That first woman president idea

This coming election produces something of a problem for me.

I’ve no objection at all to there being a female President of the US. Seems like it might even be an idea whose time has come.

But if there is going to be one this time around it’s going to be either Hillary (oh, dear god, no, her only true political belief is that Hillary ought to be able to tell people what to do and they had dman well better do it) or Elizabeth Warren. There’s no female Republican out there that’s even likely to run let along get anywhere.

How Elizabeth Warren got to such questions, and how she has the capacity to deliver them with such authority, is the substance of her political memoir A Fighting Chance, published earlier this year. Its opening could be the voiceover for a title sequence of a Hollywood movie, one pitched somewhere between Erin Brockovich and The Waltons. “I’m Elizabeth Warren,” she writes [cue sequence of our heroine at home and at work, sweating over the Thanksgiving dinner and at her president’s side]. “I’m a wife, a mother and a grandmother. For nearly all my life, I would have said I was a teacher, but I guess I can’t really say that any more. Now I’d have to introduce myself as a United States senator, though I still feel a jolt of surprise whenever I say that. This is my story and it’s a story born of gratitude. My daddy was a maintenance man and my mother worked the phones at Sears. More than anything, my parents wanted to give my three older brothers and me a future…”

Has anyone actually read the whole thing? Does she discuss her adoption of Cherokee ancestry to get diversity in hiring points?

The thing is, sure, maybe it is time for a female President. But seriously, one of these two? Wouldn’t everyone prefer Joe Biden? Even Joe Biden?

22 thoughts on “That first woman president idea”

  1. And Republican lady with a shot at winning causes the media to set their phasers to “destroy”.

    And the Democratic party to show the world what *real* sexism and a *real* “war on women” looks like, under cover of a media umbrella.

  2. I think that’s more of a reflection of how f****d up USA politics has become.

    On the other side of the isle the GoP is tearing itself apart trying to figure out how they can hold primaries that don’t requie serious contenders to have to pretend to be tea party conservatives and then try to convince the rest of the USA voters they are normal(ish) people in the GE.

  3. Bloke with a Boat:

    The Dems have exactly the same problem. Since the blue dogs have been wiped out, their coalition is the champagne socialists, students/academics and angry urban minorities. Like Labour, they clearly dispise their traditional working-class core, and have lost them in great numbers.

    But they have the media covering for them – BO ran from the left in the primaries and then the media were falling over themselves to call him centrist in the GE (despite his voting record).

    So we’ve got Hillary, who stood by her philandering husband (some of whose activites would almost certainly constitute rape under the current broad definition) and engaged in a real war on his accusers, and rode his coat tails into power, getting very rich off of influence peddling (those 6-figure speech fees are simply influence-peddling, and a handy way for organisations to get around campaign finance laws). Let’s also not forget her defense of a child rapist in the short period she actually worked as a lawyer.

    If she were an R, she would not be in the position she’s in today, and would in no way be a contender.

    Then there’s Fauxahontas – again, any R claiming ethnic heritage in the way she has would have had to resign in disgrace (look how Wikipedia plays it down, and then compare to non-controversies regarding R’s).

    So we’ve got two old, white, rich, “progressive”, privileged women as the top two D contenders. Great.

  4. Let’s also not forget her defense of a child rapist in the short period she actually worked as a lawyer.

    I don’t know the details, but you can’t hold this against her: somebody needs to defend child rapists, it’s simply part of a lawyer’s job to defend scumbags. Spot on for the rest, though.

  5. And yeah, you’re right about the media. I think it was Sarah Palin herself who pointed out that the media which refused to investigate Obama’s university thesis saw fit to report that she’d bought a new sun bed. American politics is truly fucked.

  6. @ Ljh
    The media pre-emptively attacked her by having a serioes of stories “why isn’t she married?” in case she agreed to run (it wouldn’t do to split the black vote).

  7. It’ll be funny if Hilary wins the nomination. There’s such a mountain of dirt out there with regards to her past that it’ll all be dredged up again – her work on Watergate, Whitewater, cattle futures.

  8. Giving the vote to women was a bad idea. For every Margaret Thatcher there are a multitude of Harriet Harmen, Hillary Clintons, Elizabeth Dances-with-Bullshits, Nick Cleggs, etc. Overall the gain hasn’t been worth the pain.

    If God had meant women to vote, He’d have said something about it in His books, wouldn’t He?

    But the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and Russell Brand’s Revolution say absolutely bugger all about women voting.

    The tragic part is: women didn’t even want the vote. You know how your wife expects you to read her mind, and how conversations with women usually aren’t about whatever you think they’re about?

    The suffragist movement was just a way of getting back at inattentive Edwardian husbands for spending all their time at the club. They never expected the dumb masculine brutes to actually give them the vote. What use is a vote to a woman? She can’t eat it, wear it, or squee over it.

    Emmeline Pankhurst would’ve gladly called the whole thing off in exchange for a box of Ferrero Rocher, a pretty floral bonnet and a basket of fluffy kittens.

  9. @The Stigler

    It wouldn’t be funny for those on the other end of her bombigs. If a Republican had such a track record on caling for bomings and the President ignoring Congress the lefty press would be apoplectic.

    This bit sums her up:

    ” As first lady, Clinton played a key role in convincing her husband to bomb Serbia without congressional approval. For eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, she refused to speak to her husband, until, in March 1999, she phoned him with a directive to attack.

    “I urged him to bomb,” she later explained.”

  10. Just read that Guardian article Tim linked to, on the subject of Fauxcahontas:

    she delivers an impromptu retort to the capitalist ideal of the self-made man, and a fiery defence of redistributive taxation: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” she argues. “Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved the goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate… Now look, you built the factory and it turned into something terrific? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid that comes along…”

    By the beard of Zeus!

    So it’s a choice between Kip’s Ma or Cruella de Vil.

    They should’ve stuck with George III.

  11. While it’s a logical impossibility that anyone would be better than Hellary, it’s a decent working hypothesis.

    “Hillary, who stood by her philandering husband (some of whose activities would almost certainly constitute rape under the current broad definition)”: oh no you don’t. Some of those activities certainly constitute rape under the old common law definition, if he did what was alleged by his victims.

  12. @Gamecock, no you don’t. Merely a president with no balls. That’s necessary but insufficient to make BO a female.

  13. @ Steve
    The Bible says nothing about *men* voting that I can recall, so that argument falls very flat.
    BUT that doesn’t matter – the discussion is whether there should be a female President of the USA, not about the composition of the electorate.
    The answer is “in principle, why not” but please, please, not Hillary Clinton. In 2008, although, of the available choices (Colin Powell not being available), I preferred McCain, despite (or perhaps because) he was a maverick, I could accept Obama even though I knew he was the most left-wing Senator and was a rich lawyer who had, like Joe Kennedy, married into a political dynasty which must have found it difficult to avoid complicity in corruption, Why? He wasn’t Hillary and no-one who had dirt on him has conveniently died.

  14. @ dearieme
    I think what you mean is that “it verges on the impossible that there is no-one else who would be worse than Hillary”.
    What you actually said implies that no-one else who would be better, with which I vehemently disagree

  15. Palin – Upside – she’s a MILF and is dirty.

    Downside – She’s nuts, vacuous and would start a stupid war.

    Tough one….

  16. “Downside – She’s nuts, vacuous and would start a stupid war.”

    Reducing the left to a dribbling, frothing apoplexy would more than compensate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *