intolerant? Why not just say it?
And no, that's not what I'm saying. There are plenty of people who don't fit that criteria who do important jobs exceptionally well. Examples include Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Meg Whitman, and the list continues. However, there is not only a tradition associated with the presidency but also the need to avoid unfair treatment.
A woman would obviously focus on more social programs, especially womens, and probably be soft on security.
A black or other minority would be liberal with social programs, specifically favoring their ethnicity, and for example a hispanic could be easier on immigration.
A gay would ruin marriage, that's my only problem with that. They would legalize gay marriage and that is something I strongly oppose, and so does most of America.
America was founded on Christian values, we can't have a Hindu president or something like that because that disrupts what our country was founded on. You can claim "religious freedom" but everyone knows damn well that the countrys founding of religious freedom was so that Protestants could freely worship, and it had nothing to do with non-Christians. I'm not saying I oppose freedom of religion, as I most certainly don't. But I think just out of respect for tradition this is how it should be. Plus, we want God's protection - not Buddah. It's a non-issue though, as no other religious group has enough people to win the presidency.
I don't care if you find me intolerant, because that's not why I think this. If we change what we've been doing for the past 200 years we're going to disrupt the balance between different types of social programs and military programs.
