Look out fellas! The ladies are taking over!

[walterick]

Today has been an historic day for women in politics.

First, we have Nancy Pelosi being sworn in tonight as the first-ever female speaker of the house, and is now the highest-ranking woman in American politics ever.

Arizona also had a first today as Governor Janet Napolitano became the first ever woman Arizona governor to serve 2 terms.

And we all know we may already have a woman running for president for the first time in United States history in two Novembers.

Watch out fellas!

Nancy
Janet
Hillary

[shutterman]

too bad more people know who Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie, and Paris Hilton are than then Pelosi!

[adina]

Angelina Jolie isn't to bad, at least now she is doing good instead wearing her husbands blood around her neck.

But Britney and Paris....well....I don't think they will last much longer. At least, I'm crossing my fingers.

[shutterman]

I don't care for any of them - unless you are simply judging on looks which is just about the the only thing we can - we don't know these people no matter how much they show up in the media - then of couse Angelina is smokin!

[JSPhoto]

I hope Hillary ISN'T elected! She was too blind to see her own husband was messing around... every time it happened, then believed the lies, we can't trust her to pay attention and not get snookered by her subordinates like her husband has allways done.She'd end up a pawn like Bush. And the vice president would again end up running the country. She just isn't trustworthy enough. The only plausable chance the demos had has already backed out....McCain will be the next president, but we could do a lot worse with whats left in the demo party.

The heading of this thread reminded me of a movie.....where the women are in charge.... I think it was the Stepford Wives....

JS

[mwfanelli]

I hope Hillary ISN'T elected! She was too blind to see her own husband was messing around... every time it happened, then believed the lies, we can't trust her to pay attention and not get snookered by her subordinates like her husband has allways done.She'd end up a pawn like Bush. And the vice president would again end up running the country. She just isn't trustworthy enough. The only plausable chance the demos had has already backed out....McCain will be the next president, but we could do a lot worse with whats left in the demo party.

The heading of this thread reminded me of a movie.....where the women are in charge.... I think it was the Stepford Wives....

JS

Good grief, borderline misogyny!

How many people, men and women, are either blind to their spouse's activities or, as I believe in Hillarys case, knew about it but tolerated it? Is this some sort of Klignon-like "shame passes on and stains the family" stand you are taking? Eliminate all these people who have been decieved and few, if any, are left. You have never been deceived by anyone in your life? Most people hate Hillary because she is much too strong and outspoken, you paint her as weak and submissive! That's a delightful change. Too bad the facts just don't back that up.

"And the vice president would again end up running the country" I suppose you are talking about RR. Yes, his wife was running the country in the last years (along with her astrologer) but she was not the vice president and, besides, what does that have to do with Hillary? Hillary is not so old as to be suffering from dementia.

"She just isn't trustworthy enough" Please provide proof of this. What has she done as a senator that justifies this stand? How has her record difered from other politicians?

"McCain will be the next president, but we could do a lot worse with whats left in the demo party." Yeah, right. McCain was and still is a hawk for the Iraq war, a very bad decision that Bush, McCain, and others are still pushing in spite of its obvious failure. The mood in this country is anti-war, McCain is strongly pro-war. That won't, IMHO, generate a lot of support. I used to be a McCain fan, but his war stand and his courting of the wacko religious right turned me off.

Hillary can't win, this country is still too backwards to elect a woman as president. Obama, the other front runner, can't win because this country is still too backward to elect someone of color. There are no other obvious Democratic candidates and the Republicans have no one that escaped the stink of massive Republican corruption and their long string of being a do-nothing, Bush rubber-stamping congress. The field is wide open.

[schrackman]

Hillary can't win, this country is still too backwards to elect a woman as president.

Yeah, it's all America's fault, isn't it? I guess it can't be that Hillary's too much of a liberal socialist, or that her husband's antics while in the white house has pretty much left people with such a bad taste in their mouths and that they'd just prefer not to go through that again. Or, then again, perhaps some people just don't want the rest of the country to be taxed to the hilt like the state of which she is a senator. We could think of countless valid reasons why Hillary won't win the presidency, but blaming the American people as being backward is not one of them. In a day and age when we've got women on the supreme court, women in congress, women holding top cabinet positions, and now a woman as speaker of the house, it's an insult to our intelligence to claim we're too backward to handle a woman presidency. Oh, and by the way, I'd vote for Condi in a second if I knew she was running for prez.

[Ronnoco]

Interesting that in general terms relating to women administrators, most women teachers freely admitted that their worst scenario is having to work for a woman principal. The same was true for higher level personnel in the area of education working for a woman superintendent or director of education.

The general consensus was that lack of confidence, problems with a feeling of having to be seen as exerting their authority, and an overly aggressive manner have made many women administrators unpopular even with women on their own staffs.

Ronnoco

[masdog]

Its not that I don't think Hillary would make a bad President, but I just don't trust her. She has that Sherry Palmer quality about her that makes me think that she would not only know about her husband's infidelity but actually encourage it.

In all honesty, I think Barack could get elected. Race relations in this country aren't the same as they were 50 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Yes, there is still some racism in this country, but I think Obama really could get a fair shake.

[mwfanelli]

Yeah, it's all America's fault, isn't it? I guess it can't be that Hillary's too much of a liberal socialist, or that her husband's antics while in the white house has pretty much left people with such a bad taste in their mouths and that they'd just prefer not to go through that again.

I'm confused. Go through "that"again? I thought it was Bill, not Hillary, who slept around. Just what "again" are you talking about? Are we back to the "dishonor spreads to the entire family" again?

Comparing Bill's sleeping around with the felonies and disaterous policies Bush is responsible for,I'd rather have Bill. Who ever thought that Bill's administration would be seen as being more moral? But we are not talking about Bill here, are we? It's Hillary who is in the race.

Or, then again, perhaps some people just don't want the rest of the country to be taxed to the hilt like the state of which she is a senator.

New York is Hillary's adopted state plus Hillary, a US senator, doesn't raise or lower state taxes. The big tax increases in recent history were implimented under a REPUBLICAN govenor. She has been in Congress now for over 6 years.List the taxes she has raised. Do you actually like the "cut taxes, spend like a madman, and let the future pay" voodoo economics of the current administration?

We could think of countless valid reasons why Hillary won't win the presidency, but blaming the American people as being backward is not one of them.

Substitute any woman's name for Hillary and you'll get the same response. Governor Romney, a potential candidate, is being attacked for being a Mormon! Why? Because he would bring "Mormon beliefs" into government in spite of having a record that clearly shows otherwise. Hillary is suffering the same nonsense, but for being female. That's the type of country we live in, like it or not. If you don't like Hillary, fine. Just don't make up silly excuses to justify it.

In a day and age when we've got women on the supreme court, women in congress, women holding top cabinet positions, and now a woman as speaker of the house, it's an insult to our intelligence to claim we're too backward to handle a woman presidency. Oh, and by the way, I'd vote for Condi in a second if I knew she was running for prez.

How long has it taken for women to get where they are? How does the percentage of woman in these positions compare to their numbers in the general population? Let's see... In the 107th Congress, there was13 women out of 100 senators and 61 women out of 435 representatives. So much for equal opportunities.

I'm happy you would vote for Condi. IMHO, not many others would go to the polls to do that. I wouldn't vote for her because her nose is firmly lodged in Bush's butt, not because she is female. I would love to be wrong, but I really don't think that I am. Hillary, Condi, or any other female just doesn't have a chance yet, regardless of their political position. Don't believe me? Just read the "female boss" summary that follows your post:

"lack of confidence, problems with a feeling of having to be seen as exerting their authority, and an overly aggressive manner have made many women administrators unpopular even with women on their own staffs."

No man would ever act that way! LOL!

In spite of women leaders who have appeared all over the world, and their records equal to men both bad and good, in this country it still comes down to the stereotype of the hysterical woman.

[adina]

I find it very hard to believe that Hillary didn't know about the extra-curricular activities. However, what I find interesting is that had she divorced him, people would hold that against her come election time, but that she stayed with him is held against her as well.

[JSPhoto]

Micheal,

Want proof you can't trust Hillary? OK, how about when she was campaining for her present job, over and over she said she wouldn't allow new taxes, yet when votes for new taxes were held she voted in favor of them more than 95% of the time. The few she didn't vote for would have affected the rich more than the lower classes....what does that tell you? It sure dosen't say you can trust her.

JS

[schrackman]

I'm confused. Go through "that"again? I thought it was Bill, not Hillary, who slept around. Just what "again" are you talking about? Are we back to the "dishonor spreads to the entire family" again?

Here's the thing, Michael. If Hillary got elected Slick Willy comes along for the ride. I'm just saying there are a lot of people out there who don't want to see him in the white house again and possibly have to put up with more of his antics. Whether or not you like that view, that's what a lot of people are thinking. It has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, it has to do with the scandals associated with Billy boy.

Comparing Bill's sleeping around with the felonies and disaterous policies Bush is responsible for,I'd rather have Bill. Who ever thought that Bill's administration would be seen as being more moral? But we are not talking about Bill here, are we? It's Hillary who is in the race.

Well we're not talking about Bush, are we? We're talking about the possible election of Hillary, and Bill becoming the first man (what a thought!...but then again, he was the first black president too, lol). So as per my comment above, yes, it does have something to do with Bill, indirectly.

New York is Hillary's adopted state plus Hillary, a US senator, doesn't raise or lower state taxes. The big tax increases in recent history were implimented under a REPUBLICAN govenor. She has been in Congress now for over 6 years.List the taxes she has raised. Do you actually like the "cut taxes, spend like a madman, and let the future pay" voodoo economics of the current administration?

Every U.S. Senator raises or lowers taxes by virtue of the bills they vote on. Hillary's record on voting is easily accessible online. I suggest you look at it. Furthermore, many of the things she'd like to implement in the future would definitely raise taxes.

As for our current administration, I would tend to agree with you that spending has not really been curtailed like it should have been under a republican controlled congress and presidency. That is disheartening but also excected when one party rules all. Nevertheless, we do have a strong economy and that's a good thing. Frankly, I am hoping now that the dems have won back congress spending will get back under control. That's usually the case when one party is in the presidency and the other party controls congress.

Substitute any woman's name for Hillary and you'll get the same response. Governor Romney, a potential candidate, is being attacked for being a Mormon! Why? Because he would bring "Mormon beliefs" into government in spite of having a record that clearly shows otherwise. Hillary is suffering the same nonsense, but for being female. That's the type of country we live in, like it or not. If you don't like Hillary, fine. Just don't make up silly excuses to justify it.

This isn't about how I feel about Hillary. I'm just explaining to you that people have other reasons for not voting for her other than the fact that she's a woman, which to me is a bogus claim meant to draw sympathy for her. Perhaps, though, you can show us just who it is that is attacking Hillary just because she's a woman?

How long has it taken for women to get where they are? How does the percentage of woman in these positions compare to their numbers in the general population? Let's see... In the 107th Congress, there was13 women out of 100 senators and 61 women out of 435 representatives. So much for equal opportunities.

I would think that those are actually decent numbers considering the fact that 1) most women are busying themselves with raising a family; 2) may not be adequately educated and experienced enough in politics to be actually qualified for such positions; and 3) are pursuing other career options more fulfilling to them. The fact is, there are other variables involved here other than the fact that they are just women.

I'm happy you would vote for Condi. IMHO, not many others would go to the polls to do that. I wouldn't vote for her because her nose is firmly lodged in Bush's butt, not because she is female. I would love to be wrong, but I really don't think that I am

Ah, so you see...there ARE other reasons as to why YOU wouldn't vote for a woman. Now, see if you can try to give the rest of the country the same credit you give yourself.

Hillary, Condi, or any other female just doesn't have a chance yet, regardless of their political position. Don't believe me? Just read the "female boss" summary that follows your post:

Well you can hold to that opinion (though I'm not convinced it's valid), but I think a woman president would be very much welcomed in this day and age. But we need to get beyond the gender argument and just choose the person we think is best qualified for the position.

"lack of confidence, problems with a feeling of having to be seen as exerting their authority, and an overly aggressive manner have made many women administrators unpopular even with women on their own staffs."

No man would ever act that way! LOL!

Ronocco can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was stating his personal opinion but rather what has been observed among women administrators.

In spite of women leaders who have appeared all over the world, and their records equal to men both bad and good, in this country it still comes down to the stereotype of the hysterical woman.

And if that were really the case we wouldn't have any women in high positions whatsoever. Yet we have them all around us. The only one who can't see that is you.

Great talking with you. I'll let you have the last word.

[adina]

Micheal,

Want proof you can't trust Hillary? OK, how about when she was campaining for her present job, over and over she said she wouldn't allow new taxes, yet when votes for new taxes were held she voted in favor of them more than 95% of the time. The few she didn't vote for would have affected the rich more than the lower classes....what does that tell you? It sure dosen't say you can trust her.

JS

Hello, when have you met a polictician you can trust? I don't think she stands alone on that one.

[mwfanelli]

Here's the thing, Michael. If Hillary got elected Slick Willy comes along for the ride.

Remember when Bill was roundly criticized by Republicans for having Hillary "along for the ride"? They can't buy a break!

I'm just saying there are a lot of people out there who don't want to see him in the white house again and possibly have to put up with more of his antics.

FWIW, a cNN poll taken a couple of months ago shows that a huge majority would prefer Clinton in office again rather than dubya.

Well we're not talking about Bush, are we? We're talking about the possible election of Hillary, and Bill becoming the first man (what a thought!...but then again, he was the first black president too, lol). So as per my comment above, yes, it does have something to do with Bill, indirectly.

A very tenuous connection to Evil! But so what, if Clinton fools around again, he still doesn't hold public office.

Every U.S. Senator raises or lowers taxes by virtue of the bills they vote on. Hillary's record on voting is easily accessible online. I suggest you look at it. Furthermore, many of the things she'd like to implement in the future would definitely raise taxes.

Is this worse than spending wildly out of control while lowering taxes? Is this worse than giving oil companies massive tax "incentives" in the middle of super-rich profits while reducing government income? Is it worse than lots of federal unfunded mandates forcing states to raise taxes to pay for federal projects? Citizens love to yell and scream about lower taxes but want increased spending as well. Guess what, that doesn't work no matter how popular it it is. Most voters are just like children: they want all the benefits of spending but none of consequences. FWIW, Clinton finally got a balanced budget passed that was completely destroyed by dubya in the first 2-3 months. So much for fiscal responsability.

As for our current administration, I would tend to agree with you that spending has not really been curtailed like it should have been under a republican controlled congress and presidency. That is disheartening but also excected when one party rules all. Nevertheless, we do have a strong economy and that's a good thing. Frankly, I am hoping now that the dems have won back congress spending will get back under control. That's usually the case when one party is in the presidency and the other party controls congress.

We agree! Having one party in the administration and one controlling Congress is the best way to run the country. It minimizes the garbage that can get through the process.

This isn't about how I feel about Hillary. I'm just explaining to you that people have other reasons for not voting for her other than the fact that she's a woman, which to me is a bogus claim meant to draw sympathy for her. Perhaps, though, you can show us just who it is that is attacking Hillary just because she's a woman?

Yes, there are MANY reasons, good reasons, not to like Hillary. But listen to good ol' talk radio, for better or worse a major source of "news" in this country. The arguments are almost always anti-female against Hillary and other women in power. Listen to the religious right: women are denigrated when it comes to power. This is still a very male dominated society, just read the posting by Ronnoco above.

I would think that those are actually decent numbers considering the fact that 1) most women are busying themselves with raising a family; 2) may not be adequately educated and experienced enough in politics to be actually qualified for such positions; and 3) are pursuing other career options more fulfilling to them. The fact is, there are other variables involved here other than the fact that they are just women.

I'll hold back my laughter on this one. But lets just assume you are right. Does that acount for the fact that more than half the population makes up 14% or less of congress?

Ah, so you see...there ARE other reasons as to why YOU wouldn't vote for a woman. Now, see if you can try to give the rest of the country the same credit you give yourself.

Huh? Are we talking about Condi here? I wouldn't vote for Condi because of her politics. You know, the same way I wouldn't vote for someone such as Kennedy for his. I just don't get your point here...

Ronocco can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was stating his personal opinion but rather what has been observed among women administrators.

So, if I pass on damaging or insulting information I "heard" about Arabs, Mexicans, illegal Swedes or whatever, I am no longer responsible? I am not saying that Ronnoco is stating something that is evil in some way. I'm saying it represents the majority opinion in America. I've worked for lots of women in my life, every one here has had women bosses throughout our lives. There is no difference, male of female. But bad male bosses are remembered as idiots, bad female bosses are remembered as "overcompensating bitches."

And if that were really the case we wouldn't have any women in high positions whatsoever. Yet we have them all around us. The only one who can't see that is you.

Tokens don't change the American landscape. One day, perhaps gender won't matter. But to say that women have an equal chance today is naive. I'd love to be wrong but I truly doubt that I am.

[masdog]

Is this worse than spending wildly out of control while lowering taxes? Is this worse than giving oil companies massive tax "incentives" in the middle of super-rich profits while reducing government income? Citizens love to yell and scream about lower taxes but want increased spending as well. Guess what, that doesn't work no matter how popular it it is. Most voters are just like children: they want all the benefits of spending but none of consequences. FWIW, Clinton finally got a balanced budget passed that was completely destroyed by dubya in the first 2-3 months. So much for fiscal responsability.

Don't say that most people would want it - thats just the image the media portrays. There are many people who see the game of Russian Roulette that we're playing with government spending.

We agree! Having one party in the administration and one controlling Congress is the best way to run the country. It minimizes the garbage that can get through the process.

In theory, but on the radio today I heard that Bush is backing a Democratic measure to raise the minimum wage to over $7.00. I highly doubt that Bush will be pulling out his veto pen that often even now.

Yes, there are MANY reasons, good reasons, not to like Hillary. But listen to good ol' talk radio, for better or worse a major source of "news" in this country. The arguments are almost always anti-female against Hillary and other women in power. Listen to the religious right: women are denigrated when it comes to power. This is still a very male dominated society, just read the posting by Ronnoco above.

That's true, but you have to consider the source. Talk radio is generally filled with hate-mongers, hypocrites (Limbaugh), and gas bags that pander to an audience that craves the juiciest bits of hateful gossip. They'll say anything if it fits their agenda.

Our society is still adjusting, and while we've come a long way since the 1950's, we still have some way to go. The feminist movement was in the 1970s, right? That means my generation is the first to have lived completely in the feminist movement, which, ironically, has also seen more objectification of women through the media.

I'll hold back my laughter on this one. But lets just assume you are right. Does that acount for the fact that more than half the population makes up 14% or less of congress?

I could point to any profession and make an argument about gender inequality. Where are all the male kindergarten teachers? Why are there more women in the nursing profession than men?

Like any profession, there are those who are interested in it and those who aren't. Most people who run for office want to be in Congress regardless of what sex they are. They like politics or power and have the drive and ambition to get there.

[mwfanelli]

On Drudge last night, he spent over an hour railing about women in government, especially Hillary and Pelosi. What was is talking about? Three major topics:

1. Their hairdos stink
2. Their clothing choices are poor
3. He warned, SEVERAL TIMES, that unless something is done soon "women will take over the government" that made it sound as if the Apocalypse would soon arrive if that happened.

I note this because Drudge has a big audience and other, smaller players are parrots for this type of women-hating stuff. Can she win? Can Obama, "his middle name is Hussein" have a chance? I haven't had a chance to listen to the druggie Rush for a long time but my guess, correct me if I'm wrong, is that women in politics is open season there as well.

Hmm, did you see the boring suit dubya was wearing the other day? And don't get me started on that hair... really now! What type of leader is he?

[JSPhoto]

Hello, when have you met a polictician you can trust? I don't think she stands alone on that one.

yeah, there aren't any you can trust, but Hillary is even less trustworthy. Not too mention she thinks giving China MFN billing, and American jobs is a good idea. Now that will really help the American economy, sending MORE jobs overseas.

JS

[mwfanelli]

yeah, there aren't any you can trust, but Hillary is even less trustworthy. Not too mention she thinks giving China MFN billing, and American jobs is a good idea. Now that will really help the American economy, sending MORE jobs overseas.

JS

Uh... MFN status for China was granted with strong urging of REPUBLICANS starting back with Richard Nixon! Many democrats were opposed to it as they were/are to NAFTA and it's ungodly spawn (!).. It is the REPUBLICAN congress over the last 11 years that provided massive tax breaks to companies outsourcing jobs.

When people say "I don't trust Hillary" I always ask "Give me specific reasons why, not just a general feeling." FWIW, I do not favor Hillary because of her stands that support big government, something most members of both major parties ae guilty of.