Potential female presidents in today's politics

[Beet]

I think the trend leads to conservative women because a liberal is often considered to be a 'radical', to at least some small degree.  And society has barely evolved enough to accept female leaders, let alone a radical one. 

And I agree, if Hillary's success is a precedent, it's a dangerous one.  On many levels, but primarily, to me anyway, that a woman's success has to be initiated by that of her husband.  Same way Napolitano being single hurts her chances and is the main reason people think she's a lesbian.  Many still believe, even if they lie to themselves about it, that women 'have their place' and only begin to trust them if there's a 'good guy' in the background.

The first women Governors and Senators served because they succeeded their husbands or were in some way only in power because of their husbands, but no one today thinks that a successful woman candidate for Governor or Senator can only come about because of the woman's husband. Hillary's path was the same as previous women pathbreakers, and in that sense perfectly normal. If she had won, it absolutely would not have set a precedent, IMO, in that regard at the Presidential level.

On the other hand it would have demolished the notion that liberal women are somehow radical or unacceptable. The biggest irony there is that the most passionate Obama partisans usually argue that she lost because of her Iraq war vote.

[Beet]

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.

[Beet]

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.

No, I say that because women because most women's like the think out-side of the box to fix problems, men like plain black and white ideas. Also women more then men think about how things/actions will effect others. Also women know how to get people to do what they want. But that is just my view and how I see things.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just your conjecture?

[Beet]

I tend to like female politicians more, but that's usually just because I think they have more interesting personalities. And they're so fashionable.

But really, I do find a lot of them to be more pragmatic and reasonable than the boisterous male idealogues  within their respective parties, especially within the Republican party. A lot of my favorite politicians are female Republicans, and I hardly align myself with the party's typical ideology.

Perhaps they have interesting personalities because it is *more likely* to take an interesting personality to make a serious run for office as a woman. And fashions for women politicians are hardly well-defined by tradition, as both Clinton and Palin and others have proven.

As far as the Republican party, perhaps because within strongly conservative circles, it is not viewed on as a woman's "proper role" to be heavily involved with career, particularly if she has a family (as is requirement for most pols), and therefore there are a dearth of boisterous ideologues.

The point is, these can all be explained by probabilities and environmental factors, not some essential genetic trait that says that if X is a woman, X will be pragmatic and reasonable. Each politician should be examined individually.