Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 05:40 PM Apr 2016

Let’s not lose sight of how historic a Hillary Clinton presidency would be for women [View all]

To announce you’re excited about Hillary Clinton is an oddly subversive act, and to suggest others ought to feel the same, even more so.

But following a decisive victory in New York and with her path to the presidency ever-more surefooted, the possibility of the first female president is sinking in. And whatever your feelings about Clinton as the vessel for this achievement, it’s an extraordinary one.

Even Clinton herself will acknowledge she doesn’t have the magnetism of certain politicians, telling feminist writer Lena Dunham memorably of her candidacy, “If you can’t get excited, be pragmatic.” Clinton’s bid for president may not have the dreaminess of Barack Obama’s, but it’s on track to be every bit as historic. And to simply say she would be the first female commander-in-chief is almost too glib. Should she actually win in November, she’ll have overcome a political process that, until Obama, systematically kept everyone but white men from the presidency for the last 220-plus years.

If young Democrats, who champion inclusivity in politics, can’t start getting excited about upending that centuries-old tradition, they – to quote a popular internet meme – are doing it wrong.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/lets-not-lose-sight-of-how-historic-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-would-be-for-women/
93 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Really, so how is Margret Thatcher viewed in the world? glowing Apr 2016 #1
The world doesn't view her as a former US President n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #13
she was a woman though Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #20
Yes, but she wasn't a head of state ... so it really doesn't compare n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #27
The Queen has been the head of state for decades Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #48
That's true, but poster didn't mention the Queen, they mentioned Margret Thatcher SFnomad Apr 2016 #64
Good lord Loudestlib Apr 2016 #62
What is "pedantic crap" about what I stated? The OP stated SFnomad Apr 2016 #69
Some people's children!? beedle Apr 2016 #76
Thatcher had real power. The queen is ceremonial. imagine2015 Apr 2016 #74
For as much power as Thatcher had, she still was NOT Head of State SFnomad Apr 2016 #75
Thatch was the head of the government. But she wasn't the queen. Will Hillary be a queen imagine2015 Apr 2016 #81
Hillary will be Head of State, anything else is your imagination n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #83
So Hillary would be the head of government just like Thatcher. imagine2015 Apr 2016 #84
But Thatcher was not Head of State, like Secretary Clinton will be n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #86
Yes. Hillary will be the head of 50 states. Thatcher wasn't. imagine2015 Apr 2016 #87
Yawn, you've become tiring ... n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #88
Exactly. It will be historic if Hillary Clinton wins because bjo59 Apr 2016 #26
Somebody's sex is not a good reason to vote for somebody Baobab Apr 2016 #47
Here's how her death was viewed in England. Wilms Apr 2016 #36
I remember the threads here ........... same thing. polly7 Apr 2016 #39
as a Prime Minister of the UK, which is a lot less demigoddess Apr 2016 #45
It will be exciting to have the first woman president. In the case of Hillary, Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #2
Exactly. If HRC is elected, IMO that will be a Hortensis Apr 2016 #61
Filling congress with Democrats is so very important, also having members who want to work Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #63
+1000. We'll probably give our president a Democratic- Hortensis Apr 2016 #68
Gender should not be the qualifier. n/t Paper Roses Apr 2016 #3
You are right gender should not be the qualifier. apcalc Apr 2016 #10
+ a million boston bean Apr 2016 #16
She is a corporate shill, just like ALMOST all the others. pangaia Apr 2016 #33
+ 100 JoePhilly Apr 2016 #38
i guarantee you one woman who will not be happy... lakeguy Apr 2016 #4
Middle eastern women apcalc Apr 2016 #6
She hasn't been so good for us brown women artislife Apr 2016 #12
Women of color has been her strongest voting demographic oberliner Apr 2016 #19
I disagree with them.. but I am not a boomer artislife Apr 2016 #49
The desperation of the BS cheerleaders is showing n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #14
Rights for women in Iraq and Libya have been set back decades. polly7 Apr 2016 #15
What about Afghanistan? ContinentalOp Apr 2016 #22
He's not my candidate. polly7 Apr 2016 #23
Women had a big role in the movement to oust Qaddafi oberliner Apr 2016 #25
Thanks for sharing this link. Her judgment and her lack of remorse seem like that of a sociopath. sus453 Apr 2016 #37
Any woman president would be historic. Autumn Apr 2016 #5
Elizabeth Warren would be a great President Baobab Apr 2016 #73
A woman getting elected on one hand versus endless wars, feeding the industrial prison pipeline, Skwmom Apr 2016 #7
I'd rather the first woman President be someone I can respect. n/t winter is coming Apr 2016 #9
That is a HUGE sentiment with woman which is why it will be hammered home in the general election. Skwmom Apr 2016 #28
There will be two women candidates on the ballot artislife Apr 2016 #50
Let me get this straight, when hillsquad brings up gender...it is ok. But when others do insta8er Apr 2016 #8
Libyan women had equal opportunity once - in the work force, equal pay, the right to divorce, polly7 Apr 2016 #11
I think there are women in the US who would dispute the idea loyalsister Apr 2016 #54
Yes, that's true also. polly7 Apr 2016 #56
It's sickens me that neither she nor Bill has made any real effort to atone for it loyalsister Apr 2016 #65
if she is the right one oldandhappy Apr 2016 #17
Unfortunately, it would be historic for the women of Syria. n/t Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #18
I would rather have the first non-Xian as President Kalidurga Apr 2016 #21
It could leave a real bad taste if she stays corporate,trade or wallstreet- like a Thatcher disaster larkrake Apr 2016 #24
This is so dumb. The US will have a woman prez, everyone is fine with this. It need not be Hillary. reformist2 Apr 2016 #29
yep, I'm all for a woman president 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #32
her immediate impeachment will ensure that another woman does not get 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #30
That. Right there. n/t ebayfool Apr 2016 #89
I'm a die-hard, 2nd-3rd-4th-wave feminist, & totally unthrilled. snot Apr 2016 #31
Margaret Thatcher was the first woman PM in England. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2016 #34
It's not about gender, it's about ANOTHER NEO CON Republican lite. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #35
Sorry, can't so that, breaking voters into groups beedle Apr 2016 #79
She doesn't deserve the honor. She lies a lot. LaurenG Apr 2016 #40
+10000000000! RiverLover Apr 2016 #55
Mentioning this simple fact makes the haters very upset. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #41
Its really a shame fluffyclouds Apr 2016 #42
I'm so over identity politics. Hillary could be a azmom Apr 2016 #43
Electing Obama didn't help race relations. Electing Hillary won't help gender relations. hellofromreddit Apr 2016 #44
Yep. 99Forever Apr 2016 #46
and regardless of what the haters say - hillary has certainly earned it. n/t Lil Missy Apr 2016 #51
Yes, it would be historic for women. elleng Apr 2016 #52
During the 2008 election.... loyalsister Apr 2016 #59
I agree. elleng Apr 2016 #70
Without drastic Climate Change Action Now, there will be no women, nor any men. highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #53
It is not about gender or race. Marrah_G Apr 2016 #57
We'd be electing a leftinportland Apr 2016 #58
I agree. I'm not voting for "historic" TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2016 #78
1st Nominee under FBI investigation -- a national embarrassment. nt IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #60
No more historic than a Socialist. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #66
Ms. Clinton should be held to the same standards HeiressofBickworth Apr 2016 #67
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #71
So were suppose to vote for her because of her sex, got it. . B Calm Apr 2016 #72
Gender should be a qualifier in exactly the same proportion it is a disqualifier. Ed Suspicious Apr 2016 #77
Same old same old corporatist politicians is historic? Nope not in my lifetime. Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #80
... as the President who sent 20,000 of their sons off to die in Syria. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #82
Well at least SOMEONE is honest. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #85
It would certainly be historic in a way that electing yet another elderly white male would not be. Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #90
As a caller told me from Pa. they would like to see a woman, but Hillary is not that woman ... slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #92
If anything and as a woman over 60, GENDER is not a reason to hire or not hire someone for a job ... slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #91
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong, it wouldn't be historic whatsoever. 2banon Apr 2016 #93
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Let’s not lose sight of h...»Reply #0