> MP>Similar to 2016 with the Democrats.  Hillary's family was not in charge of
>   >the DNC pursestrings, but the person who was pretty much gave Hillary
>   >control of the $$$ as a condition to get her to run.

> MP>The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced him
>   >with someone the party chose.  It didn't go well for them.

> That one was a bit odd. Hillary was 'famous' after being first lady but
> seemed to be unpopular, even among women voters.. plus it's hard to say
> if the USA was ready for a female President. Perhaps most would argue
> they are but I wonder if that would work out at the voting polls...

> She did get lots of votes but I suspect it was more voting for the
> Party rather than for the person.

She is "infamous" to many.  

There are several reasons she could be unpopular, IMHO, and none of them
are because she is female.  Most of them revolve around her being a
non-geniune and dishonest person.

> Right or wrong I think Canada might be more likely to elect a woman
> for Prime Minister but we'd never really know until one runs seriously.

> We did briefly have a woman Prime Minister (Kim Campbell) for a few
> months in 1993, but she was only in power because the elected Prime
> Minister resigned and she took over until the next election, and then
> she lost in one of the worst Party defeats in history...

There is a woman in Canadian politics now... can't remember her name, but
some tried to get her to run this time... that I think would make a great
leader.  She holds some high position in the federal government.

There are women in this country that I think could also make great
Presidents.  They seem smart enough not to run, though.  The parties, and
the Democrats in particular, seem to weed out anyone who is sensible
sounding very early in the primary season.


 * SLMR 2.1a * Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)