As you may know, the democratic debates were on tuesday. This is similar to the presedential debates, except that it's between those democrats who are running for the primaries (just in case you don't know). Of those who took part in the debates, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary Clinton seem to be the favorites so far.
Clinton, who has been doing well so far, unfortunately did not do as well during the debates as she could have. She didn't clearly answer some of the questions asked of her, not replying either yes or no. Apparently she didn't want to upset any potential oters with an answer they didn't think was satisfying. But many people think her lack of a decent response deems her untrustworthy.
Well, I still think she'd do a better job than Bush. And just think! The first female president. That would be a huge step forward for our country-to admit that women are just as capable of leading as men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The primary debates are always interesting, especially the democrats this year. Becuase of the bad feeling for the incumbant party it seems like the democrats have taken center stage and the democratic candidate will be an equally big deal. i agree that Clinton could have done better in her debate there were some moments where she seemed to be playing the public but, it would be a big deal to have a women president. But, i think that we should concentrate on electing a good, strong leader to clean up the mess that the last one has, so graciously left.
I agree that "we should concentrate on electing a good, strong leader to clean up." for this reason we should not elect Hillary Clinton because as the debates proved, she is indecisive, and therefore not capable of being a strong leader. Many people in support of Clinton argue that it would be great to have her as a leader because she is a woman. This is simply sexist becuase a candidate's gender should not factor into the presidential race. it would be wrong to vote for Clinton based on her gender, which is why we should vote for either Obama or Edwards. after the debates, they seem to be stronger and more capable of leading than Clinton.
To Kelsey: Oh yes. We definitely need someone who's capable of cleaning up this catastrophe.
This is to Greg: No offense, but that statmennt is also a little sexist. Simply the fact that there has never been a woman president shows how sexist our views of leaders are. I do, however, agree that we do need the best possible presidential canidiate, and if it doesn't happen to be Clinton, then we need to find someone who WILL do a good job.
While it is sexist to not vote for Hilary Clinton just because she is a woman, there is a definite risk in electing a woman president. We need to "clean up the mess" in the Middle East right now and unfortunately, many of those countries view women as inferior to men. If Hilary Clinton were to be president, the sexist countries would be less likely to negotiate with us and respect our country as lead by a woman. Electing Hilary would be a great step in reducing sexism in America, but may exacerbate the tensions between us and the Middle East.
I have no problem with a female president. But we should not just elect one to have one based on the fact that she will be our first female president. And guess what, that is what it seems like. Clinton opened it up, trust me there will be more female presidential candidates/presidents in the feature, but as for now, I want a president who has a stance on a subject, not one with no real managerial experience and an inability to be decisive.
Post a Comment