Monday, August 6, 2007


Should a person's gender, race, marital status or religion play a factor in their ability to run a country?

Should a person's gender, race, marital status or religion be a main reason to elect them?

Should the fact that a person's own daughter has gone on record saying she is voting (ne working on the campaign) for another candidate, make that person less electable?

These are questions I ponder when I hear "I'm voting for Hilary because it is time for a woman to get in there", or I'm for Obama because it's time for a minority", or even, "Romney can't run this country, he's a Mormon!".

Yes, I would like to see a woman in office, as the "Leader of the New World" (maybe at one time, but really, are we still?) we are one of the few countries to never have a female leader. But is Hilary the one? Perhaps it is time for a minority to take the Oval Office, but again is Barack the One? It scares me to think that someone would vote for Hilary because she is a woman, I know alot of women aI would not like to see in an official elected position and it scares me that some got there because they are women and not because they are qualified. It is after all, at the end of the day a popularity contest (how else can you explain Schwarzenegger?).

OK now I am rambling, talk amongst yourselves.


  1. Its not only a matter of who to vote for, but who else is running and who to vote against.

    I watched some of the Republican candidates debate because it was in George's "This Week" slot. The couple of guys that I agreed with were people I never heard of and who will not be likely to be running on the Republican ticket.

  2. I try not to watch these debates because of the lack of substance in the questions. Mostly they are softballs that a candidate can use to give an answer that does not truely commit them when they get into office, or is so bland that it means very little. Besides, is there anything that Kucinich or Guliaini says that is important to hear?

    This is the time that candidates are trying to raise money so they say what must be said to get the donations. I am content to read/skim debate summaries.

  3. I don't think sex or race should play a role since those are traits that a person is born with. Family life and religion, on the other hand, perhaps should be considered since they say something about how that person has chosen to live his/her life and the values he/she might have.

    For example, the fact that Giuliani has such a messed up personal life says something about him. Not only are his kids not campaigning for him, but they are estranged from him. I'm not sure exactly what that says about Giuliani, but to me it means that he was probably not a good father. I don't think that's necessarily a dealbreaker (for lack of a better word), but it certainly isn't a plus.

    Religion is a little tricker. I think the important thing is not so much the religion, but the level of tolerance for other religions, agnostics and atheists.

    I think the US is ready for a woman or a minority. As ready as we'll ever be. If the UK, Germany, Chile, Pakistan and Bangladesh, among others, have had female presidents or prime ministers, why not us?