Comments on: Hillary (Clinton) Just as Dirty as Bill (Clinton)

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:36:23 +0000

I did no such thing–you asked to explain what I thought was silly–I did so.

In regards to how women are treated in Muslim countries–yes, they are treated badly in most respects, and lack a lot of basic human right which people must continue to be made aware of and fight against.

A woman leader in a free nation would have more empathy with these plights, have better connections for such causes as she has a vested interest as a leader of free women, and would be better able to meet these challenges (IMHO) than any man could.

Further, I could give two craps if they thought we looked “weaker” in their eyes–looking strong in their eyes hasn’t exactly gotten us anywhere anyway, has it? If they underestimate women, a woman leader has a much better chance of showing them up. Additionally, many Muslim leaders meet with the female leaders of other countries all the time–they recognize the fact that they need to regardless of the leader’s gender if they wish to get anything accomplished on a global scale (such as getting imports and exports to market, oil revenues…)

Big whoopie if the Muslims see a woman as “weaker.” What better way to prove them wrong than by showing them she isn’t? If they miss the point, that’s their issue which we will continue to meet and fight against (though dare I say, not necessarily with a war).

And no one can say anything without a doubt when it comes to the future and what may or may not happen–we can only make an educated best guess–and I dare say, to NOT vote for a woman simply because she is a woman is sexism at its worst. To say a woman can’t be tough on terrorism, or stand up to extremists, is Donna’s own short-sided, small-faithed view of women as leaders…

I, on the other hand, know a strong leader has nothing to dowith what is (or isn’t) between one’s legs. It’s an inner strength, a part of one’s character, that makes a great leader. Most people recognize a good leader when they see one (whether or not they agree with said leader’s stance…), and adjust accordingly. The leaders of Muslim countries may play to their countries stereotypes with propaganda or what-have-you, but they do–and would–meet with the leader of the United States no matter what their gender…

As a side note, Condi Rice meets with Arab leaders all the time–and she’s a woman… Would you say we have been hampered by having her a secretary of state (regardless of whether one agrees with W’s objectives)?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:44:21 +0000

Jason,
You dodged Donna comment. She said:
“I THINK IT WOULD BE SAD IF HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOMINATED AS PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WOMAN.”
Can you deny that in the majority of Muslims countries, women are looked down on, suppressed and in many cases, treated as property?
Can you guarantee that in our current situation or terrorism against everything American, that the Islamic world will not perceive a country run by a woman as even “weaker” than they currently see us and act according in their dealing with us?
Can you say without a doubt that despite what the leadership of these countries say to her face that within the population, this would be just another rally point for hating us?
I think you cannot. Donna makes a valid point and you counter with your famous “apples to oranges” logic.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:56:40 +0000

LOL!! Well, I think they’d most likely call him the “First Husband” or “First Gentlemen,” or whatever they can think of that roles off the tongue much like “Fist Lady.”

She does have some socialististic flairs, I’ll agree on that. I’m not so sure about the lying and cheating (at least, no more than we perceive any politician to be guilty of these things…), but at least that’s a bit more concrete than basing a vote on what other types of goverments operate in the world…

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:44:01 +0000

Can I just say that I dont think Hillary should not be president simply because she is a woman. I think she should not be president because she has a history of lying and cheating (not to mention the people who have died because of dealings that involved her). She is a Socialist at heart. All these things AND the fact that Bill would be First um, First……. Man?

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:17:22 +0000

This isn’t about how women are viewed in Islamic countries–it’s about *not* voting for someone based on how they may be viewed by other countries–employing Donna’s logic, we should really be voting for a communist president, as they would be better at dealing with N. Korea and China! Or perhaps we should vote for a Muslim as president to better deal with the terrorist threats from Muslim extremists? (I can imagine the headlines I’d read here then: “Extremist in White House: End Times Just Around Corner!!”) I mean, I’m sure Donna certainly wouldn’t have voted for a Jew in WWII era, would she? Think of how Hitler viewed them!!

Need I spell out the silliness more?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:23 +0000

Jason,
Explain to us why this is the “silliest logic” you’ve ever heard.
I’m looking forward to the “logic” you use as you try to explain away the way women are viewed and treated in Islamic countries.
Go ahead…I’m waiting…

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:53:10 +0000

That is the silliest logic I think I’ve ever heard, Donna…

By: Donna Herman

Donna Herman — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:58:42 +0000

I THINK IT WOULD BE SAD IF HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOMINATED AS PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WOMAN. SOME MUSLIMS WILL NOT EVEN GAZE UPON A WOMAN WHEN SHE IS SPEAKING DIRECTLY, THEREFORE, A MAN SHOULD BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT GIVEN THE FACT OF THE SITUATION IN THE WORLD.