally think this country is ready for a woman president, hence my prediction that it could come sooner rather than later. Just looking at this past election, many Republicans were chomping at the bit to vote for Governor Palin, not for John McCain. Her choosing boosted the Republican ticket until the financial crisis came directly to the foreground and may have been the element that would have put John McCain over the top if not for that "September surprise."

Her choice as vice president, I think, automatically puts her in the position of front runner for 2012. Now other candidates may come forward, such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, but she has to be considered the favorite at this time. By the time 2012 rolls around, she will either have six years in the governorship under her belt, or she would have moved to the US Senate if and when Ted Stevens is forced to resign or if she goes up against Lisa Murkowski when her term is up. Either way, I think she'll be a force in 2012 if she decides to run. While the Democratic Party has a history of choosing dark horse candidates like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, the GOP tends to nominate early front runners, making Sarah Palin even more likely to get the nomination if she wants it.

As for the list of women I've mentioned as potential presidents, the only one I would have trouble with would be Jennifer Granholm of Michigan. I don't think she's been a very good governor and would likely, therefore, not be a very good president. She was re-elected, mostly, because of the weakness of the GOP in that state, who couldn't field a strong candidate. I would be very comfortable seeing any of the others become president.

I could potentially even support Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius over the GOP nominee if the nominee turned out to be someone like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, neither of whom I would support for president.

I can't even begin to address the third question, since I know far, far too little about American politics, politicians and public figures for that. (Ummmm... I like Oprah! But Oprah as the Presdident of the United States... naaahhh...)

But let me post a few musings about why it might be harder for a woman than for a black man to get elected President of the United States. First, the United States is not just any country, it is the First Country of the world. The President of the United States might in some ways be regarded as the President of the world. Of course, the world doesn't get to vote for this President, only the Americans get that privilege. So it is the Americans who decide not only who will be their own President, but also who will get to represent the full strength and power of their great country to the world. And will the Americans be content to let itself be represented primarily by a female face? Yes, it is possible, but I think that many Americans would rather have a man as Captain of the mighty American ship. I just think many Americans think that that feels safer.

Let me tell you something that may or may not be relevant, but that I myself consider significant. The largest church in Sweden, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, is very liberal. Anyone who wants to serve as a minister in the Church of Sweden has to agree to serve along with all other ministers of that church, including all its female ministers. But a small but vociferous group of conservative male clergymen demand the right to refuse to serve with female ministers and still be a part of the church. The church has denied their requests and said that these conservative clergymen can't be ordained in the Church of Sweden, and therefore they can't serve as ministers there.

So the conservative clergymen found that they couldn't be ordained in their own church. In response, one of them, Arne Olsson, turned to bishop Walter Obare Omwanza of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya and asked him to ordain him!



Arne Olsson, conservative clergyman of Sweden.



Bishop Walter Obare Omwanza of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya.

In other words, Arne Olsson would make a black man his superior in order to avoid the indignity of having to make a woman his equal. I do find that interesting.

Well, like I said earlier, I think that the United States is a special case, simply because it is the strongest power in the world. But that doesn't mean it is impossible that America will one day get its first female President. If so, what will that female President be like?

I think conservative and right-wing female politicians have a better chance of being elected leaders of their countries than left-wing ones, simply because a female leader's gender is provocative enough to the way things used to be. If she is not only female but also left-wing, so that she can be suspected of wanting to really tear down the existing structures of society, that may prove to be just too much for many people.

I think Margaret Thatcher is a good case in point. Thatcher is one of the most right-wing leaders that western Europe has seen during the last three or four decades. She was tough as nails, and whatever image she projected, it wasn't one of soft femininity and bleeding-heart compassion. Thatcher closed down a lot of British mines that didn't turn a profit, and she dealt a mortal blow to entire mining communities. The musical Billy Elliot, which is set against this background, is the most powerful and moving musical I have seen. Thatcher also declared war on Argentina over the Falkland Islands. No wonder she was called the Iron Lady!

It is interesting to compare Thatcher with Sarah Palin. Palin is also very conservative, but Palin's public image is very different from Thatcher's. Thatcher was married, and I believe she had two adult children, but she most certainly didn't come across as maternal at all. The way I remember her, she wasn't interested in talking about families at all, either her own or the ones of other people. But that way she also became a little less threatening to other women. She wasn't really telling them how to live their lives, even though she might very well be busy making their husbands' unemployed. And as far as I can remember, she never made any big deal about abortions one way or another. Compare that with Sarah Palin. Palin is extremely beloved by many conservative, pro-life women, but she scares a lot of other women off. Right now she is not someone who can unite a majority of Americans in general, and certainly not someone who can unite American women in particular. Of course the policial landscape can change a lot in four years, and certainly in eight or twelve years.

I think the female candidate who will have the greatest chance of becoming the first female American President is going to be someone who is relatively conservative, but not as conservative or as closely linked to the religious right as Sarah Palin.

Ann

It's interesting to note that there have been countries that you would not have thought would have had a female head of state have already had a president. Indonesia is one that comes to mind and yet having had 43 presidents well 44 once you count Obama, America has yet to have a woman in office. Like I said in the other civil rights topic, I initially thought that it would be more likely to have a woman in office first before an African-American in office. This had nothing to do with me wanting a woman in office because I certainly would love to see that. I just felt that electing a black American would be a greater hurdle than that of a woman.

Looking at the Women's Sufferage Movement of the early 20th century woman were denied the right to vote so it is perhaps not surprising that we haven't seen a woman in the running for president. It wasn't until 1920 that women in America were granted the right to vote. I'm sure that there are still people out there who would tell you that the woman's place is in the home being a mother and doing the housework and all the cooking (and if any guy said that it would earn them a nice black eye from me :p ). When Megawati Sukarnoputri was elected president of Indonesia or about to be elected I don't remember there was an article titled 'It's No Job for a Woman' needless to say I was not impressed by that article in suggesting that women aren't capable of leading a country.

It probably is a bit optimistic that a woman would be elected in the 2012 election, but having said that I would at least like to see a woman at least in the running it would also be nice to see her with a female running mate although that might be even more far fetched that the idea of a female president. A more realistic target would probably be about 2016, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen in 2012 I mean 4 years is a long time.

A good choice for a first female president? Well I guess Hilary Clinton would be an obvious choice. Nancy Pelosi the current Speaker of the House of Representatives would probably be another choice given that she is currently 2nd in the presidential line of succession after Cheney making her the higest ranked woman in US politics. I've not heard much about Pelosi, as a politician, but it would be fair to say that there is a possibility of her being a candidite.

Good point even if that were the case the main point that would make the news is that she is female and not the fact that she is the best person for job. I suspect that there will be feminists out there who would vote for a female simply because she's female.

Please don't misunderstand me here - I'm not going to suggest that gender is the only issue at play in elections.

But no one has yet commented on the importance of the media - both the old MSM, the soft media, etc as reflectors of how ready Americans are to accept a woman in "the top job".

Based on how these groups covered and commented on both the Clinton campaign and Palin, I'd guess that it'll be sometime before a woman can successfully run for President.

I genuinely wouldn't have thought that, prior to this last year - I thought all that type of thinking was behind us.

Now I don't mean to suggest that sexism was *the*only factor this year. Not by a long shot. There were a great many variables involved, not the least of which was the Obama campaign's brilliant political strategy.

But so many serious political commentators, (in Canada too to my shame) sneered at Hillary Clinton's clothes (Rick Salutin!), evaluated her in terms oh her husband's career, etc. They did this to Palin, too. a woman whose achievements were no less than Obama's, although certianly her ideology is different. But her narrative was a feminine one - that didn't "compute" in the heads of many media types.

And don't get me started on the hateful, sexist things that were out there on the internet. The t-shirts, the nutcrackers, etc And that South Park episode where a bomb is exploded in Hillary Clinton's vagina!

So the mind set is not yet there for enough Americans (and I'll suggest Canadians too) Yeah, enough will vote for a governor or a senator, etc - but not the top job.

btw, anyone catch ABC news last night - the shot of Palin speaking but the camera lingered over a long shot running up her legs?

Does the media influence people? Or is it a reflector of attitdues that already out there? Does it validate those attitudes, reinforcing them and making it legitimate to make trivialise female candidates? Hillary Clinton was much more often the target of SNL, late night host jokes, and Daily show shots than was Obama. Palin was too.

So a woman president won't happen in a long time. The posts above mine have presented lists of women who are qualified but that's just part of the answer to the question. Until we see a more balanced approach in the media (a gender blindness so to speak) any woman running for the top job will face a rougher time.

But maybe Obama will help change this - he's campaigned on "Change" and forging a new way of doing politics. Over half the population of the US is female. Half its work force is. More women have been elected to Congress - so it would be reasonable to expect, at the minimum, one third of Obama's top cabinet and staff jobs would be filled by women. So just maybe ...
c.

Pssst. Jennifer Granholm can't run for President. She was born in Canada and immigrated to the US with her family when she was a kid.

Bethy-from-Michigan

Reading these comments, I am stunned and very disappointed.

Psst... Israel also had a female Prime Minister - 1969-1974.

Julie

Why ethnica?

Personally, I think many very smart, very qualified women will think it's not worth the trauma it puts them and their family through. I think a lot of men are the same way.

I also think that many if not most of the American people are above all the crap we saw in the media with both Hillary and Palin.

Unfortunately, those who aren't happen to write for shows and sell T-shirts and control the MSM. I think the MSM, this time at least, were so Obama-enamored that making life difficult for *any* challenger became their national sport [see how unbiased some of the MSNBC guys were, for instance - he could have been running against Jesus Christ himself and they would have found a way to make life practically unbearable because he was Jewish or something].

I think that female candidates are treated differently - right or wrong. A guy needs a straight tie. A woman needs to look *good*. But I think *this* time, it was as much a 'not Obama' thing as it was a 'female' thing. I think anyone running against Obama would have had a hard time in the MSM.

I think that women will have a harder time than men - for a very long time, eventually it'll get more equitable but it'll take time. I think that *this* year, part of it was 'you're not Obama' as much as it was 'you're a woman'.

Carol [who couldn't think of a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan and isn't sure that Jesus Christ was the way to go there, but is tired and did anyway and who means no sacrilige or anything like that]

This article by Olivia Ward in today's Toronto Star addresses the question. Btw it's a liberal newspaper and it's coverage was very pro Obama.

Still a Glass Ceiling...

c.

<thread drift>
Ann said:
This is totally off topic, so I apologize, but this is very simple: Arne Olsson must take his Bible seriously. In the Bible, we're all brothers and sisters no matter what the skin color (not that Christians have always been good about demonstrating that, but it is the way the Book is written) but that men and women have separate roles in life. Equal worth, but different roles. It seems pretty obvious that the Bible sees only men in the position of pastor or spiritual leader. I know lots of people disagree with that, and I'm not going to argue the point, but since you found the decision interesting, I thought I'd supply my guess at the logic behind it.

</thread drift>

Back on topic -- I agree with Carol that the media coverage was brutal towards the women running this year. Who talked about McCain or Obama as having "cankles" or screeching? There is a different standard, but then the media is expert at double standards. Still, I have hope; as Roger said, there are qualified women out there. I'd love to see Hillary vs. Sarah, but I don't know how likely that is. Hillary's not getting any younger, and running against a sitting president of one's own party is generally a non-starter.

PJ
whose new password at work is "palin2012"

Well, Pam, I have read the Bible, so I know very well what parts of it Arne Olsson would quote to justify his insistence that women can't be spiritual leaders. But again because I have read the Bible, I also know what parts of it liberal theologians quote to bolster their belief that women will do just fine as ministers.

The problem with the Bible is that you can actually use it to claim that women can't be any kind of leaders at all. I have one such book at home, written by a man much like Arne Olsson. I was going to get it and quote from it, but I'm afraid that I have mislaid it. Anyway, I remember that the author quoted Genesis to claim that slavery and ill-treatment of black and brown people is forbidden, because there is no support for it in Genesis. On the other hand, Genesis makes it perfectly clear that the husband must rule over his wife, and therefore women must always subordinate themselves to their husbands, and they must never be the leaders of men.

My point is that you can use the Bible to undermine the leadership of women in general. As a non-religious person, I believe that people like Arne Olsson make it harder for women to become Presidents and Prime Ministers. If the Bible represents the highest possible morality and if it rejects women as leaders at least in some situations, doesn't that make it easier to reject women as leaders in all other situations, too?

Of course I'm well aware that many religious people accept female leaders in worldly positions. I think that extremely few religious Americans would have rejected Sarah Palin as President because of her gender.

Let's return to the question of what it takes for a woman to 'transcend her gender'. I think that is a very hard thing to do, but I think that Margaret Thatcher did it. Thatcher was middle-aged and slightly matronly, with an old-fashioned hairstyle, and she never tried to be even the least bit sexy. In a way, she projected a public image which was somewhat similar to the Queen of England:



Margaret Thatcher.



Queen Elizabeth.

Compare Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth with Sarah Palin:



It may certainly be easier to like Sarah Palin than to like Margaret Thatcher, based on these images, but on the other hand Palin isn't 'transcending her gender' in images like these, but rather calling attention to it.

One modern female American politician who I think is transcending her gender is Condoleeza Rice:



Rice projects so much dignity, much like Margaret Thatcher. When it comes to Palin, you can be distracted by her hairstyle, her stylish clothes, all her children and her hockey mom image. When it comes to Palin, you can find yourself talking about details that aren't going to be very important if she is ever going to become America's President, such as who her hairdresser is. And you can talk about such things when it comes to Thatcher and Rice too, but in their cases, you know that their hairdressers, jackets, jewellery and makeup is not what these women are really about. Because Thatcher and Rice transcend their gender, and you are forced to talk about their political beliefs and agendas and what they want to achieve.

Ann

Ann, forgive me, and I know you certainly didn’t mean it this way, but that sounded almost sexist. You seemed to be saying (at least in my opinion) that because Palin wears her hair a certain way or because she likes a certain style of clothing then she cannot be taken seriously because she’s playing into a female stereotype.

Now, as a male I’m not sure I can speak to this notion with authority, but as a person I do have an opinion so here goes. To me to “transcend” your gender as you describe it would be to actually “conform” to some standard you think you need to project in order to be taken seriously. To me that isn’t transcendence that’s conformity. I’m not sure if you’re a fan of “The Simpsons” cartoon, but I’m struck with the remembrance of the episode where Bart got an earring. When his sister Lisa saw it her remark was, “How rebellious in a conformist sort of way.”

To “transcend” at least to me would be to strive to be one’s self despite expected conventions. One could argue that Queen Elizabeth is very dignified, but is so because it’s expected of her. Indeed, as I understand it much of the criticism that was leveled her way in regards to Princess Diana was that she did not feel that Diana always “conformed” to the ideal Queen Elizabeth thought she should be. So, is Queen Elizabeth transcending her gender or simply conforming to the notion of what she feels a monarch should be?

Margaret Thatcher on the other hand seemed (again in my opinion) to be much more her own person. Her dignified manner was not there because she felt the need to be dignified, but rather that such dignity was something she found important and was simply part of her nature. She wasn’t what she was expected to be she was what she chose to be. And that to me is transcendence.

So, say what you will about Sarah Palin, like her or not like her, but she did stand up to her own party when she condemned corruption within the Alaskan Republican Party. That was hardly conformity. Also, I don’t think you can dismiss the fact that she went on to become the Governor of a state. Many feminists write books and give lectures, but how many actually go out and lead? In an age where there is still sexism in the work place she took the top job in a state. Isn’t that “transcendence” to a degree?

I’m not entirely sure of my opinion of Governor Palin at present, but I do know that to casually dismiss her would be to willfully turn a blind eye to what are some considerable accomplishments.

Anyway, that’s just my two cents.

Thank you for your very thoughtful post, Michael. You make many very good points in it.

The point I was trying to make is that it is harder for a woman to be accepted as a leader than it is for a man. You can argue that I'm wrong about this, but seeing that most leaders on all levels are in fact men, it does seem that something makes it harder for women than for men to become leaders.

One such thing might be personal inclination. It could be that more men than women actually want to become leaders, so that there is a smaller pool of interested women to choose from. At the same time, it could very well be that those women who want to become leaders are every bit as qualified as the men who strive for leadership. Still, such a situation would probably still leave us with more male leaders, simply because there are more male 'candidate leaders' available.

The point I'm really trying to make is that the public and the media are more suspicious of female leaders than of male leaders, simply because they believe, consciously or subconsciously, that a woman's gender is a liability for someone who needs to be in charge of a whole nation. I admit that this is pure guesswork. Maybe, if the 'right' woman came along and asked to be America's leader, people would flock to her the way they flocked to Barack Obama this year. How do I know that lots and lots of people wouldn't love that woman candidate partly because of her gender? I can't know that such a scenario couldn't happen.

You could argue that it happened this year, when millions of Americans would have loved to see Sarah Palin as Vice President and quite possibly as President of the United States. But the problem this year was that there was an even greater number of Americans who disapproved of her. The polls I have seen clearly suggest that Palin's disapproval rate was higher than her approval rate.

You can put a large chunk of the blame for Palin's 'diapproval rate' on the media. I have to agree that lots of what the media wrote about Palin can be described as pure sexism. For example, I myself have quoted a Washington Post column by Eugene Robinson on these boards, where Robinson said something to the effect that the Republicans had been horrible this year, and one example of that was Sarah Palin's wardrobe. Well, that's just a shocking, disgusting and unbelievably sexist thing to say. As if Sarah Palin's clothes would be some sort of threat to the American people. And I wonder if any other VP or Presidential candidate has been maligned or attacked like that because of his clothes. And please note that I said his clothes. I really think that women are attacked in ways that men are not.

I think dignity and cool is a good way to counteract attacks, if you are vulnerable because of your gender or race. I think that Barack Obama was very dignified in this campaign, which may have been an absolute prerequisite for his victory. I think Palin was less dignified. I'm not saying that she crossed any lines, absolutely not, but the way she defined herself made her vulnerable to attacks. I believe she defined herself as a hockey mom, and then she asked her audience if they knew the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull. She gave them the answer herself: lipstick. That is not very dignified. Palin used her female attributes to define who she is in a way that I think backfired. I can't see Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth or Condoleeza Rice describe themselves as pitbulls with lipstick.

I want to stress once again that the media like to make fun of female candidates. Sadly, I think that part of the reason for media's behaviour is that the mocking of women is a profitable business. Many people are prepared to pay to see the spectacle of a woman being brought low, which is of course a part of the general sexism of society.

Or maybe I'm just wrong about all of this, and 2012 will be the year that America gets its first female President.

Ann

As an American I plan to vote as I have in all the elections for the candidate that has political views closest to what I believe.

I don't care if we elect a woman, a black man, or a white man as long as it is someone I can support and believe it.

Until we stop worrying about electing a woman or another black man we are not going to be focused on what is important to America.

At this point I don't care what any other country thinks about us and how hip we are.

And yes, if Margaret Thatcher was running here she would have received many votes. Thatcher has a quality of confidence about her.

We can't keep electing Presidents to break glass ceilings and to set trends. WE need someone to actually lead us, it remains to be seen if we elected that person.