I know that this is the time for an American Woman to become President of the United States of America.
Irregardless of the "right or wrong" of that.
No matter your concern about a woman leading the Nation.
And most especially, ignoring those for whom have knowledge that having such a female leader is a curse, not a blessing! And, if you can, put aside any animosity for this authors' views just expressed.
Either side of the issue.
I have no "side" of this "issue" as a matter of fact.
That is because I know, I say; I know, that this country is coming to a dramatic end! Does that shock you? It shouldn't.
Now that we have the "preparers" about of the way, we can venture into the real issue of "women Presidents", and leave the already present "women leadership" aside for the moment.
If we were to have a woman elected for President, and I think we will have at least a woman Vice-President, who would she be? Give that some thought if you have not already done so in the near past.
If we have someone, other than Mrs.
Clinton, and Ms.
Rice (I don't know if she is married?).
We can leave those two national known women for later.
Right at the moment, we are speaking to the point of who the President would be if it were a woman.
Which would leave out of the grouping, the two ladies mentioned.
Is there a "known" entity ready at the stage wings who can "pounce' upon the coming opportunity? If there is, she needs to be well funded.
So what would be the normal assets needed by any man (and now presumably woman,) would need whenever considering running? Can they be listed by citizens at large? Not an expert listing, but a thumbsketch of the qualifications that would lead a person to the Presidency.
One mentioned is funding.
He, or she, would have to have tons of money.
Millions.
And be able to come into the contest with the ability to generate millions more.
Millions means that the candidate would be connected and known by a large percentage of those controlling or having money.
Billionaires are important here.
Would you turn down some Billionaire just because he starts wars after "investing in a Countries currency, to watch it move one way or the other, as he deems fit? Well, too late! You might not take his millions, but your/our representatives already do! Unabashedly! And funding wouldmean money fromother nations leaders.
If you would turn down money from Israel, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, then you can never be a Presidential Candidate, let alone any other national office.
But others in office nationally, and at the state level do! Unabashedly.
The Russians cannot "chip in', and the countries of Great Britain; Spain; France; do nothave to! They already control though, not only money, but in other ways.
The Vatican, I suspect is in the "give a few millions" category! Unabashedly.
But in secret.
Knowledge is the second factor.
You might overcome experience, if you have a great "second", like Bush has Chaney.
And youmight not worry about volunteers.
Because that groundswell can be generated or forced by those you may hire.
Only the sane (known or unknown) and or persons that areunknown nationally fail to generate a following.
All of your representatives in office now had to hire experts at all levels and generate volunteers, led by paid "volunteers", to get into office.
Unabashedly.
The third I hold in importance is the ladies background.
If you think a dirty background is hard on any man that might be elected, then you can hardly imagine what a woman might have to go through.
Any background would have to be more than just clean.
A man, like Bush, could drink to much at times, or Clinton, can whore at times, and that is just being "one of the boys".
In fact, whether or not you believe it, women will not vote for a man that is too clean! It would be easier for a serial killer to get elected than a "Billy Grayham" type! And that is a shame.
Not because I would like to see a "minister" type leader, but that I think "clean" is not a bad thing for American Presidents.
But what Politician could toe that line? None! And that is a shame.
Because I also know that most Preachers couldn't even pretend to toe that line! Unabashedly.
"Respect" from other politicians.
I put that "respect" into quotation marks because I do not mean respect.
I mean "respect" the way that politicians know and understand and respect.
If a person is known, then they have assets as well as detractors in the line-up of in-office politicians.
The way I would list the persons by occupation, that could affect a persons chance to gain office, is; Leadership in the Party.
Too bad, that.
And next Leadership in office within the whole of Congress.
But above all, leadership in parties that are not elected! Those who swing a big "bat", that can generate funds from the Party membership are right up there at first on the list if not tied with the first mentioned.
Without the "grease" applied to places that "meet the road"thennothing can be done for a candidate.
And "nothing" in this context means, "everyone is in this for money".
This would mean your present in-office politician! What woman has all this? None! Then why worry about a woman jumping on the bandwagon out of the sidelines, or wings of a stage? Because this country is ready for one.
Not only ready, but wanting one! I canexplain this "readiness" in this way.
The Republicons are failing in the polls.
They have to try to pay to make a poll come out, as opposed to paying to make a poll (come out).
You know, or should, that any poll you and I hear about, will be written, structured, and paid for by those interested in the outcome.
But only interested in the outcome.
Not interested in any manner of a poll that shows the opposite of what is wanted! So if "they" fund it, then they "own" it.
And if it happened to say, "negative" or "positive", when the opposite is wanted, then as "owners" they chunk it.
It is "copyrighted".
Contracts signed up front can and do take care of those instances.
Those instances will not happen by "Pollsters", because they are in this for the money! And who can make money from people telling the truth, whenever those that want polls done want "their truth".
They don't lie, but may as well.
The question is like the one that a lawyer uses in court ifhe can get away with it.
If you answers "Yes', you are in trouble, and if you answer 'No", you are in the same boat.
"Please just answer "yes" or "no", like his honor told you too! Did you like having sex with me last night?" See? That is too easy to perform.
Polling is like magic.
And like Magic, it can be more than slight of hand.
Well, we have reached the end of our thinking about the subject.
And this is what I can see.
I get them "vibrations" from time to time ya know? If a "serious" Female Presidential Candidate ( serious means here having all the above mentioned assets) she would come from California.
If any Female Presidential Candidate makes her way to a "win" in the coming election, Ithink she will have to decide to try for a contest, or give over to running on a proffered VP seat.
Vice-President Office is offered to any powerful, or prominent "runner-up" in the parade leading up to the real election day.
In the end of the parade the "second place" is not always chosen.
But the person with the "runner-up", meaning in money first, and power within the Politburo of this nation, is weighed.
If she maintains those assets, then she will be given, or proffered, the VP position.
This would be for gaining the women vote.
However if she has a Miss-step, as some candidates have in the past while in front of the people, she will get the "door-prize".
Anyone getting the "proffer" would be from Texas.
I can think only of one possible person, woman, that would fit that bill.
She would be a "heavy hitter" in the "powerful" connections, as well the experience category.
But how about her money quotient? I have no way toknow how large it has gotten in scope, but she obviously had enough "graftuity" to make it to Congress! Now, what about an African-American? Or an Mexican-American.
Nope! For complex reasons, there is not going to be a successful bid by an African-American for Presidential office.
But there will be one in the next generation! The Good Lord willing, this nation will have another generation to have such a won.
The Mexican-Americans are in trouble, not only locally, statewide, but Nationally as well.
The antics that was fostered on the "Activists" by those that knew how it was going to be later on, finished the chances of any Mexican-American Political Candidacy for the near future.
For our discussion, I mean Mexican-American, not mixed blood.
We have tons of mixed blood political persons in office.
All that needs to be done now, is to forecast a single woman from California to be President! Single here does not mean "not married".
Nor would any "married=married" qualify.
Not yet, than that same Lord.
Not from Northern California.
Not from L.
A.
That is about as far as I can see.
Later, Dan Bunch