Which are you most?

The question was prompted by something relating to US politics, but I'd love to hear from anybody who'd care to answer.

Thing is, I'm a democrat, a liberal by nature. But at the same time Hilary doesn't inspire me (she seems to lack personality and vision). Condoleeza Rice at least has something about her, the feminist in me can respond to something in her (maybe cause she's got to where she is as a black woman).

So if it came down to Condoleeza vs Hilary or to Condoleeza vs a male democrat candidate (I would name names but I haven't seen any rising stars yet), who'd you vote for and why?

After mucho deliberation, I am afraid I would vote with my feminist conscience as I see that fight much more important in the great scheme of things than the fight for getting the red republicans out of power. So if I had the vote, I would vote for Ms Rice. Although sometimes I feel it feels like she's outside gender idenfication, the bionic being.

My user name says it all: BOTH!!! :slurp

Here's my thing about Condoleeza. I don't think she has a mind of her own. She seems to obey GWB's beliefs and work for his objectives without question. To me, being a feminist requires that one first and foremost have an independent mind, and I've never seen evidence that she has one. She's almost like GWB's (political) wife in a way.

That said, she has certainly accomplished a hell of a lot in her life, so from that perspective I find her impressive. I also think its fabulous that our Secretary of State is a black woman.

So, on to the question at hand:

Hilary. No question whatsoever.

Male democratic candidate. I used to think it didn't matter which party, but after the Bush v Gore debacle, and the horrific trend our country has taken in the last six years, I don't want ANY Republican near the White House. I used to think I'd vote for a moderate Republican candidate in certain circumstances (particularly if it were a woman), but now I think that the party has SO much power over a candidate's positions and policies that there is NO way a moderate Republican could win national office while maintaining moderate positions. (See Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts, as an example--he was moderate, now he's so far right he's almost left the room, all in an effort to win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party). Plus, to get back to Condoleeza, I think she's a right wing reactionary, so I don't want her running the government, no matter what her gender.

As for whether I identify as more of a feminist or a democrat, that's a tough question. Really, I identify as progressive/liberal, which encompasses all kinds of things like women's rights, gay rights, concerns about those who are disempowered or oppressed in our society and don't have the chance to create a positive life for themselves etc.

PS Munky, I thought you lived in the UK--what inspires you to follow US politics so avidly?

Interest in politics, interest in the world at large. When you come from a small country (culture) like mine you have a bigger curiosity for what's around you.

Hell, I stayed up all night on election day. Glued to the telly, zapping from one analysis to another. But that plunged me into even more despair cause I got to see a few top people from the democrats and I was suprised to see how naive they were.

I agree that it is very difficult to understand if Ms Rice has any thoughts of her own, if she has them what are they and how much does she pursue them. When I thought of choosing her I thought solely on the basis of what would it symbolize. Not being in the heat of things I can, of course think of symbols, whereas for you it is more real.

I also thought of C in terms of what a woman's perspective would bring to the job. I wasn't looking at CR's credential, but more to the very fact that she is woman. Do you think she would still be guided by Rove&Co? Would a woman that has what it takes (whatever that may be in modern USA) to get to the top be controlled by men?
I don't expect her to be a feminist (Thatcher wasn't).

The question is skewed because it's not so much the president as it it the administration. So yes, Hilary should win. But you see, I don't have much hope that she would win. As I didn't have for Kerry to win once the gay agenda has been put forth.

Mark Warner, erstwhile Democratic Governor of Virginia?

P.S. Sorry, but I don't know enough about American party-political "nitty gritty" to respond to your question, though I kinda like "Condy" (or should that be "Condi"? :huh: )... ;)

For me politics are not a question of feminism or other left wing issues. It can depend on the issues as to which has dominance. I've also now lived in countries with a woman prime minister for over 20 years of my life. One was right wing (Margaret Thatcher in the UK) and the other centre left (Helen Clark in NZ). To me it's not just important as to whether the PM is a woman, it's a question of who the woman is and the politiics of the party she is part of.

I came to absolutely LOATHE Thatcher and what she did to the UK. She is part of the reason I left the UK after living there 18 years and headed back to this part of the world. While some people praised her for an economic revival of the UK I watched while the numbers of people sleeping rough on London streets escalated to depressing proportions. I worked in Education and experienced daily the shift from policies aimed at supporting and helping the disadvantaged to policies based on monetarist values that put financial considerations for the relatively well off over fair and equal education for all.

Helen Clark OTOH comes from a background of left wing street protests from feminist to race and anti-war issues. Unfortunately she has tended to shift rightwards under pressure from right wing forces locally and internationally, the media and the public. However, she has kept some distance between us and the US governments dubious adventure in Iraq. She has continued with the policy that it is in the interes't of a small country like NZ to work thru the UN rather than the raw power of the international top dog.

We also have proportional representation so we each get 2 votes in parliamentary elections: one for an electoral candidate & one for a party. In the last 2 elections I've split my vote between Clark's Labour Party and a smaller left wing party. Each of the smaller parties had a woman leader or co-leader: the far left Alliance Party had a woman leader & the Green Prty continues to have a male & female co-leader. (we are spolied for choices between parties with woman at the top and in key positions here these days) In the UK I always voted for my local labour candidate in order to try to get the Tories out - the sex of the candidate didn't matter.

In the US if I was to vote I wouldn't automatically vote Hilary even tho I would never vote Rebublican. I associate her politics with Bill's. While I tended to agree with some of his domestic policy I didn't think he was that much different from the Rebublicans on foreign policy. He's still for free trade & for US imperialist type policies. I expect Hilary to be similar on those issues, tho I suspect she may be more liberal than Bill wes on some domestic policies. But it would take a VERY strong President to resist some of the right wing power pressures from within the US & I don't know that Hilary would be that strong.

Ultimately the sex of the candidate is not the only consideration IMO - it's one, but the individual qualities of the woman, her politics and the politics of her party are as important.

there goes my ignorance and inexperience being exposed.
I completely forgot NZ in my "women running the place" quest. What a dinky and feminist country you have there.

No, of course the sex of the candidate is not the only consideration. But my theory is that inherently women make better head of state or government. For a lot of reasons.

If you take Thatcher, compare her with a male top Tory of the times. Do you think the state of affairs would have been better under him as PM?

A first is still a first and it would mean something if there was a woman in charge of the US. As it means something that there is finally a woman in Germany and one in Chile.

And maybe one in France soon too, from what I hear.

aye, it would be swell if it was in France as well. But I am not very sure about that. Sarkozy is a sly fox.

I know what Hilary needs to jazz herself up: Maureen Dowd as ...whatever you call that person that deals with the opposite side in a campaign. Well, it might turn against her...but hey it would be great fun. :) Or wait maybe they'll vote for Hilary just to shut Maureen up.

Hi, Here is a list of almost 39 women Prime ministers that were elected around the world. I don't know if it really makes any difference to the lives of ordinary women in their country.

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/...%2F00women3.htm

thanks for the link.

With regards to the difference it makes to the lives of ordinary women...well, even if it was Xena...just one woman at the top doesn't necessarily make a lot of changes.
But it would be enough/great if as a result of a woman being in a position of power and decision, let's say, something as simple as free antibiotics for pregnant mothers was introduced.
Also, having a woman at the top makes it easier for mid-ranking female officials to progress. In the world of government and high politics, women are still a rare species, a minority so every one that makes it serves as a very powerful encouragement for the others.

I don't see women at the very top as providential messiahs, just as very good administrators.

Had it been Hilary or Condi in charge, can you honestly say with confidence that going into another bloody war would have happened (although neither women have condemned the decision)? Bear in mind that to have achieved the power necessary to become president, the women would have been able to withstand the call to arms from them hawks.

blimey, NZ is really great. Listen to this:

"The four highest offices in New Zealand are occupied by women: the Governor General, the Chief Justice (Sian Seerpoohl Elias), the Prime Minister (Helen Clark) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mary Shipley)"

How did they manage?

Hi Munky, I'm not disagreeing to your premise at all. All I'm saying is that once they are in power it's not easy to change the status quo, without a lot of political and social upheaval as they face a lot of nasty opposition, which in the end saps a lot energy as they try to appease everyone.
Regarding Hillary or Condi, if I lived in US, I would go for Hillary!

I know, look at poor Helen!

Yes, where lies their strength lies their weakness as well. Some of them will be able in time to thoughen it up.

Take Romania for example. Nobody, in 15 years of "democracy" has had the guts and intelligence to take the corruption by the horns. That is until this woman, a middle aged human rights lawyer came as Minister of Justice and did just that. To the point where now EU officials say that she's the only one who can deliver EU membership to Romania.
Not even I believed that it was possible and that a woman would do it.
Just to resist the smear campaigns (from alcoholism to being a Mosad agent) is an achievement on its own in a country so marred in corruption as Romania is.

I was going to say the EXACT same thing! :)

I’ve heard recently that it is looking like Al Gore will probably end up being some stiff competition for Hilary Clinton over the Democratic nomination. He’s probably got a decent shot at it too, especially with the recent release of An Inconvenient Truth, and his appearance on Saturday Night Live; re-crafting that public image me-thinks. But besides, that he has also had more vocal criticism for the Bush administration, and from what I understand, he’s had quite a bit of success at getting hardcore Democrats all fired up. In addition, the fact that Gore is anti-war while Clinton is pro-war, pro-free trade, might be another reason why Hilary might not be sitting in the catbird seat.

Personally I think it would be interesting to see Hilary Clinton as President, purely to see how having a woman in the seat of power might affect the US’s global image. But that being said, because the US has such an impact on international politics, I would have to vote based on policy as opposed to gender. This of course is coming from a non-American who has little understanding of, or concern for, US domestic interests.

whoops double posted. Sorry - thought the first one hadn't come up.

Well that's a bit out of date. The female leader of the right wing opposition got the axe after she was critical about our PM not getting NZ to join the invasion of Iraq. She said something about it being bad for NZ business. People perceived her as talking NZ down. So much for a woman leader being less likely to lead a country to war!!! Look at how Thatcher was in a state of eye-gleaming ecstacy when she oversaw the Brit's little bit of agression in the Falklands war. She fancied herself as Churchill.

Also Thatcher didn't bring a lot of women into her government or cabinet. NZ PM Clark has had quite a few women in her cabinet. This has as much to do with Clark's POVs and her party's as being to do with women. I think she did have some influence in getting the civil union law through parliament that makes it legal for both same-sex & het civil unions and that gives them legal equality with het marriage. But Thatcher would never have done that.

We often get men in the public eye saying NZ has become too female dominated - kind of going on a line of there needing to be some male liberation. Like the ex-Labour minister Tamahere who was reported talking off the record about NZ's government being dominated by a lesbian cabal. The opposition has tried to smear Clark by being critical of her not having children and by spreading rumours about her being a lesbian (she's married but her husband keeps a low profile). The lesbian cabal charge seems to be related to a woman who is Clark's main PA or administrator who may well be a lesbian.

NZ basically has this male macho patriarchal tradition that still lingers on while women are a pretty strong force in politics. I think it may not be an accident that Xena was played by a Kiwi actress.

And our governor general is now a male Indian-Kiwi.

I'm not going to defend Thatcher cause I'm not a fan. But I would still say that the sheer fact of having her as a woman amongst the greatest PMs of the UK is a good thing. As much as Britain has had 2 extraordinary queens and has a reigning queen, it is still I think made easier for a woman to attempt PM now that Thatcher has been there and so successfully.

Yes, but would the leader of the opposition really would have taken NZ to war had she been in power, the one making the decision? Once in power you have different burdens on your shoulder to consider.

That thing about too female dominated is as a bright a thing to say as the fact that a white person is discriminated in a black neighbourhood.

But I've heard it from brighter minds. Last year, some high-academia woman came up with the idea that there were too many women in medicine in the UK. It's a stupid thing to say anyway, but she didn't have any arguments for it. Why would it bad for women of for the NHS to have more women doctors??? And anyway, why knock the women for being brighter and more determined than the men and getting into medschool?

I agree one hundred percent with campgirls post, particularly in relation to Margaret Thatcher whose period in office generated mindless greed chauvinism and selfishness who is being now reincarnated as Tony Blair. My perspective has to be that it comes down to just how humane, liberal and progressive those leaders are, whether male or female. What illustrates this point further has been the dismal record of those female Labour who came to power in 1997, known rather unfortunately as 'Blair's babes.' Without any exception, they have conformed to the rather sickeningly phony earnest mode of speaking that is pure New Labour. They have not been immune from the sleaze that has sloshed around. An older MP, the former actress Glenda Jackson, has cut a better figure than them. I have my doubts just how much feminism has really percolated its way through to the major political parties.I make no exception to Condoleeza Rice because, while her rise to power may have been against the odds, she has squandered the potential. I am interested in the description of New Zealand - it is cheering if there is a relatively benign leader, whether female or male.

yeah, and there goes voting for policy and principles.

Ohh, I didn't have in mind the likes of "Blair's Babes" (that's double treason as far as I'm concerned). I didn't have in mind any british female politician at the moment actually for the top jobs.

Glenda Jackson is fabulous (I can't dissociate her from the Elisabeth she portrayed) but she's too old now and too straightforward to win over the hearts of the spin, spin & spin again generation.

I seem to be alone here thinking that Ms Rice hasn't shown her potential yet.

Mark Warner- yes, definitely an erstwhile Democrat. Be assured you'll be hearing that name in the future. Pay attention. This is someone with possibility. From what I hear and read- a top notch Democrat. Someone with an actual agenda with a history of getting things done.

And yeah, a Democrat over a Republican woman- almost for certain. I'd love to see a woman in office, but I don't give a damn about the gender if they aren't forward thinking. I just believe it's even worse to be a woman and choose to be a Republican. Maybe it's like being a black Republican. You know what adversity is and how difficult it is to overcome and yet you remain a Republican? I don't get it. No offense to any Americans who might be Republicans- I have been friends with many. Aaargh! :rolleyes:

This is an interesting point Richard. The reasons why feminism has not filtered thru into mainstream politics in Britain could be seen as a failure of the women's movement or attributed to the way Thatcher deliberately destroyed grass roots socialism. Or maybe a mixture of both. Curiously some ideals from the women's movement have found their way into Bad Girls.

I was strongly involved in the London women's movement in the late 1970s early 80s. Most of my life was absorbed in it at that time: meetings, demos, conferences, workshops, attending women only music gigs, alternative theatre and benefits (social events), parties, friendship group etc. The women's movement - largely a network of events and groups was firmly embedded in the British grass roots left. It differed from the core of the US women's movement in that it rejected the concept of leaders & stars. There were no Gloria Steinems that were fairly successful the mainstream press. The Brit women's movement was strongly into the belief of operating on collective principles - something that has filtered into BG a bit.

In the Brit women's movement there was a strong suspicion about working within the mainstream of politics. There was a tendency to believe that it would have a corrupting influence. In contrast NZ's current PM had a background of some association with the NZ Women's Movement & grass roots left wing politics. She has been somewhat corrupted by operating in the political system and, particularly with Maori rights, has sold out quite a bit. But at the moment her hold on power, or her party's hold on power, is very tenuous. They only have a very small majority and the right wingers in the politics and the press are using every trick to try to destabilise her/them. However, while her party's popularity goes up & down in the polls, Clark's popularity as preferred PM stays steady.

Back to Thatcher. She set out to destroy grass roots socialism in the metroplitan areas and was very successful in doing that. Collective action was an alien concept to her. She deliberately worked to get as much personal power as she could: e.g. gradually getting sympathetic editors in key positions in the press, demolishing the GLC etc. She never had any interest in supporting causes for women in general, but aspired to power within the existing patriarchal set up.

So it's interesting that Brit politics is berefeft of those 70s/80s feminist ideals while they surface quite strongly in BG. Though BG has blended ideas of the benefits of collective action and solidairty amongst women in opposition to injustice with some ideas about effective leaders who have a touch of star status.

Munky like you I also like to take an interest in American Politics too .

I have for years leaned towards The Democrats more than the Republicans .

Now if the two ladies were going head to the head in the next American Election for the Presidency in 2008 I would be inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton .

I want to see that terrible war in Iraq finished and all the troops bought home .

Condoleezza Rice is a Republican & it is a Republican President who has the troops in Iraq .

So in my eyes if you want a change in things you have to kick out the Republicans & give the Democrats a chance to straighten out the mess hence a vote for Hillary Clinton .

Do you know what they call the American President George W Bush & the Australia Prime Minster John Howard here in Australia .

They call George W Bush The Sheriff & John Howard his Deputy .

These two men make me want to throw up every time I see them gush all over each other .

I personally can't stand either of them .

What ever George W Bush says John Howard agrees with .

There have been cartoons in the papers out here showing The Australian Prime Minster walking behind the American President holding up his coat tails for him .

Now when it comes to women in Australian Politics .

Both major parties have them .

If any woman politican in the Liberal Party showed any kind of desires to one day lead the party & possibly become the first women Prime Minster of Australia John Howard would have her underminded in no time flat .

We have seen him do it to several women in the Liberal Party .

When it comes to the Labour Party they have been trying for the past 10 years to get into power . When it comes to the ladies they have got as far as having a lady deputy leader of the Labour Party which is more than the Liberals have ever done .

Both campgrrls' and ningi's posts are a very clear description of what there used to be and today's depressing situation. It ties in with my obviously distanced perception of late 70s early 80s feminism. I can clearly remember the last clear marker left in the Greenham Common women in the mid 80s as their protest against nuclear proliferation which drew incredible right wing attacks. Personally, I felt that they made far more sense than the insane notion of surviving a nuclear holacaust although there may be posters who could post more authoritatively than I can as my constituency was the left wing trade union movement and a number of strikes and demonstrations- this doesn't sound a million miles away from campgrrls description.
Most illuminating is the description of BG being strongly linked via characters and creators with this worthy tradition which society would be healthier for being around now. My concern is that there are Brit female politicians with any former feminist pretensions only used that to further their career in the same way as male politicians who have done with the trade union movement.
I love the John Howard / George Bush tags and there is another one to add to it- Bush is Batman and Tony Blair Robin the Boy Wonder.

Can you just picture George W Bush & Tony Blair in tights :eek .

Ah yes you've sparked some nostalgia, Richard. I went to some day demos at Greenham Common (pissing in the mud). I went to one with the women staff in a primary school where I taught plus my g/f of that time. We all walked the 9 (or was it eleven) miles around the perimeter of the base that day. Also the staff in that school were strong unionists. We had visits from miners & took up collections for the miners' strike.

I think there have been some career feminists who've lost contact with the original ideals of the movement/s. Some women I knew in that time have gone on to be academics. Feminism kind of retreated into the universities since the 80s - thru[out the Western world I think. And there's some strands of it that have totally lost touch with the grass roots Brit feminist ideal of talking in a language accessible to all women. Some of these feminist talk in an extremely obscure elitist kind of language.

I thought that in Aussie there were some worthy women politicians in the Democrat Party?

I thought that in Aussie there were some worthy women politicians in the Democrat Party?

******************.

There was once a few years back but these days they only have enough members to fill a phone box they are basicaly a spent force now .

The Democrats in Australia have always had a Female leader but I am not sure if they have a female or a male leader these days .

Things started going down hill for the Democrats years ago when the then leader Cheryl Kernot defected to the Australian Labour Party .

"Some women I knew in that time have gone on to be academics. Feminism kind of retreated into the universities since the 80s - thru[out the Western world I think. And there's some strands of it that have totally lost touch with the grass roots Brit feminist ideal of talking in a language accessible to all women. Some of these feminist talk in an extremely obscure elitist kind of language"

I think it is not just feminism that has lost touch with its grass roots. Politics on the whole nowadays is somewhere up there, disconnected from the grass roots.

On the other hand, isn't it the case that the present calm was innevitable of sorts, as the drying out period of second wave feminism, leaving the ground clear for third wave feminism to come?

It has to become cool again to be feminist for the young generation of women to become interested. Because as it sits at the moment, they're seeing it as a stuffy gender and women's studies thing, nothing to do with them. And by the time they'll be 40, realising that there haven't been many gains for women in the past decades it would have been too late (for them anyway).

Hi, What is Feminism? It is equal rights for women, right? So isn't that a given in N.America and most parts of Europe? So, why do you have to fight for something that's already available. It's confusing to me as I completely missed the boat here. I come from the the east where it's not so cut and dry. If you are lucky to be born in a progressive family where women are given the same educational opportunities as their brothers than you've hit the jackpot, even if it's a partriarchal family. So basically it doesn't matter where you're born it's access to good education and freedom to express yourself thats important and you're treated with respect and dignity.

Well, its probably better in North America and certain parts of Europe, but here in the US men still dominate the top of every power structure: in business, in politics etc. Very few female CEOs of large corporations here (I think just a handful) and there's maybe 10 female senators, out of 100. Even in my small little company, we have one female VP and one female Director. Everyone else at the Director level and above is a man, and almost all of those men are white and straight. (And, as a side note, the highest level women at my company work in traditionally female areas: HR, and our artistic development group. In our accounting and technology areas, there are VERY few women, even in middle management; I am one of the few.) So until women can decide to have whatever career they want, and ascend to whatever level they can achieve just by their abilities and talent (without regard to their gender), then imo feminism hasn't achieved its goals.

It doesn't seem to matter where you live .
When it comes to women climbing the ladder in what ever field of work they chose to work in , It usually the Mens Ego's that get in their way or even prevent some of them from achieving what they want to do in their career's .

Even when their a lot of women out there who have more brains then some of the men have .

It can be seen all the time in Politics in Australia . Every time a woman shows that she has the capabilities to lead a major political party in this country you can be sure there will be the male network with in the party white anting her some where .

I think that on a statistical level there's a way to go before women have full equality with men. Actually I think the issues are not just about equality but also wanting a world in which things traditionally associated with women (nurturing, bringing up children etc, etc) are valued more.

But as regards equality I think things have improved vastly since I left school in the late 60s. Then women weren't expected to do much more than work a little before getting married, and usually as nurses or teachers. And things that I did or wanted to do that caused a major critical stir, like riding a motorbike or wanting to play rugby, are now seen as fairly ordinary things for women to do. There ARE lots more opportunites for women. A MUCH higher proportion of women go to university in comparison with men. And there are women taking a far wider range of courses.

I know inequalities still remain, but the degree of powerlessness differs vastly amongst different groups of women (and men). There's loads of men and women who have far less access to power than Condy Rice & Hilary Clinton. And on an international scale those women are highly privileged.

One of the things that became problematic for the women's movement eventually was the differences amongst women - especially groups of women e.g. with regards to ethnicity, social class, sexuality etc. And some women felt/feel they have more in common with people who they share other disadvantages with. For instance some women from Afro-Carribean or Maori backgrounds said issues of 'race' were more, or as important to them as gender ones.

Being from the great commonwealth of Virginia, I'm proud to agree...

Mark Warner is definently an up and comer in the Democratic arena.
During his years as Virginia governor he was very instumental in raising school funding and kept an approachable state house for any political denomination.
His open mindedness won over many different affliated voters. His influence in the last governor's election shown as the Democrats maintained office.

Living in a predominantly Republican region, politics is like religion...best to practice it amongst your own. That's one reason I always vote for the "person and his/her agenda", not the party. Don't want in that crap match. :rolleyes:

His chances in 2008...he's still rather young politically; not as much "office experience" as one would like to see....definently a future candidate.

Condi... She seems such an articulate, educated, strong female...I admire her.
On the lighter side...she's a nice dresser, but she needs a serious hair makeover.

slightly unrelated, but anyway:

US church elects first woman leader
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1800899,00.html

I guess it's because it's such a big country that you can have a budding conservative theocracy and something so radical at the same time.

Very true--there's so much diversity in religion here. Fundamentalists, liberal reformists, everything in between. But the chasm between the progressives and the fundamentalists is growing wider and wider, so I worry for us to be able to find some sort of middle ground before we all tear eachother apart. My mother was just mentioning an old friend of hers who she isn't friends with anymore, primarily because they didn't survive the 2004 presidential election (my mom was for Kerry, and her friend was for Bush, and when my mother asked her friend to stop forwarding her emails about how great Bush was, well, that was the beginning of the end).

It is highly visible this great divide. Though it seems it isn't so much that people at the opposite sides of an issue. it seems more a divide between Bush&Co supporters and anti Bush&Co supporters. And they both are very sure and passionate about their convictions.

What puzzle me even more is how can we be friends with somebody and not see in them (until the unfortunate moment comes) the ... whatever it is that makes them zealots for something that we see so evil and wrong? It happens to all of us and all the time, but it still doesn't feel like it's how life is, it still feels like there's an explanation for it.

Do you know, since I started this thread I kept trying to imagine myself voting for Rice, the republican cause she's a woman. And I realised that I can't, my hand wouldn't do it. That vote is way too important to squander it on principles, no matter how noble.

I feel the same way about voting conservative here in the UK. My hand wouldn't do it. Although I actively hate Blairite Labour.

Funny things is, back in Romania, in the few elections that we had so far, I've always voted right (centre-right, but anyway). Because the left was and still is the most criminal and corrupted bunch you've ever seen.

Abzug it is a real shame that during the only life time that most people have ,
That some individuals allow politics to divide them from their friends as the way your mother's friend has allowed to happen .

Friendships & more so long standing ones are to be valued in life not destroyed like this friendship has been .

I have a friend in another forum who had the courage to stand up and say to a friend that she didn't want to hear any more Bush praising from her in e mail's after the debacle of the New Orleans hurricane .

That resulted in her friend ending her friendship with her .

That is so true, Ningi...

Some of my co-workers in management are so politically swayed, they make job selections based on politics, where a person lives, and other simple-minded reasonings. I voice my opinions with this group, but, I sometimes feel I've wasted my breathe. I rate people on their merits and abilities; not who they back.

Might I add..these co-workers of mine are predominantly REP.
Nuff said...

I think it depends maybe on how important particular politcal issues are to you, and how close the friendship.

I quite like some people I do/have work/ed with even though my politics are different. Such friendships seem to work well but I don't think I'd ever be close friends. I have had an online international friendship that kind of just died when it became clear she was a strong Bush supporter and in favour of his policies in Iraq etc while I was joinging protests against them. We didn't fall out, just kind of had less to do with each other.

I don't think I could be close friends with someone who disagreed with me on political issues that are really important to me. I couldn't be close friends with someone who is strong on many right wing policies, or who is racist, or who is homophobic.

Hi, I can understand having friends with different political leanings, one of my tennis partners is very right wing and just won't budge from her stance, so as long as we don't discuss politics we all get on handsomely.
Did you know that Hillary was a Republican before she married Clinton? Even Laura Bush was a Democrat before she met Dubya. Also Kerry's wife Theresa(rich as Croesus) Heinz was a Republican? Was does that tell you? Love trumps politics?