The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 2, Thread 48.

16. On Gore and women candidates
Tue, Dec 1, 1998 - 9:46 PM/EST
Mary S.

Elizabeth Dole may have a big following. I personally find her a bit too smooth in her little "fireside chats." I've never had a good idea of her political stance, although I suppose she is moderate, capable, etc. Probably wouldn't be a bad president; she just doesn't inspire me personally.

I predict that Al Gore will not be nomianted. But then I've been wrong on almost every prediction on elections I have made. However, people think I'm good at it, because I date them and seal them. After the election, I remind people if I was right and they never remember to ask me if I don't boast about my good picks.

As for other women candidates: Although I have not watched Feinstein on the state or local level, I've never believed she had much potential to run on a national ticket. Hillary Clinton has the right stuff for the job, but I wouldn't expect her to try running on her own for a few years.

I really like the female California representative serving on the House Judiciary Committee. Since she first won a seat in Congress about six years ago, she's shown savvy, rational thinking, and strength. I want to call her Zoe. Help me out, you guys. Maxine Waters is also from California and on the same impeachment committee. I like her, too.

I am not really thrilled about having a woman in office just because of the times and events right now. We need women in office, not because their moral fiber is stronger or anything, but because they offer another perspective to which half of us can better relate. Yuck. I just said something that is not only grammatically incorrect, but sounds like an English teacher said it. Wash my mouth out with soap. And forgive me one and all.

17. I'm not sure I understand
Tue, Dec 1, 1998 - 10:19 PM/EST
eastpeach

Mary:

You said:

"I am not really thrilled about having a woman in office just because of the times and events right now. We need women in office, not because their moral fiber is stronger or anything, but because they offer another perspective to which half of us can better relate."

Skip the grammar lesson (and the soap!) - that seems to be a contradiction. From my perspective, it's exactly because of present events that a female perspective is most needed! That's why I believe some woman would have a legitimate chance.

Make sense?

18.
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 1:31 AM/EST
andi

i'm all in favour of having women in power. you may be in for a nasty surprise though, if you expect them to be more in sinc with you. looking back at the women who "made" it, such as golda meir, benazir bhutto or maggie, i much prefer the softer, more feminine approach of impeccable males such as macmillan, levi eshkol or even our bill. i suspect that much of the changed perspective will lie in whether it's the president inserting cigars or being...

p.s.
just generally speaking, who are you talking about? it's not fair airing your local, tribal and parochially united-statesy preferences in public. i don't even know who to pelt with my rotten eggs.

19. It isn't the first time I haven't made sense
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 2:12 PM/EST
Mary S.

Eastpeach, I don't think it's a contradiction to say that more women in office will give us new perspectives. At the same time, however, I doubt that their moral fiber will be any better or worse than the men in power.

andi, I'm trying very hard to disagree with you, but can't. The women who have headed countries--India, Pakistan, England, Israel--were tough. I think almost every one of them had a conflict or a war on their watch. From what you have written, I get the impression that Golda Meir was not one of your favorites. Why? From my United Statesy advantage, I thought she did really quite well. At least as good as your present prime minister.

andi, are we supposed to be specific on candidates? My nomination for women candidates for high office include Zoe Lofgren, U.S. Rep from California, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. Rep from Washington, D.C.

20. Clarification
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 3:01 PM/EST
eastpeach

Mary S.:

Thanks for your clarification. Either I was reading it wrong the first time, or you said something slightly different the second time. Either way, I understand now what you're saying.

andi: I admit I don't know that much about Meyer or Bhutto, but I am a huge fan of Thatcher. I think her character was different BECAUSE her perspective was different (or, hell, maybe its vice versa *grin*). I loved her backbone and wished I could have seen her in action on Parliament's floor. She had (and I'm sure continues to have) quite the mind, a mouth to boot and was unafraid to use either. Whether or not you liked her policies or politics, at least she stood for and believed in something other than merely the process.

I'm probably slightly naive in this respect, but I want my politicians to stand for something on issues. Clinton has done nothing but waffle - whatever the opinion poll says today, that's what he's for. Will a woman be different? Maybe, maybe not. In this narrow view Mary maybe right. I'm sure there are men out there who stand for something (let the jokes begin!). But the men have had (in this country) a little over 200 years of the floor. Let's at least give a woman the opportunity to fall flat on her face in the highest office. I think Cait touched upon this in an earlier post (women are finally playing big-time politics with the men, if I remember correctly.)

21.
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 3:46 PM/EST
andi

golda meir was a cow. let's see. as pm she was responsible for the israeli unpreparedness in the yom kippur war, but managed wriggle out of it, together with moshe dayan, and laid all the blame on the chief of staff, who was not responsible for not calling up the reserves in time. he wanted to, they didn't let him. apart from that, anybody who can look at two million humans, who see themselves as forming a people, and say, that their people doesn't exist, well, it's hard for me even to think of a word, that would adequately describe her. it was wrong and reprehensible of me to call her a cow. cows are decent creatures.

maggie. not the most feminine woman the good lord ever created. he can be quite malicious at times. you really can't count her. golda meir, in spite of her looks, at least had a lover or two - amazing, isn't it? maggie kept a eunuch; and the only action she ever got was probably on the floor of parliament. genghis khan was a softer touch than her. she had backbone allright, a case of solid ossification from the hip to the top of the head. she needed her leg joints to kick decent peoples' shins and kowtow to that bad joke in buck house. otherwise she'd have been solid from top to bottom.

she came to power because many of the british electorate had grown to love birching at their public schools.(she was strongly in favour of continuing this practice and had quite a few not very kind words for the european court which stopped it.) and now they could indulge their vice in public. i'm not opposed to s&m between consenting adults, but here millions of people were raped and she got away with it for years.

ah, there's nothing like a bit of good invective.

-- Message Begin [Salon: Dialogue Group 2 Thread: 48 PostNum: 912665081] --> 23. no, i simply ran out of air.
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 1:04 AM/EST
andi

i must say i don't feel very strongly about bhutto. whenever i read anything about pakistan and their leaders, i've the feeling, the world would be a much better place if the earth open up underneath that country and the whole caboodle fell in.

now this is for mary: the only thing bhutto has that makes her slightly more attractive than her opponents, are her looks. and i still think kennedy had better taste in women than our bill.

and this for denise:
at least she stood for and believed in something other than merely the process.
so did hitler and tyrannosaurus rex. not a very good reason for admiring anybody, is it? (not a rhetorical question, this)

24. Too bad about the air over there
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 3:11 PM/EST
eastpeach

andi:

You know, maybe it's the cultural differences between us - I try to listen to what you say, but your sarcasm, hyperbole, whatever you wish to call it, just keeps getting in the way. What is it, andi? Why are you so darn cynical? What is it about everyone and everything that you wish the earth would swallow? To put Hitler, Thatcher and a dinosaur in the same sentence may be your version of a fun play on words and ideas, but it's just so much static to me that I'm having a hard time cutting through and I'm just kinda tired by it all. I'm also more than willing to admit that this one-dimensional medium doesn't help one little iota.

I don't mind working, but I would appreciate your talking to me with respect, not at with cyncism.

25. A P.S. to Air
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 3:19 PM/EST
eastpeach

andi:

And now that I have read your DUI post, can I assume you don't actually have any conviction in the things you're writing here, you're just merely trying to start an argument or take a contrary view?

26. re sarcasm
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 5:12 PM/EST
andi

i'm sorry you see it this way. sarcasm is out to hurt people. i hope i've never done that. and as to cynicism, i think i believe more in the basic goodness of human beings than most. i poke fun at things, i poke fun at myself and quite often at other people. and just because i like playing with words and ideas doesn't mean i don't believe in the things i write.
one dimensional writing is not very interesting, as you yourself noticed. that's where associations come in. they evoke feelings, not always nice ones, but they are what life is about. if i don't want any feelings i solve quadratical equations.
if i hadn't respected you, i wouldn't have talked to you. but sometimes your argumentation was sloppy to say the least. being a fan of somebody just because "at least he stands for something", anything really in this context, is in extremely bad taste. you can justify anything with an argument like this - hence t. rex and adolf. it was beneath you.
on the other hand your little digs at me were very enjoyable.

27. Re: Sarcasm
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 5:33 PM/EST
eastpeach

andi:

I've never written "at least he stands for something" in this thread, or any other, for that matter, so I'm not sure what extremely bad taste on my part you are referring. I did say I wanted my politicians to stand for something on issues. I was also inferring in that statement (maybe I should have been explicit) that their stances should be what I believe in as well. It wasn't "bad taste" or "justifying anything" - it was merely lousy typing on my part.

You may like feeling the pain of the dig - that's your perogative. I prefer the whole range of emotions - which you have not inspired in me. At least in this forum, we will disagree on things, including when I was "digging you" and what is or isn't "beneath me."

I wish you well.