Madam President? Five Candidates on What It Will Take to Shatter the Most Stubborn Glass Ceiling

[DesertRat]

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2019, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

While each has so far trailed the leading male candidates—Warren and Senator Kamala Harris poll closest to the top of this group—collectively they have smashed our stubborn assumptions about powerful women and permanently changed our notion of what a presidential election looks like. For the first time, multiple women stand on the presidential-debate stages, their presence signaling to millions of Americans that the era of a dozen men—and maybe a lone woman—arguing the issues is over. (When Governor Jay Inslee touted his record on women’s rights in the first debate in Miami, Klobuchar chimed in with, “I just want to say, there’s three women up here that have fought pretty hard for a woman’s right to choose.”)

I figured the women now running for president would be propelled by the success of the newly elected women in Congress, of seemingly impossible Democratic victories across the country, of the power of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Instagram feed and a newly potent era of political activism. These women could also run without the history (I refuse to say baggage) that Hillary carried with her. I still wonder how much of voters’ hesitancy about Hillary was based on sexism (my guess is a lot) and how much was discomfort with a political family that had weathered so many scandals (real and imagined) and loomed so large for decades. But whatever the answer, the women running in 2020 would surely enjoy a clean slate. Whatever skeletons were in their closets couldn’t possibly match those of the Trump White House. Harris allegedly flip-flopped on private insurance? Klobuchar ate a salad with a plastic comb and then snapped at a staffer to clean it? Warren had to apologize to the Cherokee Nation for claiming Native American heritage? Yes, well, Trump heaped praise on the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, (briefly) declared he’d gladly accept dirt on an opponent from a foreign power, and watched as both his personal lawyer and campaign chairman embarked on lengthy prison sentences. Finally, I thought, voters would no longer tell me (as they so often did when I asked why they didn’t support Hillary) that they would love to vote for a woman for president, just not that woman. There was no way that Harris, Gillibrand, Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard, and Williamson could all be that woman . . . could they?

Rather than being propelled, these women have seemed stuck in a sort of political purgatory, firmly, frustratingly sandwiched between Hillary’s loss and the country’s (eventual?) realization that a woman can be president. Studies conducted early this year by Northeastern University and FiveThirtyEight, respectively, found that the female candidates have received more negative coverage in the news media than their male rivals, and have had a harder time breaking through in cable TV and viral moments (unless you count Trump evoking the massacre at Wounded Knee to mock Warren). Depending on the day, these women have been eclipsed by a man who can speak Norwegian (Pete Buttigieg) or who played in a punk band (Beto O’Rourke) or who picked up $700,000 on a Wednesday night in Hollywood (Joe Biden). As I was reporting this story, David Axelrod, the former Obama adviser, praised Buttigieg’s taco-eating ability. (“He can eat tacos without apparently dropping any on his white shirt,” Axelrod tweeted). I tried to imagine a woman candidate (or any woman) being praised for eating, well, anything.

No matter how far we’ve come, the reality is that “the idea of a woman in a leadership position is still seen as ‘Oh, I don’t know if we can go there,’ ” says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. That sentiment—echoed in endless debates on cable news—eventually can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, says Jennifer Lawless, a professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on women in politics. “It could signal to voters that these women won’t be as credible to take on Donald Trump.”It’s a concern the candidates say they hear over and over again. Kirsten Gillibrand likes to point out that a woman did technically beat Trump. “We must all remember that Hillary won the popular vote,” the New York senator says. “She was genuinely seen as the most qualified candidate.”

Much more at the link:
https://www.vogue.com/article/democratic-women-female-candidates-interview?verso=true

[Skittles]

1. if it wasn't for Russia, a woman would be president right now

[DesertRat]

2. Yup. They interfered in our election and they'll try again

And the idiot-in-chief won't do anything about it.

[StevieM]

3. If it wasn't for James Comey and GOP partisans at the FBI a woman would be president right now.(eom)

[Skittles]

4. agreed

Comey did that, KNOWING Trump colluded with Russia - seriously WTF was that about except not wanting a woman to be president

[JI7]

7. the reason Comey hurt was becaue of Russia . without the Russian attacks

Comey's last minute bs would not have been as effective.

it was the combination of the 2 which ended up hurting.

without Comey she would still have won but it would be closer because of Russia.

[StevieM]

8. I would argue that Russia, and their misinformation, made Comey's attack more devastating.

When people were tricked into believing that she got the debate questions, it seemed to validate the claim that she had all sorts of power that other politicians didn't have. That made it believable that she "was let off" in the email investigation.

[lunamagica]

5. Hillary shaterred it

[PunkinPi]

6. K&R