US Elections 2008: Hillary Clinton

[Socks]

Now, we, American folk, are all looking forward to the Election Day of 2008, where we decide the head of state, the man, the boss, meh you get the point.

But what happens if Hillary Clinton is elected as president? Can you imagine how disasterous that would be?

It's not a question if the United States is ready for a female president. It's not a question if she has good intentions. It's about if the world is ready to handle a female president.

As well most of you know, US military forces have been stuck in Iraq for the past half a decade trying to establish a capitalistic government. In the Islamic culture, women are 2nd rate citizens. In terms of respect for gender, there is a huge difference in the Islamic world. What kind of catastrophes would the US encounter under the Hillary Clinton Regime?

Not only is the Islamic world against high-ranking women, they are many others. Some of them National Superpowers.

It's not my intention to be sexist, It's just what the other part of the world thinks.

Tl;dr

If The United States has Hillary Clinton as president, The Conversion of Government in Iraq would take even longer. And we might even lose some economic treasures, such as oil...

Damn.

Discuss. Are there any resolutions for this?

[bionic sheep]

Colour me shocked, but I'm fairly sure that America is already fairly unpopular among Islamic countries.

I think it's a pretty weak argument to say that Hilary shouldn't be elected because some other countries don't like women. Surely America should be trying to set an example for such countries?

[Socks]

So are you saying that we should culturally change and convince the Islamic culture to become more accepting to the females? It's an idealism that has been around for centuries. Trying to convince them otherwise is like convincing a group of white supremacists that breeding with two races are okay. Okay, The United States can consider being an example to the rest of the world. That's a thought.

[katt]

hehehehehehe

no i think he was saying that the mere fact a nation of free people might elect a woman president could serve as a lofty example to the rest of the world.

nothing about active changes. unless clinton got in office and got it into her head that she has to actively empower the females of the world. Which would be an amusing spectacle worthy of popcorn as the economies tank and the giantic comet smashes us to bits.

Although, in seriousness, I am not thrilled with the idea of voting for someone because 'they are a woman' or because 'they are such and such a race'. I'd rather vote on the basis of agreeing with their political platforms

[Darkscull]

Socks, you seem to be labouring under the assumption that people in the islamic world don't currently dislike the president (and usually generalise to the entirety of america) as much as possible.

I mean, it could be argued that they're more likely to disrespect a female president than a male one, but that doesn't change the practical situation which is that they have so little respect for the position that it won't make a noticeable difference.

[richardn111]

the mere fact a nation of free people might elect a woman president could serve as a lofty example to the rest of the world.


I would first like to take this opportunity to state my opinion that America is not a free country, the word Oligarchy springs to mind.

And secondly "a lofty example" you are aware Britain has already had a female Primeminister? It didn't work out too well...

As Katt said, I don't think it's anything to do with the gender or race of the head of government, that changes the country or keeps the status quo. It's the party they represent.
Sorry for deviating slightly, just felt i had to express my beliefs.

[gembird]

Although, in seriousness, I am not thrilled with the idea of voting for someone because 'they are a woman' or because 'they are such and such a race'. I'd rather vote on the basis of agreeing with their political platforms

That's a very good point. I think the fact that Hillary is a woman is irrelevant; if she was elected and failed to be a good president (like the current guy) then even her own country would lose respect for her. If she did the job well, I think a lot of people, Americans and otherwise, would see her as a good politician and someone to look up to- at least in theory. The only problem I can see is that she might have to act more 'like a man' so to speak- Margaret Thatcher is unpopular now because she seemed harsh when she was prime minister, but it's likely that she had to be that way to be taken seriously. Not saying that will happen to Hillary, but it could.

Also, I believe there are quite a few female politicians from areas you wouldn't expect them- including Israel (loads of women in government) and Pakistan. The first female member of parliament in the Middle East took up her seat in 1957- over 50 years ago (thanks Wikipedia!). So I think there would be much less of a reaction to a woman than people think, especially as the US is known to have successful women in politics.

[faragher]

And secondly "a lofty example" you are aware Britain has already had a female Primeminister? It didn't work out too well...Thatcher was unpopular, but many consider her to have been an excellent PM.

Also, why should be not elect someone because they will be unpopular with other people - you may as well bend over and let the terrorists pop it in your ass right now.* I think that there are reasons why Clinton shouldn't be Pres, but the fact she is a woman isn't one of them.

*may contain nuts

[richardn111]

I think that there are reasons why Clinton shouldn't be Pres, but the fact she is a woman isn't one of them.


I said that in my post. Gender / race shouldn't come into it, their election should be due to their policies.

[El Fisho]

The idea that a female president would be seen as less authoritative is simply wrong. Think of Thatcher compared to Major in the UK... nuff said.

[katt]

I would first like to take this opportunity to state my opinion that America is not a free country, the word Oligarchy springs to mind.

And secondly "a lofty example" you are aware Britain has already had a female Primeminister? It didn't work out too well...

.

Well america is a very free country compared to much of the world (especially in certain states). I also think we have a decent amount of influence over the government; after a few years of the clintons people got fed up and congress was voted into the hands of the republicans. There are some checks and balances so its not just the president that is important in the government.

The presidential candidates certainly know they have to cater to the 'various personalities' of the states which was why there were pics of a die hard democrat like john kerry toting around guns on a hunting trip when he was campaigning. those shamless pandering politicians.

I was aware of thatcher although i don't know much about her other than she was supposed to be conservative?

Personally I am not one of those people who is absolutely dying to see a female president. I think the job is extremely tough and I think there are probably more guys who can deal with it than there are women.

[Disgruntledgoat]

As well most of you know, US military forces have been stuck in Iraq for the past half a decade trying to establish a capitalistic government. In the Islamic culture, women are 2nd rate citizens. In terms of respect for gender, there is a huge difference in the Islamic world. What kind of catastrophes would the US encounter under the Hillary Clinton Regime?
-The word you are looking for is "Democratic" government.
-In Islam, everyone is equal. Some misinterpret things and treat them as second class citizens. The same is true of Christians.
-In Japan there has never been any major feminist movement and their culture for difference in treating genders is also very different. From what you're saying, the Japanese would be up in arms if Hillary became president.
-Margaret Thatcher came under a lot of criticism for policies, and few attacked her for being female. Britain somehow did not get overrun with terrorists during her leadership.

And we might even lose some economic treasures, such as oil...

-Despite the fact America already pays the least for their oil compared to most of the world, in about 50 years this will probably be academic anyway.

[gembird]

I think the job is extremely tough and I think there are probably more guys who can deal with it than there are women.

Yes, it is tough, and yes, you have to be able to handle the pressure, but there have been female leaders in plenty of countries who have done well. I know you're not saying there are no women that could do the job, but still. I'm of the mindset that I could be Prime Minister if I wanted to (which I might, actually, now I think about it) and the fact that I'm female doesn't mean I'm less suited for it- a tough woman can handle leadership better than a wussy man, no?

-In Japan there has never been any major feminist movement and their culture for difference in treating genders is also very different. From what you're saying, the Japanese would be up in arms if Hillary became president.

Indeed- I think people misunderstand other cultures sometimes and perceive them to be treating genders differently for reasons other than the truth. Taking the example of geishas (as Japan has been mentioned), they were seen as businesswomen to some extent.

[Splush]

I see your logic, Socks, but not electing somebody for the sole reason that terrorists wouldn't vote for them seems pretty weird, kind of one of those "you're letting the terrorists win!" things. Not that I think you should elect people with the intention of setting an example to the rest of the world necessarily, just that you should elect who you want for your country regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Although perhaps I contradict myself because a big part of the reason I think Obama would be a good choice is because of the good it would do for America's image abroad. I suppose it's the difference between making a positive decision (deciding to elect Obama) and a negative decision (deciding not to elect Clinton). Making a negative decision based on what terrorists think is hard to swallow.

Like other people have said, you might be overestimating the impact that a female leader would have on the Muslim world's feelings towards the US. I'm sure people trying to incite anti-American feelings would use the fact of a female president as an element in their rhetoric, but it seems like those people already do a great job of getting their flocks to hate America, and adding a female president would have a fairly insignificant effect.

[katt]

Although perhaps I contradict myself because a big part of the reason I think Obama would be a good choice is because of the good it would do for America's image abroad. .

Why do you think obama would improve america's image abroad.

I really don't care what people abroad think of america. The only thing i think anti-american people have a point about is the hollywood/tv/fast food culture. But then again, i think if people really hated this so much it would not be able to be imported and yet it is.

[Splush]

Partly because his experience with Muslims people would hopefully give him the ability to treat them respectfully, and partly just the visceral significance for people all over the world seeing a black face representing America. It's crude, and people ideally shouldn't base their opinion of a country based on the colour of their leader, but in practice I'm sure they do.

The conventional image of the American president (old white guy) usually backs up common anti-American rhetoric (rich white imperialists). Simply putting the American flag behind a mixed race guy who has lived in different cultures, understands different religions, and speaks multiple languages could do so much to make people growing up all over the world question the traditional anti-American rhetoric that they're being fed. It would be very refreshing after eight years of a cowboy who seems to strive to be as much of a simple, traditional American stereotype as possible.

For all that Clinton might inspire women around the world, she's basically the female version of the traditional old white guy, she doesn't have the worldly feel to her that Obama does.

[katt]

Partly because his experience with Muslims people would hopefully give him the ability to treat them respectfully, and partly just the visceral significance for people all over the world seeing a black face representing America. It's crude, and people ideally shouldn't base their opinion of a country based on the colour of their leader, but in practice I'm sure they do.

.

If the people abroad have such shallow criteria for what they think a good american leader is ;

ie black pigmented skin and a history of being involved with islam;

then perhaps they are not worth trying to impress? how shallow and unimportant those two things are when it comes to political platforms for the US!

I pay more attention to whether or not i feel the politician believes in the US and the constitution. And while i would support a black female politician like rice i am afraid i think obama is smoke and mirrors. absolutely much ado about nothing.

[Splush]

I don't know if it's worth it or not, I'm not an American voter so I don't really have an opinion. You just asked me why Obama would improve America's image and I told you.

There clearly are a lot of Americans mortified by the fact that so much of the world hates them, and I suspect they'd make changing that a priority, and not be afraid to stoop to exploiting peoples' shallowness. Although while the skin colour thing is certainly shallow and false, I think experience of different cultures and general worldliness is a real advantage for any world leader.

[katt]

Well people actually have to live in america. We are more than just something the other world looks at and therefore i think we should select a leader who will be good to our country and not just choose someone to try and win a popularity contest.

I support romeny in part because of his eloquence and intelligence. And while he might not be the most happenin' guy around i am sure he is a worldy person. :) you dont have to BE the other culture to be able to understand it.

I might also add I support him despite the fact he is mormon (which is a religion i would not choose over my own). I figure his stances on other things are far more important than whether he is a traditional christian.

[Splush]

Certainly if somebody was voting for Obama purely for his appeal abroad without thinking he'd be able to run things at home, they would be a lunatic, but I doubt many people are actually thinking that way. Although I tend to think that the importance of hands-on experience of running things is overrated for the job of head of state anyway, there's an army of people organising, guiding, advising, making your initiatives workable, writing your speeches and so on. The president seems of largely symbolic importance, to me.

Based on voting records it seems like Obama and Clinton are nearly identical policy-wise. Clinton comes with the perks of being a woman and having more experience, while Obama comes with the perks of being black, having experience of other cultures, not having the baggage of an army of people with deep-seated hate for him, and representing a break from the creepy trend towards dynasties in US politics. Obama seems like a legitimate democrat option for me, I'm pretty sure I'd be voting for him if I were American.

[katt]

why are being a woman and being black perks? to me those really have so little to do with stances on political issues and the ability to think that it is rather odd to describe them as 'perks'..

That is unless its some sort of 'ooh different race and gender' amazement that would temporarily amuse people.

And obama would not be admired by everyone; and it would overwhelmingly be because of the fact he is a leftist.

Although its true he is not disliked by the right as much as hillary (yet)

[Splush]

I suppose whether you care about the president's race or gender depends on what you think the point of the president is, and whether you care about this idea of using symbols to change the way people think about America, both internationally and domestically. And that's just something we disagree on, clearly. Somebody being an unconventional race and/or gender isn't the reason to elect somebody, and it doesn't overshadow the importance of their political stances, but it's still meaningful to me. Like I said in my last post, Clinton and Obama are very similar in terms of policy, and it's in that situation that other features like race or gender start to be significant. You could perhaps decide that being female or black are disadvantages, but acting like those things aren't significant seems foolish to me either way. I'd stress that it doesn't have that huge an effect on my choices, I'd been saying that Edwards was the best candidate from the start, but it doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Even ignoring the desirable (to me) effect of making people abroad like my country and hopefully improving foreign policy, electing a symbolically unconventional leader would be, to me, a heartening symbol of the country's social development. It would just be satisfying to prove that a black man or a woman are no longer unelectable.

You say "obama would not be admired by everyone", but I never said everyone is going to like Obama, and it's a meaningless thing to say because you could say it about any candidate on any side. Elections aren't about voting for a candidate everybody will like, because those candidates don't exist.

[Boyinabox]

I think that whilst there are some valid points on both sides of the arguement, you all seem to be forgetting that the muslim world has had a fair number of women leaders; Benazir Bhutto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto), Queen Rania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania_of_Jordan) and Megawati Sukarnoputri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri) for example, and that attitudes towards women vary from country to country (Compare Saudi Arabia to Kuwait).

None of them suffered from being a women during their terms.

[Socks]

In Japan there has never been any major feminist movement and their culture for difference in treating genders is also very different. From what you're saying, the Japanese would be up in arms if Hillary became president.

Hmmm...Is the United States at war at Japan? Are they currently trying to establish a government in Japan? Is Japan a 3rd world country in which their laws are based upon philosophical and theological beliefs? Is Japan considered to be a neutral or an enemy nation? Is Japan's major religion Islam?

Nope.

And to correct your non-entity of a "feminist movement", there has been quite an uproar of woman rights in the past,for the last, oh I dunno, 200 years? And the Japanese are not going to shoot a woman if she believes she has the right to vote, drive a car, and/or be seen in public. It's just a slap of the wrist. People may agree or disagree, it all depends on the individual.

So, no, Goat, The Japanese would not go into arms if Hillary Clinton was elected president. I'm sure they wouldn't give a crap.

I know this, Because I grew up in Japan.

C'mon guys! Political Intervention!

[Smokey]

The world would accept Clinton II just as they did with Thatcher. Besides, women have been incredibly powerful many times before. Think of Queen Elizabeth I for example.

Also, http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm

[gembird]

I think that whilst there are some valid points on both sides of the arguement, you all seem to be forgetting that the muslim world has had a fair number of women leaders; Benazir Bhutto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto), Queen Rania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania_of_Jordan) and Megawati Sukarnoputri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri) for example, and that attitudes towards women vary from country to country (Compare Saudi Arabia to Kuwait).

None of them suffered from being a women during their terms.

I did mention that, but I didn't go into a great deal of detail, so you might have missed it. But yeah, I spotted Benazir Bhutto too- slightly offtopic, but I think her death was a setback for both politics and women's rights in the Middle East.

The world would accept Clinton II just as they did with Thatcher. Besides, women have been incredibly powerful many times before. Think of Queen Elizabeth I for example.

This is very true; I sometimes wonder if the feminist movement has done some harm in that we tend to forget about those women throughout history who have been good leaders. The UK as a whole and its constituent parts have a particularly good history of queens who led their people incredibly well and were very popular. But as I have said before, sometimes it's a matter of having to be even tougher than usual to overcome the prejudice of being female.

[TJPlatinum]

And the Japanese are not going to shoot a woman if she believes she has the right to vote, drive a car, and/or be seen in public. It's just a slap of the wrist.
Sorry for veering off topic slightly here, but:

wait, what?


I suppose I should contribute something on-topic though, so, here goes.

I think Islamic countries will pay very little mind to who is the president. The 'terrorists' disagree with various actions made by the American Government, and the figure-head behind all these American policies is going to be moving out of office fairly soon anyway. The only thing that matters in the eyes of these terrorists is what this new American influential politician(/president) does, and in the end, Bush's replacement will be judged by what they do, not what race they happen to be\kind of genitals they have.

On the subject of what impact having people that aren't old white guys running for prez is going to do America, I'd like to say "It won't make a difference to be honest", but I reckon it will have an impact on which way the votes sway, with Hillary and Obama having the women\race card to sway various women\black undecided voters. It'd be nice to think that all voters judge politicians by their policies, but in reality, quite a lot of politics is winning over a crowd. However, I don't think that if Hillary\Obama wins all will go to hell simply because of their gender\race, due to the fact they should both be fairly competent presidents.

[MasterMoogle]

In the Islamic culture, women are 2nd rate citizens. In terms of respect for gender, there is a huge difference in the Islamic world.

Not only is the Islamic world against high-ranking women, they are many others. Some of them National Superpowers.

More slight off-topicness, but meh.

You really can't just talk about the 'Islamic World' as an example of all countries and peoples which are predominantly Muslim. Maybe, for example, the Taliban might hold such views but that really won't be the view of everyone who calls themselves a Muslim.

Generalizing groups of people like that can really distort your perspective on things.

[Lawrence]

Though I'm still too young to vote, I think McCain'd be a good president.

...except Ron Paul has a blimp. That's awesome.

[gembird]

Why do you think McCain would be good? I'm not having a go at you, I'm just wondering if you're going to tell us more :) it helps fuel debates if you tell us your reasons- gives us a chance to agree or disagree.

[Lawrence]

Although i do agree with him on some issues (abortion) it seems to me that he's the most honest out of all the candidates and knows his limitations. Although hemakes mistakes, he's also the first to admit to them.

I know that many people are against the war in Iraq, but i really think that McCain is right to choose to stay. After all, it's not as if America can just leave. Simply transporting all of the troops and supplies and vehicles out would take forever (especially since the terrorists will still want to attack them, even if they're about to go).
People got all on McCains case for saying something about how America will still have a presence in Irag in 100 years. Doesn't the US still have bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2? Clinton and Obama's claims to withdraw from Iraq immediately really aren't possible. I'd rather have a president who's honest than one who simply says what people want to hear.

Note: I'm no political analyst and I'm writing this really quickly, so i may be wrong or have phrased stuff unclearly.

[Splush]

McCain seems fairly sane for a Republican. I agree with you about the 100 year war thing, it keeps getting taken way out of context because he immediately went on to explain that he was talking about an American presence rather than actual combat. I mean, that's still no good to the people who want total immediate withdrawal, and McCain is undoubtedly a warmongering type of chap, but I feel like that one statement got blown way out of proportion.

I'd still prefer a democrat (not that I have a right to complain either way, it's not my country) but at least McCain being elected won't make me all depressed like Huckabee or Romney would have.

I can't make up my mind who I prefer on the democrat side, I'm kind of leaning towards Clinton recently but if the rabid well of anti-Clinton sentiment in the country would stop her getting elected in the general (or stop her getting anything done when she's in charge) then she's no good to anyone.

[Lawrence]

Yeah, exactly. I normally lean towards democratic candidates, but I'm really pleased about McCain. The way I see it, no matter who wins, I'll be reasonably happy.

[gembird]

People got all on McCains case for saying something about how America will still have a presence in Irag in 100 years. Doesn't the US still have bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2? Clinton and Obama's claims to withdraw from Iraq immediately really aren't possible. I'd rather have a president who's honest than one who simply says what people want to hear.

The US has bases in those countries, and also over here in the UK. You're making a fair point here, I think that to suddenly withdraw without warning (from a country, this is debates, not the cheese bin :p) would do more damage than staying to sort out the problems that are there at the moment.

[Smartie]

My first thought is "oh no, America would loose some of it's world power!?! - GOOD"

It serves as a timely reminder that progressive and less-progressive countries alike have been successfully run under female matriarchs for several decades.

Not withstanding that there have been many female monarchs over the centuries, there have been many respected female political leaders in countries (to name but a few):
Argentinian president (1974)
Bolivian President (1979)
Canadian Prime Minister (1993)
Chilean President (2006)
Eqcuadorian President (1997)
Nicaraguan President (1990)
Bulgarian Prime Minister (1994)
Finnish Prime Minister (2003)
French Prime Minister (1991)
Icelandic president (1980)
Irish Premier (1990)
British Prime Minister (1979)
Lithuanian Prime Minister (1990)
Norwegian Prime Minister (1981)
Portuguese Prime Minister (1979)
Bangladeshi prime Minister (1991)
Indian Prime Minister (1966)
Israeli President (2007)
New Zealand Prime Minister (1997)


America can learn a great deal of humility, respect and cutural, social & policital lessons from the potential this. If this means it doesn't wield as much influence over the world for a while this is a good thing.
It should be about HOW America is led, rather than WHO runs it.

[Lawrence]

Smartie, I know you're right and agree with you, but I'd like to point out that most of the countries you named are in south america and almost unknown... =D

[basstard]

Smartie, I know you're right and agree with you, but I'd like to point out that most of the countries you named are in south america and almost unknown... =D

I've boldened the ones in South America for you. It's really not 'most of them'....

Argentinian president (1974)
Bolivian President (1979)
Canadian Prime Minister (1993)
Chilean President (2006)
Eqcuadorian President (1997)
Nicaraguan President (1990) - technically Central America
Bulgarian Prime Minister (1994)
Finnish Prime Minister (2003)
French Prime Minister (1991)
Icelandic president (1980)
Irish Premier (1990)
British Prime Minister (1979)
Lithuanian Prime Minister (1990)
Norwegian Prime Minister (1981)
Portuguese Prime Minister (1979)
Bangladeshi prime Minister (1991)
Indian Prime Minister (1966)
Israeli President (2007)
New Zealand Prime Minister (1997)

[gembird]

That, and the fact that Argentina and Chile are definitely not 'almost unknown'. I know this isn't particularly serious, but I'm pretty sure most people have at least heard 'Don't Cry For Me Argentina' from Evita.

But yeah, there are a lot of countries you wouldn't expect that have had female leaders. I think it can only be a good thing, however as Smartie said, it should be about how the country is run, not who runs it. Best candidate for the job should get the job.

[Lawrence]

Ok, you have a point. But what i was getting at was that they aren't incredibly influential countries...

Quick! What's the capital of Chile? =D

Gembird has raised a very good point. These debates really do bother me. I don't care whether someones a man or a woman, as long as they do a good job.