I’m interested in what others think about Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming our next president. Do you think Americans will vote for a woman? Would they vote for any woman other than Hillary? What do you suppose she has in her favor or against?
While I think it’d be great to have a female as President, I don’t think it’ll happen for a while. And I personally can’t stand Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she’ll get the nomination for the Democrats… my money’s on Obama. I think people who aren’t happy with Bush are looking for fresh, new blood. Not another Clinton. And I think there will be a black President before there’s a woman President.
But you know… I think Condie Rice would make a good President.
I concur. I would definitely vote for a woman if she were the best candidate. I truly don’t believe that Hilary would be good for our nation. Since she’s the only woman (in a major party) currently up for nomination, I’m thinking there won’t be a woman president this time around.
I know I’m probably very much in the minority here, but I don’t think we should have a woman president. I don’t care how “qualified” she is. I truly believe that God called men to be the leaders of our nations; period. The leaders of our homes, churches, etc. Don’t think that’s an opinion I’ll be changing anytime soon either.
As for Hilary, I wouldn’t let her watch my dog, much less run my country! What a crock! Our military wouldn’t stand a chance on anything and since we’re a military family, we’d be in big trouble. My husband would have to resign because he would never serve under her as CINC of anything.
I’m not necessarily pot stirring over here, (especially since I’m already doing enough of that over on the other thread), but Beth, I’m very curious what has lead you to that conviction. Specifically that “God called men to be the leaders of our nations; period. The leaders of our homes, churches, etc.” I’m not trying to change your mind, I just figure that a conviction that strong has to have a foundation of some kind.
As for myself - female president? Sure. Why not. Hillary? I don’t know, maybe? One’s pretty much the same as the next as far as I’m concerned. I may like others better than her, (and I do), but ultimately I don’t see it mattering much. No president is going to wreck the country and no president is going to save it either regardless of gender. I’m afraid I just don’t think politicians have the answers to the real problems in the world. So, a woman president? Sure. Will Americans vote for a woman? Absolutely. Can Hillary win? Of course she can. Will she? Who knows.
So, many of you think that a woman president is a possibility and not opposed to it, just opposed to Hillary.
I think I’m going to come out of my voting fast. I haven’t voted in the last few elections, mostly because I was just, well, disillusioned. Probably, though, really, the reason was because I have a horrible time making decisions. And in each election you must choose what is most important to you, as no candidate can possibly stand for everything you do. Anyway, I think this presidential election, in particular the democratic bids for nominee will be most interesting since there is a woman running, and also an African American. In a way it’s kind of exciting.
I think the best thing Hillary has going for her is that people loved her husband. And they loved the way they felt while he was president. People generally feel good about that era, and so I think they naturally associate that with her.
Anyway, it’s interesting to see what people are thinking about it. The polls among registered Democrats have her way ahead of the pack.
Hillary and Nancy Pelosi, regardless of their views/politics, (for the most part I disagree with them) seem to be considered as representing their constituents well. And Nancy seemed to get some things going in her first few days in office. In other words she was effective.
In 2006 I was trying to recall something that our congress accomplished, pretty tough, although after a few min I came up with a few things. Is this the way it should be?
Most often I get the idea that our elected officials believe that it’s their job to just spend money.
Basically my belief on the women in leadership roles stems from Bible study, parental influence, church influence, a lot of soul searching and prayer.
Go back to Genesis. While God clearly created Eve to be a helpmate to Adam and not to be a slave to him, etc. the family unit and the leadership of the husband or the man was defined by God, not by me. Adam was created first. He was given the job of naming all the animals, etc. He was given deminion over them. Afterward, God created Eve to be his mate because there was no suitable mate in all the kingdom thus far. Many say that Eve was the one responsible for sins’ introduction into this world and that’s why women are not qualified, etc. Some say that Adam could’ve resisted her when she offered him the forbidden fruit, etc. Whatever the debate there, it’s important to understand WHEN Eve was tempted by satan. She was AWAY from Adam when she was tempted. She was alone and vunerable. I’m NOT saying in anyway that women aren’t capable of acting prudently, wisely, etc. Of course we are! We are different than men, not less than men. Think for a moment though about how the outcome may have differed if they’d been together. It may have happened to Adam too, but it didn’t. Interesting how satan chose to tempt Eve, not Adam, and he waited until she was alone; away from her husband to do so.
However, if men are not designed and called by God to be the leaders, why is then that they are largely wired that way? Built stronger, etc. While God certainly used many women in the Bible to do wonderful things and hold very important places in history and in the outcomes of many things, I don’t see any women in TRUE leadership roles. Yes, they took the lead at times, quite effectively. Taking the lead or being in a leadership role for a specific time for a specific purpose is different to me at least than being designed and intended to lead as a gender.
God is always referred to in the masculine in Scripture. He is our Heavenly Father (not mother). He is the ultimate leader of course of all Christians (and everyone else even though they don’t realize/admit it yet). Christ was a man while here on earth. Not a woman. God sending his firstborn SON to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins speaks mightily to the leadership role and ultimate responsibility men are created for. Old Testament laws specified that male animals were to be used in sacrifice to God. Men were in the positions of leadership, not only because of the culture, but by God’s design. The Holy Spirit is also referred to only in the masculine. Of course the Trinity would all be masculine, they are afterall, three in one.
When women assume these roles, I really believe that they ursurp God’s authority and their intended design. That doesn’t mean that a woman can’t be the head of her single-parent home, can’t be the spiritual leader of her home if her husband is not a believer or is a very new Christian or again, isn’t present for whatever reason. She should be encouraging him to take on this role as soon as he’s spiritually capable.
Our acceptance of women in true leadership roles, goes against what I think is God’s true design. Of course it wouldn’t be the only area we humans have managed to screw up, but it is something we can do something about if we set about it in the right way, with the right mindset and God’s lead and direction.
God is always referred to in the masculine in Scripture.
Actually, no. What about God as a mother hen? Or as Wisdom (always referred to as feminine)? God is without gender, so while the Scriptures frequently employ masculine language to refer to God, it also uses feminine.
For the most part, I’ll leave Adam and Eve alone because we won’t find much common ground in how we interpret that story, but I will say that Eve’s proximity to Adam has no bearing whatsoever on the story no matter how you interpret it. How is Eve culpable by being away? Where is the command that they stay side-by-side? And where did she go? How did Adam not notice her absence? That’s all so not the point. The point is that we’re all equally guilty and all separated from God by our sin.
But to say that men are wired for leadership is a completely false argument. Many men are not wired at all for leadership and many women are wired so. But society has been long biased towards masculine leadership which becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Tell a boy he’s wired for leadership and he’ll start to step up. Tell a girl she’s not and she’s not likely to try to lead. Leadership is every bit as much conditioning and culture as it is biology.
And I fail to see how Deborah is not in a true leadership role.
Also, aren’t all leaders “in a leadership role for a specific time for a specific purpose?” Isn’t that true of every leader that God called? How is that an argument against women in leadership if they are called for a specific time and a specific purpose? And speaking of this particular debate, how would serving as President of the United States not be a leadership role for a specific time for a specific purpose?
And actually, Stephen is right, God is referred to in the feminine. God is also referred to in the plural. The spirit of God in the OT is always feminine. And in the NT, the Spirit is neuter. Those are actually beside the point though. The description of God as Father and Christ as Son are relational descriptors to aid our comprehension and not relational realities. An orthodox interpretation of the Trinity precludes attributing actual human gender to any part of God except for saying that while Jesus was on Earth he was a man. But that’s hardly an argument in favor of men being a dominant and leading gender. It is also more a cultural description than anything. After all, Paul said in Galatians that in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male and female; for all of [us] are one in Christ Jesus.
All I know about Hillary Clinton is that she’s short and scary lookin’ No joke. Would I vote for her for president? No. I’m not opposed to a woman being a president I just prefer guys to do the job. Women...we’re sporadic. Seriously think about it ladies put yourself in the shoes of the President. One day you’re PMSing really really badly and what happens? Half your cabinet is FIRED and the middle east is now nuked till they glow. Not to mention guys seem to be able to take things in better stride than us.
Many, many female Democrats I know are telling me they don’t want Hillary nominated--not because she’s a woman but because of her personality and stance on issues.
Stephen @ Rebelling Against Indifference - 24 January 2007 12:50 AM
Grovesfan - 23 January 2007 08:39 PM
God is always referred to in the masculine in Scripture.
Actually, no. What about God as a mother hen? Or as Wisdom (always referred to as feminine)? God is without gender, so while the Scriptures frequently employ masculine language to refer to God, it also uses feminine.
“Whatever the debate there, it’s important to understand WHEN Eve was tempted by satan. She was AWAY from Adam when she was tempted. She was alone and vunerable.”
I’ve heard a message preached on Genesis 3:6 “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate it.” NIV (emphasis added) The pastor took that phrase “who was with her” back to the greek text and the word used there implied a physical closeness. The pastor continued with a message of a by-standing/passive males...of course i’m not quite a biblical scholar and my greek isn’t so great (or was it hebrew...blast my memory!) so I can’t confirm the ancient language part, but I interpret that Adam and Eve were together and together they fell. It’d be interested in you’re interpretation-my intentions aren’t to challenge your convictions but to shed light on a different perspective
thanks
marcus
I’m astonished that Hillary has gone as far as she has in politics. Nancy would know better than any of us, but my perception of politicians is that they rise due in large part to their charisma. Bill Clinton, George W., Billy Carter - all these guys had charisma, or at the very least a warmth and humanity to them. One or the other and sometimes both. Or at least that’s how I perceive them. There’s something likable about their personality that makes me listen to their views.
When I hear Hillary speak I believe instantly that she’s smart and capable, whether I agree with her ideas or not. What I don’t believe is that she cares, that she’s a good hang, that she’s warm and compassionate. I don’t believe that from her speech. She probably is all those things, but it doesn’t come across in her speech. Same was true of Bob Dole, is true of Dick Cheney, and definitely true of Al Gore and Kerry. Great men? Probably. Great ideas? I don’t know. But likable three-dimensional people? Not from what their publicists let us see.
That, to me, is a bigger problem for Hillary than her ovaries.
