Posted on 03/06/2020 12:25:16 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The question that had come so close to fading into irrelevance is back: Will I ever see a woman elected president?
As Senator Elizabeth Warren became the fifth woman to exit the 2020 presidential race, women are coming to terms with the fact that, for the 244th straight year, the person America chooses to lead it in November will be a man.
For Democrats, the future is fraught as the race builds towards a showdown between former vice president Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders, which will then give way to a messy battle between the eventual nominee and President Donald Trump. But for some women, there’s a sense that attention must be paid to this reality: Baby girls born in the next four years will come into a country that is, in this single but significant way, identical to the one that existed in 1776.
It’s not that Warren is perfect, the women interviewed for this piece said. It’s that women have never, ever been treated as equal. After 45 male leaders, maintaining the pretense that gender has little to do with a candidate’s chances just seems cruel. Until the final hours of the 2016 election, a woman president seemed like an inevitability. Now it feels almost impossible.
But even among people who recognize the enduring sexism women candidates face and will continue to face, there is impatience at the idea that Warren, or other women candidates, lose because of gender.
The language that many Warren fans—or women disappointed that the presidential race will boil down to two men—use often borrows from the lexicon of physical pain—“punch in the gut,” “hurt,” “weeping,” even “trauma.”
(Excerpt) Read more at glamour.com ...
And had the party and media supported Gabbard she would have been the strongest female candidate they had.
Repeal the 19th! *ducks*
That's why she had that feather in her cap gang.
But Warren is, so no.
Agree. I go further and suspect this weeping and gnashing of teeth now is setting the stage to give cover when the party Fathers (!) decide, they “have to” anoint Hillary
Silly you! It has to be the correctly approved woman..... ; )
I was thinking of Democrats when I posted. I have nothing against a Conservative woman for president but then I would vote for any Republican before I would vote for a Democrat.
I’m sure Michelle Obama will throw his hat in the ring soon. I mean her......her hat. Yeah.
I never heard any of you liberal gals bitching and moaning when Sara Palin didn’t make it.
They’re making a great argument against themselves. Reducing women to unreasoned, emotional creatures hardly argues that they should be on either end of the ballot.
I also wonder how much “ink”, “Glamour Magazine” has dedicated to our fabulous First Lady. I expect none, though she is the most glamorous, and feminine, in my lifetime.
Well I’m just inconsolable so there.
Ah, Ladies, it was the D’rat party that did it.
Great. Crying sexist pigs.
Just have plugs identify as a woman. Why should it make any difference to the progs? Progs for plugs!
No respect for Country or competence
I came to this thread for a delicious cup of liberal tears! Thank you!
“Ah, Ladies, it was the D’rat party that did it.”
Yep. The party that likes and helps women the same way they like and help blacks.
Why don’t they just identify as men and move to the winning team?
If Democrat women really wanted Warren to be president, she would’ve won the primary.
Does it at least help that’ll be the same man who has led for the last three years?
Didn’t think so. Don’t mean to rain on their parade, but I got umbrellas to sell.
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.