I love how he acknowledges at the end that it's a sexist question, but doesn't apologize for it. How would people feel if he was asking a similar question of, say, Joe Lieberman, and he said "hey, look, *I* don't have a problem with Jews, but a lot of the Arab Muslims do, so maybe I shouldn't vote for you because THEY'RE racist."

Cause, yeah. Nothing like using someone ELSE'S bigotry to hide your own.

I second that Law Fairy. I noticed this the night I watched the debate. This question sucked compared to the others. It shouldn't have been picked.

It's too bad there weren't more women asking questions, but the ratio isn't unreasonable if it reflected the percentage of submissions. Which from the link saying there were a pitifully low number of question submissions by women, sounds like it might be the case.

Also, while #16 is a stupid question, I suspect it may be common enough for the people wondering if a "woman president" can do the job. We're clearly behind the curve for having a female leader. I think there's some value in giving Senator Clinton a chance to publicly refute such ignorant arguments, particularly the earlier the better.

I agree with Roni that this guy is reflecting the general attitude of America. I mean, why else would there be so much controversy about Hillary's plunging necklines?

However, I don't think that the lower number of females who submitted videos is an excuse for the selection process. Perhaps fewer wimmin submitted videos because they were so busy doing double duty. Or this could just be a reflection of online behavior in general, which several studies have shown to be male dominated.

You know, when I hear some asshole say a woman would make mistakes and not be a good leader, I look at them and say "How many MALE presidents have we had, how many of them have made mistakes, how many of them have been less than par in their leading?" Then the bastard shuts the fuck up because they know there have been many fuck up male leaders. Oh it boils my blood!

I watched the debates and was disgusted by this question. Why yes, the way to compete with Arab countries is to become MORE sexist, you know, so they'll relate to us. I imagine a bunch of bone-heads watching the debates were like, "Dooood, he's onto something!" Ugh, he's so full of himself.

How on earth can you take a position on the % of videos that were shown, without knowing the data on the % that were submitted? It's ludicrous.

If women submitted half of the videos, we should expect to see somewhere near half of the selections from women.

If women submitted most of the videos, we should expect to see more than half of the selections be from women.

Aaaaand... if women submitted very few of the videos, we should expect to see less than half.

11/29 is pretty close to 1/3. Did MORE than 1/3 of the videos come from women? Then they got screwed. Or did LESS than 1/3 of the videos come from women? Then they got help.

As for the question itself: Personal characteristics are important; how you are viewed is also important.

Since I wouldn't vote for Lieberman anyway, and also because I was raised as a Jew, I'll follow up on his example:

If it was actually known that the leaders of, say, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, and Egypt would simply refuse to negotiate with a Jew, even a Jew who was a U.S. president... then yes, that would be relevant. How could it not be, if you cared about the outcomes of negotiations with those countries?

Of course, that's not true. It's not "actually known." Leading politicians are, generally, able to overcome personal stereotypes and dislikes on behalf of their country. Just ask Thatcher.

But that's not widely known, courtesy of the MSM. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a "normal" person (I.Q. 100, U.S. high school education, doesn't read the newspaper much, watches a lot of Fox TV) to look at a country that forces women to wear burqas; forbids women to work, go to male doctors, or attend school; stones them for a variety of reasons... and wonder how the leaders of that country, who allow those actions, will respond to negotiations with a woman.

It's a question of ignorance, not necessarily of sexism.

Condi Rice has been completely ineefective in the middle east as was Madeline Albright before here. Both effective elsewhere in the world, but accomplishing nothing in the region about which this solier references. It is not sexist to ask "If the Arabs are sexist and think women are below them, how do you expect to make headway with them?". The same question could be asked of Joe Lieberman were he running for President. It does not reflect the attitudes of this country, it states the reality of the attitudes of those countries.

Guess what? I'm gonna disagree here. I think he has a perfectly legitimate question.

It's a given we're behind the rest of the world in terms of electing a female leader. It's also a given that certain areas of the world have an ass-backward view of women (citing religious and cultural reasons, precedence), and there's no excuse for that either.

In this context, however, a female president would literally be cleaning up a mess (heh) of the prior administration, one that has acted as an aggressor, in reference to the countries in question. If we were not in the role we currently occupy, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

It's easy to look at Rice as an example, but she's still not in the top position. If Clinton isn't taken seriously by some leaders, that's their problem, but I don't think it's wrong to wonder how this would work out. The answer would lie in the subsequent ass-whooping that would take place (and I think even conservatives would be on board with this).

I would also be thrilled if she didn't feel any pressure to wear a head covering during in-person meetings.

Honestly I don't know what this guy's intentions were in posing this question, but given his background he might just be genuinely curious. There's a really good chance he doesn't approve of women being treated as second class citizens if he's asking a question during a Democratic debate.

It is not sexist to ask "If the Arabs are sexist and think women are below them, how do you expect to make headway with them?". The same question could be asked of Joe Lieberman were he running for President. It does not reflect the attitudes of this country, it states the reality of the attitudes of those countries.

Ah yes, let us not "give into the terrorists" or grant concessions to "fundamentalist states," but we SHOULD base our elected officials off of what the people we refuse to cooperate with do and don't like.

Not buying it.

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a "normal" person (I.Q. 100, U.S. high school education, doesn't read the newspaper much, watches a lot of Fox TV) to look at a country that forces women to wear burqas; forbids women to work, go to male doctors, or attend school; stones them for a variety of reasons... and wonder how the leaders of that country, who allow those actions, will respond to negotiations with a woman.

Yup. My uncle or cousin could be asking the same question, and I'm not going to reply, "OHMIGODYOUSHOULDBEASHAMEDOFYOURSELF!!!" To reiterate: you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Only if the flies purposefully ignore the honey repeatedly should you proceed to drown with vinegar.

Does anyone know how Clinton responded? I am curious.

I don't like how he worded the question (how does she expect to be taken seriously), but I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask a candidate if and how she thinks rampantly sexist attitudes embedded in other cultures may affect her interactions with them, and how she plans to address said attitudes. And whether one agrees with the validity of the question or not, the fact is that it will be asked, and not just by blatant misogynists who wouldn't vote for her anyway. I agree with the poster who noted that such a question actually provides Senator Clinton with the opportunity to cite the examples of other female leaders, both in or near the Middle East and elsewhere (although I'd avoid comparisons to Maggie Thatcher or Indira Gandhi, myself).

I agree, ankathry, that there is a valid question buried in here, of how Clinton would handle such a situation. "how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously?" is NOT the proper wording, and I feel it strongly implies that she WON'T be taken seriously, and therefore implies that she should not be elected on the basis of her sex. Do you want a president that no one will take seriously? I don't. The wording of the question, I feel, implies the answer.

Cara, exactly. The dude DIDN'T ask something along the lines of, "how are you going to overcome these backwards attitudes" -- because, while uncomfortable, that IS a valid question. Asking if she "feels" she will "even" be taken seriously is demeaning and sexist.

And, to respond to another point someone made earlier, ignorance IS sexism. Sexism isn't just the ass-grabbing Neanderthals at the local pub. It's also the people who stupidly and IGNORANTLY buy into the sexist status quo every day. That's why we're fucking HERE.

Ah yes, let us not "give into the terrorists" or grant concessions to "fundamentalist states," but we SHOULD base our elected officials off of what the people we refuse to cooperate with do and don't like.

Not buying it.

Posted by: Cara

Well, duh: If we don't care what they think/do then there's no point in doing anything to appease them. The problem comes when we care about what they do.

Then we are, in theory, faced with an unpleasant decision: do we cater to their unpleasant demands, (retaining the possibility of getting what we want in other areas) or do we stand fast (and give up some negotiating power)?

This is normal politics. There are plenty of countries where we make concessions on Issue A because we think that Issue B is more important.

My own personal view is pretty simple: The Commander In Chief of the U.S. armed forces will always be taken seriously, by everyone.

This guy might have been projecting his own sexist views about women leaders, but I don't think he would have asked the question if he'd known how many women leaders there have been in the world and in Muslim countries. I think it's a more legitimate question to ask of people living in a country that has never elected a woman President, like the United States. I want to know what John McAlperin thinks of women leaders. The leaders and citizens of Muslim nations already know that women are strong enough to be elected.

Clinton gave a pretty kick-ass response to this douche, IMO. She said something along the lines of, "I've visited X, Y, Z, worked with A, B, C, and have always been taken seriously because I take myself seriously and know what I'm doing." She handled the question very well.
The way the guy phrased the question reveals a lot re: his own biases against women. Why should the U.S. resort to sexism when... trying to combat another country's sexism? Sounds like that's what he's advocating.

It's an idiotic question, and shows a total lack of understanding of the US role in the Middle East (in addition to being sexist). No state in the Middle East isn't either being propped up with US weaponry or bombarded with US weaponry (in some cases both). Most of the terribly unpopular, brutal regimes in the region would be out on their arses within 24 hours if the US stopped sending them the weapons they need to hold the population hostage (Egypt being just one example). The rest are either being bombarded with US weapons directly by the US or indirectly, through Israel.

Somehow I doubt that "girl cooties" are going to tip anyone's scales in favour of preferring either being overthrown by a popular revolution or becoming the next Iraq. People in power stay in power for a reason.

While I hate the premise of the question I also think it was a valid one that a lot of people are curious about (I also loved that he was clearly very self-conscious asking it).

And for the record, her response was one of my favorite moments of the night. Which, since it's oddly not included in the clip, boiled down to "fucked up Muslims can suck my dick, AMERICA RULES!"

"fucked up Muslims can suck my dick, AMERICA RULES!"

Um, what?

I didn't get that at all. If that had been the gist of her response, I wouldn't have approved.

SarahMC, what she said was (again, paraphrase) 'I think it would send a great message to these people that they have to talk to a woman' which for me at least easily translates to 'if they don't like it they can go fuck themselves'.

Although it can be considered a somewhat legitimate question, I felt like part of what he was saying was "You are a woman... therefore, I don't take you seriously as a president."

OK, I've only read about half the comments, but I read those then watched the video (slow connection)

"Cara, exactly. The dude DIDN'T ask something along the lines of, "how are you going to overcome these backwards attitudes" -- because, while uncomfortable, that IS a valid question. Asking if she "feels" she will "even" be taken seriously is demeaning and sexist."

It seems to me, from the extremely careful way he's speaking, that perhaps he meant to ask the former. He may well be sexist, but it seems to me that at least in this video, he was trying to ask a real question, but didn't necessarily have the analytical skills to examine his phrasing.

At least he called her Senator! I've read plenty where she's Mrs or Hilary. :P

Uh, she will be taken "seriously" because she'll president of the United fucking States. Some US congresspeople no doubt harbor no respect for black members of Congress, but have to deal with them as equals on a professional level simply because they represent real votes and influence.

I don't hate the guy for asking the question. I think it had to be asked, lots of people will be thinking it. And I thought her response was good.