Susan B. Glasser is a political analyst for the New Yorker magazine whom I have favorably linked to in the past. She has written a new piece with the title Is a Woman Ever Going to Win the White House? and expresses doubt.
The reasons for her pessimism lie in Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 and that Democratic party insiders feel that Kamala Harris, despite being the first female vice president, has not inspired enthusiasm within the party establishment as someone who could win the job in her own right in an election.
Harris, meanwhile, could become President at any moment, but the thrust of many conversations in Democratic politics these days is a persistent worry about her weakness as a potential candidate if Biden, willingly or otherwise, does not run again. A deeply reported take by Jonathan Martin in Politico on Thursday makes the point that high-level Democrats don’t want Biden to run again but are afraid of saying so because their greater fear is Harris becoming the 2024 nominee and not being able to win in the general election. A recent Times piece was even harsher, quoting dozens of Democrats as saying that “she had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country.”
“Biden is the guy that can beat Trump,” Joyce Beatty, a senior Black Democratic congresswoman, told Politico. The current President is the only politician, as his departing chief of staff, Ron Klain, reminded my colleague Evan Osnos the other day, who has ever beaten Donald Trump.
On the Republican side, the only woman on the horizon, Nikki Haley, also seems to face similar skepticism within the Republican party.
With polls showing her in the single digits, most pundits give her close to zero chance of winning. There is “no clear rationale for her candidacy,” the Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial. “Nikki Haley Will Not Be the Next President,” the Times opined in a headline, conveying the sentiments of a panel of ten columnists whom it convened to assess her candidacy.
Notably, the brutal appraisals of her prospects hardly mention her gender, except to note it as an example of her un-Trumpiness in a Republican Party that has yet to repudiate the former President. The commentators are more concerned, perhaps understandably, about her wildly flexible ideology and her hawkish platform’s decidedly 2015 vibe.
But Glasser’s main point is that the rise of Trumpism signals a climate of macho political posturing that makes it difficult for a female candidate to get a foothold.
The reality is that American politics since Trump beat Clinton has taken a turn back to the macho. The rise of a would-be strongman in the Republican Party has made performative displays of aggressive masculinity the prevailing style in the rebranded G.O.P. Whether Trump himself returns as the nominee or not, the up-and-comers in the Party are a bunch of confrontational men. They are brawlers like Ron DeSantis or Twitter trolls like Ted Cruz.
The Trump factor hangs heavy over the Democrats as well. I’ve heard many of them voice the conviction that Trump’s election proved how deeply rooted American sexism remains. And, yes, I know that for everyone who believes that, there is someone else is who convinced it’s just that Clinton was a terrible candidate or that Harris is an awful Vice-President or that it’s simply not the right time for a woman. And that, in the end, is the point: so long as the threat of Trump winning another term in the White House hangs over the country, many Democrats aren’t willing to risk nominating anyone besides another white man to take him on.
Haley seems to be trying to outdo people like Trump and DeSantis in anti-LGBTQ posturing, going so far as to suggest that Florida’s controversial ‘Don’t say gay’ law is not tough enough.
I think that Glasser is misreading the situation in taking the past situation and projecting it far into the future. Political winds can change quite suddenly. I feel that it is entirely possible that the public could quickly tire of the macho posturing now going on on the Republican side and desire a president who does not constantly feel the need to be hyper-aggressive, someone who is calm and deliberative. I think that has already started to happen and is part of the reason why some people voted for Biden in 2020, since he presents himself as an avuncular figure, not a Rambo.
Maybe 2024 is too early for the full effects of that change in political mood to become fully visible. It looks like Biden will run again and could well complete a second term, since the actuarial tables for an 80-year old man give a life expectancy of over eight years. Harris and Haley may not be the women who will be in the right position to take advantage of that anti-macho sentiment when Biden leaves the scene But I think that maybe as soon as 2028, it is quite possible that a woman who is currently in the background emerges to ride that wave.
Clinton would probably have beaten Bush, in part because she wouldn’t have arrogantly assumed she had it in the bag and treated him as a joke, along with his supporters.
And as a horde of bleating cry babies always pop up to point out, she got more votes than Trump.
So yes, it was possible before, it’ll be possible again.
And right on cue, @1 pops up with the misogyny and the tired old lies that have been debunked a million times.
Hillary Clinton said Trump was too dangerous and unstable to be president. She was right. According to your own country’s paper: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-speech-foreign-policy-security
She said his base were deplorable…and she was right.
Your negating the facts and calling anyone with the actual facts “crybabies” is right out of the narcissist and incel men’s wimmen-hating club playbook.
ONE lie, please, from post #1. Just one. Or any example of misogyny for that matter. Pretty much my entire point was that women definitely CAN win the presidency, and Clinton kind of proved it. What I didn’t say, but think, it’s that it’s quite misogynist to even ask the question, especially given recent history as I pointed out.
Ah, I think I see your problem here. I’m not calling anyone with actual facts “crybabies”. The actual facts are:
1. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016.
2. Trump won the election in 2016, because US elections are not decided on the popular vote.
Now: tell me which facts I negated.
History has shown this to be true. AT THE TIME, however, the actually more dangerous looking candidate was the hawkish warmonger Clinton. And which major war was Trump involved in starting, remind me?
Again -- yes, that’s absolutely true and as it goes I totally agree with her opinion… and how did making that opinion public, rather than trying to win over some of those voters to her side, go for her? Ah yes, she lost. To fucking TRUMP.
There’s someone closing their ears and going “lalalalala” and ignoring facts in this conversation, but it’s not me…
I think Warren would have won in 2020 if she’d snagged the nomination, and she could win in 2024. She just made a bad miscalculation in the primary and had some bad luck with damn good opponents: Bernie shone too brightly for her to find a niche, and she tried to find a different sector of the spectrum to occupy by walking back her support on universal healthcare a bit, and it tanked her campaign almost overnight. With hindsight, I think she knows exactly how to win now.
Give her the nomination over Biden, and she’ll carry the easiest presidential victory in the history of the US, I guarantee it. The Democratic party and independents are just begging for literally anybody but Biden to vote for. He’s good enough for non-republicans in the face of another four years of Trump, but the conservative media is just so good at running the “look, senile old Brandon!” propaganda that nobody really wants to risk running him again.
I’m a coward and will stay away from comments 1,2, and 3. I was struck by “the point that high-level Democrats don’t want Biden to run again but …their greater fear is Harris becoming the 2024 nominee and not being able to win in the general election.” That I take to be a response to the argument that Biden should announce that he won’t run again precisely in order to open up 2024 and 2028 to a real contest among Democrats, something that is unlikely to exist if he should die in office and Harris become POTUS, or if he wins again in 2024 (with Harris), and Dems have little choice but to anoint the two-term Vice-President.
If not Biden and not Harris, then who? Especially for the anybody-but-Sanders people who dominate DP leadership. Does the purported DP bench impress anyone here? I am willing to be educated. Did not Biden eventually win among Dems because those not-Sanders candidates in 2020 were useful for taking some votes away from Sanders, but were hardly serious contenders?
“The reality is that American politics since Trump beat Clinton has taken a turn back to the macho.” Pure amnesia. A more serious question about US politics would be to ask if a woman can be a serious figure in US foreign policy (and thus Presidential politics) if she does not out-macho and hyper-hawk the guys.
PS #4 comment: interesting, some good detail, but I am not convinced. Affirming that “she’ll carry the easiest presidential victory ” in history is breathtakingly brave. Don’t you think she proved to be so easily baited by Trump in 2020?
#4 “Give her the nomination over Biden, and she’ll carry the easiest presidential victory in the history of the US, I guarantee it.”
Warren lost my support when she refused to endorse Bernie after she dropped out. She was silent for a very long time, and then endorsed Biden. I still haven’t figured out what her goal was, maybe she was trying to trade her supporters for the VP post or Secretary of state, but in any case she seems to have gotten nothing from Biden and she gave up a chance to have a real progressive as the nominee. I can’t see any motivation for her except Clintonesque self-aggrandizement, so to hell with Elizabeth Warren.
I disagree with that last bit (NEVER underestimate Trump or any other candidate on the right -- learn from ’16 ffs) but I do think she could win and would be the best. I’d have liked to see her as the candidate in ’16, but it was Hillary’s turn, dammit.
@K -- it occurs to me to ask: what’s gone wrong in your life that anyone criticising ANY woman in ANY way, no matter how specific, fact-based and legitimate, is to you automatically misogyny and lies?
Mano Singham says
I don’t think there was ever a chance that Biden would choose Warren for the VP slot or for any cabinet spot. This not because he does not get on well with her (I think he does) but for purely esoteric political reasons. She is a senator from Massachusetts and until last year the governor of that state Charlie Baker was a Republican. If she left the Senate, he would get to pick her replacement.
It is true that Baker is considered a RINO and despised by the Republican base but I think he would have nominated a Republican, tilting the balance in the Senate 51-49 in favor of Republicans in 2020. So I never expected her to get any of those posts. Warren can make political calculations as well as anyone and I think she never expected to get the call. Now things are different. There is a Democratic governor in Massachusetts now which gives Warren a little more freedom.
@7: you’ve been called out by any number of posters at your knee-jerk misogyny. You attack posters on this site with female names, you let things slide with male ones. I had to laugh when you lost your mind that a female-presenting poster shortened your name…and immediately after ignored it when a male-presenting poster did the exact same thing.
You’re not fooling anyone. And as is said with the wrong-wing: every accusation appears to be a projection with you. What is wrong with YOUR life that you are like this?
Macho? I don’t think that is appropriate wording for the party that has openly embraced and supported a platform of white xtian male supremacy. Roe vs Wade? BLM? Immigration?
Toxic masculinity is far beyond mere machismo.
Gotta love how pundits are writing stupid articles with basically sexist premises two years in advance. Maybe they should write articles examining how Putin managed to successfully establish troll farms to flood social media, and get various American politicians to do his bidding? Perhaps some reporting on the fact that a major Network has been permitted to broadcast pure propaganda for decades? Or the laws that were changed which allow Fox/Murdoch News to broadcast lies?
No, let’s write more well poisoning fluff on female POTUS candidates, because they supposedly don’t win.
John Morales says
I think the question should be ‘will’ rather than ‘can’, because obviously there’s no prohibition or substantive reason why not. Many other countries have done the equivalent, including those one might not expect to do so.
Incidental but not unrelated:
Just demonstrably false.
A link, please, because I suspect “lost your mind” is hyperbole.
Do you have anything substantive to say about the facts I presented, or the subject at hand at all, or did you just come here to get your rocks off ad homineming?
“…the up-and-comers in the Party are a bunch of confrontational men. They are brawlers like Ron DeSantis …”
I take issue with this. DeSantis is not a “brawler”. We had a name for guys like him when I was a kid: he’s a chicken-shit. He presents as a tough guy when he has backing. In this case, that would be the Florida legislature and the extreme end of the GOP. A brawler is someone who would go it alone. DeSantis needs an army behind him (or more accurately, in front of him). For all of his whining about it in others, he is impotent outside of his safe space. Even inside, he will only attack those with less power than himself. He is a craven little man with a big mouth. This does not mean that he isn’t dangerous. Like any autocrat, he can make a mess given sufficient support.
As far as whether or not a woman can be the US president any time soon, I think someone’s answer will depend largely on what they think of the electorate. I am one of those crazy people who believe that many, maybe even most, people try to be understanding and to do their best, as a general principle. No sane person sees themself as a Bond villain. I also know that a population can be lead astray by what comes down to effective marketing; which is a polite term for lies, be they gross fabrications, purposeful distortions, or “lies of omission”. So for me, I’d say there’s no legitimate reason why a woman can’t be president, but there are a lot of illegitimate reasons. Who gets convinced of what?
Do you have anything substantive to say about the facts I presented,
Lol, stop questioning the dude (who routinely posts highly sexist opinions) about his pre-emptive use of the term cry babies to characterize anyone who even considers answering his misogynist comments about the Demoness Hillary. Nevermind that he isn’t even an American voter.
How dare you lesser beings notice!!
The arrogance, roar, crash, arglebargle!!!
No Respect says
It’s certainly no coincidence that sonofrojblake is banned from like half the blogs around here… He’s a fascist bigot through and through. Only fools like Mano let people like him (and me!) keep posting.
It’s not difficult to find a woman who can make a popular case with the general public about why they should vote for her; it’s only difficult for the deep state to find a compliant candidate who isn’t an aged white segregationist (e.g. Biden) or an unlikeable DHS- or CIA-affiliated spook. It’s not quite relevant to speculate whether or not it’s possible for a woman to be a winning candidate when the party isn’t interested in finding a winning candidate in the first place.
Democrats have been big on anti-populism, permanent war, and corporate genuflection lately. With galaxy brains like Biden and Schumer at the helm, I honestly expect to see a president Lo Boebs or a president MTG before the Democrats ever get around to even nominating another woman.
Faster than common sense -- more tedious than drying paint -- able to leap logic in a single bound!
Look… up in the sky… is it a bird?… is it a plane?… no it’s Hyperliteralism Man!
John Morales says
Heh. Bobby the Unsilent, I get that precision is not within your purview.
For you, I will put it in stark terms: I know you can eat a dog-turd, but I know you won’t eat a dog turd.
(Of course, I may be wrong; after all, coprophagic people exist, and you are a person)
Anyway, these days I look forward to your sniping. Kinda amusing.
I confess to being curious if Morales is like this in real life. Imagine you had a guest, and you asked if they’d like a cup of coffee, and they were like
“You do realise it is irrational to expect me to ascertain as to whether I will ‘like’ a hypothetical beverage of which I have as yet no sensory knowledge. It is hypothetically possible said beverage would be repulsive, and also hypothetically possible said beverage would be welcomed. You have made a clear error in logic expecting me to determine the outcome a priori based on nothing more than you ascribing to this hypothetical beverage the appellation ‘coffee’. Perhaps you meant to inquire as to whether I desire you to prepare a beverage for my consumption of the aforementioned description?
In passing I also remark that you have not defined “like”. Like what? Texture? Smell? Taste? It may behoove you to be more precise in future.”
My guess is -- no. Morales couldn’t possibly be as obnoxious in real life as he is here. I think it’s a troll personality he puts on.
John Morales says
Real life is not a comment-thread, Bobous.
You claim I troll, and clearly when you yourself attempt to troll me by claiming that I am a troll, I respond forthwith, except when I can’t be bothered.
It follows that the more you snipe, the more I retort, even if not linearly.
So, if your goal is to increase the number of comments I make, you are succeeding exceedingly well.
And if my goal is to be amused by goading people, as you claim, I am also succeeding spectacularly.
In order: I don’t “routinely posts highly sexist opinions” because I don’t hold such opinions.
I do routinely point out that Clinton was factually the worst candidate ever presented for election, on the (I think) reasonable basis that she lost to Donald fucking Trump. And whenever one points this out, there is reliably a rapid and vocal backlash whining “but she WON THE POPULAR VOTE”, as though that had any fucking relevance at all. I shall continue referring to the people (all genders) who do this as “cry babies” because they just can’t accept that Trump won in ’16. Ironically it’s often the very same people ridiculing MAGA-heads for not accepting the result in ’20.
My “misogynist” comments about Clinton? Which were those?
Where I said she’d most likely have won against the Republican party’s preferred candidate?
When I said she was arrogant? You’ll have a hard time defending her against that charge, I think.
When I said she made a mistake treating Trump as a joke?
Or when I said she made a mistake denigrating his supporters?
Oh, hang on, was it misogynist to point out that she got more votes than Trump, which was the fact I was using to support my contention that yes, obviously a woman can win the presidency since one has already come so close?
I don’t see how any of that is misogynist. I don’t know enough Greek to formulate a word that starts with “mis-” and has the correct ending to describe a hatred of entitled, arrogant politicians of any party and any gender, but if you can come up with that word, I’ll hold my hand up and admit to that hatred. I don’t give politicians a pass for that kind of behaviour simply because they identify as a woman. Furthermore, it’s an odd kind of misogynist who repeatedly states, then and now, that their preferred candidate is a woman (Warren).
And yes, I’m not an American voter, thank Bod. I have an opinion, though, and as one of the eight billion people whose lives are materially affected by who wins the US election, I think I’m entitled to one. (I have also repeatedly stated that if I’d been unfortunate enough to live in the US I’d have voted Clinton in ’16).
Query: if it comes from me, is ANY criticism of ANY woman automatically misogynist, regardless of its objective validity?
another stewart says
When Nikki Haley announced her candidacy there was commentary (Beau of the Fifth Column) that her chance of winning was to run against Trump (and hope that Trump and de Santis cancel each other out, and she could win with the sane Republican vote?); the idea was that the Trumpist wing wouldn’t go for a woman over a man, especially a former UN ambassador. I have the impression that she has instead leaned into Trumpist rhetoric.
The story I read and believe is that Haley’s strategy may be for her to peel some votes off de Santis thus handing the nomination to Trump, and expecting some quid pro quo from Trump, some plum role in his second administration, perhaps even VP running mate.
Of course, this strategy relies on Trump having a memory and being something like honourable. Charitably, this is… optimistic.
Talk of ‘winning’ a comment war is an admission of trolling btw John. Not that we needed any such thing.
Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says
I noticed that there was nothing concrete or specific about why Harris had not proven herself. Smells like cowardly misogyny by Ds who don’t want to push back at their R reflection.
Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says
I seem to remember a recent R president that displays considerable bigotry including misogyny. Behaviors that R culture is doubling down on currently. So much political potential for showing R bigotry during an election. But that requires looking at things like Biden’s sexual harassment and being honest as a culture.
Oh well, I’m shaming from the outside anyway.
Tabby Lavalamp says
I’ve long expected the first female US president would be a Republican, just like the UK’s first female prime minister was a Conservative. She’d have to be a Margaret Thatcher type though, very far to the right but able to communicate with voters. She’d have to be an intelligent sociopath, so sorry Boebert and Greene, you’re barely even halfway there.
John Morales says
Such talk is entirely in your head, Holms.
So you admit to trolling according to your own claim. OK.
Since when is intelligence a prerequisite to being president? I can think of two 21st-century examples who did just fine without it.
Okay, I should revise my prediction. Democrats will probably nominate another woman for president pretty soon, but it will take them decades to go through their favorite spooky picks (Harris, Gillibrand, Spanberger, etc.), handing the election to the Republican opponent each time because their selection process will not tolerate a populist who can make genuine appeals to the American people. In the meantime the Republicans could even run Lo Boebs or Candace Owens and expect a victory by default.
Harris is strongly implied to be in the “unlikeable DHS-affiliated” category. Seriously, she’s a terrible politician who is unable to give genuine-sounding answers to anything except softball questions on television, and the extent of her contact with the general public was as a cop. No thanks, I’m not voting for a fascist.
Picking her as the nominee would guarantee a defeat on par with Clinton’s nomination in 2016. If you think she stands a chance, ask yourselves why she ran in 2020 and lost badly.
If you think she stands a chance, ask yourselves why she ran in 2020 and lost badly.
That’s an Ass backwards way of saying ‘Became the very first Madam Vice President of the USA, as well as the first WOC.’
Attorney General, Senator. Clearly beholder is one of the misogyny trolls that will be flooding the internet for the next two years. Somehow they need to portray the VP as weak(because female) , but simultaneously a fascist warmonger.
She did not carry the primary nomination because many voters found her too inexperienced to deal with the multiple unprecedented crises that the incoming POTUS would inherit from orange treason.
Four years of experience as VP is obviously going to be a plus for the 70% of all voters who voted for her in 2020.
As to a woman winning the presidency, all Michelle Obama has to do is ask. Clearly the right person can win it.
The Attorney General is sometimes referred to as the “top cop”. She was also the District Attorney for San Francisco. I have some small amount of sympathy for lawyers fresh out of law school getting a few years of experience as a prosecutor as long as they go on to use that knowledge as defense attorneys. The type of person who spends their career putting other people behind bars, however, is antithetical to my values. Sure, someone has to do it, but that kind of person is invariably a dick. She also helped lead the opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana in 2010 -- even though she admitted to smoking it in college. I wonder where her life would be now if she had been caught and convicted of a drug offense at age 20?
If she is on the ballot in 2028, will I support and vote for her? Sure. But god knows we can do better and it isn’t misogynistic to say so.
Mmm hmm. Sure.
Hasn’t stopped me from voting for a woman for president in the general elections before (2012, 2016, and 2020). Thankfully the third parties are more open to the idea, and they have a more compelling variety of women’s viewpoints to choose from than what the two parties of permanent war give us.
That’s not what AG’s are elected to do, nor is it nefarious if a criminal lawyer focuses on being a prosecutor rather a criminal defense attorney.
A brief general description of the elected office:
I don’t see how any of those job duties could possibly interfere with your values? Her latest votes on marijuana were to decriminalize it, though that’s pretty minor IMO on the scale of social progressiveness.
Great! However, it did not stop you from posting an entirely fact free and rather obtuse comment about VP Harris. ‘But her emails’ and ‘Killary’ was equally BS, so spouting similar disinformation does give the impression of misogynist trolling.
I agree it is neither wicked nor criminal to be a cop or a prosecutor. But the kind of person who is comfortable in these roles are not my ideal candidate for president.
I would also disagree that opposing the war on drugs (as well as its almost prerequisite hypocrisy) is a minor part of liberalism/progressivism.
Having said that, I have no issue that you are a proponent for Vice-President Harris. She has some plusses and some of the attacks against her like, for example, that she’s been unable to fix other countries underlying conditions resulting in people wanting to emigrate here is ridiculous.
But I am never going to love a former prosecutor and again, it does not require misogyny to feel that way.
I’m not actually a Harris supporter, but I’m also not ok with attacking her as a fascist/cop/warmonger without a shred of evidence that she is any of those things.
I personally believe there are far too many lawyers in elected office, as regardless of political affiliation, lawyers tend to be far more socially conservative than the general population.
Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says
“Harris is strongly implied to be in the “unlikeable DHS-affiliated” category. Seriously, she’s a terrible politician who is unable to give genuine-sounding answers to anything except softball questions on television, and the extent of her contact with the general public was as a cop. No thanks, I’m not voting for a fascist.
Picking her as the nominee would guarantee a defeat on par with Clinton’s nomination in 2016. If you think she stands a chance, ask yourselves why she ran in 2020 and lost badly.”
No, I’ll not ask myself what you should be showing. So you can gossip about strong implications? It’s still implications.
Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says
I’ve been practicing pointing out eliminationist behavior, hyper-nationalism, surely there’s a specific and concrete examples of fascist behavior if we can go from Harris not proving herself to fascist so quickly.
I’ve been aware of Harris for a good decade or so, and I feel like a lot of the criticisms against her might be part of some sort of intentional disinformation campaign. There are a lot of posts bumping around social media listing all the various complaints about her, but very few of those complaints are directly attributable to her. And, while I don’t think someone can be entirely blameless of the actions performed by an organization they head, I do feel that there is at least a tiny bit of buffer room, and that they can’t be reasonably expected to micromanage every subordinate in their organization. Most of these events used to portray Harris in a horrible light were not done under her direct command, and sometimes even directly counter to her policies and commands. In many cases corrective action was taken, when the bad event was brought to Harris’s awareness.
The thing that really stands out to me, is that a lot of these complaints (and completely valid complaints, not trying to minimalize or anything…)were kinda obscure cases, and for someone to find them and consolidate them all into “Kamala Harris is a Cop” list, would take a lot of research, digging, reading, and work. And that they would also have to disregard her official policies, what was actually going on, and any corrective actions. So that it seems weird that their are so many people out their claiming to have “looked into things” and just repeating the same, basic, questionable info. Info that also helps the right-wing/trump/russia agenda. :/
And it’s not like she was a complete unknown before the VP pick, she had one of the most progressive voting record of any Senator, and she had some pretty great moments when questioning in Senate hearings.
Well, it does get into deep chess, but remember that the Dems were given long odds of winning the Senate in 2020, so losing Warren’s seat may not have seemed a big deal at that time. After all, that is exactly what Warren would have done to herself if she won the Presidency. It all boils down to Warren’s guess of Biden’s state of mind, which is difficult to fathom.
In any case, even if Warren was not angling for some goodies for herself I think she must have been angling for something. If she truly did think that Biden was the best bet to beat Trump then the best thing for her to do would be to throw her support to him the very minute she suspended her own campaign, but she didn’t. Why not? I can’t see any other option than she was trying to do some horse trading. The most charitable scenario I can imagine is that she wanted some woman to be offered the running mate slot. But I don’t think it would have been hard to get Biden to agree to that, so why was she silent for so long?
I still feel that Warren could have thrown her support to the only other true Progressive in the race, i.e., Bernie Sanders. If Team Sanders plus Team Warren together still couldn’t make the grade, they still would have had plenty of time to help put Biden over the top, so nothing would have been lost. I can’t see any plausible explanation for what she did that does not entail her turning her back on a decent chance to turn the Democratic Party in a much more progressive direction, so I feel betrayed by her.
Not by reasonable standards, you’re right. But by the standards of the commentariat here, ANY criticism, no matter how verifiably fact-based, of any woman is automatically misogyny. Clinton was arrogant and out of touch? MISOGYNY! Clinton won the popular vote thus demonstrating that an election win should be possible? MISOGYNY! (what?). Pointing out that the question in the title of the post is misogynist in its basic formulation? MISOGYNY!
Just ignore them.
Is it worth noting that nobody accused marner of making a misogynistic claim?
It’s possible to critique people based on their record as an elected official. Repeating the lies of a loud-mouthed misogynist @#1 is not a valid criticism.
Holding female politicians to impossible double standards is misogyny 101.
The OP clearly equates macho with strong, which is utter sexist bullshit. Being a violent abusive asshole is not strength, it’s weakness.
Putin is misogynist. Trump is misogynist.
Frankly, if he actually wasn’t misogynist, Bernie Sanders would have pushed back much harder on his rabidly misogynist Bernie-bros after he failed to win the primary. Sadly he is just another old white man who doesn’t understand why women and POC aren’t content with lip service equity.
Leo Buzalsky says
I didn’t read through the comments, but my thought is that Democrats would need a nominee that appeals to millennials and gen z. A nominee that would appeal more to older generations is going to have more of a challenge under my belief that those older generations are more sexist than the younger generations.