I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I won't vote for Hillary...for reasons related to her being a woman.

It is completely unfair to her but I will not support for president any person married to a former president. I think it is a very bad idea to bring presidents, even in such a capacity as Bill will have, back to the White House.

This is horribly unfair to her, but that is simply the way I feel about the principal of it. As for her actual policies, I find myself surprisingly amenable to the idea of her presidency. But the "former president back at the White House" thing is a deal breaker for me.

That's related to being a woman, but not unfairly so, in that you would presumably have the same policy were the roles reversed.

Yes, but at the moment (and for at least 11 more years) it is a bias that that can only impact women.

By generally accepted usage, a policy that specifically harms the poor (in this country) is seen as racist so I'd say my personal eligibility requirement is sexist.

Oh, and see, that's the clincher for me.


And I'm sure for a great many others who, at this point in time, look back wistfully on the Clinton presidency as a comparative paradise of bliss.

I don't see this as sexist, it's merely unfortunate in your opinion that Hillary is married to Bill. If, let's hypothesize, she divorced him after the whole Monica thing, (1) would she likely be in the Senate today and (2) gunning for the democratic nomination, would you vote for her then?

I most certainly do.

and since this is my forth post in this thread, I need to get outta here! :blush:

This is why I've never voted for Steve Ford, Chip Carter or any other son of a former president.

You sexist, Strangler. You didn't even mention Amy Carter. Would you vote for a daughter of a former President or are they not even worthy of mention?;)

Yes, Clinton was a much better president than George Bush. But it is still a horrible idea, in my opinion, to put a former president that close to the office again.

There were a lot of people 8 years ago who derided the idea of a hereditary presidency but they seem to be quiet this time around. I was uncomfortable with it but viewed it as a historical curiosity, but doing it two times in a row begins to feel more like a trend and at least with the Bushes the former president wasn't wandering the halls (and there were 25 years between the Adams administrations and the first was dead for most of the second's; and 48 between the Harrisons and the first could barely be said to have been president).

Snowflake: Yes, I'd be more likely to vote for her then. But I'm not saying it is directly sexist any more than a policy of sterilizing any person sent to prison would be directly racist. It is, however, a discriminatory viewpoint that at this point in time can impact only women. In 9 years (not 11 like I said the first time) maybe the first man will be on that list.

That said, it is not a piece of sexism that particularly bothers me.

I miss Newt too;)