# The USA is not now and may never be ready for a woman President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371 "2017-08-22T15:15:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/21 "2017-08-22T17:17:22Z")
[QUOTE=Aspenglow] It’s not just Hillary Clinton. It’s Nancy Pelosi. It’s Kamala Harris. It’s Maxine Waters. It’s Elizabeth Warren. It’s Diane Feinstein. I could go on. [/QUOTE] Who is keeping them down? IIRC, Kamala Harris has been under attack by Sanders and Warren et al and the progressives, not because she is a woman but because she isn’t progressive and is establishment (I could be thinking of someone else here). Warren and Feinstein aren’t attacked because they are women, but because of their progressive views by those who don’t’ agree with those views. I’m not seeing anyone in your example as someone being put down or kept down because they are women, but instead, women who are being attacked because of their political stances by people who don’t agree with those stances. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/22 "2017-08-22T17:17:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > She was a Senator for 8 years (compared to 4 years in the House for GHW Bush), Secretary of State for 4 years (compared to GHW Bush’s 1-2 years runs at a couple of different foreign policy posts), and spent 8 years in the White House involved in policy work (same as GHW Bush). > > Saying GHW Bush is more qualified on paper really depends on assigning minimal value to Clinton’s time as First Lady as compared to Bush’s time as Vice President. But neither First Lady nor Vice President has any actual duties that give them relevant experience. It’s down to what they actually did during that time. Not at all clear to me that Bush did more than Clinton. > > Of course, “qualification” is an inherently disputed value. But I don’t think it’s a “how on earth”-level quandary why so many people would regard her as the most qualified candidate going back many decades. BHW Bush: WWII Fighter Pilot (WWII veteran) US House of Representatives Ambassador to the UN Chairman of the GOP National Committee Envoy to PRC (basically ambassador, but we didn’t have official relations with PRC at the time) Director, CIA Vice President, 2 terms I don’t see how anyone could say that HRC has more qualifications than that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/23 "2017-08-22T17:21:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > BHW Bush: > > WWII Fighter Pilot (WWII veteran) > US House of Representatives > Ambassador to the UN > Chairman of the GOP National Committee > Envoy to PRC (basically ambassador, but we didn’t have official relations with PRC at the time) > Director, CIA > Vice President, 2 terms > > I don’t see how anyone could say that HRC has more qualifications than that. In addition, it’s hard to see how being First Lady is comparable to being Vice President. While VP is pretty undefined except wrt the succession it’s still a political position that does entail quite a lot experience with Washington politics as part of its job, not just as a secondary or tertiary benefit to simply being married to the president. ETA: And for the record, I voted for Hillary and thought she was the best candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/24 "2017-08-22T17:28:08Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > In _every single instance_, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it. In 2010, Pew Research asked people to name the Chief Justice of the United States. 53% did not know. 8% said it was Thurgood Marshall and 4% said it was Harry Reid. My own off-the-top-of-my-head response: Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley. Condi’s too smart to do it, of course. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/25 "2017-08-22T17:28:56Z")
Hillary was plenty qualified (beyond the official qualifications listed in the US Constitution). She would have made a perfectly good president. No need to claim she was “the single most qualified candidate ever to run for President”. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/26 "2017-08-22T17:29:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Ummm … I don’t know if you’ve been around for the last year, but President Trump has been mocked incessantly for his appearance and temperament. Just do a search here on the Dope for the word “orange” if you need a cite. What else did he bring to the table, in terms of political experience? Did you see tons of mocking for the appearances or temperaments of Marco Rubio? John Kasich? Rand Paul? No. They were all granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office, in a way that Hillary Clinton was not. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think it’s a great surprise that most ordinary folks can’t name many politicians off the top of their head. I think you’re imagining sexism where ignorance is a better explanation. These were all people who claim to be pretty dialed in politically and my conversational experiences with them bore that out. So just not true. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/27 "2017-08-22T17:34:14Z")
When Bill Clinton was running for Prez, I read a few profiles of Hillary and thought, “Man, she’s the one who should be running.” There was a certain amount of commentary to the effect that perhaps he wouldn’t be president if he wasn’t married to her. She seemed perfect, but she did not have his charisma, which is apparently an important factor. He’s got it, she doesn’t (apparently; I have met him, and he sure does. I have never met her.) But what gets me is, if a woman runs for the office apparently she has to be absolutely perfect in every way. This obviously does not apply to any of the men. Obviously anybody running will be mocked for anything–pantsuits, hairstyle, carrying dogs on the roof of their car. And there is always something. And obviously you can successfully run for president without any charisma at all (Nixon, you-know-who). But I think a successful female candidate will have to have an amazing personality, fashion sense, uncontroversial hairstyle, along with everything else required to make the run (lots of connections, money, track record). ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/28 "2017-08-22T17:35:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Who is keeping them down? IIRC, Kamala Harris has been under attack by Sanders and Warren et al and the progressives, not because she is a woman but because she isn’t progressive and is establishment (I could be thinking of someone else here). Warren and Feinstein aren’t attacked because they are women, but because of their progressive views by those who don’t’ agree with those views. I’m not seeing anyone in your example as someone being put down or kept down because they are women, but instead, women who are being attacked because of their political stances by people who don’t agree with those stances. There are certainly many of those. I’m not talking about them. It’s perfectly normal to have disagreements with politicians on the merits of their positions. I didn’t agree with Obama or H. Clinton on some of their stances, either. But I’m capable of discerning a qualified candidate from an unqualified one – and a significant number of Americans aren’t, it would seem. As for people who are being put down or kept down because they are women, I think you might want to keep an eye on the things that are said about Elizabeth Warren, particularly. She is frequently described as “shrill, hysterical, unhinged, know-it-all.” Those are not legitimate criticisms and are generally reserved for female candidates. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/29 "2017-08-22T17:35:57Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I agree with you, **ThelmaLou**. I hate that it’s true, but I do believe it’s true. > > … I agree with every word you wrote. The problem is compounded by the huge national (and SDMB) blind spot about whether there even is an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/30 "2017-08-22T17:37:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 2010, Pew Research asked people to name the Chief Justice of the United States. > > 53% did not know. 8% said it was Thurgood Marshall and 4% said it was Harry Reid. > > My own off-the-top-of-my-head response: Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley. Condi’s too smart to do it, of course. I asked people like you. They did not have responses at the ready. It really was an eye-opening experience. Try it yourself, among your learned peers. I think you may be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/31 "2017-08-22T17:42:46Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I often engaged in an exercise during the election that yielded interesting results. When discussing Hillary Clinton’s suitability for the office of President, and the responder replied that they “just didn’t like her, not that it has anything to do with her being a woman,” I would ask, “So what woman do you think would be suitable?” > > In _every single instance_, the responder was unable to come up with a name off the top of their head. They would often get back to me within a day or two, naming one or maybe two women. But they always, always had to think about it. Have you considered upgrading your friends? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/32 "2017-08-22T17:42:54Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > There are certainly many of those. I’m not talking about them. It’s perfectly normal to have disagreements with politicians on the merits of their positions. I didn’t agree with Obama or H. Clinton on some of their stances, either. But I’m capable of discerning a qualified candidate from an unqualified one – and a significant number of Americans aren’t, it would seem. > > As for people who are being put down or kept down because they are women, I think you might want to keep an eye on the things that are said about Elizabeth Warren, particularly. She is frequently described as “shrill, hysterical, unhinged, know-it-all.” Those are not legitimate criticisms and are generally reserved for female candidates. I think Warren IS a ‘shrill, hysterical unhinged, know-it all’ from a certain political view point, and has nothing to do with her sex. I think similar things about Trump, and he presumably has a dick (not that I want that mental picture). I don’t think America or the American voters are opposed to women in office, or a woman for president. I don’t think that only a white male can defeat the orange one either. I think it’s all about the right candidate, regardless of sex or race. The big issue I see is that Dems, especially those on the left think that their progressive mantra is the be all and end all and that they are being held back because of white racist (or the evil Democratic Establishment(tm…arr)), while I think it’s because their politics are just not all that appealing to most voters, even if they have an old white guy sing them. Trump is definitely beatable and should be beaten…if the Dems can stop beating themselves up in these stupid internal wars for control. Sadly, I think the lesson many Dems ‘learned’ in the last election is that radical fringe politics can win elections…since the Donald won, that means the progressive and left wing should win as well. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/33 "2017-08-22T17:45:15Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > What else did he bring to the table, in terms of political experience? I don’t understand. Are you saying it is acceptable to mock candidates for their appearance if they don’t have significant “political experience”, but it’s not acceptable if they do? > [@Aspenglow](#): > > Did you see tons of mocking for the appearances or temperaments of Marco Rubio? John Kasich? Rand Paul? No. I wouldn’t claim that there was “tons of mocking” for anyone, but it certainly happened. Did you forget about ‘[Little Marco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_ltuXcOH4)’? ‘Low energy’ Jeb? ‘Crazy Bernie’? It’s America. Our public figures get mocked. If not by each other then certainly by the citizenry. It’s not something we only do to females. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > They were all granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office, in a way that Hillary Clinton was not. I don’t know what this means. “granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office”? Are you saying that people / media / fellow candidates didn’t take her run seriously? Because that seems … wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/34 "2017-08-22T17:49:16Z")
There’s a better chance of the first woman president being a Republican than a Democrat. For all the talk about how the GOP is “sexist,” the Republicans typically support their Joni Ernsts, Sarah Palins, etc. with just as much fervor as their male counterparts. If a woman appeared to be the front-leading contender for the presidential candidacy , she would sail through the GOP nomination pretty easily. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/35 "2017-08-22T17:50:26Z")
IOW, Republicans care far more about whether someone has an ® after their name than they care about the gender/race/skin color etc. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/36 "2017-08-22T17:51:28Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I think Warren IS a ‘shrill, hysterical unhinged, know-it all’ from a certain political view point, and has nothing to do with her sex. I think similar things about Trump, and he presumably has a dick (not that I want that mental picture). > > I don’t think America or the American voters are opposed to women in office, or a woman for president. I don’t think that only a white male can defeat the orange one either. I think it’s all about the right candidate, regardless of sex or race. The big issue I see is that Dems, especially those on the left think that their progressive mantra is the be all and end all and that they are being held back because of white racist (or the evil Democratic Establishment(tm…arr)), while I think it’s because their politics are just not all that appealing to most voters, even if they have an old white guy sing them. Trump is definitely beatable and should be beaten…if the Dems can stop beating themselves up in these stupid internal wars for control. Sadly, I think the lesson many Dems ‘learned’ in the last election is that radical fringe politics can win elections…since the Donald won, that means the progressive and left wing should win as well. And in all this time, it’s never been a woman who was “the right candidate” to be in either of the top two positions in our country. I do think you need to consider the role that misogyny has played in that. Your own example about Donald Trump winning, despite being the most unqualified, provable liar in the history of American politics, demonstrates that better than anything else. Please notice that there are people in this thread who are attacking me solely on the basis of the quality of my friends, rather than advancing a thoughtful debate as a rebuttal. In Great Debates, no less. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/37 "2017-08-22T17:55:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t understand. Are you saying it is acceptable to mock candidates for their appearance if they don’t have significant “political experience”, but it’s not acceptable if they do? Nope, not saying that. Saying that he was so ill-qualified for the job against someone who was, that the explanation for his election bears scrutiny with respect to the role misogyny played in this last election. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I wouldn’t claim that there was “tons of mocking” for anyone, but it certainly happened. Did you forget about ‘[Little Marco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_ltuXcOH4)’? ‘Low energy’ Jeb? ‘Crazy Bernie’? It’s America. Our public figures get mocked. If not by each other then certainly by the citizenry. It’s not something we only do to females. As I recall, there was only one candidate doing that. And rather than excoriate him for it, the Republican Party elected him instead. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know what this means. “granted the threshold gravitas to run for the office”? Are you saying that people / media / fellow candidates didn’t take her run seriously? Because that seems … wrong. If it seems… wrong, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that it’s not the case. I’ll look forward to your cites. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/38 "2017-08-22T17:55:25Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > IOW, Republicans care far more about whether someone has an (R) after their name than they care about the gender/race/skin color etc. I agree. I think it applies to Dems too though. Look at **Aspenglow** ’s post: “Nikki Haley. God, what an idiot.” There’s not much happiness there for a woman that might one day be president. Or ask some Dems how the feel about Clarence Thomas. Generally their focus is decidedly not on how great it is that he’s overcome so much racism to rise to a post on the highest court in the land or celebrating the achievements of a black man. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/39 "2017-08-22T17:56:38Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Please notice that there are people in this thread who are attacking me solely on the basis of the quality of my friends, rather than advancing a thoughtful debate as a rebuttal. In Great Debates, no less. No one is attacking you on the basis of your friends. You introduced the quality of your friends as proof of the OP’s thesis. Surely we are not required to accept said quality as proof of the thesis. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/40 "2017-08-22T17:57:49Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > IMHO it’s very important that Donald Trump not be reelected in 2020, given that he’s still in office by then and runs again. But if the Democrats nominate another woman (Elizabeth Warren’s name pops up) I believe they will be throwing the election away. Likewise a non-white man-- no matter how qualified. > > This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump. > > As bad a Presidential candidate as Hillary may have been (even though she was widely described as possibly THE single most qualified candidate ever to run for President), if she had been a white man, s/he could have beaten Trump. Apart from all of her “crimes” (real and/or fabricated), including personal/professional/fashion/demeanor/hairstyle faults and failings, I’m convinced that the sheer, visceral hatred of Hillary comes down to her being a woman. People hate her more than they hate Bill-- go figure. There’s a very wide streak of _“No woman is going to be the boss of me!”_ running right down the center of the country. Other developed countries don’t seem to have this-- again, go figure. > > \*Ever \*is a long, long time, but I’m going to go out on a limb: I don’t think the USA will ever be ready for a woman President. What do y’all think? I think you’re placing women’s odds further than they are. Hillary led Trump throughout the election, won the popular vote by 2%, was only 200,000 votes in the Rust Belt away from the presidency, and was weighed down by Obama’s two terms (hard for a party to win three consecutive terms in the White House.) In fact, I’d bet big money on a woman being president no later than the 2028 election. only question will be if it’s a red or blue woman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371.md?page=3)