How long, in your opinion, will it be before a woman is finally elected President of the United States?

Within the next 20 years.

I truly believe that we can have a female president as early as the next election if there was a worthy and competent and inspiring enough candidate. And I would be happy about it because it’s about time.

Why do you think ”their nation is better for it”?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I could see that happening too, perhaps there haven’t been many worthy or competent candidates in the past to choose from.

@jfos I don’t necessarily think that, but I was just pointing out that their country wouldn’t be worse off than if a male leader was in power. I’m not implying that one is better than the other.

I think it definitely will happen within the next 20 years. We have a black president now so it’s clear the role of president is being more diversified

Indifferent – The person that wins the President seat will always be a crooked scumbag, regardless of sex; you just can’t make it that high up the ladder if you aren’t.

@HTDC well long ago women weren’t qualified simply because they weren’t allowed to go into politics and the such in order to learn the necessary skills but they were always inherently just as qualified, you know?

I’d be proud. Not because we’d both have vaginas, but I’d be proud that I’m in a country with citizens who would elect a woman. Unless that woman was Palin. Then I’d be ashamed.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yeah, I think their capabilities and talents weren’t allowed to flourish in those areas unfortunately.

I’d be pretty shocked if it didn’t happen within the next 4 or 5 elections. This past election, we had a female in the 2nd spot on the Republican ticket, and we came darn close to having a female in the top spot of the Democratic ticket.

@HTDC Hillary Clinton was and is a worthy and competent candidate. imo ;) I voted for her in the primaries.

@Jeremycw1 I agree. Obama’s election has certainly allowed or opened the door for future Presidents who stray from the traditional white male.

This past election had Clinton running and Sarah Palin made a huge impact so I don’t think it’s far off but we elect a woman just for the sake of electing a woman that could be a disastrous decision. Presidents should be elected by virtue of ability not of misguided senses of political correctness. There was a big stink after Clinton dropped out in favor of Obama. There were women so angry that Hillary dropped out that they started calling her “traitor” and voted for McCain while giving the finger to the democrats the whole time. This is not helpful to the cause of democracy.

I think in the next three or four elections.

I’m sure that when a good one runs for the presidency, then she will be elected. At least in moderately sized towns to big
cities I’d like to think that gender and race are no longer really an issue or hot topic. I have family in the country and know from experience it still seems to be a huge controversy to some people, young and old.

@Captain_Fantasy You make some good points. Especially about electing a woman for the sake of it. If a woman is elected and doesn’t live up to the role of President competently, it could discourage voters from electing another woman in the future. People would rather be safe than sorry, I guess you could say Obama’s in the same sort of position.

Before I’m dead, but I’ll be old. I think it’ll be within the next 50 years.

If the first woman, Hollywood director, receiving an Oscar is considered an historic event (as all the news channels are calling it), then we’re no where close to electing a woman president. We haven’t even had a woman vice-president yet. So in tribute to Suzanne Sugarbaker ~ her words on men keeping control of high places:
“In general it has been the men who have done the raping and the robbing and the killing and the war-mongering for the last two thousand years, and it’s been the men who have done the pillaging and the beheading and the subjegating of whole races into slavery. It has been the men who have done the law making and the money making and the most of the mischief making! So if the world isn’t quite what you had in mind you have only yourselves to thank!”

To be direct, I don’t think this sort of thinking is helpful.
There should be nothing keeping women from running for office but so long as we focus on questions like when is a woman/latino/muslim/gay person going to be elected President, we’re only focusing on categories and not the ability to do the job.
I think Obama was our best choice during the last election not because he is black, but because he brought better ideas to the table than McCain. He just happens to be a black man.

I just wonder, in other countries considered less progressive like India or Haiti for example, they have elected a female leader before, so what is it about America supposedly at the forefront of…well everything, that makes them lag behind these countries?

@Captain_Fantasy makes a good point, race, sex, or ethnicity should be completely overlooked when selecting a president. Who ever is the best qualified should be elected.

Oh I completely agree, but I don’t think all the Presidents elected in American history were the best qualified. There were women who could have been much more qualified, yet they have never been elected President or even Vice-President. So it must have something to do with the fact they are female.

@HTDC Your last sentence doesn’t logically follow from your second-to-last. If it did, then it would also logically follow that every president we have had has been the best qualified male available. I don’t believe that for an instant.

There are many many reasons the best qualified person might not get the job. (The most obvious one to me is money). To assert that it must be because of their gender is a logical fallacy.

@MrItty Not completely sure I get what you mean in your first paragraph. I’m not down with the whole logic thing sometimes. ;)

“To assert that it must be because of their gender is a logical fallacy.”

I understand that, but it could be a reason.

@HTDC yes, agreed. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say it’s likely related to the gender. You, however, said “it must have something to do with the fact that they are female”.

maybe I’m just being pedantic. It’s been known to happen.

@MrItty You’re right, I was a bit too quick to say it must have something to do with that. It just seemed like an obvious reason, although not always the correct one.

Clinton could do it in 2016 depending upon how catastrophic the interregnum of the Tea Party is.

Women: Know Your Limits!

Unfortunately, although it would signify the breaking of the glass ceiling for women in American society and politics, I don’t think it will do much for our country in general. It seems to me that whoever is there and has been there for the last 8 years before is somewhat hamstrung with their presidential powers, and that the movers and shakers of the country also control the world.

It could have happened last year. Had Obama not run, Hillary would have been elected.