Michelle Obama says the country is ‘not ready for a woman’ president | CNN Politics
Michelle Obama says the country is ‘not ready for a woman’ president | CNN Politics
Well, so far the women we've run are 1) one of the most hated politicians of all time, and 2) a cop who repeatedly stated her support for genocide.
So... idk if 'women' is the issue here. Maybe we should try running one that doesn't come with decades of baggage / isn't an overtly horrible person?
I mean, sexism is definitely a factor, but one that has thus far only become insurmountable in combination with a mountain other barriers.
And yet everyone voted for a rich, racist, rapist, pedophile who can barely speak and also supports genocide anyway.
everyone voted for a
~30% of the adult population voted for said rapist
Yeah no shit - for half of our voters, those things are all selling points. If we run a man who's an absolute piece of shit against a woman who's less so, but still very much a piece of shit, the man will win every time. As I said, sexism is definitely a factor.
If we run a man who's an absolute piece of shit against a woman who isn't a piece of shit... who fuckin knows: we haven't tried that. But Harris's odds seemed pretty solid until she started publicly supporting Israel's genocide on Gaza: so she lost a hefty chunk of support from the half of voters who are turned off by evil behavior; meanwhile the bigot's popularity with bigoted voters remained unsurprisingly steady.
Also a majority of Americans are fucking straight up dumb and not engaged in politics or news at all. Last study I saw Americans average a 6th grade reading level. What this looks like in practice though is:
So until the Dems can also narrow and dumb down their messaging they won't gain ground. It's why when Walz called them weird it worked so well because everyone understands that.
So until the Dems can also narrow and dumb down their messaging they won't gain ground
That would require them to have a concrete program that can be stated plainly. Democrats don't do what you said not because they don't know how, but because it'd be pretty clear that their program offers nothing of substance to the working class.
I kinda want to see Trump go on a Twitter rant explaining why the Weak Force is part of a Democrat plot to destroy the entire universe:
Particles all support the radical left, or me, you know? And then there's that weak force. You know, they call it weak because only the radical left will give it the time of day. Only the radical left. All particles that vote for Trump wouldn't bother. That's why those particle collider people can't find neutrinos that vote for Trump. They always try to use the weak force to find neutrinos, but good people know that only radical left neutrinos would let themselves be seen, because they like weak things.
They both lost to an obese rapist who can't form cohetebt sentences.
Anyone suggesting that the US is too sexist to elect a woman president has to explain the election of Claudia Sheinbaum.
By every metric I can find, Mexico is more misogynistic than the US. You can look at crime statistics on domestic violence, rape, murder; or opinion surveys showing men's negative attitude toward women -- all the stats coming out of Mexico are worse.
Yet somehow, Mexico overwhelmingly elected a woman (a Jewish woman in an 85% Christian population, too).
My hypothesis is that policy matters much more than the gender of a candidate. Kamala had absolutely pathetic policy proposals, supporting the status quo of corporate economic domination and a foreign policy soaked in innocent blood. but maybe I'm biased.
Mexico doesn't have as bonehead of an election system that favors the more historically sexist party.
I watched a documentary about the last US election where they interviewed people in New York City, there was a black guy who genuinely said that women shouldn't be presidents because of their periods..
There was some expectations that she was just AMLO term 2 the way Bush Sr. was Reagan term 3.
Stranger things have happened...
I got banned from a forum (where I had over 5000 posts, and was largely very well liked) in 2007/8 when I would not back down from suggesting in strong terms that there was no way USA was going to elect Obama because of too much racism. Boy was I wrong.
(Still... no reason to ban someone for pointing out racism. Eh? Even if in erroneous perception.)
A token lady puppet may yet still happen.
Doesn't help that the "women candidate" the DNC spit out are neoliberal status quo protectors, their "female candidates" is at best performative from them.
Oh, like their men candidates.
Funny how this logic never seems to apply to their male running candidates, who clear elections left and right running on the exact same politics. Or was the status quo perfectly fine 4 years ago, then everyone suddenly changed their minds?
But, that logic does apply to their male running candidates too.
Doesn't help
neoliberal status quo protectors
performative
All still applies.
Albeit a mite differently, given the status quo being protected.
I'd love for AOC to prove het wrong
It's more than likely this is the Dems trying to soft block her early
I'd love for AOC to be as she best tries to present herself.
Would be nice to live in a world where politicians are honest.
No it’s not America isn’t ready for a woman president. It’s not ready to have the DNC keep nominating candidates that lack any appeal or enthusiasm.
Let me preface this rant with I voted for both Hillary and Kamala.
Hillary was a terrible candidate because she is neither conservative or liberal/progressive. The DNC railroaded Bernie because it was Hillary’s “turn”.
And with Kamala instead of have an actual primary and getting the best candidate, they just shoe horned her in at the last possible minute and expected everyone to just be ok with it. Not to mention she falls into the same category as Hillary who is neither conservative or progressive so equally disliked on both sides.
I think the problem ultimately lies within the democrats themselves unwilling to listen to the younger voters who are in dire need of hope and change not the status quo that really isn’t working for them or anybody really. It also doesn’t help that neither party really gives two shits about pissing off the liberal base and it shows.
To be fair to Harris, it really wasn’t her fault. At the time Biden stepped down it was far too late to have a proper primary.
Probably by the design of the donor class.
No doubt.
Yep, 41 years old and the Democratic party has nothing for me. I switched from my long standing independent status to democratic just to vote for Bernie in the primaries. I then voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala in the general even though I hated all three, why not vote 3rd party? Trump was clearly too much of a danger to our country the day he came down that escalator.
I've recently taken to explaining my recent switch to voting for Democrats like this. Democrats are a cancer, Republicans are a fast moving flesh eating disease. I'd rather have something slow moving that has the potential to be stopped with less damage.
She's right.
We would have elected one by now if that was the case OHWAITWEDID
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
And Harris saw a massive surge of popularity when Biden first stepped down. When the only thing most people knew about her was that she was a black woman, everyone loved her. It was only when she opened her mouth that her popularity tanked hard.
Regression.
I feel like 10+ years ago the USA would have been more ready (maybe still not fully, idk).
I'm so fucking sick of this argument. It's nothing more than centrist cope; a way of willfully misunderstanding the reason for Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris' campaign failures.
She's right.
I thought we were ready for a Black president, and maybe some of the country was. Where I was living at the time, a white man was okay working side by side with a Black man. He'd call him brother, they'd eat at each other's places, their wives would hang out, their kids would play together... I thought racism was mostly a memory. People were even fine with a Black boss. But when it came to a Black president, they just couldn't cope.
If these people can't see past skin colour, they definitely won't see past gender. For these people, the First Gentleman would be the "real" president. They would not respect her and, at most, would say she's just the spokesman for the real president. A lot of people liked Michelle Obama, but not because she's Michelle Obama, but because she's Mrs Barack Obama. They don't care what she thinks or knows, they just expect that she's speaking for him. And, I think, in 8 years, we saw that she was her own person, but a lot of people couldn't see it.
I wonder if she's interested in running. I think Michelle Obama would poll better than Kamala Harris. I have a feeling she's done with politics, though, if she were ever really interested.
When polled, 12% of men believed they could beat Serena Williams in tennis.
Because, you know. She's a girl. Like, how good could she be?
😐
Then again, IIRC, when polled, a sizable percent of men though they could beat up a gorilla, so...
The country is not ready for a president with intelligence, integrity, morals, empathy or even a bit of humanity.
Perhaps it's because the Democrat party keeps trying to force a woman candidate instead of letting it happen naturally. Voters wanted Bernie Sanders, instead the party made Hilary Clinton the nominee. Then they didn't even have a proper primary in 2024. Biden won the primary because he was the incumbent and nobody really tried to run against him. Then he dropped out, it was too late for a primary, and Harris was just appointed as his replacement.
She's perpetrating the bullshit that it's about race or gender. If that woman is continuing the exact same policies that old white men orchestrating she will lose. The public by and large is saying we are tired of old white rich men dictating our lives telling us that we are not struggling telling us that everything is fine when we can see in our day-to-day lives that is not true. People did not support Biden because people saw that Biden was a continuation of the same policies that gave us Trump the first time. And then Harris said that she would not have changed a single thing that occurred under Biden. She was a continuation of old white male policies. And any other woman that runs in the future on that same platform will lose regardless of gender regardless of race. Anyone mentioning race or gender is weaponizing race and gender as a political tool
Sad indeed. The rest of the world does mostly okay by their elected woman leaders. So...no metric system and no women leaders. Got it. I just hope to all that is holy that the country is not ready for a pedophiliac leader.
Disclaimer: My comment which follows does not apply to fans and supporters of a candidate. It applies to a difference in how male and female candidates are referred to in the media.
When our society reaches the stage where TV pundits, political blog writers, etc. stop referring to women candidates by just their first name (almost every time) in the same context that they continue referring to men candidates using their last name, or title + last name, then maybe I'll believe the US is ready to elect a woman president.
(edit: I should add to that list, also when even the opposing side will use her last name same as they do with male candidates that they are against, meaning that they may hate her but still have at least that much respect for her as a candidate)
Well the woman who made this statement is the wife of a former president. We cannot call her Obama, there already is an "Obama". The other candidate of relevance was Clinton, another wife of a former president. Current woman politicians of note for some reason get referred to as acronyms, AOC and MTG for example.
You're point doesn't really hold up because news agencies are going to try to avoid obvious confusion.
Kamala was also reffered to as Harris, but that may have been a result of her regularly pronouncing her first name differently throughout her campaign.
Shut the fuck up Michelle, go to the dustbin of history with your husband and never show your face in public ever again please. You fucking know why Hillary and Harris lost and it was not because they were women.
It's one thing to hate Barack, but wtf did Michelle Obama do to deserve such scorn?
Well, for one "they go low, we go high" has not served American democracy much. For another, I don't like friends of war criminals (see: Bush). Not saying a damn word about her husband's atrocities is also pretty guilty. Mostly though I hate it when liberal has-beens try to steer the conversation even after though their methods have clearly failed. When the country's most popular Democrat says "oh yeah Harris totes lost because she was a woman that was definitely it" it pushes a harmful, potentially fatal given the circumstances, narrative about the adequacy of Dem policies in 2024. Every part of the establishment Dem ecosystem deserves about this much scorn until they shut the fuck up and let people who know what the fuck they're doing try to save democracy. Not to mention, scapegoating gender rather than politics drags down progressive women like AOC, who otherwise could make a bid for the presidency.
TL;DR: She's, intentionally or not (though I suspect the former), doing the political equivalent of saying that inject bleach was actually a perfectly safe and effective treatment method for COVID.
Sure, lady, explain that again when they want to put Ivanka in the Oval Office after her old man croaks.
I was pretty pissed off after the last election because it became clear that, as a whole, America hates women.
Suuuuuuure buddy, suuuuuure.
Why is this a headline? The racist, misogynist, bigoted electorate that got us to where we are won't elect a woman? Maybe they're just unlikeable.
Probably because the US is such a religious conservative country. Christianity (especially evangelical and more conservative type), patriarchy and authoritarianism go together, and that's who the great majority of his voters were.
Considering trump won twice against women but lost when he ran against a man, it seems the majority of voters would rather elect any man than any woman, even if that man is seriously flawed on every imaginable level. Only when both candidates were men were factors other than gender given more weight.
Given how incredibly well the harris campaign was doing at first and the outpouring of bi-partisan support for shooting CEOs dead in the street immediately after the election, and the barnstorming success of mamdani, i think it's safe the say harris lost because they took pelosi's advice and tacked hard to the right, instead of solidifying their early victories by continuing to lean left.
I think it's pretty clear the country was willing to vote for harris, dems just fucked it up.
Agreed, it was theirs to lose, as it often is. It's a known fact that if more people vote it tends to swing left, so I'm not sure why they always seem to try and cater to the right side voters who are going to be much harder to convince. I mean I know part of it is most of the Democratic party is actually centralist, but still... go after the easier win that might actually help your case? And maybe move that way politically to ensure power?
It's pretty telling how easily liberals give up on their supposed ambitions even when the effort was obviously flawed.
Feels like we keep speed-running the same lesson and still failing the quiz. the bar for women in politics is set like three floors higher and folks act confused when they don’t clear it.
I still can't believe how republicans just flipped out with obama.
Republicans are racist pieces of shit. Obama is black. Doesn't surprise me at all.
I think thats it. Its just like the majority of the country seemed to be moving forward but there was this minority which dug their heels in and don't move on and it kinda feels like it kept growing to where its a pretty significant sized. Feels like some decided where they dug in was to progressive and are working to move backwards.
She is unfortunately not wrong.
Trying to tell me America is less racist than it is sexist? I don't recall them going to war to mistreat women, so I call bullshit tbh.
I think America is sick of political systems and will vote for change time after time. And never actually get any.
Black men got the vote (1870)** long before women did (1920). The civil rights movement also preceded the women's rights movement.
** Of course it wasn't so easy for them to exercise that right.
I don't recall them going to war to mistreat women
We just called it “life” and got super upset in the 60’s and 70’s.
I mean, there weren’t flags but make no mistake.
I don't think that's true. The only two examples of a woman trying to run for President have been against the same cult leader. He didn't even get the popular vote the first time (which a lot of people seem to conveniently forget), and he barely won it in the second example.
The vast majority of America would be generically fine with a woman as President, even if they don't vote for her. The only thing lacking is a cult-like draw, and that's not something you should aspire to.
Big Mike said what!?
That's sexist!
Sorry... That's been up a day, and no one did a "Big Mike" comment yet!? ... Censorship? Surely that's not possible. C'mon internet. You're slipping.
I want to believe we could have a woman president so long as she ran on something other than being a wet noodle that's trying to be #relatable more than just being a good candidate.
Or better yet, running on something more than
"Are you really gonna let Trump win?"
It's funny, in 2015, I thought that that platform would be the only way a woman would be able to win over such a hard hurdle of all the conservative states with the electoral college we have.
The amount of people that looked past Donald Trump's flaws or embraced his hateful rhetoric, and blamed their decision on their dislike for Hillary was huge.
I didn't like her either. She wasn't my favorite candidate by a long shot, but I still can't believe our country is in a better place now than it would have been if she had won.
Also, it's hard to believe that was ten years ago. Gross.
I do, because you have to remember: Trump wasn't a one-off anomaly; he was the manifestation of deep structural issues and multiple converging crises within American society. It was a balloon that was going to inflate and inflate until it eventually popped, and if it didn't pop in 2016 it would have even harder in 2020. Hell, I could think of an even worse scenario: Trump is sidelined in the American fascist movement and a fascist that actually knows what he's doing takes his place.
In 2015, I saw Trump as the key to causing more chaos than the establishment can handle. If Hillary won (maybe in that timeline, Trump was sunk by the RNC coronating Jeb Bush as nominee, and then Bush lost the general), the rich would only get stronger, and their rise would be much more subtle than it is now. In our world, Trump doesn't hide the massive corruption he and his rich buddies are doing. In Hillary's world, the more under-the-hood corruption of the 2000s and early 2010s would have continued without anyone trying to stop them.
This may come off as a stretch, but I claim that Mamdani (nor anyone like him) wouldn't have been able to become NYC mayor in Hillary's world. He wouldn't have the support, since people in Hillary's world are even bigger sheep than the ones in ours.
On the other hand, certain policies pre-2015 might have survived. I think Roe v Wade would still be with us in Hillary's world.
Clinton stood no chance against Trump because of the large number of women voters that were never going to vote for her; not because of who she was in 2015 but because of her staying with Bill after he cheated on her.
Even the same ardent feminists that you would assume want to see a woman president more than anything still had little interest in her, in particular, being the first woman president. Too many women see her as a woman that stayed married to jackass just because of what it afforded her politically, financially, ect. Plus, they especially did not like the expectation placed on them to vote for her solely based on gender considering they viewed her as a traitor to women more broadly.
It says a lot about how hated she is by other women that a huge contingent of them voted for a serial sexual assailant rather than her
I do think there's a debate to be had as to if were in a "better place" then if Clinton had won
If she had won, we wouldn't be better off relative to 2015. We would have been in the same shit we were in 10 years ago with a housing crisis on the rise and COVID would have still happened and probably wouldn't have gone too radically differently.
Wed still have increased income inequality and we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn't help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.
Obviously, I don't know this is how it would have gone for sure, but the democrats really haven't given me much to believe in.
So would we have been "better off" with a dem successor compared to the 2015 status quo? No I don't think so and I think we all knew that and it doesn't inspire people to vote or participate in elections.
Would we have been better off to what we got? Yeah probably. But that's stuff we didn't completely know until hindsight kicked in. I think we all assumed he'd be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.
Now, I don't subscribe to acceleration ist views, but there is that view point as well.
Under that ideology, we are better off compared to a Clinton or Harris win because they would have subdued the flakier radical elements in society longer.
Trump being president and his flagrant disregard for our status quo system is a massive stepping stone towards a revolution of some sort to hopefully fix the problems of our 2015 society plus the additional inflated issues by Trump.
Or if you guys had an actual popular election instead of the whole Electoral College shit. A woman won the popular vote in 2016.
Just barely, though, and against what was at the time the worst qualified opponent in history (beat only by Trump himself in 2020 and 2024). Hillary was an awful candidate in her own right and the fact that she barely eeked out a popular vote win against Trump shows that.
I genuinely don't believe that a good, likeable, popular woman candidate who was free to campaign without the interference of the (mostly men) party's Old Guard would have no problem winning. We've got women in high offices in pretty much every other level of government. Just stop pushing out the worst, rich, pro-establishment candidates to the "progressive party" and demand a vote just because of their sex.
/rant
If a woman performs a progressive Tea Party style takeover of the DNC, I can see her having a good shot at winning the general election.
I think something like that is bound to happen, just far too late.
Elizabeth Warren's "I think I'll have a beer" will live rent free in my head forever as the prime example of clumsy pandering.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/why-elizabeth-warrens-beer-moment-fell-flat/579544/
Damn. All this talk of conservatives being throat goats and we completely forgot how much Warren likes head.
This is exactly it