2016 Postmortem

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)

69. Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez... I guess you've never heard of those women.

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:58 PM

Apr 2016

They are but three out of what is probably thousands who don't have the name recognition Hillary Clinton does, but toil away in service to their communities, states, and country.

The fact very few people trust Hillary Clinton doesn't make any of THEM less trustworthy.

The woman who wrote the op-ed in Huffpo writes nothing but pro-Hillary stuff. Her opinion of how people feel about Hillary Clinton carries zero weight with me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Will We Ever Be Able to Trust 'Ambitious' Political Women? [View all] niyad Apr 2016 OP

Warren? Absolutely. Clinton? Hell to the no. rachacha Apr 2016 #1

yep. has nothing to do with her being a woman Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #4

you clearly have no problem with women not at all dsc Apr 2016 #56

nope. i am one Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #85

oooooo-k then Dem2 Apr 2016 #68

don't tolerate those mean girls who comment on others to make them fight either Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #86

Really! artislife Apr 2016 #10

Neither is Sanders. Squinch Apr 2016 #82

This. bam. nt retrowire Apr 2016 #40

Warren is not running. athena Apr 2016 #66

I am not saying Warren would not encounter sexism and other despicable attacks. rachacha Apr 2016 #79

Did I say anything about you? athena Apr 2016 #84

Warren ambitious? joshcryer Apr 2016 #73

I'm not sure if you're joking, or have a different definition of ambitious. rachacha Apr 2016 #81

Who tapped Warren for bankruptcy reform? joshcryer Apr 2016 #93

yep - my thought exactly. 840high Apr 2016 #87

obama was criticized heavily for his presidential run. restorefreedom Apr 2016 #2

and yet, I hear the same misogynistic crap coming out of the mouths of dems in niyad Apr 2016 #7

i have no doubt that sexism , like racism, still exists restorefreedom Apr 2016 #17

this is an incredibly conservatively religiously fundamentalist area--home to new life, niyad Apr 2016 #34

oh man, that kind of explains it restorefreedom Apr 2016 #38

his was a special circumstance...he's a black man WhiteTara Apr 2016 #53

no doubt. but his resume was light on governmental experience restorefreedom Apr 2016 #57

Cruz is a white evangelical which is its own special circumstance WhiteTara Apr 2016 #58

and he ate his own booger on national tv! nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #59

You had to remind me! WhiteTara Apr 2016 #60

ooops ...sorry :( it is a hard image to shake. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #61

You are so right! It came back in a flash WhiteTara Apr 2016 #65

yup. then again, he makes it easy to be disgusted lol. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #74

I think he should be given "disgusting" things WhiteTara Apr 2016 #76

i am waiting for his band aid to fall off in the next debate lol. ewwwww nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #80

I admire the ambition, but I loathe the proclivity for war and fracking and the TPP, djean111 Apr 2016 #3

No more than I trust Ambitious Political Men. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #5

I don't "trust" ANY politicians. NRaleighLiberal Apr 2016 #6

you make a most excellent point. niyad Apr 2016 #8

thank you. just my own personal POV. NRaleighLiberal Apr 2016 #9

I cover city hall nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #25

Ambition is not the problem. MuseRider Apr 2016 #11

Nothing wrong with ambition... lying is a different problem. basselope Apr 2016 #12

Are are all women inoculated against criticism because of this? nt Bonobo Apr 2016 #13

THAT is my problem RazBerryBeret Apr 2016 #26

oh, please, there appears, even on this board, to be absolutely NO problem niyad Apr 2016 #36

Elizabeth Warren is a Woman I would get behind in a heart beat 2banon Apr 2016 #14

What a nonsensical question nichomachus Apr 2016 #15

the very fact that a person could actually use that word as some sort of dog whistle niyad Apr 2016 #21

Give it a rest. A woman can be every bit as corrupt as a man. Avalux Apr 2016 #16

I love it. when we point out sexism, we are playing the sex card. it is sickening niyad Apr 2016 #19

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #31

Don't you know, sexism is obsolete. athena Apr 2016 #91

But not as "ambitious" that's the point, we both know that will be ignored uponit7771 Apr 2016 #20

She has been largely pro war for years Ash_F Apr 2016 #18

Trust corrupt political women? Hell no. seattleite Apr 2016 #22

do try reading the whole article. niyad Apr 2016 #23

Sure - as long as they are trustworthy. I treat men the same way re: trust. nt jmg257 Apr 2016 #24

Like everything else, it depends on the person. Sarah Palin is an ambitious woman LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #27

Palin was in favour of Iraq too. PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #35

Broken clocks, etc. LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #48

I don't trust ambition regardless gender. Depends on motivation. Evolve, People. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #28

The best leaders are often those who reluctantly become leaders Zorra Apr 2016 #29

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #30

Who gives a shit about gender? It's about the damn issues! pinebox Apr 2016 #32

one would think so, would one not? and yet, even amoung progressives, liberals, niyad Apr 2016 #42

I'm sorry, this is defensive. First of all, that is no belly laugh. it appears contrive and far from highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #33

Bernie/Warren 2016! B Calm Apr 2016 #37

Oh Please!! As a feminist I beg of you to stop trying to make women sound like they should be pitied jillan Apr 2016 #39

nice try. as a feminist, I find the sexist attacks on HRC disgusting, even more so niyad Apr 2016 #43

What part about gender EQUALITY do you not understand. Women are NOT weak! jillan Apr 2016 #46

what part of this article did YOU not understand? nobody said anything about niyad Apr 2016 #49

There is a wide difference between ambition which is the jwirr Apr 2016 #41

one of these centuries, we might comment on the ambitious men running for office. niyad Apr 2016 #44

There are few Rs who are pretty visible right now. jwirr Apr 2016 #45

Interesting. H2O Man Apr 2016 #47

so, one person makes one comment on one man, and that negates the point niyad Apr 2016 #50

Of course not. H2O Man Apr 2016 #71

Some people want the thing TOO badly, and combined with reflexive impulses toward secrecy Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #51

it would be helpful if people understood that this article was not solely about one niyad Apr 2016 #52

Yes. In fact, we do already. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #54

really? if that were true, the situation that precipitated this article would not niyad Apr 2016 #63

Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez... I guess you've never heard of those women. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #69

Recommended, and unfortunately all too true. guillaumeb Apr 2016 #55

exactly niyad Apr 2016 #64

I don't trust anyone who triangulates. Man or woman. Gender has nothing to do with it. Cobalt Violet Apr 2016 #62

So it will really be Bill in charge? athena Apr 2016 #67

I don't trust "ambitious political" anyone. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #70

When will people get it re the trust issue? Gender has nothing to do with it. Vinca Apr 2016 #72

Of course we can trust ambitious women with integrity. n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #75

not until WhiteTara Apr 2016 #77

exactly niyad Apr 2016 #78

Do you trust 'ambitious' political men? I don't. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #83

did you read the article? about the fact that ambitious men do not arouse our niyad Apr 2016 #88

Could you please directly answer my question? Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #89

why? apparently, you didn't bother reading the article. niyad Apr 2016 #90

If you don't want to, that's ok. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #92