Hillary for President?

February 24th, 2006

I was looking at my web statistics today and I was shocked to see that I was getting a bunch of references from Blogs for Hillary.

When I went to the site I found that one of my posts…

If Chile can have a female leader, cialis sales hospital why does the idea of a woman president get such a chilly reception here?

…was listed right at the top of their page.

Of course, ampoule if somone there had actually read my post they might have noticed that I was against having Hillary for president.

If Chile can elect a female leader, why can’t we?
I think it’s because the liberal press keeps pushing women like Hillary Rodham Clinton on us instead of women like Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
I don’t think we’re against having a woman for President. I think we’re against having the wrong woman as President.

I wonder if they’ll be hitting me up for a donation next?

Entry Filed under: Politics

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Wm. Clement  |  February 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    Keep your hands on your wallet!! I agree with you. This country IS ready for a woman or a black or even a black woman President. Just not the likes of Hillary, Feinstien or any of the other hags of the far left. I have some reservations myself, but, I could take a look for 4 years.

  • 2. Casper  |  February 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    I think you’ve been Dowdified.

  • 3. Jenna  |  February 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Why does the gender of our president matter at all?

  • 4. Wm. Clement  |  February 24th, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    To be Politically incorrect, men and women see and approach things from different mindsets. This is just a general observation, and I’ve already dug a hole. Women tend to be more in-line with a nanny state. I know, many liberal men are the same, hence the term girlyman. Now, this is not to say ALL women are like this. I am not one willing to give up certain freedoms for security. PLEASE don’t take this as an insult. It’s only an observation. Remember, Hillary said it takes a village. She’s wrong, it only takes committed parents.

  • 5. Jenna  |  February 24th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    Clement, I couldn’t agree more. Men and women are different, no matter what the feminists try to tell us. I, for one, and I know saying this pisses off a lot of women out there, feel much more comfortable with a man as president. I feel they are more suited to the job, more natural leaders, much stronger and stoic under pressure.

    There are exceptions, of course, such as Margaret Thatcher. But I think this nonsense over Condi and Hillary and “when will we have our first female president” is just that. Nonsense.

  • 6. Wm. Clement  |  February 24th, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    Whew! Dodged that one! LOL I agree. The President should be the best person available, as far as character and common sense. Unfortunately, since Reagan, we’ve been coming up a bit short.

  • 7. Melinda Omdahl  |  February 24th, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    Jena – I couldn’t disagree with you more. Why is gender an issue?


    There are only two genders. Yet, one has never served as President, Vice President, Speak of the House, etc., etc.

    Plus- for a very long time in our history – one of those two genders was not allowed to vote, own property, work outside the home.

    Are we getting why this is an issue?

    It’s still a barrier that women have not overcome.

    Finally- how could you be more comfortable knowing that a man is President when you have no idea what a female president would be like?

  • 8. Jenna  |  February 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am

    What you said is exactly the problem with this pseudo-push for a female to be president.

    It’s still a barrier that women have not overcome.

    If we treat it like a “barrier,” we are not only disrespecting the office and the position, we will end up not electing the best candidate for the position, and electing a woman simply because she is a woman. That is sexism. Do you advocate for 53 million Americans to practice sexism? I hope not.

    It is not a “barrier.” To see it as such is a detriment to your own gender and the country in general.

    If and when a woman appears to be the best candidate and the most qualified, she should be supported because of that–NOT what is in her pants. That is sexism.

  • 9. sheldn  |  February 25th, 2006 at 10:28 am

    Why do we continue to discuss these issues in terms of all of the categories that “equal opportunity” is trying to eliminate? The more we highlight these differences, the more it will continue to be a “barrier” that will never be eliminated because “equal opportunity” keeps categorizing people by criteria that does not matter when selecting a President or the most qualified for any job. And don’t jump all over me… keep in mind that “the most qualified” is hugely subjective to each person.

    Why do we even bring up gender, color, race, etc… as a criteria when having this discussion? Why don’t we focus on what criteria is required of a good President?

  • 10. Melinda Omdahl  |  February 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Forgive me but I refuse to believe that in over 200 years there has not been ONE woman qualified and capable of being president of the United States. That to me is more sexism. It assumes an inadequacy of an entire gender over a 200 year period.

    Further – you make the assumption that I would just put any woman in just for the sake of putting a woman in. I never said that or implied that. That’s on you.

    Finally – I think seeing the Presidency as a “barrier that woman have not attained” is no where near as disrespectful to the office as such things as Watergate, Clinton sex-gate, and all the other scandals that our deemed-qualified candidates actually do while in office.

  • 11. Melinda Omdahl  |  February 25th, 2006 at 11:07 am

    “I feel much more comfortable with a man as president. I feel they are more suited to the job, more natural leaders, much stronger and stoic under pressure.”
    That actually IS sexism.

  • 12. Administrator  |  February 25th, 2006 at 11:15 am

    I absolutely agree that we should judge a person by their actions, talents and beliefs, not by their sex or race.

    And I would never advocate voting for a less qualified candidate because they were black or female.

    But I too find it hard to believe that not a single woman, or non-white male in 232 years has been qualified to be president of the United States.

    (And don’t even get me started on Vice President. I know potted plants that could fulfill that role. ;)

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.