This is a sad reason (because she's female) to vote for our next president. It certainly shows how stupid and naive some people are.

Women in this country should tread carefully when considering a Hillary Clinton nomination as a victory for American feminism. American women must consider Clinton's route to her position as Senator of New York and front-runner for the Democratic nomination. After all, would she have reached such positions without her two terms as First Lady? A Clinton nomination would only underline the dependence of women on men in the United States.

Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President However , since she is so good at saying what she thinks you want to hear and/or without committing an actual response to a question that is actually a no response answer, I am concerned about her abilities as President. If she surrounds herself with good people then you have the best of both worlds.

This poll points to a very sad fact: that our electorate continues to fail itself in selecting the best candidate for the job. Choosing to vote for a candidate due to their gender or skin color is an unintelligent a decision as one could make; no smarter than electing someone who is better looking than the opposition.

For the sake of our future (which looks awful dim at the moment), American voters need to become better informed on the stances and opinions of the candidates, spending our time analyzing their vision for the nation and what they hope to accomplish, if elected.

Stop looking at them and start listening!

Groups of similar individuals voting in similar patterns. Is this really a surprise to anyone besides the politicians that regularly court "women voters", "latino voter", "middle-class voters", or any group of voters that are suckers enough to vote en masse like lemmings?

Hillary Clinton is the republican choice for democratic nominee. The same thing happened with John Kerry. The republicans want her so bad they can taste it. Just look at these comments so far. Where is the Clinton support? On talk shows, or commentary I have not seen support for Mrs. Clinton among democrats. She is too pro-establishment. Democrats will not turn out for her because of her vote on Iraq and Iran. Most consider her too controversial and beatable in the national election.

Media are members of the same self absorbed right wing conservative priviledged class and they are the ones shouting from the roof top that Clinton is the front runner, hoping to get the lemming all running over the edge just like they did Kerry. This tactic is getting old and hopefully this time, pointless.

The other candidates are making a mistake not campaigning in states who wish to hold their primary early. The people are trying their best to gain power, democrats should support their effort.

The Clintons in the White House again would be a disaster for this country. Please think several times before voting for a CLINTON.BILL IS BOUND TO RUB OFF. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NAFTA. HE IS THE REASON WE PRESS ONE FOR ENGLISH!
Not to mention the disgraceful Lewinsky scandal. We would have to be crazy. Where is our dignity in putting them back in the White House?

The Clintons in the White House again would be a disaster for this country. Please think several times before voting for a CLINTON.BILL IS BOUND TO RUB OFF. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NAFTA. HE IS THE REASON WE PRESS ONE FOR ENGLISH!
Not to mention the disgraceful Lewinsky scandal. We would have to be crazy. Where is our dignity in putting them back in the White House?

Chance you are absolutely right!! People have such short memories!! There were more women than we can count on one hand fooling around with Bill but that's nothing compared to all his other failures!! They are a couple of scoundrels,
so power hungry and money hungry. There
isn't anything they would do for power!!
They had nothing before he got into politics and now they are worth millions!!
As one of their former producer friends in
Hollywood said recently, all politicians
lie but the Clinton's do it so effortlessly!!
I'd like to see a women in the White House one day, but I would never vote for Hillary if she were the only candidate on the ballot!!

One vocabulary usage note:

Let's call women, 'women', not 'females'. 'Females' is not exclusive to humans. Let's use it only as a modifier - the 'female voters say..." not as a noun.

I think its stupid to vote for her just because she is a woman. Just like its stupid to NOT vote for her because she is ugly! (giggle that always makes me laugh). But the people that really care about the country vote for her not because she is a woman but because they believe that she will better the country.

I can see why certain white men may find it stupid to vote for a female candidate based on gender.

But please remember, you have ALWAYS had the opportunity to vote for someone like you. It would be easy to "focus on the issues only", which I am sure you all do, when the candidates always look like you do. For the first time, people other than white men have candidates who may more closely resemble themselves.

This is a good thing, and if people want to vote based on this, who are you to suggest that this is a bad way to select a leader.

I'm still waiting to run across all these female Clinton supporters. Out of about 4 dozen people (all Dems; spread across the Midwest, Southwest and Northern California; diverse), I know five Clinton supporters - only one is a woman. What these five all have in common: They're supporting her because they want Bill Clinton back in the White House.

Most striking: the most virulent in opposing are ALL women.

Bottom line? We can't trust her. The woman refuses to take a clear stand on anything.

Personally, I do not doubt her intelligence nor her abilities. What I do believe is that, despite good intentions, her ultimate priority is Clintonian power and how to hold onto it. That will always supersede the will of the people.

Senator Clinton is not qualified to lead this country. As a woman, I would love to see a woman someday serve this country as President of the United States, but I would like this woman to be qualified,and capable of leading this country in every way. What has she really done for the state of New York? What qualifications does she have to serve this country both as a representative to the other countries of the world or as the Commander and Chief of our armed services. Bottom line is she is an educated, intelligent woman who may someday be a great politician, but that time is not now. I beg the women of this country to consider one thing; if you want to have a woman in the White House, and that woman is not qualified and she causes more harm than good than we will never again see another woman in the White House. Better to wait and vote for a qualified candidate that will serve all Americans well than to vote a woman in just to get one in the White House and see it blow up in all of our faces. Please take a look at her lack of qualifications and consider backing a candidate who has years of experience in political matters, as well as experience in military and other government operations, so we have a President who will truly meet the needs of the American people.

I doubt that intelligent voters would only vote for Hillary because she was a woman. By that logic, we would vote for *any* woman, wouldn't we? Whether that woman was Hillary, or Condi, or Elizabeth Dole wouldn't matter.

Instead, I think most who voters factor such qualities into their choice for candidate will factor in *many other qualities* that are *also* important. "Hillary Clinton would be the first woman AND she is pro-choice, etc." or "Barack Obama would be the first African American president AND he will get us out of Iraq, etc." It is not the only reason, and anyone who tries to call voters "stupid" or "naive" who would factor this into our support for a candidate isn't giving us enough credit.

I, personally, am tired of white male candidate after white male candidate after white male candidate for the past 250 years. White males are not representative of who actually lives in our beautiful country, but rather who has been privileged enough (and why can't we admit that race privilege and gender privilege and class privilege are factors?) to been able to be successfully elected.

I will support Barack Obama in the primaries, as his beliefs most closely mirror my own, but if Hillary wins the primaries, I will happily support her.

I'm a female business owner and i have no intentions of voting for this woman for president !!

One word - Intriguing....

What do you believe is driving Hillary Clinton's huge lead of 21- points over her rival Barack Obama? -----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=709

.

These numbers are amusing when you consider that Bill Clinton got 65 percent of the female vote...basically the reason he was elected.

Hillary can't even get that much.

I don't think it is right that many people are just voting for Clinton because it is a chance to make history and have the first female presisdent. What about Obama, history would be made if he were elected also. Maybe she is the candidate most likely to win in 2008, but I think that alone should be the factor determining her election, not her gender.

Should Clinton or Obama win the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will win the Presidency because the good ol' USofA is still too bigoted to let just anybody win, no matter how deserving.

Everyone who says the Repugs want yern for a Hillary nomination is absolutely right - they are salivating for it. I will personally vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, however, should Hillary get the nod, Guiliani beats her to a pulp with her own baggage (i.e., Bill; special-interest establiment representative; and/or a woman... plenty of lightning rod issues for conservatives, progressives and bigots alike to vote against).

As for Obama, if he actually can win the nomination, too many people will turn away from him at the last minute based on the pretext of "inexperience" but, sadly, it will be heavilly race motivated. Too many white males (and women) are afraid to share powner. (I've rejected invitations into their "white uppercrust" club and had to work with these people in one way or another my entire life. I am progressive white male Democrat in my mid-40's from a middle class family of educators. I played competitive sports throughout my life, own my own successful businesses, have lived in Europe (Spain, Germany and England for 3+ years) and have travelled extensively throughout Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America, studying people and their social, economic and political systems... here in the US, the white-dominated rich class is losing it's hegemony - they can feel their power eroding and don't like it one bit. Time's are a changing, even if the rich can't put their finger on exactly what's happening... yet the rich DO NOT want to share power, let along let go of it to Women and/or Racial Minorities that won't perpetuate their privileged spot on at the top of the food chain.

We badly need a Democrat in the Oval Office with a Democratic Congress to overturn some of the insanity that has decimated our middle class and the values of equal opportunity and protection with the true integrity to which America has always aspired, if not stood. Edwards would be the best choice by far. Exceptionally articulate, competent, knowledgeable and capable of actually inspiring people to reach for our highest ideals and work to rebuild our lost middle class. He has lead before and can likely win some of the Southern states. None of the others can... Hillary and Obama are "red meat" for the vicious Repugs.

Should Clinton or Obama win the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will win the Presidency because the good ol' USofA is still too bigoted to let just anybody win, no matter how deserving.

Everyone who says the Repugs want yern for a Hillary nomination is absolutely right - they are salivating for it. I will personally vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, however, should Hillary get the nod, Guiliani beats her to a pulp with her own baggage (i.e., Bill; special-interest establiment representative; and/or a woman... plenty of lightning rod issues for conservatives, progressives and bigots alike to vote against).

As for Obama, if he actually can win the nomination, too many people will turn away from him at the last minute based on the pretext of "inexperience" but, sadly, it will be heavilly race motivated. Too many white males (and women) are afraid to share powner. (I've rejected invitations into their "white uppercrust" club and had to work with these people in one way or another my entire life. I am progressive white male Democrat in my mid-40's from a middle class family of educators. I played competitive sports throughout my life, own my own successful businesses, have lived in Europe (Spain, Germany and England for 3+ years) and have travelled extensively throughout Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America, studying people and their social, economic and political systems... here in the US, the white-dominated rich class is losing it's hegemony - they can feel their power eroding and don't like it one bit. Time's are a changing, even if the rich can't put their finger on exactly what's happening... yet the rich DO NOT want to share power, let along let go of it to Women and/or Racial Minorities that won't perpetuate their privileged spot on at the top of the food chain.

We badly need a Democrat in the Oval Office with a Democratic Congress to overturn some of the insanity that has decimated our middle class and the values of equal opportunity and protection with the true integrity to which America has always aspired, if not stood.

Edwards would be the best choice by far. Exceptionally articulate, competent, knowledgeable and capable of actually inspiring people to reach for our highest ideals and work to rebuild our lost middle class. He has lead before and can likely win some of the Southern states. None of the others can... Hillary and Obama are "red meat" for the vicious Repugs.