Would you support Hilary just because . . .

she's a woman?

After all, a woman president, any woman president, is a victory for womankind, right? Ovaries for the Oval Office!

Or not?

Thoughts . . .

 

In germany, we have a women chancelor for the first time in history. Did anything change for the better? No. And the things that may, are not to her account, especially not for being a women.

In order to get to a position like that, you have to be a "man", like in acting like one. And she is not very feminin.

Also, don't forget, that a president or a chancelor is also only a representative. They do not govern alone. It's not their decision alone. There are a lot of people and interestgroups behind the representative. So if the people in the backstage don't change, a women-president will only mask the problem.

I still consider it progressive, that a conservative party like the CDU in Germany has appointed a women. But I don't like her, or the party and what it stands for.

 

Congelezza has as many ovaries as Hillary does.

(Does "brass ovaries" have the same ring as "brass balls"?)

 

No. Voting for a woman just because she's a woman is sexist and juvenile. If she is not the best candidate, I will not vote for her. Voting against the better candidate just to get a woman or a minority into office makes as much sense as voting against the better candidate just because she is a woman or s/he is not a white protestant. Either way it's discrimination.

I know I sure as hell would not feel good about myself if I thought that I got to where I am based on my gender rather than on my accomplishments, efforts, etc.

 

just about anyone would make a better prez than Bill Frist (who seems to have his eye on the Repub nomination)...


but I don't see Hilary getting the dem nomination, unless they just want to throw the next election to the repubs. It wouldn't suprise me though, seems everything's about the $$$ now anyway.

 

I wouldn't vote for her if she was a man. The fact that she is woman that stood by a womanizing husband doesn't give me added confidence in her abilities. In fact it leads to grave doubts in her ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

I think placing her in a position to run for president is another way of ensuring that republicans will win, and another example as in running Kerry, that the two parties are in colusion, and seek to elect their person, and give the American public only some sort of skewed sense of having a real choice.

 

I vote for the person who I think can do the most good for the Country or the position they are running for. I don't vote for or against gender.

Hillary is not taking Testosterone. Jeez.

 

Hillary Clinton seems real. Its not about Gender.
She is a serious leader who deserves considerstion for the office.

 

Are you sure?

 

Why would she do that? My guess is she is aggresive enough on her own. She has a brain in her head, and must know the dangers of Testosterone for womyn. She doesn't look hairy, she doesn't have an Adam's Apple, nor is her face masclinating. Womyn who take Test to go Trans (or any other reason) get Masculine damn fast. She's just an aggresive womyn, that's all.

 

Hillary is the "conservative democrat" a republican in sheeps clothing, granted better than the neo-cons, but I have my heart on Obama, a liked Dennis Kucinich...do you he'll run again?

 

Are you seriously saying that a woman can be as good a senator as Hillary and NOT take testosterone shots? Do you expect us to buy into the notion that competence doesn't vary with testostorone level?


Now that I got that out of my system, I can note that first they said she was a copy of her husband; then there were claims of lesbianism (we all know that they are lousy politicians) and now testerone injections. Hmmph.

OK, those who oppose Hillary have noted her closeness to the DLC. Do those who support her have anything that she has done (other than Chelsea) that they can point at to guide our votes?