Posted on 09/03/2019 3:28:00 AM PDT by Morgana
The front of Monday’s New York Times featured reporter Lisa Lerer on failed feminist Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who tacked hard to the left on immigration and gun control in a failed attempt to appeal to today’s Democratic Party: “Gillibrand’s Failed Run Shows Feminism’s Promise and Limits.” She dropped out of the race last week.
Lerer lamented:
We just need more women.
Through Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina and Michele Bachmann, that’s the argument that strategists, political scientists and pollsters focusing on female candidates make about the race for the White House.
More women means less attention on pantsuits and more on political strategy. More women means a candidate is judged on her merits, not as a human proxy for more than 50 percent of the population. More women makes it easier for every woman running.
In the 2020 presidential primary, six women mounted campaigns and the field finally had more than enough women to assemble a basketball team -- or to minimize the use of sports metaphors in politics, if they so chose. But the first to drop out? Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who attempted to distinguish her candidacy by offering the most outspokenly feminist message of the field.
....
But her fiercely feminist message, according to those who study women in politics, offered a powerful test case of the different ways women can run for president, and of the obstacles they continue to face -- even in a field crowded with female contenders.
Lerer didn’t get into how Gillibrand herself made some mistakes until the middle. Even then, there were excuses aplenty, including, of course, “sexism.”
While the other women in the race, like Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren, overcame early attacks on their character, some suggest Ms. Gillibrand struggled to push back against charges that she is too politically calculating -- a reputation that tends to be deployed more negatively toward female politicians than their male colleagues.
“She’s always been politically astute,” said Kelly Dittmar, a Rutgers University professor who studies female candidates. “One of the criticisms that I think is in fact imbued with sexism is that she’s too ambitious and too calculating.”
On one issue, Ms. Gillibrand did stand out -- to her detriment: Al Franken. Ms. Gillibrand faced persistent questions about her position on her former Senate colleague, who retired in 2017 following allegations of sexual harassment. While Ms. Warren and Ms. Harris also called for Mr. Franken to step down -- a fact often mentioned by Ms. Gillibrand’s frustrated aides -- Ms. Gillibrand moved first, awarding herself the credit, and the blame, for the caucus-wide call.
....
That Mr. Franken appeared to be a factor in Ms. Gillibrand’s campaign shows how female candidates can still face serious backlash for attacking high-profile men.
Lerer previously co-wrote a fawning Gillibrand profile in May 2019 under the pseudo-clever headline: “Women Who Won Are Asked if They Can Win.” The text box on the jump page: “The misogyny Clinton faced in 2016 resurfaces for 2020." The story skipped Gillibrand’s awful polling showing less than 1% favored her candidacy. Her numbers failed to rise in the interim.
It was a quite different scenario 21 months ago, when the paper launched Gillibrand's 2020 campaign on the front of the Sunday National section, under the incredibly sycophantic headline “Senator’s Star Shines as Nation Unites Behind Her Cause -- Gillibrand, Long a Champion of Women, Stays Out Front in a Cultural Reckoning.” At the time, part of her imagined appeal at the paper was being “the first in her caucus to say Senator Al Franken of Minnesota should resign” after multiple credible accounts of inappropriate behavior toward women.
The paper quickly cooled on condemning Franken (conveniently right along with the Democratic Party at large) but at the time the paper ran front-page stories installing the Democrats on the moral high ground while worrying they were just too tough on themselves, unlike those Republicans.
Ironically, back in 2009, the Times thought Gillibrand was too conservative to represent diverse New York State, when the then-one-term representative was picked to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate after Clinton resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration, back when Gillibrand actually stood against amnesty for illegal immigrants and supported gun rights.
The takeaway: At the Times, it’s fine to criticize a woman in politics that you suspect may lean conservative, but it’s sexist to criticize one that’s feminist.
I guess her affiliation and her fathers membership into that sex cult thing was all about raising women up and celebrating them. I guess the brand or tattoo, or whatever they got, was kind of like a diploma.
These same Feminazis stood silent as homofascists called Sarah Palin a B**** and a C*** and told rape jokes about her and her daughter on national tv.
The Left is not pro-woman. Just as they are not pro-black. Just cross them and find out how extreme their hate rhetoric is.
Agree on all points. The Establishment, Uniparty, Puppet Masters trying to prop up Haley, early, so she can challenge Pence. Pence may not be in lock step with the President, but I’d like to think that he’s learning some stuff by watching the man. One of which, is you don’t have to roll over every time to make everyone happy. And you certainly don’t have to appease the Left, for any reason.
Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that she was drooling moron, could it? ‘scuse me. I just want some ranch dressing.
Feminism was killed by the LGBT movement and Islam
I have always wondered why it was ‘sexism’ or ‘racism’ not to vote for a woman or a black when I would not have voted for anyone who proposed similar policies regardless of their sex or race.
I’d happily vote for Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, or Dr. Ben Carson for president, and not because of their race.
I would also vote for Sarah Palin or less happily, Ann Coulter (she’s pretty erratic) for president.
But it is policies I vote for, not race or sex.
Six women mounted campaigns. Kamala Harris mounted Willie Brown. Who is still running?
Geez, I woulda thought the front page of the Times shoulda been written by a man. /sarc
Outside of NY, she will never be taken seriously because she has the voice of a 12 year old.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/nxivm-sex-cult-kirsten-gillibrand-father-lobbied/
What Is The ‘Sex Cult’ That Kirsten Gillibrand’s Father Allegedly Lobbied For?
The NXIVM scandal has resurfaced after documents showed that the father of presidential candidate and Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand lobbied four months in 2004 for the group which has been described as a “sex cult,” according to a report.
The organization was founded as a “self-help” group before ceasing operations last year, after high-ranking members of the group were arrested on charges of sex trafficking and forced labor.
Big League Politics obtained court documents appearing to show that Gillibrand’s father, Doug Rutnik, worked for the organization for four months in 2004 at a monthly rate of $25,000. Fox News, The Washington Free Beacon and Slate all previously reported on Gillibrand’s father and his work. An unnamed source also reportedly told Big League Politics that Gillibrand once sat at an NXIVM table at a fundraising event for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Nobody seems to mention that she is white as a sheet! That triggers my KKK response. And offends me.
LoL, I was wondering why she didn't identify as a male during this run.... maybe she still would be in the race.
Me too.
IIRC, Tina Rutnik did some work for her father during his tenure with NXIVM. Or am I mis-remembering?
Absolutely. I’m psyched about voting for GOOD women; the bigger the talent pool, the better the talent you can get. Our mantra should be, “ I don’t care what’s between your legs. I care what’s between your ears.”
Absolutely. I’m psyched about voting for GOOD women; the bigger the talent pool, the better the talent you can get. Our mantra should be, “ I don’t care what’s between your legs. I care what’s between your ears. And a vagina doesn’t qualify you for public office any more than a penis does.”
Why is Warren leading? Isn’t she a woman?
So it is the Democrats that are sexist? She is a Democrat. She was running in a Democrat campaign. Polling there for had nothing to do with Republicans so this report would seem to indicate it thinks that the Democrat are sexist!
Her problem is “New York”
Being from New York is an automatic disqualification
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.