Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 175 Editor's Choice: 4
-
What kind of woman would win?
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So many people have said that they would vote for a woman, but not this woman. Whatever this article says, it seems to come from both men and women. So, what does this mean for a woman candidate in the future?
Well, she'd have to be under 50. Because there are no viable candidates (whatever that means) coming up from the Republicans, which means we are looking at the Democrats, in order to have a shot with the under-35s, apparently, now, a 60-year-old woman is considered someone who might as well be dead because she cannot 'connect' with them, she will share none of their life's values and be disregarded out of hand because she is 'old'.
However, the problem, in general, for a woman under 50 is that even if she has gotten to a point in her career where she could run, she is likely to have children who are still relatively young (i.e., not the 'pimped-out' Chelsea's age). Why does this matter for a woman? Because, if she is running for President, it means to a certain segment of the population, she deserted her children to run for office, and therefore, they will never vote for her. This includes women, who will use it as an opportunity to re-fight the damn 'mommy-war' question all over again. In this, Obama faces a less onerous challenge because he and his wife don't have to face this question, he's a man. And, forget having a childless woman run. She's just not normal, even if she couldn't have children, she should have adopted.
And, apparently, she needs to have absolutely no record, because you have to be idiologically pure to satisfy certain segments of the female population. They won't vote for a woman unless they agree with every single stand she has taken. OK, so, she damn well better never have taken a stand on anything. And, yes, I understand the war vote for Hillary is a very divisive issue. I'm just looking at the letters I have seen and looking forward to other female candidates, to see what they need to bring to the table. It appears that it better be absolutely nothing. Because unless they have a record that every single so-called feminist can agree with all the way down the line, they are 'voted off the island'. It is the 'maddona-whore' complex in reverse.
Apparently, her physical appearance and voice, have to be much more attractive than Hillary Clinton's, so that they don't remind men of 'their first wife'. However, if she is too attractive, will women somehow think she is untrustworthy?
Finally, you can't have any baggage. Any. At all. So, in fact, you can't be a politician because politicians come with baggage. Unless people decide to ignore it. But, as we've seen, it's very rare for someone to make it to the level of consideration for Presidential politics without baggage and the very type of personality necessary to be in that position IS baggage for a woman. Because people don't like women like that.
Maybe Hillary Clinton IS the wrong woman. I don't know. But I can't imagine the right one coming in my lifetime. And I'm only 43.
-
I'd still like someone to give me a female candidate for the future
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Qualities sought:
Under 50 years old
Children grown or almost grown
'Idiologically pure' record to democratic voters, at least if she were a Senator. I'm not sure what the verdict would be if it were a Governor.
More physically 'attractive' than Senator Clinton, since apparently she reminded too many men of their first wife and it's OK to not vote for a candidate for that reason. This includes a tremendous speaking voice and style and she must also be a fantastic debator
No baggage. This includes:
No past problems in the marriage, even if she was not the one who cheated
Somehow, she has to be able to show that she can 'fight back' without ever pissing anyone off
She has never, ever done anything that seems remotely, in the least, politcally motivated
Please, don't recommend Sen. Boxer, whoever did. She's 67. She'd be dismissed as dead already by most of the under-35 crowd, especially since she has been in Washington since 1983.
Just because some us don't vote 'vagina-only', it doesn't mean we wouldn't be interested in seeing a woman, at some point, as President. I don't believe the candidate above exists. But I believe she has to, to win.
-
Uncle Fester - Possible women candidates
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nancy Pelosi doesn't bother me but I'm looking for someone who might actually, hypothetically, win. I realize that many people don't give a damn about this but it would be interesting for me to see a woman as President, one who can succeed and do a good job for the country.
Nancy Pelosi fails the age test to attract and inspire younger voters in the primaries. She's 67. We are constantly being told Hillary Clinton made the fatal mistake of being 60.
She had attracted criticism lately for the following: being out-of-touch with the poor because of the income she and her husband enjoy and for being corrupt and disloyal because she backed Murtha (king of the earmarks) for Majority Leader over Steny Hoyer.
Plus, we all know the approval ratings of Congress right now and she is the symbol of Congress as the Speaker of the House.
Plus, do we really need an entire campaign with Tweety accusing her of emasculating Hoyer????
She flunks the age, idiological purity and baggage tests. Plus, I'm not sure she wouldn't remind many men of their first wives if they listened to her stump speech enough times.