With the 2016 Presidential Elections coming up Hillary Clinton has decided to run for president and so has Donald Trump. But in all of the years the United States has been a country there has never been a woman for President obviously. The first president was elected in 1789 being George Washington, thats 226 years of men leading the United States and not giving a women a chance. So what does that say about us ? Are we really against women leading our country? Many other countries in their time of existing have had many woman for rulers whether its as a queen or a prime minister Norway , Britain, Lithuania ect. have all been rules by females. But why not us? When will the time for a female to lead the United States come? In my opinion the time is now. Hillary Clinton is certified beyond reason, she has experience , she is offering the right things and thinking about everyone and what is best for them. Hillary Clinton has been a first lady from 1993-2001 when her husband Bill Clinton was president. She was also the Senator of New York in 2000 and the Secretary of State for Obama. Unlike trump who has no political experience he is known for being real estate developer and business author. Although Hillary has had all this experience she is constantly being compared to her husband. And being told that if it wasn't for the fact that she was a women she would not have a political career, why is it that she is always compared to a male and being told that “ just because she is a women she has votes “ in a way she is being told that she may have sympathy votes. It is written that she has traveled to 112 countries , attended 306 diplomatic meetings and has spend 87 full days in airplanes. Thats more than anyone in a government has spend and cared about, she is the type of person that cares about the world and about the people she is the type of person that actually listens to the public and what we want. what she offers to us is affordable health care, raise the minimum wage, she believes in equal rights, global warming and the biggest is illegal immigrants getting there citizenship if they qualify. So what are the great things that she offers. why should we pay a lot of money to go to the dentist, the hospital or doctor? if it where for us we wouldn't but in the time of need when we have to we are always in debt from it or left broke from paying all of the bills. Global warming for many years its been a joke for a while when in all honesty we are killing the planet we live in more and more each day we have horrible pollution and we keep cutting down forest and leaving animals without homes just so we can have more homes when as of right now each US citizen could have up to 7 houses so why build more? As a woman and a citizen of the US i believe that its time for some change in this country its time for a new type of leader. to put to rest the jokes of “ if a women would be a president no country would talk to each other.” In my opinion it would be better us women are know for being more responsible than men. So what does a man that wants the best for our country offer to us. He offers taking aways the citizenship of children who were born in the US that there parents are illegal immigrants. Someone who attacks the president by saying “ Not enough good games to get into Harvard Law school.” and who blames illegal immigrants for everything that happens in the US? For someone who claims he wants whats best for all of us he isn't making good job at showing it, or offering them.
Today I’m reviewing an article by Iris Osornio, Why Should Hillary Clinton Win, I choose this article to read because I’d like to understand my peers point of view about the campaign for 2015. From first glance, I tried to give the benefit of a doubt. The intricate article wasn’t difficult to comprehend what Osornio wanted to write about, which was Hillary being a woman President would be a symbolic accomplishment to the U.S..
ReplyDeleteThe first sentence is straight forward, “With the 2016 Presidential Elections coming up Hillary Clinton has decided to run for president and so has Donald Trump,” although I do wonder why Trump was mention when he isn’t mentioned that much in this editorial. Clinton has more competition with her other Democratic candidates that are male than just Trump.
Although, the rest of the article does fall short unfortunately, the poor use of excess of facts don’t need to be included, which doesn't help to convince me why I should vote Hillary. This doesn’t support as evidence on why Hillary Clinton should be president, “ Many other countries in their time of existing have had many woman for rulers whether its as a queen or a prime minister Norway , Britain, Lithuania ect. have all been rules by females.”
It is very clear that she is supportive of Clinton, because she doesn’t acknowledge the other Republican candidate, Carly Fiorina, who is also a women. “Are we really against women leading our country?”
In all honestly, for the rest of the article, I don’t need to comment on, sounds like an informative essay, and the editor did not provide a source of an article to support evidence.
There could have been more potential to the article if there was a provided source and more facts that relate to Hillary’s campaign on her opinions now. Instead of comments that are implied for Hillary but could be easily replaced with someone else's name. I wonder if the Editor watched the Democratic Debate. I, myself, wrote an article (http://replyusgov.blogspot.com/2015/10/did-hillary-really-triumph-at-debate.html) about it that involved Hillary.
At least the positive outcome is that my peers are trying to understand politics, so you can't deny that this could be part of a small step.
This is in response to an editorial by Iris Osornio titled “ Why should Hillary Clinton Win”. The Author makes an argument as to why Hilary Clinton deserved to be the next President of the United States; an argument that could be summarized by reminding us that “… in all of the years the United States has been a country there has never been a woman for President”. I’d like to take this time to establish why this mentality is detrimental to the values of original feminists and why a lot of the truth the author places on Hillary Clinton might be somewhat misplaced.
ReplyDeleteOsornio starts off her editorial by rationalizing the need for a female president by virtue of her gender. Modern feminists and the liberals that enjoy playing identity politics like to point out that the character could be measured by the color of the skin or the genitals between their legs. Despite the fact that Second Wave Feminism of the 60s and 80s was about individual freedoms and equalizing the power dichotomy between the genders, the current liberals tend to oppose that. We’ve switched from thinking about the individual and rather focus in the superficial traits of a person, such as their gender. The author likes to point out the history of the male ruler class, but fails to note that most voters tend to be female. This means that women are electing said men.
Her commentaries on gender in politics aren’t the only tenuous aspects of Hillary Clinton. Everything from her claim that she genuinely cares about the public to her comments on healthcare are misguided. Clinton opposes the single-payer system and will continue to support the multimillion-dollar industry that is health insurance. This will continue to work under a business model that has systematically increased America’s healthcare cost at the expense of the health of the middle and lower classes. As far as social policy goes, she opposed gay marriage back during her run in 2008 and continues to flip-flop on her views as voter demographics change. She likes to take credit for this civil rights victory and campaigns with it despite publicly and strongly opposing it just a few years ago.
I like Osornio would love a female president, but I do not believe that Clinton has the strength in character to be one.