2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" [View all]Beacool
(30,247 posts)"Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment, but because she is a woman she does not have full access to the privileges that accrue to the establishment. If you think that's wrong, take a look at the long history of female Presidents of the United States. Oh wait a second, there haven't been any female Presidents of the United States.
That is the very definition of sexism. This should not be controversial here on DU -- everyone here knows it to be true. If we lived in a level gender playing field, then by now there should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 men and 22 women presidents. Or, if we assume a slow move in the direction of equality, then we should at least see some gender parity in the last, say, four presidencies. But no. It's dudes all the way down."
I find it disturbing that many people here are dismissive of the historic significance of electing a woman president. As you pointed out, it wouldn't be just any woman either:
"Hillary Clinton is, on paper, the single most qualified human being on the planet at this moment in time to be President of the United States. Nobody else comes close. Her resume could be put next to the resumes of almost any man who has aspired to the office of President of the United States, and would not be found lacking."
She is the most qualified candidate now, and I'll go to my grave thinking that she was also the most qualified candidate in 2008. It seems that no matter what she has accomplished there's always a "but". Now it's the charge of not being progressive enough for the purists on the Left. The hell with that!!!! Despite the decades of attacks from both the Right and the Left, I have no doubt that Hillary will prevail in the end. Her time has finally arrived.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.