I have a terrible observation to make

[Bucky]

Politically in America, being a woman is kind of like being divorced or smoking marijuana. The first presidential candidate to cross that barrier triggers all kinds of lunacy and hysterical overreaction. And then it quickly becomes not a big deal.

People spazzed out about William Jefferson Clinton and pot, and then kind of got over it. By the time Dubya Bush and Obama ran, only a few cranks really made a deal about tacit admissions to mild pot use in the past.

When Adlai Stevenson ran in 1956, the fact that he had been divorced once was this huge scandal. 24 years later, when Democrats try to make a big deal about Ronald Reagan being divorced, but all it produced was a big yawn.

Sadly, being female gets that same treatment. And that means highly qualified people miss out on the chance to serve. And we lose the benefit of their service. But we need Pioneers to break the ice.

I say this because I don't think the next female candidate for president, and I hope it's very soon, will be as excoriated unfairly as Hillary Clinton was. Or at least her demonization won't be as successful. They'll throw everything in the book at her, whoever she is. But I just don't think it'll work as disgustingly effective as the 30 year-long smear campaign against Hillary Clinton has been.

It's heartbreaking that the road to a more equal society has to run through the horror of a Trump Administration. But we can take heart that the rest of the century that we spend cleaning up the mess of Trump's mismanagement and thievery will have a deeper talent pool to draw from.

[JayhawkSD]

1. I don't think Hillary's big problem was being female.

I think her gender probably won her more votes than it cost her. I think her problem was being too much part of "the establishment." Not just being, but embracing it and playing the part.

[murielm99]

2. Oh?

And being a woman and an outsider would have won the election for her? Just WTF is "the establishment?" Does that mean she has credentials? She has been a lawyer working on behalf of children and women? A first lady? A Senator, a Secretary of State?

Any man with those credentials would have won without question. Actually, she did win more votes, in BOTH the primary and the general election.

What exactly is it about being experienced and qualified that should not be embraced? What are you getting at?

This establishment BS is getting stale.

[trentwestcott]

3. I'm not trying to start a flame war here...

...but you sort of undercut your own case when you say that being a woman worked against her, and in the very next sentence you point out that she received more votes in the primary and the general. If her being a woman had worked against her she wouldn't have gotten so many votes.

It's not that people weren't willing to vote for her because she was a woman, nor did people vote for her in spite of her being a woman. The truth is that most people who voted for her did so because she was a Democrat and that's what they always do, vote democrat, and in addition to the normal turnout that you get for being a democrat there was possibly some additional turnout because people wanted to elect the first woman president. In the end, she lost because not enough people in key states voted for her, and it could be that they didn't vote for her because she was a woman, or it could be they didn't vote for her because of the scandal that has always surrounded her name, be it legitimate or not.

The sad fact is that I think that most of the extra voters who came out and voted for her because they wanted to see a woman president might not get as excited when it's Kamala Harris or another woman; the excitement about the symbolism of electing the first woman president may have been exhausted in vain on Hillary's two attempts. Succinctly, there's nowhere near as much novelty in it now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. +1.

[SunSeeker]

8. No, Hillary did get any "extra voters" because she is a woman.

It was at best a wash.

And no, Hillary did not "exhaust the excitement" over getting our first female President any more than Geraldine Ferraro did, which is to say not at all.

[murielm99]

13. +1

[trentwestcott]

46. Neither one of us can prove what we're saying. That's a wash.

Can you prove that she didn't get any extra voters for being a woman, or is that just your opinion? I can't prove that she DID get a bump for being a woman, it's just my opinion based on seeing so many news reports about the surge in registrations with many people attributing their newfound interest in presidential politics to the possibility of "breaking that glass ceiling", as well as reading op-ed pieces and letters to editors with the same theme. The bottom line is that unless we can know the minds of everyone who did vote and everyone who didn't vote, we can't really prove why they did or didn't vote, nor can we prove what we're saying, so that's a wash. We can however prove that she received 66 million votes, which was only second to Barack Obama's totals, which ain't bad.

Ferraro wasn't a presidential candidate, and neither was Palin. Both of them were selected by their running mates, so no one got to go cast a ballot for them, which is where the excitement is, and that's what I meant about the excitement having been exhausted.

[Bucky]

16. I don't entirely agree with you, however

I want to appreciate you for not getting goaded into an argument. It's nice to see someone disagree agreeably. We need more of that in this forum

[leftstreet]

33. +1

[skylucy]

5. Yes, Muriel! +100!

[Cary]

31. It is stale

And it was never fresh.

Vote Democratic!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Defining it.

[musette_sf]

47. Wrong. Sec'y Clinton did NOT "define the establishment".

And Sen Sanders also wrongly attempted to allege that Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign defined "the establishment". That false assertion backfired on him.

[pnwmom]

9. I don't know a single person who ONLY voted for her because she was a woman.

But there were plenty of people who voted against her for that reason.

And, please, that establishment idea makes no sense. DT is a billionaire oligarch, who had was given millions in play money by his father.

Hillary was the daughter of a man who owned a local drapery business.

No one can reasonably claim she was more part of the establishment than he was.

[Bucky]

17. It's not really that hard to case to make

And actually, I had a couple of female Republican friends, admittedly moderate Republicans, who are pretty excited about having a female president and only regretted that they were voting for a Democrat. They're co-workers of mine. They both expressed admiration of Clinton before Trump got the nomination.

So there's that.

But what I really take issue with is your statement that "No one can reasonably claim she was more part of the establishment than he was." Whether or not you and I agree with it or not, and it's clear you don't, I don't think you can claim that literally no one can make an argument that Clinton was the establishment candidate.

It's actually a very easy argument to make. Sheiko led the very establishment Clinton foundation with her husband. She was Secretary of State and a two-term US senator. Her candidacy alone scared every other major political contender out of running for the nomination, so that people who were disinclined to vote for her we're actually coalescing behind a socialist independent for our party's nomination.

And the people who are posing her we're far and away more the outsiders in the party. And the people supporting her we're all the bigwigs in the party. And she was rolling in the money from bigwig contributors.

Trump, on the other hand, was very much running as an outsider. The whole reason he ran, motivationally speaking, is it he would say pissy little spoiled brat who was spurned by all of the upper class in Manhattan, and laughed at by everyone with the college degree and the Washington establishment.

We forget so now, but he didn't really start lining up big contributors until after he got the nomination. Obviously he serves large corporate interests. But that was also kind of the rap on Clinton as well.

Of course the larger point is that she was in reality standing up for ordinary working class families. And just as obviously, all along Trump was going to betray Working Families in favor of the interests of the super wealthy. But what interests people represent and fight for is not the only thing that determines who's The Insider and who's the outsider.

[pnwmom]

44. Yes, DT ran as an outsider -- he deceived his voters with the idea that he wasn't

part of the real power establishment in Washington, if not the public face of it.

[burnbaby]

25. she was our first lady

then senator then sec of state. She was the establishment. DT had never been in politics and those who voted for him liked that. I'm sure their now disappointed but to say Hillary was not part of the establishment is naive at best

[musette_sf]

48. So, then, ALL Democratic office-holders and their spouses

are "part of the establishment"?

[burnbaby]

56. only the ones that then become

senator and then sec. of state

[Duppers]

10. I disagree.

Both issues were in play. I've personally heard many misogynistic attacks upon her by distant RW family members and former friends.

[Bucky]

18. Oh good God yes.

It was horrifying to hear some of the stuff set against her. I really really hope that I'm right, and the effectiveness of that kind of rhetoric burns out after a cycle or two.

It's heartbreaking, but that definitely helped motivate people to vote for Trump who otherwise would have used their cerebellums

[GatoGordo]

12. @JayhawkSD: I would agree with you

A lot of first time voters (female college students, for example) voted for her just because she was a female.

I have made mention of this before. While HRC was exquisitely qualified to be the POTUS, she wasn't likable. That isn't to say that Trump was likable. He wasn't. He wasn't qualified to be dog catcher, let alone elected office.

Also, too many people are tired of all these "legacy" candidates. Kennedy/Clinton/Bush. It is like some sort of modern day titled aristocracy. It is frustrating that new blood with new ideas can't break through the good old boy network.

[nini]

29. Yea.. that's why the repubs started attacking her 30 years ago.

They knew what a threat she was back then - being all smart and stuff.

Those 30 years of trashing her paid off in the end..even some on the left bought the BS.

[StevieM]

39. She embraced Barack Obama, as well she should have. He was a great president and real advantage

Last edited Tue Jun 6, 2017, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

to our party as we pursued a third term in the White House.

And I definitely think that her gender cost her a lot of votes. They may not have said "I won't vote for a woman," but gender issues in our society caused a lot of people to believe all sorts of crazy things about her.

[Bucky]

54. Yep

They call it a glass ceiling, but it's shatterproof glass too often

[JHan]

51. the double standards

and no it didn't win her more votes. I heard enough during the elections about women being in positions of leadership and how wrong it was- hell that message was coming from the pulpit in parts of America.

The implicit message about Hillary Clinton since she's been on the stage have been insidious - She was seen as a threat by the Republicans. Hell I was born in the 90's and by the 00's and even by 2008, I was very "aware" of this. It became so bad it, and still is, it is impossible to not be assaulted by negative insinuations about HRC. If you think implicit insinuations and messages don't work on the mind, just look at the way Trump got away with referring to mexicans as rapists, his insinuations of Megyn Kelly being on her period, claiming Clinton didn't have the Stamina and doesn't look " presidential", and aside from that - the general push back women experience when they express ambition, the way complicated women are treated vis a vis men who are similarly complicated but not viewed as "flawed" .

Some of the most visceral and antagonistic views of Clinton I've heard have come from people who see themselves as liberal. We're all susceptible to the ISMs of society, and a woman asking for power is viewed with suspicion. This is borne out through data. How aggression in women is perceived versus aggression in men, the attention paid to her fashion choices, her hair, her voice, her mannerisms.

Some examples of sexism: Blaming Hillary for the ills of Bill Clinton's presidency and ignoring her work in politics ( despite the fact she was to the left of her husband. Just read Leon Panetta's take on his experience in the Clinton whitehouse and how he thought Hillary at the time was "naive" about politics and too idealistic)

Hating Clinton for policy decisions and legislative maneuvering male politicians made as well but weren't hounded for...a few beloved male politicians come to mind who we give a pass to...

Hating Clinton first and then fishing for anything to support your hatred.

And finally, what is revealed in your own comment - Hanging the "establishment" meme round her neck like an albatross despite her record, despite her policies, despite what I highlighted above.

That the man who pushed the Birtherism BS is now President of the United States says it all: Nativism, Sexism, Racism, morally bankrupt confederate politics - all collectively a figleaf so small they barely cover the disease of hate in America and the popularity of meanness in politics.

[skylucy]

4. Yes Bucky. I agree with you. 45 Presidents and every single one of them has been

a male. Yet some people still insist that Hillary's gender was a non factor. Hillary was actually blamed for "enabling" Bill's infidelity. Trump has children by three different wives, is a adulterer and used his power to view naked underage girls, etc. He gets elected. Oh yeah, no gender bias there.

[Bucky]

19. If it's any consolation

He was elected by the electoral college, but not really elected by the people

[former9thward]

20. The electoral college is elected by the people.

Constitution 101.

[Bucky]

21. Oh, silly

You know exactly what I mean. Get out of here and take that "winner's" 2,900,000 vote deficit with you

:0)

[former9thward]

23. I don't take orders from you.

I do know exactly what you mean. You are trying to imply the EC is divorced from the vote from the people. It is not. If you want a mass popular vote election then change the Constitution.

[unblock]

32. actually, the electoral college is appointed by the states.

each state happens to choose to hold an election to determine its slate of electors.

and of course, it's the disproportionate allocation of electors among the states that causes the main difference between this method and a straight popular vote.

you sweep all this under the rug if you just say that the electors are determined by the people.

constitution 101.

[itcfish]

58. It Must be Changed

How can 1 person's vote in Montana count the same as 1000 votes in California? Like most civilized democratic nations, the majority of votes wins elections that should be how our country's elections must be.

[StevieM]

41. I try not to focus on the popular vote win, for one simple reason:

it downplays what Comey and the FBI did in order to rig the election.

I actually don't even focus on the Russian hacking too much. Because everything else pales in comparison to the complete corruption of the FBI.

[democratisphere]

11. Never underestimate the nastiness of a huge segment of the white

male population. All you need to do is look at the WH and Congress to see what I mean. The good old boys have and are f'ing up our country royally. The bastards have a mindset to win at all costs. Just look at what happened in Iowa politics with Kim Weaver dropping out of the race due to death threats. This sh*t is not going away anytime soon.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/04/democratic_challenger_to_iowa_rep_steve_king_abandons_race_due_to_death.html

[mnhtnbb]

14. The fight from the white male supremacists to maintain power at all costs

cannot be underestimated. And they don't all fit a single image, either.

The white guys in suits in the Senate who've decided THEY alone will write a health care bill are just as much
white male supremacists as the terrorist guy in Portland who stabbed people defending two young women from
the terrorist guy's hate speech.

I think the nastiness and violence is going to get worse. It scares the crap out of me. And the bully in the White House is enabling
the violence.

[former9thward]

22. Were any of those "death threats" reported to the police?

She said she dropped out because she had to care for her mother, she was afraid of having to move and change jobs, she didn't want to lose her health insurance, etc. She had a whole list of reasons and threw in the threats as an after thought. Besides since she claims to be a psychic why couldn't she see what was coming?

[smirkymonkey]

26. +1000

This right here. And I believe it's getting worse.

[LSFL]

15. It's. macho culture

Some men will never vote for a woman no matter what. Couple that with a needlessly drawn out primary that divided the party when anyone could easily see she would win after March...and voila. You get a flatuating gas bag for President. But emails!

[JayhawkSD]

24. Oh, come on. California has as many men as any other state,

maybe more than usually macho because of the Hispanic population, and we have two female Senators.

In the past election, both candidates for the one senate seat open were females because they were the two highest primary election vote getters.

[LSFL]

42. California maybe an exception

Right or wrong many men will not vote for a woman. They cannot abide a woman in charge. It cuts across political parties too. It should not be this way but it is extremely common in the rust belt and the south.

[JayhawkSD]

50. What makes California an exception?

Why are California men different? Is there something in the water? Is it proximity to the Pacific Ocean? What?

Men in 49 states "cannot abide a woman in charge," but in California we elect two of them to the Senate, and in the primary election two women are the top to vote getters.

Clinton won California by 3 million votes. What role did men play? I don't know, but she didn't have that margin without men voting for her in large numbers.

Why? What causes California to be the exception? Specifically... What? We need to know so that we can export whatever it is that California has to 49 other states. If it's the water, let's find out what it is about our water treatment it is that does that so that we can use the same water treatment in Idaho and Wyoming.

[LSFL]

59. I wish you could export it.

Openmindedness is an intangible. It will take a generational shift.

[Lotusflower70]

28. Part of the problem

Is in framing that there is a difference in the standards between men and women even though we know there is. Just as there are differences in standards for minorities versus white regardless of gender. If we simply say she lost because she is female, that misses so many of the other issues at play. I believe people took for granted that she would win and that mentaliy impacted her campaign. She does have to own that. I didn't believe she was going to win, especially since we had 8 years with a black President. Some white people would have collectively lost their shit if she would have won. But she paved the way for those who will come after her. They won't have to face anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as she has. I hope we learn from this moving forward.

[BeyondGeography]

30. She lost white women by ten points to a sexual assault braggart

who she dismantled every time they debated. The big deficit (28 points) was non-college educated whites but I think the campaign was shocked by how poorly she performed with educated suburban white women. If I recall, she outperformed Obama by one whole point with that segment.

So the question that obviously should be addressed as part of this is why so many women were not that into Hillary, even when she was clearly more qualified and intelligent than her opponent, who is the walking caricature of a male chauvinist pig.

[Bucky]

34. Careful now

Substantives analyses of Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate can get your posts alerted in this forum

[BeyondGeography]

35. Oh, I know very well...but my real disappointment here is with educated white women voters

Or maybe I just need to get real about how relatively unimportant gender is to them when they're deciding between male and female candidates. But even if you go that route, look at what the choice was here. Pretty mind-numbing outcome IMO.

[Bucky]

37. Did Elisabeth Kubler-Ross stages of grieving apply well

But our country may not have the luxury of spending time in the denial or bargaining stages

[JI7]

36. non white women DID support her. i think it's clear many white people vote on race

And keeping their white privilege .

[BeyondGeography]

38. And/or their white illusions

Chief among them, they do all the work and Deomcrat-supported nonwhite free stuff addicts are what stand between them and all their sweet dreams of more.

Racism hurt Hillary much more than misogyny. It remains by far the biggest obstacle to a better America.

[JI7]

40. i agree it was race. In 2008 she was seen as running against the black guy

In 2016 she was the one that worked for and supported that black guy who beat her .

They also didn't like her support for black mothers who people killed and dreamers and refugees.

But there is some sexism in that more would have supported hillary if she was running against palin. So the sexism is more in that they would be less likely to support a women with such high level of ignorance while supporting a man who is even worse.

[BeyondGeography]

43. Watch Jelani Freeman starting at the 6:20 mark

Humans who respond to these stories negatively have a serious humanity problem:

[JI7]

49. i guess it's easier if they view certain people as "less than"

[haele]

45. Wonder if her political competency and status was alienating to the competitive "wives clubs".

The women who set themselves up as queen bees/Lady of the Manor House in their own social circles - especially if they're calling themselves "Liberals" and "Progressives".
Dispensing Charity and Wisdom from On High is a potent drug to a lot of co-dependent personalities, especially those who gained their power positions primarily off lucky networking or relationships, rather than their own "hard work" and risk taking. It's easy for these women to almost unconsciously look at any woman seeking to attain a power position being less of a qualified candidate on merits as a politically savvy person seeking an office.

Since Ms. Clinton's political positions - especially her incrementalist way of taking the Party forward - would seem to be in direct competition to their own positional agendas, they'd rather cut her down than see her succeed. The "Perfect" becomes the enemy of the Good; the image in the mirror (or on TV) is more important to some than the actual person the mirror reflects.

BTW, men do it too - it's not just the Real Housewives of the Progressive Front.

Haele

[Quixote1818]

52. She won the popular vote. Not sure there is even an issue to be had here.

If she had won back in 2008 and Obama had just come up short we would be having the same conversation wondering if a black person could win. Of course a woman can win, she basically did.

[Bucky]

53. Well, my point wasn't about reality. It was about perceptions.

Which, sadly, are often more important

[Demsrule86]

55. I disagree. I think the next female presidential candidate will face the same

sort of treatment...do you remember the Bradley effect? It took years for POC to run for office successfully. I think we are in for it a bit longer. I am a woman. I long for a women president in my lifetime. I think it may happen, but not betting on 'next time'.

[kcr]

57. Sadly, I think you're wrong

Misogyny is simply too deeply ingrained in our culture and that very fact is still too often denied. Look at how Clinton is still being told to shut up and go away, and look at the very first response to your post. Just saw an Elizabeth Warren is too shrill comment somewhere the other day.