Can someone please explain to me why it is okay for women to vote for a woman just because she is a woman? Beside the obvious sexism involved, isn't symbolism a completely stupid reason to pick the leader of the free world?

If the election were to come down to, say, Hillary and Huckabee, and men were asked who they were voting for and answered "Huckabee, because he is a man", the XX-factor bloggers would be appalled. What's the difference?

There is just tremendous intellectual dishonesty and hypocracy involved in gender politics.

By-the-way, Hillary felt safe to belittle women by saying they were "scared" of the Caucus process. If women truly made the difference in Iowa, what does she have to say now?

leader of the free world? really?

the argument could be made that the president of the united states is more a symbol of the free world than a leader of it, in which case there's no compelling reason not to invoke the symbolism of a powerful and intelligent woman.

The title I used is often used isn't it? I didn't invent it. I actually think it's silly US-centric BS, but I was exaggerating for effect. The President is the leader of the most powerful, richest group of 300 million people on Earth. That is still a fairly important job. I'm perfectly willing to have a woman in that position, but not simply because she is a woman. That really is just stupid. Oh yes, and sexist.

I think the uniqueness of having a woman who actually has a chance of winning makes women look hard at Hillary and perhaps ONE reason for voting for her is because she is female. It is a giddy feeling that we have a chance to break the highest glass ceiling. Having said that, most women I know also look at the qualifications and experience that the candidate can bring to the job. Most of us can and do think. We are not as shallow as you make us out to be.

I'm not saying women are shallow at all, but the polls don't lie. Women support Hillary in far higher numbers than men. How do you explain that? Iowa aside (where religion, I'm sure, is far more important than gender) is not representative if the national polls are to be believed.

polls, schmolls. none of them truly differentiate between the women who are supporting her just because she's a woman and the men who refuse to support her just because she's a woman.

if hillary were only as qualified as say, tom cruise, then voting for her just because she's a woman would be stupid. in reality, all the democrats in the race are approximately equally qualified and have approximately equal stands on the important issues, so choosing a minority candidate just because they're a minority isn't entirely invalid in this case.

[no, women are not a minority in the population as a whole, but they are a minority in politics]

so what do you think of the men who wouldn't vote for her just because she is a woman?

look, why they deny it, i don't know,,,but MANY females will vote for mrs. clinton PRECISELY because of her gender and at the same time deny they do...like many blacks will vote for obama because of his race....yet continue to deny it....

yes, these scenarios are both viewed as benign discrimination by those who engage in them...if they are viewed as discrimination at all.

The argument put forth by hippo and Granny is that as long as the candidate is qualified then it's okay to discriminate. Of course, if a guy felt Hillary and Obama were both qualified, but just feels more comfortable with a male president then he would be immediately attacked (and rightly so in my view) as sexist. This is not wife-beating misogyny, but it is discrimination nonetheless. This would be obvious to hippo and Granny, but somehow the reverse is cool with them.

The explanation will be some BS about how all white men are born into a special class that is advantaged from the start, so they have an excuse for being sexist. Sorry. They don't.

Kuruman----would you rather we vote for someone like Obama that clearly has no experience and runs around the corner everytime he is asked about what changes he has made in the past and present? Hillary ran down a long long list of changes she has made in the past and in the present.

Woman are not voting for Hillary because she is a woman. She has earned her votes based on the fact that she can and has made changes and she will continue to make more changes as president. Look how many women there is out there that are being sucked into the "Obama charm". He sings a lot of hoopla about the changes he wants to make but he NEVER talks about the changes he has made in the past and present. Bush ran his platform with the same charm, but put a country twist on it, and the same people that are falling for the Obama charm fell for the Bush charm. We can all see now where that got us!!!

Im sure there are just as many men out there sucked into the "Obama charm" and don't question this simple fact: How can Obama make changes as a president when he has no record of making changes in the past or present?

the same can be said of bills wife....she has experience, but has not accoplished much during her tenure as senator....

Sly.

I don't think you really understand what I'm writing about. I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm not a supporter of anyone in particular at the moment. I'm just discussing the candidates with respect to gender, race and other things that interest me.

Many women, by-the-way, clearly do support Hillary for no other reason than her ovaries. This is not to say she isn't qualified to be President. She is qualified, whatever than means. But there is just no other explanation for why women support her in much greater numbers than men do.

there is ONE and ONE reason only why there is discrepancy, because females will vote for another female...to try and say its something else is disingenuous, but most who do will never admit it.....

Sly: As a State Senator in Illinois , Obama led a bipartisan effort to implement Ethics reform. Not much really but an example of a change.

Now you lecture me and tell me what changes, if any, JFK made prior to becoming President.

You can also enlighten me as to what changes HRC made from 1992 to 2000 that weren't actually her husband's doings.

I can think of one "change" HRC made as NY Sen.: By voting FOR the authorization of war with Iraq, HRC "changed" the world's perception of this Nation as a force for good. This was her most important decision as a politician and she blew it. You go girl!