Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

WASHINGTON — American politics has gone through a gender revolution that has barely been noticed.

Take the discussions of the 2016 presidential election which, as a matter of habit, we have begun even before the end of the first year of the current president’s second term.

What’s obvious to everyone is that Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming Democratic favorite, if she decides to get in. Just last week, a Public Policy Poll in Iowa found Clinton supported by 71 percent, with 12 percent going to Vice President Joe Biden, and the other alternatives trailing badly. Recall that it was her loss in Iowa to Barack Obama that ended her frontrunner status in 2008 and set Obama on his path to victory.

The difference between then and 2016 is that there is a yearning across the range of Democratic opinion for Clinton’s candidacy. The last time, she had to persuade the party. This time, the party wants to persuade her.

Clinton’s gender is certainly relevant to the desire of so many who want her nominated. She would, indeed, appeal to women of diverse political views who want to break the presidential glass ceiling. But support for Clinton has at least as much to do with hardcore calculations that she could win because of her wide experience, her likely reach to working-class voters, and her sheer endurance in the face of tests that few other politicians have had to confront.

It gets even more interesting when you think about what could happen if Clinton doesn’t run — and, even more, whom the party might turn to after the Hillary Clinton era it is hoping for ends.

In that PPP poll, for example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts places third, at 5 percent, behind Clinton and Biden. With Clinton out of the race, Warren rose to 16 percent, against Biden’s 51 percent.

And here’s something even more noteworthy: If Biden and Clinton are both removed from the list, Warren leads the field with 20 percent followed by 18 percent for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, 12 percent for Newark mayor and New Jersey senatorial candidate Cory Booker, and 7 percent for New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

  • Dominick Vila

    Hopefully the struggle for gender equality will result in the USA joining the community of nations and electing our first female President. Clinton-Warren 2016.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Hopefully not. Hillary Clinton is corrupt, a carpetbagger and a phony. Her lackluster performances as Secretary of State and New York senator, polished off by her Benghazi blunder relegate her in my opinion to the political garbage heap.

      She’s unable to convince people of the value of her projects, e.g. the total rejection by Congress of her medical plan.

      My desire for the next presidential election is that America has the good sense to reject this political charlatan.

      • nancyminter

        Silence troll

        • CPAinNewYork

          Go to hell, haridan.

    • Ed

      Dominick: Your comments to the effect that Hillary should be elected “our first female President in 2016” are vacuous and devoid of logic and substance.
      I know this is asking too much from our glamor and “coolness”- oriented electorate, but let’s elect the best qualified person for the position, period.
      If it were truly a matter of electing our “first” female President (now that we have elected and re-elected our first black President), then why not:
      a) elect our “first” homosexual man President;
      b) elect our “first” lesbian woman President;
      c) elect our “first” Hispanic President;
      d) elect our “first” Vietnamese President;
      e) elect our first professional architect/engineer president??
      I could go on and on but I think an intelligent person like you can get my drift, which is:

      Let’s elect any of the above only if he/she happens to be the “best qualified” (whatever that means !)
      Oh brother …

      • CPAinNewYork

        Good posting. Vila’s enthusiasm for a first female president just doesn’t ring true. His backing of an all female ticket rings even less true. It doesn’t make sense.

        Vila’s reason seems to have deserted him.

  • JDavidS

    Them red-neck, good-old boys better get their shit together and start slappin’ down these uppity bitches before they get too gig for their britches. Next thing ya know they’ll want some sort of say over their reproductive rights…and start squawkin’ again for equal rights in things like employment and education. And then just where in the hell would we be?…Huh? Oh, the 21st century?….Never mind.

  • Catskinner

    If she could have gotten the nomination in 2008, I would have voted for her gladly. But after she fell on her sword to protect Obama over Benghazi, nothing could get me to vote for her.

    • Independent1

      So you’ve been drinking more of that Faux News Kool-Aid have you? When are you totally clueless nitwits going to give up on spewing the lies and distortions that Faux News created to discredit the Obama administration? Even including fudging emails!!! Get a life!!!!!!! You’re as dumb as they come!!!

      • CPAinNewYork

        And you’re an insulting asshole.

        • Independent1

          CPA, were you really taking issue with my trying to call out Catskinner for continuing to harp on an issue that has been totally overblown by Faux News – the Bengazi attack???

          • CPAinNewYork

            I think that Benghazi ia a valid issue, The consulate staff asked for protection and they didn’t get it. It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson’s refusal to send Sixth Fleet fighter planes to confront the Israeli fighter jets while they were murdering thirty-four American sailors on the USS Liberty in 1967.

          • Independent1

            But you’re wrong. The Bengahzi facility was not a consulate – it was a CIA facility with a diplomat as a cover. It was the CIA’s responsibility to protect the office, NOT the State Department. Four CIA agents DID RESPOND to the call for help within 25 minutes – two of which were killed. There was another small detachment that could have gotten there within reasonable time but they were not equiped to get into a firefight and the general responsible for that group decided it was better for them to stay in Cairo in case the attack on Benghazi was part of a larger plot and the embessy in Cairo may need protection too. And it may be that if there were casualties in Benghazi that it would be good to have additional people back in Cairo to help them – which it turned out was the case.
            You, like so many others are operating on lies and distortions that were being spewed by Faux News. It WAS NEVER the responsibility of the State Department OR THE WHITEHOU9SE!! To HELP BENGHAZI!!! When are people going to get that through their head????????? And when are people going to realize that the Whitehouse and State Department can divulge everything that went on????? Some of what took place is SECRET!!!! We don’t want every terrorist around to get wind of EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED!!!! Can’t you see that Darrell Issa is only trying to pry SECRET INFORMATION out of the Whitehouse – when it was never the Whitehouse’s responsibility TO DO ANYTHING!!!!!!!!
            And are you also one of those who didn’t raise a question when there were 14 attacks during Bush’s 8 years and his administration did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Catskinner

        You need to change your name I-1. You must be one of the least independent people on the face of the planet.

        • Independent1

          Well, if the GOP ever gets back to acting like true politicians where partisanship is not a dirty word, I may very seriously consider voting for a Republican again. I voted for Eisenhower, I voted for Ford, I voted for Bush Sr. – and I’ve voted for lessor Republican politicians along the way too. But that was before it became very clear to me that the current crop of GOP wannabees are nothing but faux politicans – hellbent on doing everything they can to enhance the wealth sucking from those of us in the less than 95% to those who already have more money than any human should have a right to expect in this lifetime; including THEMSELVES!!!!

          • Catskinner

            I wasn’t old enough to vote for Eisenhower, but I consider him to be the best president of my lifetime. Others I would rate would be Johnson the worst, Reagan the second worst, and Bill Clinton the second best–all based on not knowing what to do with JFK because his time in office was so short.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The problems in this country are people who love to stereotype women and minorities. It’s interesting to note that the US government still considers women “minorities” even though there are 2% more women in the US than men. The reality is that the deeply embedded male stereoptyping is doing them in politically, financially and ethically.

    When men rely too heavily on stereotypes, they prove their belief in mass predictability. Let me clue these men in…no woman on planet earth is ever predictable. It’s why some women have been able to take down some of the most politically lofty men.

    Women know you can never be predictable. That’s more ammunition than any man needs to react to women’s actions.

    Hillary Clinton is despised only by men threatened by female intelligence. Something many males find is akin to being hung by their toes in the town square. Hillary has consistently refused to buckle under Good Ole Boy Network pressure. She deftly manages marriage, family, career and politics on her own terms whether or not she passes muster with the male society of bluster and bravado machismo.

    When women reach Hillary’s age, they realize they have more years past them when they were all too willing to remain silent and be “good little wives” and mothers and…by association…doormats of the autocratic kings of the universe. So, many 60- something women are icons of whole new, more financially independent generation of women who don’t necessarily need a man for his identity, money or his status symbol. The reaction from these men to this new obstacle in their quest of autonomous power is to try and restrict women’s rights. All this tells most women is that some men are still the most grossly insecure control freaks and …it’s an opportunity once again for intelligent women to show these insecure individuals how many options around male dominance there really are.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Your writings are drivel. For example, you wrote “Hillary Clinton is despised only by men threatened by female intelligence.” Wrong! How do you know that to be a fact? Did you do an indepth study, perhaps supplemented by a psychometrically validated survey? Somehow, I doubt that.

      I don’t like Hillary Clinton, although I recognize her intelligence. I dislike her corruption, her sharp edged personality and her pushiness. You’re a typical closed-minded individual who denigrates any contrary opinion, so I dislike you, too.

      Your last sentence displays your gender bias: “All this tells most women is that some men are still the most grossly insecure control freaks….” “Most women”? What is that based on, your psychometrically validated survey? And, are men the only “grossly insecure control freaks”?

      You know what I think? I think that you’re a pseudo intellectual phony who’s so angry at men that all you can do is spout misanthropic garbage.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        Your posts are obtuse. I don’t have to do an indepth study of the life of Hillary Clinton…your kind exposed everything about her during the 8 years you beasts with testicles decided she shouldn’t be First Lady…Your gender is falling into the cesspool of its own making. Your kind never listens when women speak and then wonder why you are left out in the cold. I don’t really exist to care what your kind think. Sorry if that is a thorn in your crown.

        As for corruption, please…who was more corrupt than Cheney? Or for that matter Bush, Rice, Rove, Prince or Reed? When your kind can’t keep in their pants, it’s always a woman’s fault. Not anymore…now women in the US are fully prepared to watch the bossy, overbearing dullards of the male gender fall on their derrieres.

        Some CPAs were involved in helping Madoff make off with $65 billion over 17 years and not a single one of them had their CPA licenses yanked for that little corruption. So I wouldn’t go around accusing others of wrongdoing you cannot hope to EVER prove in a court of law …the last time your kind did that to Hillary, it cost the rest of us $12 million in taxes and proved what we already knew…Some men in this country are detestable maggots who feed on eating others alive.

        • CPAinNewYork

          A thorn in my crown? Are you somehow linking me to Jesus?

          What has “some CPAs” who may have assisted Madoff in making off with $65 billion got to do with my criticism and dislike of Hillary Clinton? You’re just so hateful of men that you can’t keep your invective on point. I have a mental picture of you frothing at the mouth as your furiously peck away at your computer.

          As to the corruption of the leading Republicans: I agree. My posting are chock full of criticism of the leading Republicans. given that, what’s your point? Your comment on men being unable to …”keep in their pants….” is obtuse and pointless, so I’ll pass on that, unless you can calm down to the point of clarifying your remark.

          Well, Eleanore, it’s been a revelation exchanging opinions with you. I thought that Fern was the sole foul mouthed woman on this website.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Gotcha….You fell for it big time. As a matter of fact, I have little patience with men who act like spoiled two year old children and pull their tantrums just to get their way. Sorry if that offends…But you were quick to fall into the trap I set for you relating you to Jesus. Jesus wouldn’t treat women like second class citizens, set such a narrow line of thinking no one in their right mind would follow it. Jesus, as you male Obama haters might recall, was a “liberal”..Or do you need a refresher course in the beatitudes he preached …Feed the hungry…give drink to the thirsty…clothe the naked…all too too too liberal for right wing haters of life that doesn’t go their way.

            What Madoff has to do with Hillary Clinton is legend. Can you wise men explain why she was ripped apart and every aspect of HER life was so important to trash but for 17 years men who were CPAs, auditors and SEC cronies looked the other way at corruption?

            Because a woman won’t play your male ego bloating games, she must must must be foul mouthed. It’s time for you and your Father Knows Best bois to grow up. If you can’t handle female authority and women who are smarter than you, you only show your immaturity and need for supremacy over a gender that is fed up with the good ole bois network paying us less and demanding we pay equal taxes on salaries these good ole bois laugh at. Sorry…women’s equality won’t come from men…It will come from women…Get over yourselves.

          • CPAinNewYork

            “Gotcha”? You don’t “have” anybody. The only CPA who audited Madoff’s financial statements was that small storefront firm in New City, New Jersey.

            To what other CPAs are you referring?

            I still don’t see the connection between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Madoff and I don’t think that you do, either. I think that you’re just blowing smoke to vent your anti-male hatred.

  • Allan Richardson

    Hillary (or Elizabeth) could keep Biden out of the primary fight by offering him the VP spot ahead of time. I checked the Constitution and the 22nd Amendment and there is nothing about term limiting the VICE PRESIDENT. He may be happier there than being promoted. And there is precedent for a VP serving under different Presidents, although none have served more than two terms, EVEN under FDR, because he preferred to switch every time.

    In the unlikely event that Warren is elected, and assuming no death or abdication across the pond, it would be the first time since George Washington left office that the US President and UK monarch have the same first name. This has no political effect, of course, but it is an interesting bit of trivia.

    • CPAinNewYork

      So you arrogate to yourself the criteria for determining what would make Biden happy?

      Your second paragraph makes no sense at all.

  • Allan Richardson

    Many years ago wise men began to realize that, as the late Dr. Asimov said, humanity’s problems need all the intelligence we can get in order to solve them, so it makes no sense to exclude half the good brains on the planet from contributing.

    • CPAinNewYork

      I agree. don’t exclude women, but don’t vote for them just because they’re women. That is stupid.

  • Jim Myers

    Electing a female President Of The United States just makes sense.

    There is absolutely no way a woman can screw things up any worse than men have been doing since the first election.

    Also, why would women want to vote for some fat, old, rich white guy who wants to eliminate her reproductive choices, along with her health choices?

    Particularly when the alternative is a woman who knows all too well that those are choices that a woman and her doctor should make.

    Not a politician with a religious and/or a political agenda.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    The GOP’s War on Women is a study in a combination of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. The hypercritical part is that they say they want to be a “Big Tent Party” while discriminating against women and minorities. The cognitive dissonance part is that they don’t understand that their policies, especially the labeling of all people in the party unlike the white Conservative male power base as “Useful Idiots”, are driving women and minorities away. Ignorance is not bliss, members of the GOP…it’s just ignorance and it’s pathetic…

  • howa4x

    The men haven’t done a great job so give a woman a chance

    • Independent1

      I’m sorry I can’t totally concur with your comment that the “men haven’t done a great job”. I can remember FDR and started voting with Truman. And there’s no question in my mind that Barak Obama is by far the best president I’ve ever lived under, and to be honest, I would probably rank right up there with Lincoln. Given the unpresidented obstructionism, some of which is pointed out by this article (and there has been much, much more), it’s actually surprising to me that America didn’t fall into the GOP’s second created world-wide depression. And the only reason that the country didn’t fall into depression, is because Obama took it upon himself to push through with the auto-bailout and stimulus, both of which the GOP adamantly opposed; and has also actively pursued a number of other objectives without the GOP’s help. And the fact that he’s followed through completely on 250 promises he made before the lection; and partially followed through on another 125, hasn’t hurt either. But it has been Obama’s determination not to give into the constant obstructionism of the GOP that has resulted in over 45 straight months of job growth, a stock market that has reached its highest levels in history, consumer confidence that last moth reached its highest level in 7 years and on and on. How can you say “haven’t done a great job”??????

      • howa4x

        That is all true but let’s not forget Regan, the 2 Bushes, Ford, Eisenhower, Hoover, Coolidge, all have to be considered too

        • Independent1

          You’re right, and as I see it, only Ike may not fall fully under the intent of your comment.-

          • howa4x

            Under Ike the CIA became an agent of US corporations and they over threw governments in central America and Iran for them. Also Ike had the stature to stop the cold war by siting down with Stalin who trusted him, but didn’t at the behest of corporate America

          • Independent1

            I’m not real big on Ike. I think of the GOP presidents since Teddy Roosevelt that he was their best offering – he at least pushed for creating the interstate highway system – something positive for the country which is more than any other GOP president has done since Teddy. But in addition to your comments (which I wasn’t aware of), Ike also governed with such a tight fist, that he presided over more recessions than any other president – 3 of them in 8 years. The country struggled under recession for almost 4 of his 8 years in office.

  • silence dogood

    God help us if this shrew winds up in the White House !

    • Independent1

      Yeah, America might actually see some prosperity again. Clinton’s 8 years in office were by far the most prosperous economically in America’s history!!!! But then there are people like yourself who are totally clueless about everything!!!!!!

      • silence dogood

        Credit Republican control of the legislation during much of his 8 years.

        • Independent1

          Sorry, Clinton set that all up his 1st 3 years in office when he had a Democrat congress. All the GOP did for his last 5 years was focus on nonsense (like trying to impeach him). Fortunately, he didn’t allow them to get anything passed that would destroy the momentum he created in the 1st 3 years when he raised the max tax rate and started working on reducing the deficit spending he inherited from Bush Sr.

          • silence dogood

            Hillary lied, people died.

          • Independent1

            Is there anything you’re not totally clueless about? You’re obviously a typical Faux News sheeple who believes all the lies and distortions they spew. Well, Hillary didn’t lie about anything – she skirted around the truth because it was suppose to be a secret until some asinine GOP legislators got into the act. Here’s some facts:

            The Bengahzi facility was not a consulate – it was a CIA
            facility with a diplomat as a cover. It was the CIA’s responsibility to protect the office, NOT the State Department. Four CIA agents DID RESPOND to the call for help within 25 minutes – two of which were killed. There was another small
            detachment that could have gotten there within reasonable time but they were not equipped to get into a firefight and the general responsible for that group decided it was better for them to stay in Cairo in case the attack on Benghazi was part of a larger plot and the embassy in Cairo may need protection too. And it may be that if there were casualties in Benghazi that it would be good to have additional people back in Cairo to help them – which it turned out was the case.

            You, like so many others are operating on lies and distortions that were being spewed by Faux News. It WAS NEVER the responsibility of the State Department OR THE Whitehouse to HELP BENGHAZI!!! When are people going to get that through their heads?? And when are people going to realize that the Whitehouse and State Department CAN NOT divulge everything that went on?? Some of what took place is SECRET!! We don’t want every terrorist around to get wind of
            EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED!!!! Can’t you see that Darrell Issa is only trying to pry SECRET INFORMATION out of the Whitehouse – when it was never the Whitehouse’s responsibility TO DO ANYTHING!!

            And you’re also one of those who didn’t raise a question when there were 14 attacks during Bush’s 8 years and his administration did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!! Resulting in the fact that 3 separate fatal
            attacks occurred at one consulate (in Karachi) where 18 ended up being killed including one diplomat!!! Where was the outcry about those attacks??? 18 died!!!

            Obama’s first term in office was BY FAR the safest 4 years for our overseas personnel in over 35 years!!! One fatal attack with 4 casualties, compared to 13 attacks under Bush Jr with over 50 casualties, and 6 attacks under Clinton with over 300
            casualties; and 12 attacks under Bush Sr. with 60 casualties and 7 attacks under Reagan with 31 casualties. Plus 241 dead marines. Wake up and use some common sense!!

            And don’t forget the attack on the homeland that Bush and Cheney DELIBERATELY let happen that killed around 3,000. They did absolutely nothing to keep it from happening
            even though the CIA & FBI asked 7 time to let them focus on stopping the attack – Bush and Cheney said NO!!!!!!!! You have to focus on finding us an excuse for attacking Iraq.

          • silence dogood

            Get a life….

          • Independent1

            That’s exactly what I’m trying to do – get the life I WANT, not one dictated by a bunch of Republican politicians who keep trying to pass legislation that dictates how I can live my life. And I want a secure life, not one that’s at the mercy of the stock market and whether a corporation succeeds or fails like the Republicans would like to put in place. And I’m tired of politicans who act more like the Italian Mafia, trying to pass legislation that cuts taxes and government services so they and their rich cronies can pocket more trillions of dollars – knowing full well that the debt that will continue to be run up on the credit card (our deficit) will have to be paid some day. Don’t think I’m not aware of why they keep trying to lower the maximum tax rate -it’s so when the bill comes due for all that debt – the rich will get hit with a much lower bill for paying it back – once again foisting most of the responsibility on those who can least afford it.
            So yeah! I’m trying to get a life. What you need to do is wake up and realize that Today’s Republicans are trying to steal the better part of mine, yours and everyone elses that live outside the 1-5% of wealthiest Americans.

          • silence dogood

            ……..thus validating my prior observation.

          • silence dogood

            Now you are just making crap up—bigtime. The reality is that Michael Sheuer, who became head of the Bin Laden unit with the CIA, has stated and written that Clinton could have had Bin Laden killed or captured on 8 to 10 occasions but passed on doing it each time, even though Bin Laden had killed hundreds. Compare that to some vague rumor of “some kind of attack’ that Bush was told about–at a single meeting. Clinton even admitted to his failure to take him out when given multiple chances–it is on tape in his voice–look it up.
            If you’d like to bring up the CIA how about this. In 8 years Clinton NEVER met with the Director of the CIA.
            He was however able to meet with Monica Lewinsky 12 times ( documented in the record ) for face to face or face to something meetings.