Pardon? Do you mean this: "The other women in that race were lightweights - too young and inexperienced and passionate instead of level-headed." I said Klobuchar and Gabbard come nowhere near Warren in experience and level-headedness. I know the point you were making, and I am showing how it was misdirected. Out of that whole post, you picked the word "nice" as the most significant, and at face value, when I was using "not nice" as a euphamism for something much worse. Think Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright and complicity in war crimes. Fine. The Bushes were not very nice, either. Nor was Reagan. Jimmy Carter was nice; John Kennedy wasn't. In this field, I think maybe Buttigieg, Yang and Patrick are nice, but we didn't get much chance to find out. Hence my reference to the other women's inexperience - Compared to Elizabeth Warren - who, incidentally, would have been my preference. Well, now it has. Eh?
I disagree. Biden sounds absolutely inane most of the time, regardless of his experience, yet even he was found to be ''better'' than any of the women running. That's pretty scary to me. Agree, maybe that's why they're out. Hmm. I was rooting for Buttigieg. The problem was that she couldn't articulate how to pay for universal healthcare. 'I'm not against a universal healthcare option, as long as citizens can keep their private healthcare option, if they so choose. ?
Fine. So what? That's the only way it could possibly be implemented - as an option. Warren probably understands government finance better than any of the others. Sanders may know how to do it, but the party can't imagine broad support for his plan. But what they know is simply not a criterion for the Democratic party. Sorry, the letters are wearing off my keyboard - that was the pre-edited version. Wegs -- But when it comes to women, how “nice” they are comes into play. Jeeves -- Well, now it has. Meaning, you made an issue of it. It really isn't an issue in presidential politics, any more than competence is. The Dems are looking for the least contentious, least objectionable candidate and shooting themselves in the foot, as they so often do.
I made an issue of it because I believe it plays a role. Men and women are not judged the same, in business or politics, unfortunately. Warren ran circles around Biden (and Sanders) in the debates, yet she drops out? https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-05/women-elizabeth-warren-presidential-race https://newrepublic.com/article/156798/elizabeth-warren-supporters-biden-sanders-2020 The take away seems to be that you can be different shades of incompetence if you're a man running for office, but you better be near perfect...if you're a woman.
Warren may not have explicitly articulated how universal healthcare would be paid for in debates, but why would she or should she? Very few voters possess much understanding of economics so it would have fallen on deaf ears anyway. Candidates seldom explicitly spell out how they are going to finance or implement their policies in such forums. Regardless, Warren understands matters of finance far better than any of those she was campaigning against--and even if she didn't, one only has to look literally to any other affluent nation on the planet, as they've all got single-payer and have consistently demonstrated that it is vastly cheaper and more effective than the shit system we've got. (I would most likely be dead if I hadn't gone to graduate school in Canada--prior to, I was consistently misdiagnosed.) The aversion to universal healthcare is one of the many things about Americans that has long been utterly incomprehensible to me. From where I sit, the only people who could even possibly be opposed to such are the congenitally stupid and/or irredeemably ignorant (for obvious reasons), the born-rich (for never having experienced real hardship), or the hateful and bigoted (as they don't want to contribute one penny to the well-being of those ________). It's truly baffling.
<-------heterosexual (when I sculpt, I tend to sculpt more women than men---eye of the beholder...etc...) I was raised by a woman. We developed a rapport, and love. She was in charge for most of our time together. ok (as she would have said) "extrapolating from known data". Via inductive reasoning: We would have that I respect women that I love women (without even the need for sexual relationships) ok starting from there.........................................I like strong and strong willed intelligent women I judge people via competence and perceived moral sense. not genitalia
I think that many like their private healthcare option - but, they are being told (or they assume) that they’d possibly lose that option, if the US healthcare turns to universal healthcare. Wanting to keep something that has been working for you, doesn’t make you a bigot or stupid, etc. I think that they are afraid to lose the option of care. We can’t assume to know what every American thinks who is “against” universal healthcare but in talking with friends of mine, they simply state that they don’t want to lose their employer or private healthcare, that’s all.
I wish more men felt like you, sculptor. We're getting there, but if you read some of the articles circulating relating to Warren dropping out of the race, it shows that many Americans (not only men, some women too) aren't ''ready'' for a female President, and that's where it begins and ends for them.
I''d say a lot longer than that, but... One of the most troubling aspects of any ostensibly democratic system is allowing anyone to vote, irrespective of what they may or may not know. Of course, restricting the privilege is equally problematic. The only art form for which right-wingers have ever demonstrated any real proficiency is poetry--and there've been plenty of fascists among poets. ... Actually, I just lost my train of thought.
My opinion plays no role whatsoever in US elections. My opinion that Warren is better qualified than Klobuchar, and that Rice wasn't the best person for her job plays no role whatsoever in US elections. Your inflating a casual observation at the the price of ignoring the content of the post plays a role only in this thread: it serves to deflect from the real issues.
Do you really think that women are treated as fairly as men, as equally as men, in business and politics? Omg, Jeeves...say it ain't so. As mentioned the tide is turning, but there were qualified women in this race who would have made a fine President. I guess at the end of the day, most Americans didn't think that a woman could outwit Trump. That's sad to me, it may not be sad to you. But, could it be a problem of choosing the ''right'' woman? That is what ''they'' said about Hillary. This is what many articles are positing. It would have been so interesting to see what might have happened if Michelle Obama would've joined this last race. Me thinks she would have won, by a landslide. It's not too late though, is it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. And nor have I said that they were. I did say that sex/gender/orientation should not be an issue in politics. But my opinion has no influence on politics. That's an opinion. I hope it's true, but I don't see enough evidence of that tide coming into Washington just yet. There was one qualified woman, who could probably make a fine president, in the race for Democratic nomination. An opossum could outwit Trump! But Trump isn't what the Democratic candidate is going up against. There is that vast, dark propaganda machine, the craven Republican panders, the red state election sabotage apparatus, the Russians, the vested financial interests, and all the chronically dysinformed American voters. There isn't much in the Dems' corner - the tattered constitution, Covid-19 and human decency. None of this is about sex. What's at stake is way bigger than wits, or candidates or individuals. No, it's not that. Michelle Obama wouldn't run - it's too soon; maybe next time. A lot of people said a lot of things about Hillary Clinton - most of them untrue. But she had made some enemies in a controversial career and her marriage wasn't a huge asset. I also think - as a neutral observer - that the campaign made some serious mistakes. Of course she would have made a better president than Trump - but so would that clever opossum. A squeak, at best. The political edifice, the institutions, the polling officials - the whole election process is booby-trapped. And she's way too smart to swim with the piranhas. Maybe next time - if there is a next time.
They (the specific Democratic Party media figures and executive decisionmakers involved) have been engaged in stealing the nomination from Sanders - again. And if you don't know who they are, it's past time to pay attention before running your mouth. Start with anyone in an upper level executive or media job within the Democratic Party who pays, hires, listens to, or spontaneously speaks favorably of, Chuck Todd. (Maddow being a unique case - not as spontaneous as appears). Names, good for netsearch if not personal responsibility? Examples, off hand, very partial, scattershot, without priority and in no order, picked up from the news the last couple of days: Axelrod. Brazile. Williams. Mathews. Blitzer. Sulzburger. Frum. Carville. The upper level executives of CNN, MSNBC. And so forth. Everyone who celebrated the odd voting glitches and suppressions that helped show Sanders the door in 2016, and were then surprised - shocked, shocked I tell you - when they bit Clinton in the ass in November. This isn't difficult. There is a they, they have names, and the people referring to them know these names and have been following their behavior for decades now - this is reality based political analysis. The fantasy dwellers in the Bothsider universe who imagine everyone else is also dwelling in fantasy on the basis of what they perceive as rhetorical similarities and parallels are - like our local Russian boychik Schmelzer - simply projecting. Meanwhile, and probably necessary around here: It's not that theft and illegitimate betrayal by the Democratic establishment is the major factor in Sanders falling short, if he does: it's that the attempts are obvious and have been overt for years now. There's good reason Sanders hasn't been a loyal partisan Democrat over his career. These aren't even news any more, in lefty circles (just one example: according to my informants, the lefty podcast called "Bradblog" had been predicting the events we saw in Texas for weeks. That - and their established record of insight into such matters over the years - would seem to have earned them a prominent role in major and mainstream news analysis regarding Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. Why do you suppose it hasn't?).
For some years, there have been more women in America than men, so it would stand to reason that most women don't want to see a woman as president.
I'd be very interested in following that train. If you ever pick up the trail, please start a thread.
It has never been a question of numbers. Why in the world would you suppose that people make all their decisions along gender lines? Why in the world would you suppose that females have had proportionally equal opportunity to run for office? Why in the world would you suppose that the majority of voters determines who becomes president? Why in the world would you assume that women have equal access and freedom to vote? Why in the world would you suppose that all voters are equally well informed? Why in the world would you assume that the roster of available candidates has ever in any way represented the spectrum of voter interests? There are so many unsupported assumptions in that "stands to reason"!
Another entry point issue, if anyone is genuinely curious: look at the bias in the current reporting of Party delegate counts, not only over the past few weeks or so but right now. This reporting is based on the official media feed from the Democratic Party "establishment", or "they". It is deceptive in a few obvious ways, but the ones involving 7 hours standing in line in districts favoring Sanders or misbehavior by touchscreens in the booths or the like we can set aside to avoid work: here's one involving easily perceived visual aids and requiring no memory or research into the past (like, you know, last week): - The current delay in reporting the counts from those States (or even regions) that favor Sanders is blatant. That favors Biden, illegitimately, going into the next round of primaries (to the degree of being "theft" rather than merely hardball politics, imho). It resembles the deceptive delegate procedures and reporting of delegate counts we saw when Obama was running against Clinton, and like them involves media influence and complicity. Here's CNN, for example, including the projected (not yet certified) delegate count for Minnesota but omitting any such projection no matter how reliable from California, thereby padding Biden's delegate advantage and creating an impression of momentum going into the next round of elections: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/primaries-and-caucuses. Here's a somewhat better - (they have a much better idea of the southern California vote at least, more informative - but still biased (so anyone can see the effect) map from Bloomberg News: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-presidential-delegates-tracker/ As of this morning there were 90 voted in delegates outstanding and not counted by these media, of which exactly one (leaving 89) was from a State called for Biden. Of the ten States called for Biden, exactly one delegate from exactly one State is still outstanding. Of the four States called for Sanders, as of this morning Democratic Party officialdom still had three with large (double digit) numbers of delegates outstanding for a total of 89 - CNN obediently counts none of them for Sanders, not even in estimate. That's not enough to change Biden's status as leading - but it is enough to question Biden's "momentum" and "electability", and it directly conflicts with honest journalism or punditry. Prediction: if and whenever Sanders picks up those delegates officially and reduces the current gap with them even on CNN, the major nonFox media will not report it as "gaining momentum" or "coming back" - which out of context will look like fair reporting, because it isn't momentum and it isn't a comeback for Sanders But it was for Biden when it was Biden picking up the lead in the first place. He even got credit for a "comeback" win and momentum gain from South Carolina.
