- #1
Sprinter
- 57
- 0
Hillary vs Rice in the next presidential election, possible or not ?
Qualifications really don't matter to voters.BobG said:The idea of Rice even running for nomination is ludicrous. Serving as Secretary of State is a positive, but she still has never held an elected office. Her role in an Iraq invasion based on an intelligence disaster (and that's being very generous) is more poisonous than Hillary's association with Bill Clinton.
Agreed. This is just fantasy.cronxeh said:Not in 2008, Not in 2012. I'll bet my money on that.
She also publicly announced that Iraq had nuclear weapons.z-component said:Rice publically announced that she has no interest in running for presidential office anyway.
It certainly isn't out of the question (though Hillary is far more likely to be running than Rice is). Is America ready? We'll see...Sprinter said:Hillary vs Rice in the next presidential election, possible or not ?
Bush was Governor of Texas. Governor is probably the biggest stepping-stone to the Presidency.wasteofo2 said:Qualifications really don't matter to voters.
George Bush was a cokehead/alcoholic whose only qualifications were running businesses into the ground and owning a small percent of a baseball team. Then he was elected governor. Then he was elected President.
Uh, no one has ever said any such thing.She also publicly announced that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Before being Governor, he had no qualifications. Though, because his dad was President, and his whole family is obviously well connected, he got to be Governor. Then he got to be President, not because he got the most votes, or even legitimately won the electoral college; his family and professional connections stole Florida for him in 2000.russ_watters said:Bush was Governor of Texas. Governor is probably the biggest stepping-stone to the Presidency.
You're right, what she said was this,russ_watters said:Uh, no one has ever said any such thing.
True. I liked Reagan, but it was his interpretation of "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" at the New Hampshire debate that shot him into the lead. It was Clinton's talk show host image and his saxophone that made him seem so appealing to voters. Bush Jr has also existed more on personality (plus dragging his opponent through the mud) than substance.wasteofo2 said:Not to get into a debate about Bush's legitimacy, I'm just saying that whether or not you're qualified to be President has almost nothing with whether or not you actually become President.
And how is that unique to Bush? Heck, the subject of this thread is a woman who held no political office before governor!wasteofo2 said:Before being Governor, he had no qualifications.
The 'Bush stole the election' thing has been done to death, but the second part, anyway, is correct - and it means that legitimacy and qualifications are two utterly unrelated concepts (as implied in sA's post). So it is just a distraction to bring it up.Not to get into a debate about Bush's legitimacy, I'm just saying that whether or not you're qualified to be President has almost nothing with whether or not you actually become President.
You know, the best way not to get into a debate about something is not to start one.Then he got to be President, not because he got the most votes, or even legitimately won the electoral college; his family and professional connections stole Florida for him in 2000.
Not to get into a debate about Bush's legitimacy
Perhaps there is a new discussion in there on what it really means to be qualified? It's not an easy question, since it is one of the toughest jobs to prepare for that there is.selfAdjoint said:Irrespective of qualification (and which of the last 10 presidents was truly "qualified" for the office?)...
It's not, I said "Qualifications really don't matter to voters." In response to the fact that BobG said Rice couldn't be President because she hadn't held an electoral office.russ_watters said:And how is that unique to Bush?
You mean Clinton? Senator, that would be. She was actually like a policy guide to Bill, but saying that Clinton had no experience before being elected Senator just proves my point, voters don't care about qualifications.russ_watters said:Heck, the subject of this thread is a woman who held no political office before governor!
Yep.russ_watters said:Look, like it or not, Bush has the only qualifications that are actually required: he's a born-citizen who is older than 35.
All I'm saying is your political experience/qualifications don't count. I was noting with Bush that you can be both unqualified, and not even win the election legitimately, and still become President, showing even further that there are many things more important than qualifications if you want to be President.russ_watters said:The 'Bush stole the election' thing has been done to death, but the second part, anyway, is correct - and it means that legitimacy and qualifications are two utterly unrelated concepts (as implied in sA's post). So it is just a distraction to bring it up.
There are many ways to skin a cat...Hurkyl said:You know, the best way not to get into a debate about something is not to start one.
There should be a thread in here somewhere about qualifications for politicians. It died pretty quickly though.russ_watters said:Perhaps there is a new discussion in there on what it really means to be qualified? It's not an easy question, since it is one of the toughest jobs to prepare for that there is.
Unfortunately, there's a quite a bit of validity in your comments. There's still one qualification that's a prerequisite to bringing in monetary support for a campaign. A candidate usually has to have proven they can win.wasteofo2 said:It's not, I said "Qualifications really don't matter to voters." In response to the fact that BobG said Rice couldn't be President because she hadn't held an electoral office.
You mean Clinton? Senator, that would be. She was actually like a policy guide to Bill, but saying that Clinton had no experience before being elected Senator just proves my point, voters don't care about qualifications.
Yep.
All I'm saying is your political experience/qualifications don't count. I was noting with Bush that you can be both unqualified, and not even win the election legitimately, and still become President, showing even further that there are many things more important than qualifications if you want to be President.
None what so ever. Of course, there wouldn't be a disadvantage, either. It depends entirely on the candidate.deckart said:I'd be surprised if a woman ever became prez of the US. Not that a woman isn't capable, it would just require a substantial change of social stigmas for both men and women.
Here is a question: What would be the benefits of a woman as opposed to a man becoming prez one day?
Yes, it is possible for a female American President to be elected in the next election. The United States has made significant progress in gender equality and there have been previous female candidates for the presidency.
The chances of either Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice becoming the first female American President are difficult to predict. It ultimately depends on the political climate and each individual's decision to run for office.
No, the United States has not yet had a female President. However, there have been multiple female candidates for the presidency and many women have held high political positions such as Secretary of State and Speaker of the House.
The election of a female American President would have a significant impact on the country. It would break barriers and shatter the glass ceiling for women in politics. It would also bring new perspectives and ideas to the presidency.
A female American President may face challenges such as sexism, gender stereotypes, and media scrutiny. However, it is important to remember that these challenges can be overcome and should not discourage female candidates from running for office.