"I’m not sure the country can take two women."

[Kelvin Mace]

Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

“They’re both good on the campaign trail — very good — but I’m not sure the country can take two women. I’m just not sure,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-and-warren-electrify-ohio-crowd-sparking-visions-of-a-ticket/2016/06/27/8b169f8e-3a59-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_clintonwarren-355pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Comment Redacted

Quote where is, as is. No comment or criticism is implied.

Rule redacted due to possibility that citing the rules, violates the rules.

[democrattotheend]

1. Why can't we criticize this?

I think we can say that this is disappointing, especially considering the source, without "bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate".

Besides, are we really worried about John Lewis losing his seat?

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Answering your question would violate this rule

Rule redacted due to possibility that citing the rules, violates the rules.

So, I must decline to answer.

[overstrike]Please note I am not posting about rules in this post, simply citing them.[/overstrike]

[democrattotheend]

12. You are forgetting a key provision in the rules

"Constructive criticism of Democratic public figures is always welcome on Democratic Underground, and our rules still permit that."

[Kelvin Mace]

14. "constructive" is a subjective term

Thus, I submit the quote without comment.

[Hortensis]

66. Seems likely that two women on the ticket

is only one of the topics here.* In any case, of course some resist the idea of two women at the top of the ticket. How could it be otherwise. Any change from the status quo will always cause anxiety among some, even when there's nothing wrong with it. That syndrome is inevitable, and when you consider that there is undoubtedly an element of misogyny among some (but not all by any means), well, let's just say plugging in a male just to make them happy is not among my own concerns.



*Another forum used to provide an outlet for people who believed agreeing to the new terms of service was signing a "loyalty oath" and that this one is being purged of freedom lovers who speak truth. That forum's owner has just closed down that outlet for expression of concern, but the concern remains.

[TwilightZone]

16. Actually, your OP broke that rule, but not the criticism one.

Ironic, no?

[Kelvin Mace]

19. I posted a quote from a reliable source

If the quote is in error, then I await a link to the retraction.

[TwilightZone]

10. Criticism isn't bashing or trashing.

There's nothing wrong with voicing disagreement. It happens on DU all the time.

There are examples of same right below your post.

[Happyhippychick]

3. I'm not sure he means it the way it is being interpreted.

He may mean that the country wouldn't do well with two women or he could be saying the country may not be evolved enough to elect two women.

I'll believe in the best of intentions and go with the latter sentiment,

[Kelvin Mace]

6. I offer no criticism or interpretation

of the quote. I simply post the quote.

[Her Sister]

35. I go with the latter also

[ailsagirl]

75. I agree, Happyhippychick

I always try to give the benefit of the doubt, particularly in this instance, and I think he's saying that the country may not be evolved enough to elect two women. I, personally, have no problem with it.

[whathehell]

76. I think he's saying the country is not evolved enough yet..

Don't think it's a comment on their abilities

[still_one]

4. How come no one considers two men on the same ticket an issue?

Not sure the country can take two men

[Orsino]

64. That's easy to answer.

Because masculinity is still the default in American politics. Many voters are still at the stage where, sure, okay, we can elect a woman to something, and isn't she cute, fellas? But to the presidency? And whoa, now you want two women, unsupervised, on the ticket? What if their periods synchronize, or something?

Upper-body strength is not a requirement for the office of the Chief Executive, but try persuading all US voters of that, and doing so in the next four months.

[DemFromPittsburgh]

7. Its a horrible thing to say

[JoePhilly]

8. Your effort to "locate the line" is noted.

BTW .... You came no where near the line.

Better luck next time.

[BeyondGeography]

9. He was wrong about Obama's chances too once

I think he's being consistent.

[Lance Bass esquire]

11. Too much too fast

I have no problem with a Clinton/Warren ticket.

Unfortunately most of the country needs to be spoon fed their change and entry into the new world.

JMHO

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I look forward to such a ticket.

[TwilightZone]

15. Criticism isn't bashing or trashing.

This really isn't that difficult. Disagreeing with someone is not "trashing or bashing".

By the way, your questioning of the rules *does* however, break a rule - the one involving interfering with moderation.

Kind of ironic, actually.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. I am not questioning them,

merely citing them. I explicitly so state.

[TwilightZone]

18. "Don't post messages about site rules"

It's right there in the very first phrase. It doesn't say anything about questioning them.

Perhaps you should spend as much time actually reading and understanding the rules as you do posting about them.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. I have no opinion on site rules

[MaggieD]

20. Seems like he is simply acknowledging the sexism in this country

Kind of hard to ignore the fact that we have never elected a woman president in 240 years.

[okasha]

24. Exactly.

I've agreed with him for most of this campaign. After today's rally I may change my opinion, but I still think taking Warren out of the Senate is less than optimal.

[bettyellen]

42. Interesting how people confuse discussing sexism with being sexist- same thing happened with racial

Issues here. if people actually had interest in and a history of discussing sexism or racism they might not get in a dander and try and impinge the reputation of people who do discuss the issues. Same weird shit happened with race here.

[Haveadream]

47. I agree with this so much

We need to be talking about these things. A lot. Thank you for bringing up a really important distinction so many do not understand.

[bettyellen]

50. African Americans and women here were trashed for raising issues they'd discussed for years....

And accused of baiting. I am so glad that is over.

[Haveadream]

52. +1000

[PoliticAverse]

22. I'll file this with the collection of 2008's "America isn't ready for a black President". n/t

[SaschaHM]

23. This is a man who was beaten within an inch of his life marching for Civil Rights...

If there is anyone in tune with the ugly underbelly of American society, it's is John Lewis. He's seen and has been on the receiving end of the backlash against change for decades. I think he can be skeptical of the progress America has made. I want to see a Clinton/Warren ticket, but I'm not blind to how sexist Americans can be when it comes to having just 1 women on the ticket for higher office.

[Shrike47]

25. I think Warren would be a good VP choice. It would reduce the odds that Hillary would be impeached.

They wouldn't like the alternative.

You know they will do some damned thing when Hillary is elected.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. I would like her as VP since IMO

1) She would unify the Left wing of the party

2) it would create a "historic" election, like 2008.

3) Every time Trump open his mouth more women would resolve to vote Democrat.

[okasha]

32. A woman President

would create a "historic" election regardless of VP. More women (and men) already decide to vote for Hillary every time Trump opens his mouth.

[bettyellen]

44. You know 2 and 3 are just as true without Warren, right? Actually 1 doesn't require Warren either.

[Goblinmonger]

69. Having a progressive on the ticket would go a long way to party unity.

Me voting for Clinton because I don't want Trump is not the same as unity. If Warren (or another equally progressive Dem) were on the ticket, that would mean a lot and change my approach to how I vote. There is a strong push in the party to move left. That needs to be acknowledged for true unity, IMO.

[okasha]

29. You do know that you can't impeach a President just because

s/he's from the opposite party, don't you? There has to be a charge of committing a crime while President.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. That's not exactly correct.

The "crime" can be anything the majority an The House says it is. It's not a court of law. It's a political process.

Obviously, to avoid political back-lash, the repigs would have to trump up some bogus "crime."

[okasha]

73. The impeachment language in the Constitution

is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is a pretty loose standard. They went for "perjury" with Bill Clinton, and the Senate declined to convict him. (Now, we all know that the real but silent charge was 1st. Degree Horndoggery. That didn't work out too well because three of their own Horndogs were outed in the process. So they'd have to charge Hillary with some exotic crime no Republican had ever committed, and there ain't no such.) After the Benghazi debacle and the election of a likelier-every-day Dem Senate majority, I think they'd tread a bit more warily.

[Goblinmonger]

70. If you don't think that House Republicans have impeachment charges drafted already

you are kidding yourself.

[okasha]

74. I'm sure they do, right next to their porn folders.

If they take the beating it seems they will in November, the filing of any such charges will be moot.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. I'd love to see a Democratic president impeached, the more obviously spurious the charges the better

I can think of nothing more likely to win back Congress.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. The country has taken two men without blinking an eye for our entire history.

It can take two women.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. I concur

[Iggo]

33. Ayup.

[giftedgirl77]

30. Take is the wrong word.

accept would be more appropriate. This country is just as leary about a woman being in the POTUS position as they are about a minority.

[Iggo]

31. Puts me in mind of RBG's "When there's nine" quote.

I don't seem to remember ever having a problem with it when there were two men, which was....er...um...every time.

I can't see why I'd have a problem with two women.

[Haveadream]

34. John Lewis is making a socio-political observation about sexism and electability

and unfortunately, it is one Hillary and Warren have surely discussed. It has been mentioned frequently on this board. Any one of us likely knows people who would not vote for a ticket purely based on the gender, color, religion, orientation or ethnicity of the candidates. Rep. Lewis is the last person who would be one of them but he is pointing out a real concern about the prejudices of the electorate; the same electorate that has been voting for Donald Trump. Lewis isn't sure and truly none of us can be in such unchartered waters. Very depressing that we still need to make electability risk/benefit analyses based on race, gender, religion, etc rather than qualifications but it is a reality to take into consideration. I know we all look forward to a future when it is no longer even an issue and are proud of Hillary, Elizabeth and the Democratic Party for breaking barriers!

In regard to that, Rep Lewis's concern is easy to understand. Here is a very brief sampling of some of the first mainstream comments following a positive report about Hillary and Elizabeth's speeches in Ohio today. The salient question regarding the ticket's electability is just how prevalent these sentiments are with the electorate at large. Most of the comments were negative and few had anything to do with policy and everything to do with aversion based on identity and sexism. Idiots!

Unfortunately, these people are allowed to vote:

*Two old white women.

*WOMEN'S WORLD: CLINTON TEST DRIVES WARREN. I thought it might be their secret porn video.

*Did anyone else just go LIMP looking at those faces?

*I would imagine Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and all our past great leaders are turning over in their graves looking at Hillbilly and Warren standing up there in their matching blue pants suits.

*Can we get two old establishment ruler hags for the price of one?

*id rather be waterboarded than see either of them nude lol

*OMG.
The blond. Bimbo. Estrogen. Socialist. Fem-I-Nazi, Blue Pant-Suit Ticket.
These two broads are going to scare the sh*t of of Putin & ISIS?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....
We're F-k'd.

*Hill wont choose warren bc warren has a bigger @!$%# than hillary

*No secret-service agent will be unscreeched at!

*What an image...The two of them as strippers.

*Two hot-headed women......that would work well in the world of diplomacy..NOT....give me two even-tempered women with proven....proven diplomatic skills and ability to manage more than the WH kitchen staff....

*I'll take Donald over the 2 raging bimbos any day.

[Her Sister]

37. Those comments are sad and such a downer on such a great day!

Wow! People making these comments and having these awful opinions. I think it sucks to be them!

[Haveadream]

45. I think you are right!

It really does suck to be them. Today was glorious and our two (possible) candidates were outstanding! It baffles me how anyone could not love them and their ideas. I watched the speeches several times because they were just that exciting and good.

[Her Sister]

46. Very very awesome day! And now am going into the nightzzzzzzzz.....

.....

[Haveadream]

51. An awesome day indeed, Her Sister

[greymattermom]

62. So the folks who write this stuff

would be able to look at the Donald nude? Really?

[Haveadream]

68. Bwahahaha

Now I have to unsee that!

[pnwmom]

36. When was a man ever hampered by a running mate of the same gender?

Why should a woman be?

[Her Sister]

38. Untested and exciting waters!

Will be great when they won't be but as it is now that's where we are!

[DemonGoddess]

40. It's not that both women are not qualified

that's not it at all. I think what Rep. Lewis was speaking to, was acceptance of two women on the national ticket. There's still enough misogyny in the general populace, that I can see where that would be an issue.

WE on this board like it. But we're only a very small number in the larger scheme of things.

[pnwmom]

41. I used to be afraid of that but lately my thinking is

that the only people who would be put off by two exceptionally qualified women are the same ones who already can't stand Hillary.

Good riddance.

[Blaukraut]

43. This ^^^

n/t

[nolabels]

49. Exactly!

And I am not crossing my fingers, because i don't want to jinx anything

[DemonGoddess]

53. I hope you're right in that assessment

I'd love to see a two woman ticket, but, I have reservations as to whether or not the greater general populace will be accepting of it.

[John Poet]

59. AL GORE, by Joe Lieberman !!!

Al was hampered by a running mate of the same gender!

[tandem5]

39. All the vitriol Clinton has endured it remains to be seen if this country is ready for one woman.

So from that standpoint it's a fair assessment and I'm not going to feel indignant over reality. But I think if he's thinking strategically it's a fairly obvious point, but not necessarily the right one. Putting aside that Warren is a household name and a major voice of the Democratic party and thus a very obvious choice for VP, if adding her name to the ticket helps to force veiled sexism to become overt sexism then there is real utility there. Sexism in our society is not subtle but it is so ingrained that we perceive it as background noise. So if a Clinton/Warren ticket forces the issue so be it. If it forces rifts in households across the country because the question "why not?" is answered with a long pause so be it. Honest introspection and a clearer understanding of where others truly stand may have a profound impact on the electorate and not in a way predicted by conventional wisdom.

[grossproffit]

48. This makes me angry.

[DLCWIdem]

54. I'm worried about 2 women on the ticket because of sexism

But I'm also excited about the prospect. The people who wont vote for 2 women will probably not vote for 1 woman president.

[NanceGreggs]

55. I think he's expressing a legitimate concern ...

... as to whether two women at the top of the ticket will be "acceptable" to all voters.

We know that some voters think that as the first female POTUS, Hillary should have a "good man" behind her for counsel and guidance. Simply pretending that some voters don't feel that way won't make that mindset disappear.

In the end, IMHO, the number of voters who won't vote for a Clinton/Warren ticket on that basis are not legion enough to have any great impact on the GE. In fact, those who object to two females might be outnumbered by those - especially younger women voters - who see it as a plus towards a more progressive, forward-looking administration - and a two-women ticket might well attract more voters than it repels.

We live in a quickly-changing, ever-evolving world. There was a time when two northerners or two southerners on the same ticket would have seemed political suicide. Now we're discussing whether running two females is equally dangerous.

And someday soon, there might well be a similar discussion about whether an openly gay man running for POTUS will be hurt politically by choosing a gay or lesbian running-mate.

I believe the electorate are far more willing to adapt to change - and actually support it - than some give them credit for. I'm old enough to remember when electing a black man was considered impossible - and yet here we are, living in a world where the "impossible" happened.

[John Poet]

58. We agree on something (finally) !

"In fact, those who object to two females might be outnumbered by those - especially younger women voters - who see it as a plus towards a more progressive, forward-looking administration - and a two-women ticket might well attract more voters than it repels."



After seeing and hearing Elizabeth and Hillary together today, I think
TWO WOMEN Are Better Than One !!!

[NanceGreggs]

60. If YOU actually agree with me on something ...

... I am going to have to rethink my position.

[John Poet]

79. HA!

[Lyric]

63. I think the voters who object to two females

are also the voters who object to ONE. They weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. Screw 'em, I say.

[Darb]

56. Get sure, Mr. Lewis.

Get sure.

[John Poet]

57. TWO Women Are Better Than One!

I think making this ticket "DOUBLE Historic" would actually improve Democratic turnout, especially among female millennials and former Bernie supporters. It would be a way to build excitement in the base that has been somewhat lacking.

I very much doubt that anyone who would hesitate to vote for this ticket,
because there were two women on it rather than just one,
would have been voting for any Hillary ticket anyway.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Certainly how I feel

I think now is the moment for this ticket.

[randome]

65. So John Lewis is no better nor worse than Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

All politicians say stuff that doesn't always make sense. Big deal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. I'd be fine with two women, provided neither is a Senator with a Republican governor.

In herself, Warren would make a perfectly good VP, but unless she's certaint she'd be massively better than the next best choice (and I don't think she is), Clinton shouldn't pick her.

Ditto to Brown and Booker.

[charlespercydemocrat]

77. Russ Feingold

could Russ Feingold be Hilary's v.p.,?

[Kelvin Mace]

78. We want Russ back in his senate seat

He is about to evict a Republican.