Women in Power

Many women are gaining more power around the globe.
The question is: Are these the right women?

Recently Germany elected their first female Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany- Angela Merkel (CDU)
CDU stands for: Christian Democratic Union (CDU)

From 'BBC NEWS':

"Some sections of the press have labelled her as Germany's Margaret Thatcher.


But according to Ulrich Klinkert, her deputy when she headed the environment ministry in the mid-1990s, comparisons with the "Iron Lady" are mistaken.

"She is a little bit Margaret Thatcher and a little bit Tony Blair," he says."

Even more recently President Michelle Bachelet was elected in Chile.

From 'latimes.com':

"JUST-ELECTED President Michelle Bachelet is a potential godsend to an uptight, sometimes suffocating Chilean culture. The baby boomer Socialist Party leader and pediatrician is not only Chile's first female head of state, she's also a feminist, an agnostic and a single mother of three children by two fathers.

Pretty far out, you might say, in a Latin American country that has the region's lowest percentage of women in the workforce; where even limited divorce wasn't available until last year; where abortion is outlawed; where one of the most-watched TV networks is run by an ultraconservative Catholic university; and in which the cultural margins are sometimes as pinched as the nation's string-bean geography."

It isn't really my place to decide whether these women are the right women for their respective Nations.

The new President of Chile is extremely Liberal compared to the way her Nation has been run previously.

Angela Merkel is somewhat of a chameleon. Read this article about her.

Is the U.S.A. ready for a woman to be in the oval office? If so, which one?

We cannot have a 'June Cleaver' any more than we can have a woman who can be labeled a 'Bitch' - defined as: 'An aggressive woman in a man's world'.
This woman needs to be strong, a good manager, and have the ability to stand up for her beliefs.
The people around her need to know that she can be kind, listen to the opinions of those that oppose her, while at the same time knowing when to put her foot down.

We don't need a woman who is 'pretending to be a man'. We need to know that she is a woman. Not that she is just trying to 'fit in' with the men. She needs to be sure of herself - as a woman. Being a woman in power does not need to mean that she compromises herself by adopting characteristics that have historically been related to men. If a woman like that has a chance at the oval office, we might as well elect another man.

The votes, in the last Presidential Election, hadn't even been counted when the media began the scenario of 'Hillary vs. Condi'. (Both of these women say they are NOT running for President.)
Do we not have any other choices? Is this just another case of the media making up their own story so they have something to talk about? Another Left vs. Right scenario that will keep the Politics of our Nation at the boiling point?
Are there any women out there that may take the leap and make a run for the oval office?
If so, WHO IS SHE???

Posted by Dawn at January 18, 2006 9:59 AM
Comments
Comment #114287

Women are especially gaining power in countries where those horrible intolerant Christians do not hold sway. PLaces like India, China and the Muslim world clearly have superior philosophies to the traditional intolerance of Christianity (as our liberal press continually reminds us) and thus in those places where Christianity has not taken hold women and minorities clearly do much better. Traditional Christian countries such as Europe and the US still burn adulterous wives, prevent women from going to college and make them watch soap operas

Posted by: mike at January 18, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #114288

‘Women now make up 56 percent of the college population — and that number continues to rise. Within ten years, three million more women than men could be attending college.’

This is in the U.S.. Maybe they are taking classes during commercials??

Posted by: dawn at January 18, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #114298

Recently in my children’s school they gave out math awards to ten children - nine were girls one was a boy. There are many programs to help girls with math - none for the boys. Shouldnt we help everyone?

Posted by: mIke at January 18, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #114300

And that would change the partisan voting from “vote black slate”, ‘vote Republican’, ‘vote Democrat’ to vote female?

Posted by: pige at January 18, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #114302

yes with women in power we would have no war - Margaret Thatcher, Golda Mayer etc kept their countries out of war

Posted by: mike at January 18, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #114311

Mike,
I was about to respond to your first post with incredulity. Fortunately, after reading it a second time, I began to see the satire and humor in it. Very cute!!

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #114312

You were joking, right?!? LOL.

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #114318

I’m beginning to reconsider my reconsideration of your statement, Mike.

Margret Thatcher kept her country out of war??? Ever hear of the Falkland Islands?

Posted by: Rich at January 18, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #114319

Dawn

Great post. You point out some very pertinent points in American politics. There are several qualified women who could make very good presidents. You name two, Condi and Hillary. Imagine these two going head-to-head in ‘08. What an election that could be, if the voters turned out. My fear would be that the majority of voters today are not willing to put aside their prejudices and vote for the person, not the gender, or race. However, at the advanced age of 65, I believe I will see a woman in the Oval Office before I have to say good-bye.

Keep up the good work. I don’t always agree with with you but you do force me to think, and for that I am grateful.

Posted by: John Back at January 18, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #114325

mike:

Traditional Christian countries such as Europe and the US ….

Last I checked, Europe was not a country. Just trying to help you be a bit more accurate in your commentary.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 18, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #114349

Who are we to criticize the outcome of a popular election in a foreign country? Especially given the failures of our recent election to give us honest, accountable, or even capable leadership.
for this topic:
Women are as capable to lead a nation as men. It’s social prejudices that prevent that from happening here. Most women I know have advanced degrees and don’t even watch TV, much less:


‘Women now make up 56 percent of the college population — and that number continues to rise. Within ten years, three million more women than men could be attending college.’
This is in the U.S.. Maybe they are taking classes during commercials??
Posted by: dawn at January 18, 2006 11:47 AM

Posted by: Dave at January 18, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #114366

Well, you had me until this:

We don’t need a woman who is ‘pretending to be a man’. We need to know that she is a woman. Not that she is just trying to ‘fit in’ with the men. She needs to be sure of herself - as a woman. Being a woman in power does not need to mean that she compromises herself by adopting characteristics that have historically been related to men. If a woman like that has a chance at the oval office, we might as well elect another man.

Perhaps you can explain some of these attributes?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 18, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #114373

Very good post, Dawn!

We don’t need a woman who is ‘pretending to be a man’. We need to know that she is a woman. Not that she is just trying to ‘fit in’ with the men. She needs to be sure of herself - as a woman. Being a woman in power does not need to mean that she compromises herself by adopting characteristics that have historically been related to men.

As someone who considers herself a feminist (yet one who is not a humorless, militant, dried-up prune, nor a woman who has ever had a large man-hating axe to grind, due to the fact that I’ve always really enjoyed the company of men), I agree very much with this statement. Smart women needn’t ever act like men — they need only act like smart women. Women who are smart, reasonable and capable can usually gain a man’s respect — and I think this has been true for quite a long time now.

We cannot have a ‘June Cleaver’ any more than we can have a woman who can be labeled a ‘Bitch’ - defined as: ‘An aggressive woman in a man’s world’. This woman needs to be strong, a good manager, and have the ability to stand up for her beliefs. The people around her need to know that she can be kind, listen to the opinions of those that oppose her, while at the same time knowing when to put her foot down.

I agree with almost all of this. Yet I think that there can be times when other people give you no other choice than to throw a bit of bitchy aggressiveness their way. For instance, when someone (of either sex, actually) tries to dismiss a woman because she happens to be in charge and they don’t like, or aren’t used to, having to take orders from a woman. In that kind of scenario, a short, sharp smack-down can often be in order. It’s important to also note that men often bitch too — yet aren’t called bitches. Full-time bitches of either sex are universally hated and reviled — which is no way to be an effective and capable leader. Those who lead have to be able to command respect without turning into either domineering jerks or cajoling and pleading appeasers.

As far as Merkel and Bachelet, I agree 100% with Dave who said:

Who are we to criticize the outcome of a popular election in a foreign country? Especially given the failures of our recent election to give us honest, accountable, or even capable leadership.

“Women are as capable to lead a nation as men. It’s social prejudices that prevent that from happening here.”

Thanks, Dave! Glad you think so too. I think that men with your attitude are very easy for women to respect, work with, work for, become friends with, and yes, even to love! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at January 18, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #114379

John Back,

Thanks. That has to be the nicest compliment I’ve had.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me all the time and I do try to provoke thought and discussion, though sometimes, and not always intentionally, I provoke people.

womanmarine,

Let me start with a favorite quote of mine from a movie:
“Sometimes being a bitch is the only thing a woman has to hold on to.”

We really don’t need to see a woman being a bitch to know she can be.

Also the quote:
“Behind every successful man, there is a woman.”

Is this because the woman has ‘control’ over the man? - though he doesn’t realize it?

People, men or women, can be in control without being controlling.
Most of the men in politics these days seem to be fighting to ‘protect their territory’.
A woman does not have to appear to be a warrior to succeed.

The ‘king of my castle’ mentality.
The idea that in order to get up the ladder of success a few fingers have to be crushed AND everyone else has to know it happened.

A person can become truly successful without making others feel like they have been stepped on.

The right women in power may be the best chance we have to bring the nations of this world together.


Posted by: dawn at January 18, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #114384

Thanks Adrienne! That was good.

Posted by: dawn at January 18, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #114388

Dawn,

nice post. I think your question

“Is the U.S.A. ready for a woman to be in the oval office?”

could be more precisely stated as

“are a substantial majority of men ready to consider the candidacy of a woman for president on the merits and ignore any gender bias they may have?”

I don’t believe so. If it is going to happen, I am certain that the woman will have to be a Republican. As a Democrat, I will say that I am not happy about that. Realistically, a female candidate will need crossover votes to succeed, to overcome the men who will vote against her on the basis of gender (whether that bias is blatant or is expressed in vague sterotypes). In this scenario, I think Democratic women are more likely to vote for a Republican woman than the reverse.

Regardless, that Geraldine Ferraro is the closest we’ve come to a candidate in the last 30 years, is embarassing. It can’t be that she was the most qualified candidate of this generation.

Why hasn’t it happened yet?

Posted by: CPAdams at January 18, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #114391

That Republican men are posting with any fervor on this topic speaks to the gender issues I mentioned above.

While a Republican woman is more likely to win, a Democratic woman is more likely to support women’s issues. So it follows that a woman is more likely to be elected by not supporting women.

The irony is a bit insane.

Posted by: CPAdams at January 18, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #114396

Not as long as Hilary Clinton doesn’t become president. She already has too much power.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 18, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #114410

CPA Adams,

Your Statement:

While a Republican woman is more likely to win, a Democratic woman is more likely to support women’s issues. So it follows that a woman is more likely to be elected by not supporting women.

is silly. The very idea of Democrats speaking for “women’s issues” has become comic to the point of being rediculous. Perhaps you ought to broaden your take on what constitutes “women’s issues”.

Posted by: BD at January 18, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #114449

Dawn,
If Condi Rice or Senator Clinton would run for president, they would be eaten alive by our media and the spin masters due to the natural split found in Man and Woman. However, a Lady in America could get elected if she was willing to push the male population into a political debate over what is Right & Wrong about America. Maybe it might sound like political blackmail. but can you tell me when the last time a male in America was found to be Right by Nature?

With our leadership of the parties looking for a way to lower the standards of our society that has kept this country great, the greatest political weapon that all women have over men is their ability to keep men striving to do and say what is Right. So, while neither Condi or Mrs. Clinton can run for office, both have shown that they fall short of being found a Righteous Women.

Therefore, if in America’s or any other Nation of Humanity it is hard enough to find a Righteous Man willing to stand purely on principles to run for President, than who among our Female Population has the courage to step into the shoes of The Righteous American Women? A Lady, A Mother, and Grandmother all rolled into one that knows and understands how to use “The Bitch” to do what is right even though she and others believe that it is wrong?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 18, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #114458

Hmmm, touchy subject? I think by the example of these posts regarding it…yes. Is it going to happen within the next 10 years?…maybe. Will it be a Republican?…probably. Will the left side of the aisle reject it?…yes, they don’t want to re-live the “Ferraro Fiasco”. Incidentally, the fiasco was NOT because she was a woman, her politics weren’t timely. In this day and age, a woman is just as capable of running this country as a man is and in some instances, better. The “boys club” days are coming to a close and women are going to assert their abilities to govern as well, if not better than men. Women like Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel are taking up the reins of government and doing so admirably. Gentlemen, get ready to move aside for the ladies. High Time…

Posted by: Danny at January 18, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #114459

Hi Adrienne,

Thanks for the thumbs up, it means alot coming from someone whose intellect and opinions I respect. (i know, hug fest). Wish I had more time to be involved but I’ll be too busy over the next few days. Enjoy!

Posted by: Dave at January 18, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #114471

Women are, by far, superior to men. We each have our pros and cons, but when you get to the end of each list, the pros go to women. I think it comes down to degrees of subtleties… men see things mostly as black or white, right or wrong, us or them. Women see 256 shades of grey. I use to think of this as waffling… ‘Take a stance on things, dammit!’ But the more I experience things, the more I realize that there multiple sides to every argument… and the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. We can all learn this, but it just seems that women start of much closer to the truth.

Empathy also seems more natural for women. Give me this over all other social skills, and you will have a great leader.

I’m a guy - and I don’t need all the crayons in the box to draw my pictures… and that’s probably a weakness.

I wonder if they have a urinal in the Oval Office bathroom…???

Posted by: tony at January 18, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #114472

I wonder if the author would be as critical of the “right” woman if one signed his paycheck, or if there were 53 female Senators and 275 femal Congresspersons?
I wonder if the Supreme Court should be forced by law to have 6 seats held by women- just to accurately represent the US population?
I wonder if 52% of all important decisions were made by women?
I also wonder if, there were that many women in power, how the abortion thing and the other radical conservative issues would fly?
I wonder what the stock market would do?
I actually think we would be better off if women were better placed in power.
Men had their chance and did a so-so job.
If morons like Trent Lott, Pat Robertson and Bill OReilly were females….Naaa, a woman would never act or speak like that.

Posted by: Joe at January 18, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #114479

Mike was joking. How can anyone think otherwise?

Of course the first woman president has a better chance of being Republican and it will be one who does not emphasize women’s issues. Just like a black can’t get elected emphasizing black issues or a KKK guy get elected emphasizing white issues. Only those who speak to American issues deserve our votes.

A woman will be elected soon and when it happens, nobody will pay much attention.

Think of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The first black woman Secretary of State followed the first black Secretary of State. Everybody knows they got the jobs because of the content of their characters, not the color of their skins or their genders.

Ironically, when we hire the unqualified, we consider it progressive. When people get jobs because of who they are, we ignore it.

To be a little controversial, I think that the generation of women now reaching the age when they can be CEOs and presidents has got it about right and we will see them succeeding. Maybe women had to go through the feminist stage, but feminism can’t be a destination. The feminists didn’t advocate women behaving like men; they advocated a reaction to behavior that was a caricature of how they thought men behaved and never understood why they had such trouble.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #114486

A woman will not be POTUS for quite sometime if ever. Guys simply don’t want it. Am I biased? Not at all it’s just true in America. We give sentiment to it sure but reallistically no way will we concede to that. She’d get chewed up hard if she ever screwed up in any way (even where males have screwed up substantially worse). Sad truth huh?

Condi is a lackie, get it out of your mind besides the GOP will not risk it, trust me on that. the GOP would give her a pat on the head and go with a male, perhaps holding her in a place of honor or some such nonsense (even after her 9-11 fiasco). Liddy Dole was practically ignored, Hillary Clinton is dispised and untrusted, I know this sounds sexist but it’s pretty much true in the US.

Posted by: Novenge at January 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #114489

Novenge

You know “Condi” well enough to call he by the cut nickname? Is that just a slip or does it signal sexism? I don’t really know. Sometimes people call Clinton “Bill” but we usually don’t call people by derivitives of their first names unless we know they well or are trying to diminish them. I have noticed people are much more likely to do it with women.

Rice has a problem with liberals who cant accept a smart black woman in a position of power who doesn’t hail from the liberal plantation. If she was a Dem, she would be hailed far and wide. She is not a lackey in the sense I understand the term. She has more influence on U.S. policies than any Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger. You may not like her politics, but she has achieved what everybody claims they want.

I don’t think she will run for president. She really doesn’t seem to want the job. It Is not everyone’s goal, you know.

Don’t blame men for women not getting elected, BTW. There are more women voters than men voters and I have never seen any evidence that men vote for women less often than women vote for women.

The problem for women candidates is that they have been identified with women’s issues. That is just not a winner. Someone like Condoleezza Rice got her job through her own competence. Just like Margaret Thatcher. You guys just can’t accept that.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #114495

Let’s look at what wins the elections these days.

1. A strong and consistant principle as related to the concerns of the day.

2. A smile and camera presence that outshines the average looking American.

3. An ability to give a good speach stressing point #1 in a way that allows for good sound bites.

4. An ability to raise large sums of cash for both the presidential campaign and in some respects for those whom are hitching a ride on the wave.

5. Add to the above an ability to pass a media proctology exam and Ta-Da President.

Voter sentiment changes term to term. None of these abilities are based on gender or party.

The commonality with all of the female leaders of the other countries is that they all have larger allies aligned with them in times of global interaction. Mrs. Thatcher and Mrs. Gandhi dealt with skirmishes but not major campaigns. Whereas the American President will be the beacon of the world and not just the local region. It can and will be done, but like all pioneering efforts the first Madam President will be under intense scrutiny from all sides.

I say have at it and good luck.

Posted by: Scott at January 19, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #114496

Jack:
“Maybe women had to go through the feminist stage, but feminism can’t be a destination. The feminists didn’t advocate women behaving like men; they advocated a reaction to behavior that was a caricature of how they thought men behaved and never understood why they had such trouble.”

Whatever their motives and reactions were then, most women are grateful for what they managed to do. It couldn’t have been easy being trail blazers. I think that no matter how they acted or reacted they were sure to take some kind of heavy criticism and historical flak for it, simply because they were intruders into the all male world of professionals back then. It occurs to me that much like the history of women (which let’s face it, really has been HIStory, rather than HERS for the most part) who were involved in the suffragette movement, women who were a part of that more recent feminist movement have already been painted in very harsh and unforgiving strokes.
Personally I think the women of both movements should be cut a very large break for believing that their desperate times called for desperate measures.

“You know “Condi” well enough to call he by the cut nickname?”

Oh come on, Jack. Political and cultural figures have always been fair game for nicknames. Are you saying you’ve never referred to Sen. Hillary Clinton as just Hillary?

“Don�t blame men for women not getting elected, BTW. There are more women voters than men voters and I have never seen any evidence that men vote for women less often than women vote for women.”

I think you’re right about this. Women in this country seem to be very harshly judgmental when other women hold the reins of power (in many places, not just politically). It may have something to do with the fact that America really has always been run by men — most especially in the world of politics. In England and other parts of Europe, they’ve had a history where women within the aristocracy were often very powerful figures. Women have ruled their countries as Queens — and very successfully too. Our society just doesn’t have that precedent.

It may take many more years before a woman will hold the office of the Presidency. And when one does find a way to run and win that office, no doubt she’ll be an extremely charismatic person. She’d have to be in order to win over our entire electorate.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #114497

If I call you jack it doesn’t mean I want to slap you on the rear, just to get that out of the way. I called her ‘Condi’ because I’m lazy and I find her ill-fitted for the job of Secretary of State. It just favoritism, she follows GW’s whims and quite directly as Security Advisor dropped the ball on 9-11 and thus should probably not be rewarded for it. So I guess diminishment.

I don’t have any problem thus far with her being a woman or an African American from, what was it? A liberal plantation. She has more influence on US policies than any secretary of state since Henry Kissenger, okay Jack and you say that because? Should be an interesting answer, I’m guessing. I see her as Bush’s errand boy pretty much to gloss over the Bush image internationally which is why I assume she got the position from Bush in 2004. Name one clever thing she has said or done thus far.

They (The Bush Administration) were engaged in torture she said hmm sooo? That is not diplomacy that’s being a lackie. “Bush is always right” is every one of her answers, that’s a lackie again. Lack of independent thinking or judgement makes her a what then? She has shown no independence in foresight or reason other than toting the Bush line.

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #114510

Dawn,

this is one white, southern, conservative, Christian, Republican male who would have no problem voting for this countrys first woman
( and/or non-white ) President.

Who I vote for is based on their character and
ideologies. I could care less what their race
or gender is. Let me know Dawn if you ever
decide to run for office. I’ve already got your
first campaign slogan for you, free of charge.
“The DAWN of a new age.” I know. ggrrroooooaann!
;^)

Posted by: Dale G. at January 19, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #114511

The reason that America probably won’t have a woman in the presidential seat is that we are involved in too much. Men are seen as being better equipped for that although wrongly perhaps but the point is I see how a woman even one with shared political powers, Pelosi, Clinton, Albright and even Thatcher (who I am not averse to) were derided at their capacity as power holders. Why is this, is it just the times and that they may give way to change or do we as a nation not want a woman representing us? I’m not being sexist I’m just analyzing what and/or why. Is it men? Women? Society in general? Hell we only give lip service jokingly to God being a woman when we don’t really believe in the religious concept anymore.

I’m not saying women should stay in the kitchen and be barefoot with six kids making us potroasts and such. I’m saying there is a component to our nature that makes it more difficult for women to take the reigns of power and the blame for any mishaps all the more scathing because of it.

And Adrienne, reallistically men WERE living up to the caricatures feminists presented although now the discussion has turned against them so we have a concensus opinion that they were exaggerating (in some areas they were to some extent but not entirely). People may hate Gloria Allred but truth be told she changed this country alot. Women in the workplace had a hell of a time before her with very little recourse other than to quit.

Even today look at the sexism, the congressmen with the pretty leggy secretaries following these doddering old men around. Not one of them obese and not one of them without make up and the perfect sexy hairdo. Are we to assume they were chosen for their accumen? Or the CNN Headlines anchors who look like they fell out of a Redbook or edition of Cosmo. See sexism is still alive we are just telling ourselves it is over pretty much. The point of feminism was the respect of one’s mind and sure there were a few things that were exagerrated (the ‘rule of thumb’ lie and the woman gets raped in this country every such and such) and it did have an anti-sex or even lesbianic somewhat socialist message but women were seen as objects and chattle by men. I wouldn’t color the whole thing to fit with men’s modern assertions of it really.

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #114528

Novenge,
I would vote for an American Lady for President if she would be willing to do what she knows to be Right (as judged by others) over President Bush’s stance that “I’m a man and; therefore, I have to be right” mentality that we have seen. Although I can’t seem to get away with it, the trick of any of our elected representaives is to always do what is commonly known to be reasonable and logical. Does the Left and Right want to debate on their ability to use Reason and Logic over the last 5 years?

Besides I am waiting for a lady in America politics that has the courage to hold The Good Ole Boy’s “Roast” to the fire. However, is any Man in America ready for that debate?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 19, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #114545
You know “Condi” well enough to call he by the cut nickname? Is that just a slip or does it signal sexism? I don’t really know.

Why is it that Republicans always have to resort to unfounded personal attacks? As soon as someone says something you don’t agree with, you guys start the Swiftboat campaign. I even saw where your conservative guy at the Washington Post, Kurtz, is calling Congressman Murtha’s two purple hearts into question.

I can understand that your position on the issues is so weak that you need to stifle meaningful debate, but why do you guys hate veterans so much?

Are there any women out there that may take the leap and make a run for the oval office? If so, WHO IS SHE???

Umm… Gina Davis? :)

Good topic, Dawn. I doubt you’ll see Dr. Rice running for President, though. She always looks pretty uncomfortable speaking in public. She’s not a politician.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 19, 2006 4:34 AM
Comment #114560

Can you imagine a flap of bad intelligence before invading another country if the president was a woman? The press would skewer her and there would be the fastest impeachment perhaps in history hitting her from all sides. “She has no business having wars” and such sentiments. Men can get away with most anything (especially this clown in the White House now) but a woman would be held to a level of scrutiny that would be rediculous. Imagine if a woman president had done as much crap as this president apparently gets away with? or even as much as Frist has gotten away with? Or Delay? or just to be fair Joe Traficant?

Before Hillary actually did anything but bake a batch of cookies the republicans were already throwing mud at her for being to opinionated and independently minded. Madeleine Albright perhaps the most substantive orrator we have ever seen taking that job was disliked by the right. And later after Clinton left office was put on the spot by O’Reilly to which she did remain quite dignified as he tried to lambast her past positions (if it were a man he probably would have used atleast some dicretion). Thatcher was hated by a portion of her country even though many of her reforms were necessary.

Where are all the female stockcar racers or why do we call women’s football powderpuff? WTF is up with field hockey? Why can’t women compete alongside men in barely active sports like pool, bowling and golf? Why is there the belief that women need supplimentary hormones after a certain age? (from an african yam no less) Why is childbirth done in the wrong position not using gravity? There’s alot of weird stuff we passed on as normal.

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #114564

I’m in the military and I’m surrounded by male and female NCOs and officers. I don’t notice a difference between male and female leadership based solely on gender. I do notice, however, a difference in individual leadership styles regardless of gender. Some are authoritarian, some friendly, some strict, some casual, etc.

I don’t think a woman would be better than a man just because she’s a woman. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week!

I’ll vote for the candidate that preserves the Constitution, preserves the Bill of Rights, and wont send the military in on a mission and not let us complete the mission. I don’t think Senator Clinton is the candidate for the job; I don’t agree with her stance on many issues.

Posted by: Joseph at January 19, 2006 6:20 AM
Comment #114582
Ironically, when we hire the unqualified, we consider it progressive. When people get jobs because of who they are, we ignore it.

Actually, I think you have the cause and effect backward. When we’re willing to ignore differences in race and gender, people get jobs because of who they are. When we’re not willing to ignore these differences, we end up hiring the unqualified.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 19, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #114584

Traditional women politicians are most likely NOT to be elected. There is too much acromony and polarity in this country to elect Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice. It would be nice to see a woman such as the TV show “Commander & Chief” One who is clearly a loving wife and mother and who is strong in her beliefs and can stand up to those in opposition to our country from foreign lands and from within this Great USA.

Posted by: G. DuBois at January 19, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #114586

Thanks Dale G. - it will be a few years before I would even consider a run for office -

Novenge,
‘Where are all the female stockcar racers or why do we call women’s football powderpuff?’

I love to drive but I will pass up going around in circles for hours at a time - is that a right or left side of the brain activity? My guess is right. :)
powderpuff? are you talking of the naked women who are really trying to play the game? Ha. That’s a show for MEN. Some women love to show off their bods and there will always be a man to look at it.
I played football with the boys - had a broken arm to show off!

I have been voted in as President - of a women’s bowling league. I ended up being re-elected for 5 years until I quit the league.
Even though I won …At first some (those that had usually ran the show) thought I would do a horrible job because I had never done it before and I wasn’t part of their crowd. Some thought they would be able to ‘use’ me because they were my ‘friend’.
It wasn’t easy but I managed to get women to volunteer to fill committees and actually do the work allocated to them.
The league changed from a gossipy, hateful group of women to a friendly group with a waiting list to join.
Let me tell you that being in charge of a group of women is something I may never do again.

This may explain part of why women won’t vote for another woman.
In part because they can simply be cruel. They don’t want to be the leader and they don’t want to let some other woman do it either.
Another reason may be because most women, though they would like to be in charge, will let the man take that position - and the blame.
Women prefer to run the show from behind the scenes and send the man out to take the fire.
People, men and women, do need to be led. Can you imagine a world without someone being in charge? What a mess it would be - much more horrible than it is with the leaders we have throughout the world.

One of my problems with any of our so-called leadership these days is that they ream someone in public - if there is a disagreement it should be dealt with privately. Neither party should be running to the camera and screaming - “He/she did something bad and I’m telling.”
The respect is gone.
When our leaders can’t even respect each other, why should we think the rest of the world will?

AP,

You are probably correct about Miss Rice. It’s too bad that our leaders need to be able to put on a good ‘show’ in public.
The public image isn’t really the most important. It is what they accomplish when the cameras aren’t rolling that matters most.

Hillary Clinton does not fit the ‘image’ Henry was describing. Though she may be the type of woman NY wants, I don’t think her political character will fly throughout the country. Ask the people around here, middle America, about Hillary Clinton and the first response is ‘She’s a bitch.’.


Posted by: dawn at January 19, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #114598

Joe:

I think you missed the fact that Bush was also alive, and therefore directly responsible for the:

Korean War
Vietnam
Irianian Hostage Crisis
Sunday Bloody Sunday
and
Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football

Posted by: Mark at January 19, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #114614

Novenge

You might not like the Bush policy and you might not consider it a good thing that Condoleezza Rice has had a great deal to do with developing it, but THAT is influence. Far from being the President’s lackey, she is the one helping HIM with his international diplomacy. We can get into a contest about whether Bush policy is clever or good, but the question of influence is just whether or not she gets her way, and she does.

Re women and men’s caricatures, I don’t agree. The caricature about men in power is just not right. Women suffered by not understanding the nuances of the exercise of power. They saw the brash guy pushing others around, but didn’t see the subtle nuances attenuating his relationships with others and how not everyone was pushed around equally, some were left alone and even those defeated were often offered something they thought valuable. You have to placate an adversary. People not experienced in the use of power use it too much and too openly. It is not only the feminists who got it wrong. It is the caricature portrayed on the media etc, which leads me to believe it MIGHT be true in things like the entertainment industry.

Re sports - women could probably compete in pool and bowling, but golf requires upper body strength women often don’t possess. If you mix women in with men, they will rarely win anything and never win championships. Nature is not equal opportunity. That is why we have women’s sports.

AP

I don’t know how you got from my comment about “Condi” to Murtha and Swiftboats. I really was asking because it is something I have noticed in others and in myself. I tend to call SecState Albright “Madeline.” I do have little respect for her and I mean it as diminishing, but WOULD I do it so quickly with a man? Maybe not. Liberals and conservatives both have these unconscious means for denigrating women. I am resolved to try to stop it in my own discourse (except about Madeline, as well as Hilary, Oprah and Madonna, who are kind of known by their first names.)

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #114624

One more man/woman thing.

Men like the three stooges and advertisements featuring chimpanzees. Women don’t.

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #114653

The only ones who would care about a chick being president are the ones who now make money saying how badly women are discriminated against.
Same with race.
Most people could care less, its the ones who profit by taking it to the extremes that are the real problem.
America has grown up, Jesse jackson, David duke and groups like NOW have not.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #114664

Hell YEA ITS A JOKE - THATS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DEAL WItH THE JUVENILE MINDS OF LIBS

I was a liberal then I grew up

Mike

Posted by: MIKE at January 19, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #114665

Yea Golda and Margaret got their countires into war real fast - just thought we could cut short the liberal BS that would tell us how much more intelligent and caring women are

Posted by: MIke at January 19, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #114683

I don’t quite agree with the commentary that women occupy a short stretch of the workforce in Latin America. Percentage-wise they don’t, but I’m afraid women hold positions of much higher prominence than in the United States, both in business and government.

Posted by: Andres at January 19, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #114693

MIKE,

I was a conservative, then I threw up.

Posted by: PJ Riehle at January 19, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #114696

Give me some time and some money and some experience getting a thick skin and I wouldn’t be afraid to run. By then I will speak English Chinese and Russian, have been in the military 20 years, have served in a war, have raised 3 kids, and have worked for an intelligence agency for years, have produced 2 music albums and written 2 books about Christian Patriotism with Senator Orrin Hatch, and gotten many more gray hairs. I’ve traveled to several countries and lived in several states.I’m Perfect! I know how to debate and give speeches. Although I sometimes get pretty incredulous with idiodic comments so I may have to work on being a little more tactful. Who’s with me!

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #114698

I really don’t know whom to address this message to, So i will just say that you “WHITE FLAG WAVERS” should start listening to your leaders who are going to run for pres. 2008. Hillary & Bill, Bush deferred to the EU regarding Iran rather, than get directly involved. Senator Bayh, Bush waited to long to get serious with Iran. That sounds like Hawk talk to me. Perhaps you flip-floppers should start reconsidering your leanings. who knows they might beable to convince the real “AMERICANS” in this country to vote for one of your own. P.S All of what they are saying by the way is HOGWASH!!! If you all remember Bush designated IRAN, NORTH KOREA & IRAG as an “AXIS OF EVIL”. Gees maybe some of you guys are starting to get the picture. By the way, when Clinton was in office all of these countries were running amok of the US, EU, & UN. Irag was bribing every country in the world, North Korea made Clinton look like a chump and Iran didn’t matter at all to Al-dark and Al (show me a tree) Gore and I’LL say Bush is the cause of it being burned to the ground in a forest fire. Please you guys give us a break. Save this country from all those who want to do away with us not those who want to prevent it. Don’t agree with President Bush but just remember the enemy can read and understand politics and will try to take advantage of it. I will never believe Bill Clinton, George Bush or any othe true AMERICAN would deliberately sell our
Country down the drain. We have got to start thinking like AMERICANS not liberals, Conservatives. or any thing else. We must survive the threat against our country and our way of life.. It you don’t believe in our way of life go live somewhere else. This is a time for all AMERICANS to come together and support our GOVERNMENT. It was always a fair game. Who won, WON! wHY CAN’T WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at January 19, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #114699

Brian I think you need to expound on your rhetoric. Im curious just as to what youre calling for. I know youre calling for something

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #114713

Alison:
“written 2 books about Christian Patriotism with Senator Orrin Hatch,”

I wonder why the word patriotism would ever need some kind of a religious qualifier? Indeed, ignoring the First Amendment of our Constitution in order to force any religion down We the Peoples throats doesn’t seem to have much to do with being an American or a Patriot, at all.
America was founded upon the idea that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness would mean something unique and individual to each and every citizen, yet we would all be able to live together in true peace and tolerance.
E Pluribus Unum — Out of Many, One.
The idea of “Christian Patriotism” seems a harmful attempt to separate and segregate Many away from the One.

Therefore, the whole concept of those two books seems to be entirely Anti-American to me.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #114721

Alison, All I can say beyond what I did rhetorically say is that we amwricans have got to start being concerned about AMERICA and not petty political arguements made by people who I really don’t care about the welfare of this country. I will ask does Cinde? Sheehan know more about what is going on then Condeleeza Rice or General Casey? I doubt it. Does that mean she is wrong in her beliefs? probably not. but weho are we supposed to believe when it comes to our well being? I said it before and I will say it again, I will never believe that George Bush, Bill Clinton or any of the other people that are elected to “TO TAKE CARE OF US” would deliberately sell us down the river. Did President Clinton get burned in North Korea? Yes, we all know that. Did he do it on purpose of course not. Did President Bush invade Irag for the sake of doing it. I can’t believe that he did. Every country that mattered believed he had potential for WMD. All of us should try to put ourselves in the shoes of the ‘PRESIDENT” he is obligated to protect us right or wrong. Did President Clinton do that when he ordered bombing. I guess anyone can monday morning quaterback and pick apart a decision made without hindsight. We had been attack for the first time on our soil. What else should we expect from our president. What would Bill Clinton have done? Whar would Hillary Clinton have? Whar would any ‘PRESIDENT HAVE DONE’?? Yes disagreement is part of our ‘AMERICA”. But when descent is counter-productive and only lends to bravado we all lose. We must realize that the threat against the US is real, and will not go away because we beat ourselves in a way that hurts us and helps our enemies.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at January 19, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #114732

Jack,

Maybe it’s that Condaleeza Rice is a wallflower then, I’ll leave it at that. But as for the “caricature” my mother was a secretary for years even working at the UN at one point and she knew full well the glass ceiling women had to endure. Not to mention the lower pay which is still an ongoing problem. Women having no legal recourse with sexual harrassment. These were real and ongoing things.

I kind of understand a bit what you mean by nuance in leadership, but it’s also a characterization that women emulate male-pantomimes in power positions, why would they? Leadership goes to those who do the most regardless of title, it’s an earned thing. Which is why I greatly took offense to the right-wing’s assertion of “Stand behind our new leader” at Bush’s inception in 2000. The left would never say something that crazy with a democratic president coming into office. If they ever did I’d rail against their butts too, full blast. You earn your leadership and if you ain’t on the ball you aren’t the leader. A president is a quarterback and if you don’t have an arm get off the field. It’s not whether you can get the team to huddle it’s whether your plays are worthwhile. Bush’s aren’t, 9-11 was a big mishap and now gas prices are through the roof and we have a deficit that is astronomical. Budgets are out of whack and we are engaging in a war that is now a much worse situation than when we initially went in with a huge civillian cost that we certainly never intended. The reasons for the play were “faulty” supposedly. Is this a good quarterback?

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #114745

Adrienne,

that was certainly a stretch. beyond stretching. I am Christian so I know something about that. Which would makes sense why I would write about patriotism from a Christian’s point of view. You dont have to read it. If I forced you to then I’d say it was fair to say that I shoved it down your throat. No one is shoving anything down your throat. I just am writing a book currently on my experience as a Christian as well as a patriot. They coincide in me. I joined the military 5 years ago and have already made plans to re-enlist, because simply put I have patriotism in my heart and I believe in fighting for things that are of value to me. I also believe in preserving the values of others. They dont have to be Christian. There are members of my family from several different sects and we respect each others beliefs, just like I respect yours although I dont agree with it. I have no problem leaving my family and sacrificing as a soldier to help preserve your right to believe how you will. You somewhat spinned yourself right in a circle. I guess thats what happens when you pre-judge a book just by it’s cover or title as applicable. But I am glad to see that a simple book may cause intrigue, it adds to the publicity. Thanks

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #114747

…..another thought, have you noticed that Presidents and presidential candidates like to affiliate themselves with religion? It is important for their image to the American public. It shows they have commitment and values and people can relate with that. So, although they may not all choose the same sect or denomination, they do affiliate themselves. Such as John Edwards, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, you name it. It is part of the image package they are trying to market. So, why would they try and shove that down our throats?

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #114748

….another thought….

E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many One

I firmly do not believe that means to lose oneself to become one. I believe it means Out of many - One and the strength of each individual adds something to the strength of the whole or one. If everyone waivered in who they are it would certainly make us fall and make the One weak. My Scottish ancestors were Americans by birth but they still havent taken the Scottish out of US!

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #114750

About the topic:


Condi has expressed that she knows what she is good at and being president isnt it. I am sorry to hear that. I wanted to see her become the first female president really bad. I think that she is brilliant in so many aspects, extremely well respected, a woman of character and talk about having courage under fire! I also think that it would do wonders for all the other black women in the world to take a look at themselves and say, hey if Condi can do it, I can do anything I believe in. I also think that sometimes the reluctant and leaders, make the best leaders, having humility and a dignity about them. I would vote for Condi so fast. I just dont think she will obligue.

Posted by: Alison at January 19, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #114768
Most people could care less….. …about a chick being president

What? Don’t make me laugh! You are talking about the same nation that’s so emotionally insecure, religiously tainted, and socially juvenile that an amendment to state constitutions to prevent gay people from marrying is being passed left and right!

Sadly, the US is so very far away from electing a female president. This country has a lot of growing up to do, and besides, numerous christian organizations forbid women in leadership roles. Until the US cures the religion virus, women have a slim to none chance of winning a presidential election.

I have to agree also, that when it does happen the first time, it will be a one term disaster no matter whom she is, and it will be generations before it happens again. The US is very entrenched in it’s ways, not that things haven’t changed for the better in the last several decades, but we are socially at least centuries behind other nations in the world on this matter.

Posted by: Taylor at January 19, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #114771

Novenge

We disagree about the success of the Bush Administration. But that is not what we were talking about. You said that Condoleezza Rice was a lackey. I showed you why you were mistaken. Now you call her a wallflower.

You can dislike what she did. You can say she led the country astray. But you can’t say she has not been influential. She is one of the main architects of the current Bush policy. THAT is power. I still wonder why the most powerful black woman in the history of the United States fails to impress liberals.

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #114773

Alison:
“Which would makes sense why I would write about patriotism from a Christian’s point of view.”

Respectfully Alison, it truly makes no sense to me at all that you’d feel the need to put a whole new label on your religious devotion by combining it with the concept of loyalty and dedication to this country: Christian Patriotism.
Patriotism to our nation has never (before now, anyway) seemed to call for a such a religious qualifier. I say it still doesn’t — because total religious freedom is an implict right given to all of us in the First Amendment. In my view, this means that one can be religious or not, yet still be patriotic, dedicated and loyal to America.
E Pluribus Unum. Many States. Many Individuals. Many Faiths. One Nation.
But your new “Christian Patriotism” seems like nothing but a new divider, not a uniter.

“You dont have to read it.”

No, I don’t. I wouldn’t. Not yet anyway.
My concern is that with all this religious qualifying that is going on, by you and many others, it is leading our nation toward a day where being Christian will be considered part and parcel of being deemed a patriotic American. Yet, whether spoken or implied, such a requirement or expectation, or prejudice would lie in total opposition to our First Amendment guarantee of and from religion in the eyes of our government. As an agnostic, and a patriot with an unshakable respect and esteem for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I’d be extremely hostile toward anything that seemed like that kind of requirement.

“You somewhat spinned yourself right in a circle.”

I disagree. I know for a fact that I view this subject very clearly, because I’ve heard many stories of religious intolerance first hand.
You see, I too am of Scottish descent, but of Highland Catholic folk who felt the need to emigrate to America because it was often much too hard for a “Gaelic Papist” to find work in cities that were almost solidly Protestant. My husband also had several relatives who died in the Holocaust simply because of their faith.
Because of these things, I am perhaps too sensitive on this subject, but since I would truly hate to see our country go down a narrow path toward state religion or religious intolerance, I always feel the need to speak out on this subject.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #114782

Jack,
A Wall flower because of her demeanor in terms of being very unassuming in some ways which, benefit of the doubt, may be why we perhaps don’t see any independence in her articulations other than Bush Doctrine. Which she apparently by her sentiments ascribes to to a tee and as some claim may have helped shape (though that remains to be seen). That obviously was the lackie part but it may all be some wallflowerism as she may not want to get on Bush’s bad side and wants to stay in lockstep out of safety. From the ooutset atleast she looks excuse making though obviously I have never worked with her and know only what is allowed to be shown by this quite tight-lipped administration. So as a representative of our nation, obviously the best of luck to her but it smacks of a ‘cuddly’ appointment. Someone he’s comfortable to work with who won’t go against his doctrines and can use more as an errand boy where Powell certainly had disagreements.

You know how republicans hate by and large those who take different stances opposing the republican line, like Plame and Wilson? Republicans have a very thin skin in these regards. So a ‘cuddly’ appointment would be more to this administration’s liking.

Do you remember the 2004 race where they were quite careful as to who they let into those town halls? And to date still are. Well that is the thin skin stuff I’m talking about. Is his whole cabinet a room full of nodding heads or a group of heads that are easy to get nodding? Clinton in some ways had less yes men than Bush. Cohen, Freeh, Albright and possibly others. This administration seems encloistered with those who show little deviation if any from the Bush party line or doctrine. Some seem very much appointed so there won’t be any differing of opinion, do you understand what I’m getting at? There is a difference in these terms. Like the appointment of Porter Goss, this not only came before the election, for what ever reason, but this is someone who will hold entirely to Bush’s and republican positions and probably won’t stray independently to voicing his own opinions that may supercede Bush. He’s there to get the whole agency in one straight line and that line is definably republican only. Anyone steps out of line gets sh#t-canned is pretty much it regardless whether what they are saying or what they found is accurate information it all gets squelched so as to support Bush entirely.

So maybe now Condaleeza rice is a cuddly croney appointment, A lackie or a wallflower holding back individualized sentiments, whatever the case it is indicative of a type of lockstep behavior that this administration and even republicans on the hill in general, engender. That’s my meaning.

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #114783
But you can’t say she has not been influential. She is one of the main architects of the current Bush policy. THAT is power.

She is? When, how?

What I’ll remember her best for is she’s the Secretary of State who was out at a broadway show and shopping for overpriced shoes while thousands of people were dying in New Orleans. When foreign nations were trying to offer aid to one of the worst natural disasters to hit our homeland, the Bush administration was napping and Condi was shopping for shoes. When people can’t even show up for work during an emergency of that magnitude, well, I call that more negligence and ignorance than power…. but heh, that’s just me.

Posted by: Taylor at January 19, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #114785
another thought, have you noticed that Presidents and presidential candidates like to affiliate themselves with religion? It is important for their image to the American public.

Absolutely. Their campaign advisors have made it pointedly clear they will not even have a snowballs chance in hell of winning an election without public acknowledgement of religion. So many things our forefathers tried to avoid have been undone. The cold hard truth is—- you better damn well make sure you’re a white, christian, wealthy man before even thinking about getting on the ticket for a presidential election.

Posted by: Taylor at January 19, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #114797

Jack, as to your comments on why she fails to impress liberals: I can only speak for myself but I am an egalitarian. Whether the appointment is male or female, black white hispanic, jewish middleastern, asian, Micronesian. This is and will be always be beside the point. I do NOT JUDGE BY RACE OR GENDER (alone or otherwise) but by content, character and actions. Simple: We don’t care about superficial hall of famers or some historical hallmark baloney, it’s about content, I don’t care about that that’s all political vanity point. It may have you impressed by that fact alone or something, but I’m judging by something different and that is called JOB PERFORMANCE.

Posted by: Novenge at January 19, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #114798

Taylor

You are right. It is just you.

Like Novenge you are mixing up the arguments. I know you don’t like the Bush policies. The argument is whether or not Rice had a great deal of influence on them. If you don’t believe she has, you have not been reading the papers or understanding what you read.

Re white Christian men thinking about getting on the ticket. Lieberman must have converted before getting on the Gore ticket. Geraldine Ferraro must have had a sex change.

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #114799

Novenge

Your original contention was that she way a lackey and you strongly implied that she could not get ahead because as a woman guys wouldn’t let here.

Now you have shifted the argument that you don’t like her policies. That is a very different point. So we agree that a black woman can (has) make it to the highest rungs of power, the highest ranked appointed office in the U.S. if not yet the very highest elected office, and she is a policy maker not a lackey or a token. Now we move onto the argument whether or not she is doing a good job. That is for another thread.

Posted by: Jack at January 20, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #114800

Jack,

In further review are you asking us why we don’t like her as a “token”? To politically put a feather in a political party’s hat or something? MLK’s vision was to judge people “by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin”, correct? Well consider it done.

Posted by: Novenge at January 20, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #114804

Lackie would BE A JOB DESCRIPTION RIGHT? Didn’t I say that originally and now you are trying imply I said that she won’t make it in a guys world??? I didn’t know we were playing “Twister” with my comments. I never said that Condaleeza woulldn’t make it in a predominantly male field—What i said was that womn by and large have a tougher go of it and places of high position are held to differing scrutiny. Hell we were talking about a female president!
that was the discussion, it changed to Condaleeza Rice as I said she was a “Lackie” then I revised to include a few other possibilities that would point pretty much to the same thing. A behavior that she has and I thought I was being pretty fair going at it slowball as to why I disagree with her appointment. Aas to her job as i said, I wished her all the best being that she is a representative of our nation abroad. But really this is mixing apples and oranges a bit. Comments about how a female president might get a certain type of scrutiny and what a secretary of state is doing and what she might mean to this administration is just “Twister”.

Posted by: Novenge at January 20, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #114805

Funny, I thought that Mr. Freeh said he was brought in to deflect attention from the Travel office when the unelected Mrs. Clinton fired everyone to bring in their own Fuzzy, Cuddly people. I do not recall any outspoken comments from Cohen or Albright that went against the boss.

Secondly, since Novenge was obviously in the daily security briefings and at the cabinet meetings, (which Clinton wasn’t fond of having) he is able to tell us that she is a “Yes-Man”.

I, even in my small demure self employement would not hire someone who is anti-thetical to my doctrine of work just to appease the oppostion. The whole point of having a cabinet and “hired guns” is to do what the boss sets forward as an agenda.

Lastly, the State Dept. is not involved in interior matters. It wasn’t her job or responsibility to be handing out water bottles and Fema checks after the hurricane.

Lastly, to discount her education, her tenure as the Provost for Stanford Univ., and her accomplishments in government with the sweeping brush of Lackey, or wallflower does smack of sexism and has nothing to do with her job performance. Just because she does’nt bad mouth, or air dirty laundry about the boss in public she garners disrespect from the liberals and the egalitarians-question authority, respect nothing that’s the ticket-You betcha!

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #114806

You know what you guys? Forget Condi and Hillary. I don’t like either of them. But something just occurred to me…
While the Black Man finally got the vote in America in 1870 with the fifteenth amendment (women got the vote in 1920), it actually took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to see that they actually could use it in all fifty states.
Perhaps we should first try and see if we couldn’t get America to vote for a Black president. If we could manage that, then maybe we’d soon see a woman president follow shortly afterward.
I know many will probably disagree, but personally, I wouldn’t mind it at all if Rep. John Conyers could become our first black president.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #114808

YES.. we have a female Chancellor but we are not really happy with this..

Greetings from Germany
Uwe

Posted by: Uwe at January 20, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #114812

Scott,

Albright had differing concerns that Clinton never adressed, Cohen had differing concerns especially when it came to Bosnia that Clinton (whom I did think was really auto pilot) never adressed or mentioned. These people spoke on hosts of things that were not the usual Clinton feel-goody-good message. It was real and not canned or engineered by people like Hughes and Rove. With THIS administration they all read talking points off the same sheet in the press. Exact same sloganeering at times.

Now as to the Travel office, Hillary might have and they certainly did put in people that were liberal friendly but for secretary of state they chose someone who was not appointed from in their own rank and file.

Harriet Myers, why was she his first choice? She was his friend and confidant, so friends get those positions over others perhaps more qualified? Is this not akin to cronyism? That is what I’m talking about. Brown nosers and buddies get the job over others.

Hillary (personal opinion) in the very epitome of a silver spoon limozine liberal (if not having somewhat socialist/communist leanings). Suffice it to say we need to ditch her somewhere along the road.

Posted by: Novenge at January 20, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #114816
If we could manage that, then maybe we’d soon see a woman president follow shortly afterward. I know many will probably disagree, but personally, I wouldn’t mind it at all if Rep. John Conyers could become our first black president.

That might be a better approach Adrienne, at least the Catholic church isn’t touting “supress the black man” dogma, but they are still pushing the “woman should shut up, get knocked up, and learn her place is in the kitchen, not in an office” dogma.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama in the oval office, he’s struck me as so polished, even headed and geniune.


I know you don’t like the Bush policies. The argument is whether or not Rice had a great deal of influence on them. If you don’t believe she has, you have not been reading the papers or understanding what you read.

Sorry Jack, I just haven’t seen much of anything to indicate she’s done much of anything. Sure, I dont like the policies, but that aside, all I’ve seen her be is a Bushco mouthpiece and that’s about it, she just doesn’t give me wood like she gives you. I don’t even see any glimmer in her eye that suggests that Carl Rove doesn’t have his arm shoved forearm deep up her behind moving her lips by making a quacking motion with his hand.

Re white Christian men thinking about getting on the ticket. Lieberman must have converted before getting on the Gore ticket. Geraldine Ferraro must have had a sex change.

You’re correct, I shouldn’t have said on the ticket, although it’s slim pickins for examples to the contrary, isn’t it? Whatever happened to poor Geraldine anyhow…..?

But in all fairness, what I should have said was —- Be white, christian, wealthy man if you want to win. (BTW — Any supposition on why none of your examples are repugs?)

The thing that’s kind of funny that I’ve read in this thread in more than one post is the resounding support of a woman…. if she’s capable. Yet, this is coming from many who speak favorably of our current leader, who is clearly the guy in college that would eat an entire raw onion for $5, and hasn’t changed much since then! If this is the same standard of ‘capable’ we’re talkin about here, our nation has a much dimmer future than I first imagined.

Posted by: Taylor at January 20, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #114819

Okay, personalities and my sarchasm with a smile aside, I do understand your point. However, cronyism, or who you know has usually trumped what you know. In fact the latest sage advice from the Chief at Monster.com highly touts personal referals for finding the best people to fill the job.

I also believe that comparing the management styles of Pres.’s Bush and Clinton is well, apples and oranges.

I am niether inspired by or instilled with respect of any crew who questions the captains orders and direction in public. It usually doesn’t change the general direction and always unsettles the passengers. Go ahead and have all of the arguements or disagreements you want, but have them on the bridge. You and I espousing our views here won’t change the general direction either. Fortunately, every 4 years we the people get to decide on the general direction and periodically for good or bad it does change.

Finally, this is pretty much a moot point anyhow, as Dr. Rice does not want and/or is not positioning herself to be any where near a run. Plus I could not agree with you more about Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #114882

Adrienne

Conyers? If he ran he would lose and if he blamed racism rather than his character he would be mistaken.

Taylor

Follow Rice’s career a little farther back. Look at how she shaped the doctrine that Bush follows. You guys fear and admire Rove too much.

Geraldine Fararro wasn’t really qualified to be on the ticket, I agree. Lieberman was a legitimate choice. Presidential politics is an interesting that simple origins. It is very small sample.

For example, 58 million Americans claim German ancestry. It is the country’s largest ethnic group and Germans have been a big part of the U.S population since 1776. Yet only one President - Eisenhower - has come from this group. I don’t think we have had any Italian Americans, no Poles or Russians and no Hispanics. On the other hand, the Scot-Irish (people from Northern Ireland) have contributed scores. Even the Dutch (a very small group) have three. Some names have had more representation than whole groups. We could even look to names, like Bush, Harrison, Adams, Roosevelt and Johnson.

States like Ohio and Virginia have given us many presidents. Even little Arkansas has one, but none for Wisconsin among other states.

You see the problem with making the presidency a measure of success in our society. As a Polish-German-Russian native of Wisconsin, we are still waiting our turn.

Novenge
lack·ey
A liveried male servant; a footman.
A servile follower; a toady.

Since Rice is influential and not just doing Bush’s bidding, she is not a lackey. Or if she is a lackey, everyone who has ever worked for the government under any administration is one too.

Posted by: Jack at January 20, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #114889

Did you guys see that reporter asking President Bush if Mrs. Bush might run for Congress one day,

“She’s not interested in running for office. She’s interested in literacy,” Bush said during an appearance at JK Moving & Storage here.

The topic came up as the president took questions from his audience after a speech on the economy. A woman asked if Mrs. Bush would ever run for Senate from the first couple’s home state of Texas, and Bush responded “never” - twice.

He also declined the woman’s plea that she at least ask Mrs. Bush if she might be willing.

“She’s a great lady,” the president said. “She’s not interested in running for office.”

I guess we know who wears the pants in that family.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 20, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #114916

Hiliary’s not running for President, and the Pope is Jewish. She want’s to be back incahrge of the country so bad she can taste it. Eight years as President isn’t enough for her. She wants another eight. Only now she want the title President offically.
I don’t personaly think that either Hiliary or Condi are Presidential material. However if Hiliary gets the Democratic nomonation, I think Condi is the only Republican that has a chance against her.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #114941

Almost missed this:
Jack:
“Conyers? If he ran he would lose and if he blamed racism rather than his character he would be mistaken.”

I find it pretty amusing that you would say anything about Conyer’s character since you have consistently defended lying, incompetence, corruption, and failure by this administration and the Republican majority in Congress.
Meanwhile, Conyers is today heading up hearings (unofficial, naturally) on the presidents warrantless domestic spying. He’s worked hard for the longest time to bring much needed election reform. He headed up hearings (again, unofficial) on the Downing Street Memos (and did so without the complete support of his own party). Using committee rules he forced hearings on the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act which was then shut down by Sensenbrenner (Remember that? When they simply shut off the microphones, the C-span feed and the lights on the Dems?). As I understand it recently he’s been calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate widespread abuses of presidential power and thinks that the obvious mishandling of intelligence before the Iraq war needs some serious looking into.

John Conyers is an honorable statesman who marched with Dr. King, and who has fought hard for civil rights and consumer protections for all Americans for many years. He’s the only member on the Judiciary Committee who served during both Watergate hearings and the Clinton Impeachment. With a long list of impressive legislative achievements, Conyers has got more than enough character, experience and intellect to make an excellent president for this country.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #114951

Adrienne

Good. Let him run and see how many people agree.

I do agree that he has a lot of experience.

Posted by: Jack at January 20, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #114952

Adrienne

after your responses to my responses I understand exactly where you are coming from. When I had hints but couldnt figure it out. Any ways the book I am currently writing actually is not tittled quite yet but we are not settled on anything yet. It is about soldiers who have experienced miraculous events on the battlefield. I have a music cd coming out to go with it. I want you to take your sensitivity out of the judgement, because yes you judged my projects by saying that somehow in my book I would say that if you arent christian you are not a patriot. What I want to know is where did I ever say that? I didnt you did and I dont want to impose that on anyone because that would make me an intolerant bigot. No thanks I have felt the effects of that enough to know that I dont want to treat others that way. I am not agnostic. So I dont know much about what the belief is. But being a patriotic has nothing to do with what religion you are. On this we agree. Like I said, in my family there is a wide array of beliefs. We are not bigots toward each other. I have respect for them and what they believe. You are putting a label on me and others we dont deserve. I knoe that for a fact anyone who serves in the military is a patriot and people who dont are also. BTW my scottish ancestors were mercenaries, My finnish ancestors were royalty, and my Irish ancestors raised sheep.
The past is so intriguing. I think you are ignoring the fact that religion has laid a major foundation in this country. even from the founding through the 1800’s people felt a need to affiliate with some kind of religious sect. That is just how it was. So thank goodness for the Amendment in the constitution and given incredible foresight, to allow all people to unite and feel welcome. Even if I say what I will and explain myself clearly it seems you have a preconceived idea and judgement about christians before even trying to find out exactly what the agenda truly is. By me being able to write a book about whatever I want. Is celebratory of the success of the amendment and as long as it stands we should all be grateful we can say be and do whatever we want in this country. I prefer to think positively about things and prefer to think that I can learn from other people and beliefsand cultures. Even if I never agree with them.

topic -
There will be a women president and she will do what she can, I hope it is great. just as anyone else apointed by the people would do. I just hope that whoever is elected is the best person for the job we have to choose from. thank goodness people in power are never alone in their leading. At least in this country. The fact that Condi is even in the cabinet, is monumental and huge. The libs seem to overlook her when they say that bush is racist. What a bold lie.

Posted by: Alison at January 20, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #114980

Alison:
“I am not agnostic. So I dont know much about what the belief is.”

Agnosticism is the withholding of judgement over whether God exists, or not — in other words, no one has been able to convince me that God is either a reality, or not a reality. Though people will often lump us in with atheists, we are definitely not the same at all.
I have held an agnostic stance my entire life — even when I was a child who went to church. Still, I’ve always been open minded, and have always been a curious and avid reader on the subject of religions, even though I’ve remained entirely skeptical.
Of all the religions I’ve studied closely thus far, Gnostic philosophy seems to make the most sense. It also appeals to my egalitarian sensibilities.

“But being a patriotic has nothing to do with what religion you are. On this we agree.”

Good. I’m glad.

“You are putting a label on me and others we dont deserve.”

I recall putting no label on you at all. You are the one who put a label on what I can only suppose is now considered a new, specialized form of American patriotism. It was even capitalized by you, so there would be no mistaking the fact that it is a new label: Christian Patriotism.
Was this a mistaken assumption on my part?

“I think you are ignoring the fact that religion has laid a major foundation in this country.”

I’ll agree religion has had a major influence on many people in our history, but thankfully it was not a major foundation in the formation of our secular government.
Believe me, I have no interest in curtailing freedoms, or stifling anyones religious faith. I am only interested in seeing that the wall of separation between church and state be steadfastly upheld, rather than have it crumble and lead our country down the road of religious intolerance.
You see, when you wrote that you had written your books with Sen. Hatch, that was a red flag for someone like me. Because it seems like one thing for someone to write a book about Christianity and their ideas on American Patriotism, but quite another when it involves an acting member of Congress.
This is what made me concerned about your books — as that seems to be a definite blurring of the line of separation between church and state. A Congress seemingly advocating “Christian Patriotism” over and above American Patriotism in general seems like a potentially very harmful and divisive thing, because while in office Sen. Hatch is supposedly representing all his constituents.
Do you see what I mean?

“Even if I say what I will and explain myself clearly it seems you have a preconceived idea and judgement about christians before even trying to find out exactly what the agenda truly is.”

I have preconceived notions over Far Right Evangelical Christian Agendas, but only because I’ve read quite a bit about those agendas and what they’ve been calling for over many years. Because of that reading, I am certain that if their agenda is allowed to be fullfilled, it will mean the end of certain First Amendment protections, and the beginning of government mandated Christian observances.

“Is celebratory of the success of the amendment and as long as it stands we should all be grateful we can say be and do whatever we want in this country. I prefer to think positively about things and prefer to think that I can learn from other people and beliefsand cultures. Even if I never agree with them.”

Again, we agree. Clearly the First Amendment was to guarantee all US citizens of a church/state separation, because it has rendered our government neutral, thus, it has been always been fair for all.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #115011

Alison, —scottish ancestors mercenaries, finnish ancestors royalty,Irish ancestors raised sheep?

My Viking ancestors killed all those people.

Best of luck with the book.

Posted by: Novenge at January 20, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #115058

“We cannot have a ‘June Cleaver’ any more than we can have a woman who can be labeled a ‘Bitch’ - defined as: ‘An aggressive woman in a man’s world’.” Dawn 01/18

Wow, you might as well include all women in that definition. Every woman is capable of being called a ‘bitch’ by a weak man.


“We don’t need a woman who is ‘pretending to be a man’. We need to know that she is a woman. Not that she is just trying to ‘fit in’ with the men. She needs to be sure of herself - as a woman. Being a woman in power does not need to mean that she compromises herself by adopting characteristics that have historically been related to men. If a woman like that has a chance at the oval office, we might as well elect another man.” Dawn 01/18

Dawn, you have some serious issues with preconceived notions… Shame on you, and anyone who would think as you do.

Allegedly, the United States is the most advanced nation on the planet, and yet we still judge a person by their genitals and whether or not they fit neatly into someone’s ideal idea of how someone should or shouldn’t behave according to their gender…

It’s sad, really, to think that we as a nation are so ass backwards…

Posted by: MJ Shaw at January 21, 2006 5:33 AM
Comment #115086

“Dawn, you have some serious issues with preconceived notions… Shame on you, and anyone who would think as you do.”
Posted by MJ Shaw at January 21, 2006 05:33 AM

Image MJ - image.
It really has nothing to do with your interpretation of what I was saying.

I would expect the woman to know when to be a ‘bitch’.
Like a guy who could kick someone’s ass if he had to - but never had to because others knew he could.
It’s a tool.

Seems each and every one of us (m & f) is placed in some category these days - I agree that this is wrong and I will not stop anyone from trying to change it.
What we cannot change is.. that each of us IS different - which I see as a good thing.
We should vote for the person, we as individuals, see as the right person for the office.
Since your view of what I said was NOT what I was trying to get across, and I am not the ‘type’ of person you have decided I am - you have also jumped to incorrect conclusions BUT I won’t be placing you in a category.


Posted by: dawn at January 21, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #115097

“Women Who the World Worse” talks about how feminists have missed the boat and explains why most women reject feminism.

Feminism fell victim to the classic problem of movements. It achieved most of the reasonable goals it set for itself and then had. Things like equal pay for equal work have been achieved. Women are attending college at higher rates than men. The world is very different and better. But the movement feminists can’t take yes for an answer. Since the world is not perfect, they have to pretend that it is not good.

Men and women are different. Women will never make up 50% of CEOs for the simple reason that more women want to have a balanced live and that includes children. Feminists tell us that is a bad choice.

But life is more than work. No matter what you were, the day you retire is the day you become a FORMER or a HAS BEEN. Family, if done right, is forever.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #115104

Jack,

‘But life is more than work. No matter what you were, the day you retire is the day you become a FORMER or a HAS BEEN. Family, if done right, is forever.’

Most of this has to do with one’s own selfishness.
The more our society becomes a ‘me first’ and ‘I’m the most important’ place…

Family has become less important than the individual’s ‘needs’.

Some families need both parents to simply make it …

Justifying a two income family by saying working is ‘so I can buy more things for my kid’ - when one income is more than enough to provide … kids need parents … not more gadgets.

Because of our life expectancy these days there is plenty of time to have 2 or 3 careers and make raising children a career.


Posted by: dawn at January 21, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #115127

Dawn

You are right.

At fifty, I am near the end of my “life’s work” FIRST STAGE. I have to do something else and I am reasonably confident it will be fun. But the thing I keep is family and friends and life outside work. Work can career can consume a person. At some stages in life this is okay, maybe necessary. But we have to restore the balance in order to live a meaningful live. If all a person did in life was become the CEO of a big firm he (or she) is a failure. And if all this person did was think about his/her own needs, he is a bad person to boot.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #115129

Jack,

I was going to write an article…
‘America - The ‘Me First’ Society’

BUT I have just about convinced myself we’re too far gone.

Posted by: dawn at January 21, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #115620

MJ Shaw
“We cannot have a ‘June Cleaver’ any more than we can have a woman who can be labeled a ‘Bitch’ - defined as: ‘An aggressive woman in a man’s world’.” Dawn 01/18

Wow, you might as well include all women in that definition. Every woman is capable of being called a ‘bitch’ by a weak man.

And only a weak man would call a women a bitch. And I cann’t for the life of me figure out why young girls and women today let their boyfriends or husbands call them bithces.
My son is 35 year-old and to this day if I ever hear him call a women a bitch I’ll kick his ass off the face of this earth.

My wife keeps telling me that she’s 51% sweetheart and 49% bitch, so don’t push it. Well she 100% sweetheart and 0% bitch, but I still don’t push it.


Posted by: Ron Brown at January 22, 2006 1:26 PM
Post a comment