Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2014, 10:16:21 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  Gillibrand
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gillibrand  (Read 808 times)
President John Hay
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4737
United States


View Profile
« on: February 14, 2012, 01:16:15 pm »
Ignore

Watching her now with the DoD budget hearings in the Senate... what's all the fuss? Why does everyone think she will run for President- seems like a nice person but nothing extraodrinary at all!
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8638
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2012, 01:20:51 pm »
Ignore

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.
Logged

Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1000
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2012, 02:01:12 pm »
Ignore

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.

Unlike the stereotype of liberal women, Gillibrand is more feminine than, say, Hillary or Napolitano.
Logged

HST1948
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 537


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -5.30

P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2012, 03:11:01 pm »
Ignore

I never really got the whole Gillibrand for president thing.  She comes across as a nice, sincere, and intelligent person and she would please most of Democratic base, but to me, she just doesn't come across as presidential.  Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher. In addition, her speeches in my opinion lack a certain quality to them that grab you.  Don't get me wrong, I like her a lot and think that she is a great senator.  My sister has been able to meet her several times through her work as a news reporter, and said she is a wonderful and sincere person, I just don't see her as president.
Logged



"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.
-Obama
SirNick
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2012, 03:57:38 pm »
Ignore

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.
Logged

Reginald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2012, 09:01:50 pm »
Ignore

She's not the best choice out there, no. But the buzz surrounding her makes more sense to me than the talk about McCaskill or especially Klobuchar.
Logged

Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36863


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2012, 10:00:28 pm »
Ignore

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.

Being Margaret Thatcher does disqualify you for the Presidency.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12464


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2012, 01:20:58 am »
Ignore

Gillibrand has in the past demonstrated the ability to evolve her views without seeming like a flip-flopper. Being able to be pragmatic without coming across Kerry/Romney style is an underrated political skill. The fact that she has very feminine gender presentation (relative to people like Hillary or Thatcher, not necessarily to women in other fields than politics) might, conceivably, be spun as an unusual or interesting enough trait to offset any negatives, particularly since Republicans tend to win male voters anyway. Elizabeth Warren has some of the same attributes but is also a lot more of a magnet for controversy than Gillibrand, and can come across as 'dark'/'nagging' feminine rather than 'light'/'nurturing' feminine at times.

(It should be noted: I do not endorse the gender archetypes in the previous paragraph; it's just my perception of the broader perception of these people.)

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Senator Gillibrand personally and (most, but not by any means all, of the time) politically, but she wouldn't be my first choice for a 2016 candidate, partially because I don't foresee 2016 as being an incredibly good year for our party anyway (though that might, of course, change if Obama has a totally kickass second term or something).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 01:28:38 am by Nathan »Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15898


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2012, 01:04:59 pm »
Ignore

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.
Logged

HST1948
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 537


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -5.30

P

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2012, 02:01:06 pm »
Ignore

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.

I absolutely agree with everything you said, and I did not intend to be sexist.  What I was just trying to get at was that Americans tend to like candidates with strong authoritative voices and good speech making abilities.  I think Gillibrand would make a great president and would be one of my top choices in the primary
Logged



"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.
-Obama
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines