How Important is it to Vote for Hillary Clinton?

Shepherd
Since the midterm elections ended with a resounding thumping by the Democrats, Hillary Clinton looks poised to make the big run in 2008. Her stance is strictly liberal, and she holds standard Democratic positions in seemingly all areas. So if someone does not think her views are worth having in the White House, should we still vote for her? In any other case, the candidate should be considered for their views alone - no partisan politics, no campaign promises, nothing but what we think they will bring to the office. But, this may be our big chance this decade of having a viable female presidential candidate. It makes you wonder why there aren't any other choices.

As the old saying goes, women fought for the right to vote, and now can go out and vote for any man they want. In a country of 300 million people, 52 percent of whom are female, how is it that we simply can not get a woman president? America is quite alone in this struggle- the UK, Ireland, Serbia, Chile, Mongolia, Haiti, Iceland, Latvia, Finland, Area, Bolivia, Indonesia, Malta and the Philippines are all just a handful of the countries that have had woman presidents. What is going on in America that we elect so few women to higher office?

Since we have so few women in elected office, is seems to me that it is vital to get a female president into office- no matter who it is. But then, how can we be expected to vote for someone that we don't agree with? I respect Hillary Clinton in a lot of ways, and I think she is intelligent, responsible and capable. But I don't agree with most of her political stances, and I don't think she would make a good president. Does that mean I shouldn't vote for her, even if she can make this backward little country of ours a little better by opening that door? This is a quandary that I expect a lot of voters to be in when 2008 arrives. I hope by then the answers will be a little clearer.

Hillary Clinton will no doubt begin that moderate shuffle soon- that gradual slide toward the middle of the road that candidates need in order to garner votes. If she achieves this effectively, she has an excellent chance of being her party's front runner. If nothing else, at least we will have a viable candidate- someone who can run a good race and show Americans that a female candidate can do it. I would love to see that happen, even if I can't bring myself to vote for that candidate.

Learn more at http://terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women2.htm.

Published by Shepherd

Shepherd is a former reporter now working as a freelance writer specializing in PR writing and Web content.   View profile

13 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Heather B. 1/29/2007

    That she chose to forgive her husband is to me a sign of strength, compassion, and a stable marriage; she is a woman who understands commitment. I'll be voting for her because she was a standup first lady and because I agree with most of her liberal views. I think she and her husband can fix our economy, balance our budget, and handle this war a lot better than anyone else. The fact that she's a woman is just an added plus. :)

  • Daniel Doyle 12/14/2006

    Let me do this for you,
    She is in a sick, wrong marriage and that says a thing or two about her person and the willingness she possesses to be dysfunctional.
    Then, one must ask, "Do I want that in the people's house?"
    My answer is a resounding, "No.".

  • Scott S 11/27/2006

    Some of you need to read: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77716/politics_get_heated_but_were_all_patriotic.html

  • Ken Ny 11/27/2006

    I would not vote for Hillar Clinton if she were the only person running. Look at the movie "Clinton: His Life" and see where they both stand. Pure communism in my opinion

  • Renee Morway 11/27/2006

    Interesting topic! I think people's voting decisions can be affected by many things other than the issues. For instance, a staunch women's lib gal might vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Someone fed-up with Bush and the Republicans might vote for her just because she is a Democrat. People also vote based upon whether or not they like a candidate's personality. Pre-conceived notions, prejudices, emotions, upbringing, religious beliefs and a whole gambit of factors may play into a person's vote. I think only in a perfect world would everyone vote the issues, and unfortunately we do not live there yet. Again, good article and interesting topic!

  • Laura Spencer 11/26/2006

    L., You've done some good research here. I'm really impressed that you know which countries have had women leaders. I liked this phrase, " In any other case, the candidate should be considered for their views alone- no partisan politics, no campaign promises, nothing but what we think they will bring to the office." I think it sums up your article nicely. Nice handling of a controversial subject.

  • Liz Brown 11/26/2006

    Voting for a woman because she is a woman is as silly as voting for a man because he is a man. Plus, if Hillary would make the fact she is a woman the basis of her campaign and she doesn't turn out to be a great president, then any future female presidental candidate would have an extremely hard time becoming elected. Hillary and the rest of the voting population should stick to the issues, not gender.

  • Jim Stillman 11/26/2006

    There is no doubt that Mrs. Clinton polarizes voters. I tried an experiment a while ago, sending requests to many people in my address book, of all political stripes, asking specifically what they liked or disliked about Mrs. Clinton. Most of those who opposed her gave totally incoherent reasons, including hatred for her husband! Most of the responses, from everyone, were cliches about damn liberals and conservatives. I personally will vote for Hillary - not because of her gender - but because of her intellect. I am still waiting for someone to give me a coherent and non-partisan reason why she would be a bad president

  • Catherine Neal 11/26/2006

    I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton just because she is female. I think all candidates past actions, present actions and bias should be taken into consideration.

  • L. Shepherd 11/25/2006

    Well, I did mean the article very specifically to ask the question of whether to vote for someone that you don't agree with because doing so may serve the greater good. I could have talked about her immigration stance, her hand in welfare reform, etc., but the fact is that everyone has their own idea about why they would or would not vote for her, so that's not really applicable. The applicable theory is about advancing women in politics, but whether it may be immoral to do so if the candidate in question violates a voter's principles.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.