Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumA reminder - Hillary is NOT the establishment! (Hillary Group)
There have been 3 female Secretaries of State in U.S. history and 65 men. Thats just above 95 percent male.
There have been 4 female Supreme Court justices in the United States, including 3 now serving on the bench. There have been 108 male justices. Thats more than 96 percent male.
There have been 44 Presidents of the United States. All men. The math is easy: thats 100 percent male.
This isn't just about "guns and free stuff."
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Are you proposing that people should support Clinton for no other reason than its time for a woman to be elected president... baggage and all?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Does that now mean my vote doesn't count?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)that he can't be a woman temporarily during the primary - also.
I mean, he's always there first on every issue, he says.
pandr32
(11,446 posts)Hillary Clinton busting through the highest glass ceiling to exist is a very big deal. Slightly more than half of our population is female. Patriarchy has kept women, children, families and communities oppressed for the entire history of the U.S. and most of the world. If you were to unravel the threads of patriarchy you would find they connect to everything.
Aside from the fact that there is no way Hillary Clinton can be "establishment", she is the most experienced and otherwise qualified candidate running for POTUS. The fact that she is a woman as well is a huge deal.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... the DNC.
I don't think the "anger" phase is over yet though
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The claim to be or not to be part of the establishment is not the basis I would chose my election. We have the most qualified candidate running, she just happens to be a female, I support Hillary.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We care about equal outcomes!
Systemic institutional sexism and racism are empowered by the ongoing status quo.
We - again - have the opportunity to make it about more than "this candidate" is more qualified than "that candidate." This can be about much more!
If George W. Bush can 'win' an election because more people would like to drink a beer with him than Al - or Donald Trump can win because he says every batshit crazy thing that pops into his head, and his supporters call that 'honesty' - then why can't we inspire voters - any voters - just on 'gender'?
NOW!
book_worm
(15,951 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"A group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy or taste, and seen as resisting change."
Are you missing the point of the OP?
Or are you the establishment?