July 25-28. For the first time in our nation’s history, a major party will nominate a woman as its candidate for the presidency. Pretty historic. I think that that gets lost in all of this Benghazi/emailgate/right-wing hatred nonsense. There are even a lot of people on the left going “Meh” right now. But come on! This is huge! I can’t wait to watch the moment she’s officially nominated with my wife and daughter (and son).
I’m not feeling the “hugeness” of nominating a woman. It’s 2016, it seems like it’s at least time, and not something terribly groundbreaking. Maybe that we’ve been expecting this for over 8 years, so we’re pretty used to the idea. I’m happy with this nomination, and certainly support Mrs. Clinton, but her gender seems down the list of reasons she’s a good candidate for President.
Concerning the convention, I’m wondering if the “Mothers of the Movement” idea is good politics.
Her gender isn’t even on the list of reasons she’s a good candidate; it has nothing to do with the quality of her candidacy. But the fact she’s about to accept the nomination for president, is freaking groundbreaking. It’s as groundbreaking as a black man being nominated eight years ago.
Okay. I’m not looking for an argument. I guess I’m one of those “meh” liberals you mentioned in the OP. A black president did surprise me, I didn’t expect we could do that, although of course I’m happy about it. Electing a woman POTUS sometime in my lifetime seemed more inevitable, plus women have been in charge in several major countries over the past few decades. We also have women on the Supreme Court, serving as governors, and elected to Congress. Itt is quite an accomplishment for Hillary Clinton, and I acknowledge women have more obstacles in government and in business. Maybe it’s just me; I see the historical significance, I’m just not feeling it.
I think this list is incomplete. Obviously Obama and Biden won’t be filling three hours by themselves. There’s not even a “VP will go here” slot listed. And since the Clinton VP pick is still a secret, there’s no slots for Warren, Perez, Kaine, etc. Warren’s a long shot for VP but you think she’s going to pass on thirty minutes of prime time coverage to tear into Trump?
I’m not “feeling” it as you seem to think *you *ought to, Sir. I want Hllary elected because she’ll be a pretty good President. Far better than any of the Republican options–not to mention The Donald.
However, I’m sure a few MCP heads will explode when she’s sworn in as President. That does make me glad.
I’m a Kiwi, at one point a few years back we had the top three positions in our Govt filled by ladies.
As much as the “first female president” is a “big deal” for the US, and I think it’s kinda a landmark (for the US) there is a certain feeling of inevitability about it - which I think is thanks to the quality of Hillary herself, it feels kinda “meh” because of how she’s earned it and what a quality candidate* she is.
Of course, not everyone sees her as a “quality candidate” - what with the Benscandal, emailpoopyheads and all, but I don’t think there’s much doubt as to her overall…“worthiness” if you could put it that way?
She’s better than all the other options, I’ll give you that. But to have the first female President be the wife of a previous President, is more of an achievement for nepotism than for women. Canada, Australia and the UK have all had female Prime Ministers that got there without being married, or from the family of, a previous head of state.
That doesn’t seem fair at all.
She’s a very successful woman in her own right, and I do remember a lot of complaints back during his time about her involvement…
Which seems to run counter to what you’re saying.
I stand by my words. Yes she is smart and talented, experienced and hard working, but she’s had an obviously huge boost in name recognition by being married to Clinton. My point is that it was a far more meaningful thing for Margaret Thatcher to become the first female Prime Minister of the UK (in 1979 no less!), than for the US to have their first female President, who was married to a previous President.
When one day in the future a woman becomes President who wasn’t married to an ex President, that will be a more meaningful landmark for the US.
It’s been pretty much assumed that Hilary would be next after Obama got the nom, so the reaction to her getting it this time is pretty much, “Well, yeah, of course.”