Jennifer Rubin: The best retort to 'The election's too important to nominate a woman'

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

The best retort to ‘The election’s too important to nominate a woman’

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
May 14 at 1:30 PM

We have noted the unfortunate sentiment expressed quite openly among some Democrats — even among some female Democrats — that the 2020 election is about an existential threat to our country (reelecting President Trump) that is far too important to risk nominating a woman. We’ve argued that there is little rational reason to assume that any female contender would be disadvantaged running against Trump, but the attitude is disturbingly pervasive among Democratic voters as well as among party insiders.

Stacey Abrams, who ran for governor in Georgia in 2018, had the best answer to this I’ve heard. During an interview with The Post, she explained:

When I declared, there was a group that just thought it was impossible for a black woman to cut through the history of racism and sexism in the state of Georgia, and that I certainly couldn’t accomplish something [winning as a Democrat] that white men had not been able to accomplish for the last 15 years. . . .

Friends who diminish their assumption of my capacity because of phenotype — that was the most depressing and saddening part. Particularly women who helped me win my first race, who urged me to run for leader, who understood how I had navigated so many difficulties and had been an incredibly successful leader. But in this moment of opportunity, could not push themselves past the lack of imagination that I could do this. It was repeatedly, “You’re so smart. You’re so capable. You would absolutely be a perfect governor, [whispers] but you’re a black woman.” As though they were giving me some fatal diagnosis.

Abrams is out of office. She never served in an executive capacity at the state or federal level. But that’s exactly the position former representative Beto O’Rourke (Tex.) is in, and yet he is taken seriously as a presidential contender. Abrams is right that people’s conception of a leader is heavily influenced by gender and race, but she’s also the best example that shows political insiders, moneymen and other politicians are often the least imaginative. What, in retrospect, seemed preordained (a change-oriented, eloquent Barack Obama would beat a status-quo, pedestrian Hillary Clinton), at the time, many considered absurd.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/14/best-retort-elections-too-important-nominate-woman/

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R

[MontanaMama]

2. Kick

Kick Kick Kick Kick.

[spooky3]

3. I was with Rubin until she insulted Clinton by calling her "pedestrian."

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant, outstanding individual.

[delisen]

4. This is the time that it will prove to be a necessity to nominate a woman candidate

It is where the battle taking us.

The past is gone, and there is no path back to it.

[Mr.Bill]

5. Sometimes people need to be reminded

that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump. And that was when people thought Trump would somehow stop being an asshole and transform into being presidential after being elected.

[Andy823]

6. Right now I think

Harris, Warren, and Klobuchar have outshined all the men considered to be in the top tier. They have done a better job of expressing what they will do as president, they have actual plans to fix the mess trump will leave, and they all could kick trumps ass in a general election, something I am no sure about with the top men running.

I also think that in the debates they will do a fantastic job of showing the public just how prepared they are for the job.