Yes. I want a female candidate.

[MariePinchon]

That does not equate with me not supporting a male candidate.

What I want is for the female candidate to have an equal shake. I do not want her to be driven down by gender bias in the media and in the public.

I want two, three, or even four women to vie for the Democratic nomination. I want them to not be subjected to gender biased smear campaigns. The more women, the merrier. We have a plethora of qualified and excellent candidates.

When all is said, I will support the female candidate over the male candidate if all is equal. Male candidates are given an unfair and undeserved advantage that I will no longer abide by.

But that does not mean that I will not support the male candidate. I have been doing that all of my life. And I'm certain that I will be once again forced to to the same in future elections. But I don't like it. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of terrific female Democrats being dismissed simply because they are women. This gender bais has got to stop.

[MontanaMama]

1. I think this is well said.

I would love to see one or more women candidates in 2020. I will vote for whoever the Dems put forward be they female or male but I dream of a well qualified woman being POTUS.

[MariePinchon]

2. Thank you.

I almost felt intimidated about posting it, and that's when I realized it needed to be said.

[MontanaMama]

3. You said it from the heart

and without malice. I think many women and maybe a few men might feel the same. After the gauntlet that HRC had to go through, I wonder what woman in her right mind would run for POTUS? However, I am thankful that we have some women who seem up for the challenge. A rough road it’ll be for sure.

[MariePinchon]

4. You are a gem, MontanaMama.

Your spirit warms my heart.

We are going to rock on, and we will get there. Much gratitude, love, big hugs, and respect to you.

[Quixote1818]

5. As a male, I kind of feel like America needs a woman President to cleanse itself after Trump's

pussy grabbing misogyny and ass holeness in general. I feel it's time especially after Hillary losing to the little orange dick head the way it went down. Illegally!!! I don't really care that much either way, it's just where I am at right now mentally. It would make me happy to see it happen. I was a Bernie fan last time but I don't feel this election is right for him. I don't really have a favorite right now and look forward to seeing who all emerges from the pack. I hope the best person this round ends up being a woman. If not then I just want them to crush Trump.

On edit, I guess Klobuchar is who I am leaning toward at the moment.

[calimary]

23. Agreed. But I don't see another female candidate with the kind of strength,

capability, or experience that Hillary had. And Hillary didn’t lose. It was STOLEN from her.

I like Kamala Harris. Smart. Resilient. Brilliant! And young-ish. I just wish she had a few more years in the Senate first. But she does have a lot going for her. Including guts, and she remains cool under fire. VERY important. And she knows the law.

I like Elizabeth Warren, but she’s a one-trick pony so far. Her signature strength is in consumer protections - and that’s a very good thing. But her portfolio isn’t wide or deep enough, IMO. And I can’t forget how she sat things out and played coy all through the 2016 primary season, while EVERY OTHER Democratic woman in the U.S. Senate immediately stood up for Hillary. Where the fuck was she - until the very end when Clinton had clinched the nomination??? That’s not showing courage! OR leadership! I was MASSIVELY disappointed in her for that reason, and I remain so. That said, she would absolutely have my vote if she becomes our nominee. (I feel the same reluctance for the same reason toward the still-underwhelming Jeff Merkley, btw, and he’s my Senator now.)

Amy Klobuchar - I like her, too. A lot. But there’s not too much of a really high profile there, nor much pizazz. For those who must be “excited” by the prospective nominee, seems to me she doesn’t move the meter much. Sad but true, and superficial as hell, but having pizazz actually counts, and counts for a lot. Might make a terrific VP though!

Hillary remains the only one who had it all, at least to me. But as much as it hurts me to say it, and as much as we still need her, I hope she doesn’t run. I hated seeing her battered like that. Just HATED it! And I don’t want to see her tormented and persecuted anymore! She deserved - and still deserves - so much better.

I still want US DEMS to be the party that finally seats a female Chief executive behind that Resolute Desk. At least, before the bad guys can do it with Nikki Haley or some such. I want that epic a history-making achievement to be OURS!

But Job One is to WIN. I’ll vote, donate to, and work for WHOMEVER we wind up nominating. Male or female, young or old, white or not, Biden or Beto.

[LakeSuperiorView]

6. Thank you for including what most probably think, but don't say.

The posts that bluntly state that the candidate must be this or that make this or that the primary qualification. This or that doesn't qualify anyone for almost everything, because EVERYONE is this or that. Being an old, white, married, hetero male is no more qualifying than being a young, minority, single, gay female.

I am voting for a candidate that is qualified to do the job not for someone who is this or that.

[oberliner]

7. Well said

[karynnj]

8. Nicely said

I think Democrats are ready to consider male and female candidates fairly at this point. I do not think Clinton lost the 2008 nomination because she was a woman. It was a struggle between two wings of the Democratic party - and the liberal Kennedy/Kerry wing had in Obama one of the most charismatic candidates (and potential first lady) in recent history. Had Hillary Clinton won that nomination, she would have become President in January 2009. Anyone reviewing that primary would realize with the huge SuperTuesday firewall, the powers in the Democratic party had made it near impossible for any new person to gain enough momentum not to hit that wall.

It may well have been that 2016 was always going to be tougher than the MSM's and our (DU) perception that we were very favored. As to our nomination, Clinton won it very easily. To me, it is more significant that O'Malley never got any traction than that Sanders did, while never getting enough to ever really throw the nomination into question. If the probem was that HRC was a woman, it would seem that many voters would have flocked to the only more mainstream O'Malley, who entered the race months before Sanders.

As to the voters that Sanders captured, possibly representing the left/progressive part of the party and in some states the unaligned voters, polls showed that Elizabeth Warren would have more support than Sanders. This suggests that - even as HRC's platform was very progressive, many people looked their long formed perception of her. That perception, reinforced by the secret Goldman Sachs speeches, defined her as a left leaning centrist. Note that HRC, a left leaning centrist, beat the left/progressive Sanders easily in the primary.

As to the general election, note that had her team been more sensitive to what was happening in WI, MI, and PA, she would have won the election AND it would have been seen as not close because she did get 3 million more votes. We now know that Russia was behind the social media targetting to gain votes for Trump and to discourage people (especially African Americans) who otherwise intended to vote for HRC.

There were AFTER THE ELECTION accounts that some local volunteers saw things shifting and pushed up requests for help and the campaign not responding. For me, it is an eye opening reason why the canvasing and phone banking is important. Having done it for years when I lived in a Republican area of NJ, which just elected a Democrat to the House, I often wondered why anyone would reconsider their vote or voting at all because a stranger called or came to their door. Previously, I thought it's value was in guiding the GOTV effort on and around election day. If the accounts were more than just after the fact blame shifting, this identifies the mundane local efforts are a real connection to what is happening in each area that should be carefully watched.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a woman won the Democratic primary in 2016 and came very very close to winning in the general election. It is interesting that there are also threads that a white man nominated by our party can not win - noting that Bill Clinton was the last to do so. In both cases, there are far too few data points (only one for women, two for white men - with all three close and all three subject to claims of Republican cheating) and far too many extraneous variables to draw a generic conclusion.

The primaries will show which candidates - white, hispanic, African American, male, female - capture the votes and interest of people. I am not convinced that the person able to win the primaries is not the most likely person of those who run in the primaries to win the general election.

[mcar]

9. Thank you

You express my feelings too.

[Honeycombe8]

10. I think the catch is your definition of "terrific."

There are far fewer females to choose from to find a candidate, so pickins is slim, compared to possible male candidates. So it's tougher to come up with a "terrific" candidate from such a small pool. I want a female President, too. It's way past time. We are one of the few First World countries, if not the only one, not to have a female leader yet. But it's hard for people to agree on what makes a "terrific" candidate.

I am hoping someone unexpected steps forward, who has the right stuff. Someone like former governor of Texas Ann Richards, now deceased. Out of the current crop, I think only Harris has a shot at it. But it's very early. There's no telling who will throw their hats in the ring or which way the wind will blow a year from now.

[Bettie]

13. Actually, that isn't true

because the other side of gender bias is that for a woman to even be considered, she has to be far more accomplished than a man.

Then, she has to be tough enough to weather the comments about how she shouldn't run because (insert reason that boils down to: she isn't a man).

She also will have to weather "news" organizations picking apart her looks, her relationships, pretty much everything in her life to an extent that a man would NEVER have to tolerate.

[Honeycombe8]

14. And therein lies the rub. I and others see things differently.

There are just so many more male politicians from which to choose, that it's harder to find the right female who could be a good leader and could win. It can be done, but it's harder. It will get better with time, like anything else. Esp since more women are now in politics and people actually seriously consider voting for them. (There was a time that even if a woman ran, most voters wouldn't seriously consider voting for her, no matter who she was.)

Male candidates have their entire lives picked apart, so any female can expect that. Even their appearance, although it will be to a greater extent for the female candidate. But Trump has not been let off the hook in that regard, because he's male. As we well know, with the jokes about his weight, the way he sits, his double chin, his hair, his orange face, his old face, his big abdomen.

[Steven Maurer]

11. I want a female candidate to win as well...

But only because she's the best candidate so far as I'm concerned.

[Honeycombe8]

16. I feel the same way.

It's way past time for our country to have a female President. But I want a female candidate only if she is the best candidate and can really win. (Think Obama. Who cared about his race, besides bigots? He was clearly, to me, the best candidate. An exceptional candidate. Others were good, but he stood out in the crowd.)

We're not going to find another Obama. But that's what I use as the measuring stick.

[marble falls]

12. Who in the heck at DU are you arguing with????

[Autumn]

15. Nobody now.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=350721

[Honeycombe8]

17. Oh, my.

I've never seen that before. I guess a few alerts and you're toast? I hate to see posters go away forever, unless ...well, I don't know what causes that, really.

[marble falls]

18. Thats not what happened this time. "He" was ID'd as a return troll.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Really?

With that many posts? Wow. Someone who knew what he was doing. Sowing discord, I guess. Something to be on the lookout for. Troublemakers. Or maybe someone who doesn't have a life, other than to troll forums.

Thanks.

[marble falls]

20. DU does not want to ban people williynilly. It takes six alerts in 90 days to get ...

in dutch.

However there are malicious intruders and there is a group of DUers who watch for them. It just happens in this case the banning came from admin. This not unheard of but it is not all that unusual.

[Honeycombe8]

22. I see. I had no idea! Thanks. nt

[aikoaiko]

21. That's interesting.