Hilary Clinton's chance at US presidency?

I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?

You know that this is the same woman who stated women are the true victims of war, right?

I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?

No, it won't. One female does not signify equality. If women are to play a greater role in politics (which would be a much-welcomed notion), I would like to think that it is not Hilary Clinton who spearheads it. She should stand aside, and let some new blood into the running. Politics, especially in the US, is too dominated by the old generations who refuse to realize their time is over.

It's a long road to the top. There aren't many people in a position to carry enough of a following to lead one of the American parties at 35 years of age.
I doubt anyone younger than Obama was when he was elected (47) will be president for a long time.

That is the problem with american politics. It has become too franchised, and now the politicians are their own special class of celebrities. Lets be honest, more people voted for Obama as a figure than they did Democrats as a party. When these figures are idolized and pushed up by ~100 million people each, they will stay in the limelight for as long as they want, and this causes a massive wall below them that ensures fresh-minded, brilliant politicians cannot rise to the same level until they are, as you say, around 50. Hell, even Tony Blair in the UK is still making the news today.

I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?

Totally agreed, and their politics aren't really going anywhere because it's all about the candidate. News channels over there start speculating who'll be running in the next election as soon as the last one's over without hearing a single policy. When that kind of speculative candidate-centric culture is so engrained on the national psyche it's almost impossible to change it. People everywhere love the status quo- look at how the AV referendum got shot down over here a couple of years ago.

I am kind of torn about that form of politics, because over here it has had mixed results. People like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage have drawn massive amounts of attention to their respective causes, but people don't remember the politics, they remember the people. This means UKIP without Farage will crumble, and that reliance on one person could cause issues for the country as a whole. In America it works as a system because each candidate is cherry-picked by companies and organisations, and funded with an almost blank cheque. Here, it is very much about the main three, and everyone else. It can also backfire, because there can be a party with good points (Labour and Conservatives have some good ones each), but the absolute tool who is their candidate will draw negative press, damaging the overall image.

In the USA the "candidate" is a puppet for the interests he represents. In the case of George Bush for example he was sponsored by the arms industry, by oil, and by the likes of Haliburton. He was also anti climate change control. Five minutes after being elected he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and his sponsors cleaned up.

Which is why they are so successful. The basic idea is: we give you money, fame and power, and you give us lenient policies, tax cuts and privileges. That means that as long as the same candidate agrees, they are there for the long haul, thus meaning no-one new can compete (due to a lack of publicity, media coverage and resources). In the UK, such an open attachment to companies is viewed with distaste, which is why Cameron is attacked for crony corporatism, Milliband is attacked for being a tool of the Unions, and Clegg is attacked for being a total mug. This means that the UK is very much more a meritocracy than the US (although still far too dominated by the notion of old-school family links and backroom handshakes).

I think it's a really nice thought that Hilary is running for Presidency in the next election, but will it provide more equality between males and females in important roles?