Helll No :)

Goodness no. Can you think of a stupider reason on which to base a vote for president? Color of their eyes? The fact that they wear a bow tie? Of course not. I vote on issues and opinions, not superficialities.

I would not vote for her anyway , regardless

No, no matter who I vote for, it would be based on their qualifications and their track record. Not because he looked like a nice guy or she would look nice in the White House.

Nothing, including the threat of death could make me vote for her.

No way! It is not because I wouldn't vote for a woman... I just wouldn't vote for Hillary.

No. That's a stupid reason. Plus, she's scary. Ron Paul '08!

I can't agree more with the other responses so far. Voting for someone just because they would be the first member of a demographic group would be stupid. If we were to just look a demographics, then we could wind up with someone who is completely unqualified and would be an absolute disaster. I vote based on the positions the candidates take. Based on this, I would definitely not vote for Ms. Clinton because there are very few areas in which I agree with he philosophically or politically.

I wouldn't vote for her if she was the only candidate and you held a gun to my head.

No but I would love to see Bill Clinton as the first lady

No! :^(

No more than I would vote for Barack Obama simply because that would make him the first black president, or vote for Mitt Romney simply because that would make him the first Mormon president, or vote for anyone just because they'd be the "First" anything. I'm not quite old enough to vote yet, but if I were, I certainly wouldn't base my vote on what demographic the candidate fell into. The purpose of the electoral system is to insure that the government represents the values of the people, when presented with what you think is a qualified and competent candidate, you're supposed to vote for them based on that opinion, and when you're presented with a candidate who you think will harm the country, you as a voter and a citizen are supposed to stand againts them based on that opinion. That's the whole point of the system, it doesn't work unless everyone participates and votes based on their true perception of the *Relevent* facts. So a U.S. citizen, shirking your duty to be as active and informed in the political process of the nation as possible and placing your vote on how "Groundbreaking" the candidate would be with their gender or race is among the worst things you can do for your country.

Gender has always swayed the people in Presidential elections. No.

No, not simply because she is a woman. I WOULD vote for her because she is the democratic candidate.

Absolutely not.

Under NO circumstances would I vote for Hilary Clinton.

If Hillary is the first woman president, it'll be a long time before there'll be another because she will be so terrible. Use your brains, folks. Pakistan had a woman prime minister and Pakistan treats women worse than almost any country except Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. So what good did a woman prime minister do for Pakistan? The question is not "Should a woman be President?" It is "Should THIS woman be President?" George Gallup just found that 49% of us say "Not under any circumstances," and such numbers go up during campaigns. It is safe to say that if she became President she would be the most divisive we have ever had because she would have been clearly rejected by an absolute majority of the population. It is also historically fair to say that if she gets to be President it will be because of the hundreds of thousands of votes she will steal.

No, but I would vote for anyone else that's running against her.

Not on my worse day. I think someone as President should be up to the job not just an x presidents wife!

No, that wouldn't be fair. Blacks got the vote first so they should have a president first. Then a woman can be president. But seriously, last time I checked 55% of the voters were women, so it is only logical to assume that we won't have a women president until women themselves are comfortable with a female leader.

No, that wouldn't be fair. Blacks got the vote first so they should have a president first. Then a woman can be president. But seriously, last time I checked 55% of the voters were women, so it is only logical to assume that we won't have a women president until women themselves are comfortable with a female leader.

No. I wouldn't vote for Obama based on the fact that he would be the first black president, either. I vote based on what their platform is and what they can do for the county.

I wouldn't vote for Hilary if we already had a female president previously. Like Obama's wife said "If she can't even watch what goes on in her own house, how can she see what goes on for our country" As much as I would love to see a democrat in the whitehouse, I wouldn't vote for her if she was our choice.

As a Canadian, I would not be allowed to vote ... but for me to vote for anyone, they would need a better campaign platform than just their gender. On the one hand, I would like to see the U.S. being run by a woman, for a change, but on the other hand, my opinion is that Hilary is not the one for the job.

The fact she could be the first female president would not affect how I voted.

Yeah, probably. When you evaluate what is a president actually accomplishes, the breaking of the glass ceiling and the acceptance of women as equals is probably more of an accomplishment than anything else a politician will do in his/her term.

I wouldn't vote for that stupid ass if she was the ONLY one running.

No. But I bet there are people that stupid.

Absolutly not. That is just what we don't need is another Clinton in office.