Too bad about Liz, but as I said earlier, America just isn't ready yet:
Some notable firsts:
1789 - first President
1960 - first Catholic President
2008 - first black President
2016 - first orange President
<---- We are here ---->
Predictions:
2020 - first Jewish President
2032 - first openly gay President
2040 - first Muslim President
2052 - first openly atheist President
2064 - first transgender President
2076 - first robot President
2092 - first extraterrestrial President
2144 - first female-born female President
Try again in 124 years, Liz.
My heart is broken that Warren didn't do better. First Hillary lost to a turd like Trump and then a healthy smart woman took a seat to allow two withering old men take the stage. One with a faltering mind and the other with a faltering body.
I made excuses after Clinton, but America really is NOT ready for a woman president. It was one thing when the general population did it, it's a whole other level when DEMOCRATS do it.
It has really hurt me to see it.
I agree, although I was disappointed to see her get into identity politics. What made her a star in the first place was her work following the financial crisis of 2007, when she was among the most prominent voices calling for accountability in the financial sector, working under Obama to form the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and so on. Her real strength was talking about economic and financial reforms, stuff that would affect everybody. On the other hand hearing her say that her Secretary of Education would have to be vetted by a transgender child was so cringe-inducing that I felt embarrassed for ever thinking she could win.
In the aftermath of Warren dropping out, I've read a number of think pieces about why a woman couldn't win. There are a couple of main hypotheses that hold water.
The first is that people feel that beating Trump is the most important priority and they are afraid that sexism will prevent a woman from beating Trump. They feared that choosing a woman would just be 2016 all over again. Joe Biden said something along the lines of "a lot of sexist attacks were used against Hillary in 2016, but that's not going to work against me." Sanders last week said something along the lines of "female candidates face obstacles that men do not have". People are afraid that sexism might hold back the Democratic nominee from defeating Trump, so they've chosen a man.
"Sexism means a woman can't win so we have to nominate a man" is self-perpetuating logic that will hold women back, not just this election but for a long time to come. Had Hillary won, it would have ended that cycle, but instead it has been reinforced.
The second train of thought is that people are okay with the idea of a female president in an abstract sense, but not in a real sense. Somebody might feel completely comfortable with the idea of a female president, but ask them about any specific woman and the answer is "no, she just doesn't fit with my idea of what a female president would be like." For some person perhaps the picture of a female leader would be Hillary Clinton, for others perhaps Margaret Thatcher, for others perhaps Chrystia Freeland or Rona Ambrose or even Sarah Palin or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, but for too many others, none of those options fit their notion of what a female leader would be like. I think people are generally accustomed to the idea that a middle-aged (or older) man in a suit is what a leader looks like, and for somebody who doesn't fit that description it's harder to convince them.
Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.
I disagree, actually. Conservatives dread the idea of a progressive woman being president, but they'll support one of their own. As Poonlight posted earlier, they loved Thatcher and they loved Sarah Palin. I think it's an
"Only Nixon could go to China" type situation.
-k