2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" [View all]Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)a strong performance by Sanders will undermine the argument going forward in future primaries that a candidate like Sen. Warren is too liberal to be be nominated. This is a more important barrier to push than breaking the bad-hair glass ceiling.
To me, the fact that Pres. Obama was the first black president was an added bonus that made his victory even sweeter, but it played no factor in my support for him (just as I'll be glad if Sanders is the first Jewish president, but his ethnicity plays no part of why I support him or just as I find Dr. Carson implausible as a candidate but his race is neither a plus nor a minus in my assessment). Clinton is great; not my first choice, but great. Her gender does not tilt me her way or tilt me toward Sanders (just as gender is not a factor in my rejection of everything Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin stand for).
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Sanders getting a pass on his Einstein 'do is a reflection of the bias in his favor as a male candidate. But we certainly agree that women in politics (and every other American endeavor) suffer from prejudice and unfairly applied standards which include, but are not limited to, biases based on their appearance. And we agree that, if Clinton wins in both the primary and then the general election, the fact that she is a woman will make the relief at avoiding a Rubio-Trump-Cruz presidency even sweeter.
PS: Maybe - just maybe - Sanders' candidacy will also break down the glass ceiling that has favored the follically blessed (like Reagan or Bill Clinton) over the hair impaired. But if Sanders does not upset Clinton to take the nomination, I am going to join the ranks of the hair bigots: