Can Harper Seduce Women?

[Guest American Woman]

Funny, I keep seeing and hearing the words charismatic, tall, good looking, and nice, over and over again in relation to Obama. Hillary wants change too and the change strategy between the two of them is not a whole lot different. So what do you think the difference is? She had it in the bag until he came along.

I'm not saying he's not those things, I'm just saying it's not the reason people are voting for him. He is good with words, so a lot of people like what they are hearing. As for the "change" aspect, he's new, so the idea of change would be even more pronounced from someone new on the scene. Also, because he's new, he wouldn't have 'earned' as much 'negative opinions' as those who have been around longer, like Hillary. He's a fresh face, and some would see that as a fresh start.

Furthermore, I'm not sure Hillary "had it in the bag" before he came along. I think Edwards would have received some of the support Obama has had he not been on the scene. I, for one, never thought Hillary was a shoo-in.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[Carinthia]

I'm very wary of phenoms.

So am I. The thing about phenoms is that they may appeal to folks who otherwise would not follow politics or the issues in question but will get swept up in the hype. That's the nature of the beast.

Back to Canada...

I don't think much of the liberal "leader" at this point. I am sure he is gentle and kind, a wonderful father, a good friend, but he is no Alpha Male, which is what people unfortunately look for in a leader.

Neither Harper or Dion are phenoms in any stretch of the imagination.

[Guest American Woman]

Obama may be everything people hope for (I hope so if he makes it) but I can't help but think he is getting a bit of a free ride because his record isn't long enough to present a real target. He really needs to be pinned down more on specifics. Just promising change isn't anywhere near good enough. The Trudeau phenomenon was very similar and he went a long way to polarize Canadians like few politicians in our history. I'm very wary of phenoms.

I agree with you about his record. In fact, I was saying basically the same thing as you were writing your post in regards to his having less negative opionions than Hillary for that reason. I don't really see a whole lot of "specifics" either, and I don't see a lot to give me confidence that he'll have the perserverance/force necessary to make "change" a reality.

I think he's going to have a tough time going up against the Republicans, and I really think McCain will take some of the moderate vote away from him. Even if he wins the nomination, which it looks as if he will, I'm not confident he'll win the election. And even if he wins the election, I'm not confident that he'll be more than a one term "phenom," as you say.

As for Trudeau, I thought he was a popular PM.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[Rue]

Aside from the relatively hilarious way canada.com chose to publish this article , I think that the female vote may decide this election.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...3db&k=59426

A lot more women I know seem to be voting Conservative this time...

Stephen Harper looks like a 55 year old " diesel dyke ". He looks more and more like Anne Murray every day. Same hips. Same hair cut. Then again Stephane Dion looks like an angry mailman that dogs like to attack. Jack Layton looks like a troll one would find under a bridge. None of them are exactly babe magnets.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Rue

[capricorn]

As far as looks go, he's trying too hard to appear perfect.

He doesn't try at all. He is perfect but you just don't see it.

Not a hair out of place, thanks to the hair spray.

How do you know he uses hair spray? Could be gel, who knows?

He looks like he's wearing eyeliner on the bottom part of his eyes

That's not eyeliner. Those are dark circles under his eyes. You'd have dark circles too if you had to deal with some of those characters on the Hill.

when he walks he reminds me of Charles De Gaulle.

You mean "Vive le Quebec libre" De Gaulle? What a bizarre comparison.

Tall, pot-bellied and long nose and stiff.

Yeah, that's the PM all right.

That's not why I wouldn't vote for him.

You could have fooled me with this diatribe on his outward appearance.

One, I don't trust him, he broken alot of promises, I don't like the way he talks in Question Period, he doesn't come off as a leader but as a bully.He allows his ministers the break the rules and does nothing about it. He spends money( our tax dollars) like Mulroney!! I don't think he was really ready to be PM and he really only got the minority government because of the Liberal Quebecers scams probably leftover from Mulroney's Quebec friends. I think Harper should have gone for the Alberta elections and the Premiership. He's not bring the country together, he's dividing it.

Nowwww, we're into the meat of the matter. The hidden agenda, control freak, spendthrift, stole the Prime Ministership, divisive, incompetent, with the obligatory reference to Mulroney. What??? No reference to his Bush-iness or his pro-American policies? Topaz, you disappoint me.

[Wilber]

As for Trudeau, I thought he was a popular PM.

In the beginning yes. It was called Trudeaumania but he did more to polarize Canadians than just about any PM we have had. He alienated Western Canada to the point where the Liberal Party is pretty much a none entity, a situation which persists today. Of the 92 seats west of the Ontario Border, the Liberals hold 10 in the present Parliament, all of them in major cities, particularly the Vancouver area.

[geoffrey]

In the beginning yes. It was called Trudeaumania but he did more to polarize Canadians than just about any PM we have had. He alienated Western Canada to the point where the Liberal Party is pretty much a none entity, a situation which persists today. Of the 92 seats west of the Ontario Border, the Liberals hold 10 in the present Parliament, all of them in major cities, particularly the Vancouver area.

Ahh, the reasons for seperation and the evidence of a distinct society in Western Canada just keeps growing.

[Wilber]

Ahh, the reasons for seperation and the evidence of a distinct society in Western Canada just keeps growing.

Dislike of a particular political party is hardly grounds for separation. I suspect we are in for a greater number of minority governments in the future regardless of which party forms them.

[August1991]

Perhaps you should judge him by the person who he married - Laureen Harper. She's well educated, ran her own Graphic Design business, and rides a motorcycle. She's a woman who has blended career, family, and personal development. In choosing her (and she choosing him) for a life partner, I think that says a lot about his attitude towards women.

That's a good point. Trudeau rolled out Margaret when he was desperate in 1974 and sensed what was about to happen in Quebec politics.

I don't know if Harper will bring out his wife in the next election but I'd say there's a good chance he will. Margaret and Justin won Trudeau his majority in 1974. Trudeau was just following Liberal (Keith Davey) advice to provide eye-candy. Harper at least can argue that this is truly the kind of man he is. If you want to understand truly a man or woman, look at the kind of spouse they choose.

Such is life, and politics.

Edited May 27, 2008 by August1991

[margrace]

In listening to a relative's reasons for supporting Harper it seems that as long as he touts the family supporter bit and appears to fundamentalist types to be against abortion and same sex marriage, he will gain women's support. But the fact is that this support is only there in the over 60's women I suspect. The younger people are more sauvy and I think most politicians realize this. That is why there is no general move toward abolishing either abortion or same sex marriage

[Argus]

In listening to a relative's reasons for supporting Harper it seems that as long as he touts the family supporter bit and appears to fundamentalist types to be against abortion and same sex marriage, he will gain women's support. But the fact is that this support is only there in the over 60's women I suspect. The younger people are more sauvy and I think most politicians realize this. That is why there is no general move toward abolishing either abortion or same sex marriage

So you're saying Obama won't get the youth vote?

[Michael Bluth]

So you're saying Obama won't get the youth vote?

He'll get it, but youth always turn out in low numbers in the U.S.

Appealing to a demographic with low historical rates of voting is a recipe for disaster.

[M.Dancer]

He'll get it, but youth always turn out in low numbers in the U.S.

Appealing to a demographic with low historical rates of voting is a recipe for disaster.

On the otherhand, if he can actually get blacks to the polls.....even an additional 10% (of black voters who normally stay at haome) could be a tipping point

[margrace]

So you're saying Obama won't get the youth vote?

Do you deliberatly read into post what you want? How did Obama get into this? I know nothing about him. Isn't the title "Can Haper Seduce Women?"

[margrace]

He'll get it, but youth always turn out in low numbers in the U.S.

Appealing to a demographic with low historical rates of voting is a recipe for disaster.

Do you people know how to read or are you deliberatly turning this into an American post?

[M.Dancer]

Isn't the title "Can Haper Seduce Women?"

No, it isn't.

[guyser]

Can he? I suppose so.

He could be successful at this little bar I used to frequent in a tiny town in N Ont called Chapleau.

I imagine if he wore his leather vest and boots and smiled with a mouthful of teeth (a rarity) he could seduce a number of women, after he buys the first six rounds that is.

[Argus]

Do you deliberatly read into post what you want? How did Obama get into this? I know nothing about him. Isn't the title "Can Haper Seduce Women?"

I'm just wondering why opposing gay marriage is "appealing to the fundamentalists" and a turn-off for youth voters - and yet Obama opposes gay marriage (as does Hillary Clinton) and all the lefties in Canada seem fine with that. No one seems to be suggesting he's an evil far right wing guy who can't appeal to women and youth.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm just wondering why opposing gay marriage is "appealing to the fundamentalists" and a turn-off for youth voters - and yet Obama opposes gay marriage (as does Hillary Clinton) and all the lefties in Canada seem fine with that. No one seems to be suggesting he's an evil far right wing guy who can't appeal to women and youth.

Hypocrisy?

Lack of time to bother to get to know candidates?

If Stephen Harper had run on the policies Bill Clinton enacted as president:

- Abortion should be safe, legal and rare (How dare how often abortions are prepared?)

- Gays in the miliary (Why shouldn't homosexuals be able to tell who they are?)

- Expanded the dealth penalty with his 1994 omnibus crime bill....

He'd be demonized as right of Attila the Hun.

No consistency. Just plain hatin' or lovin' because of party name. No thought put into it...

[jdobbin]

I don't know if Harper will bring out his wife in the next election but I'd say there's a good chance he will. Margaret and Justin won Trudeau his majority in 1974. Trudeau was just following Liberal (Keith Davey) advice to provide eye-candy. Harper at least can argue that this is truly the kind of man he is. If you want to understand truly a man or woman, look at the kind of spouse they choose.

Is rolling out Harper's wife going to show how progressive Tory policies are?