While it is still a ways to 2016, the rumblings you hear in the undergrowth are occasioned by politicians putting their ears to the ground, fingers to the wind, and testing the waters - all to gauge their chances of a successful run at the White House. The gymnastics are amusing to watch, for the moment at least.
On the Republican side, things are interesting as there is no shortage of those capable of believing themselves to be Presidential Timber. The bar is admittedly pretty low, so low that this guy is coming right out and saying so. This guy and this guy are both named as possible leading contenders, despite the fact that both are involved in ongoing investigations of possible criminal activity. (Odd how the press seems to treat that as ancient history, over and done with.) And of course, we might end up with dejá vu all over again. Odd how so many in the press seem excited at the prospect of a "three-fer." Isn't the old saying "Fool me once - shame on you, Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Except, in America it seems you can. Repeatedly.
And then on the Democratic side, we have... HRC. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not officially announced, but already practically nominated by some. One of these things is not like the others. Can you identify the critical difference?
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.
Let me be upfront about this. I used the word "Problem" in the title of this post knowing it would be... problematic shall we say? I'm not going to get into all of the reasons why Hillary Clinton would or would not be the best candidate for the Democratic Party, or the Presidency, or the country. (There's plenty of people already covering that.)
No, the problem I'm looking at here is not any problem with her per se - it's a problem with the country. We've had 6 years of seeing how "post-racial" America really is, and how far the country has moved ahead. Or not. We're not as exceptional as we'd like to believe. Just as I am inclined to entertain the possibility that President Obama has been self-constrained on certain issues lest he be accused of playing racial politics (because it's never about race, as Charles P. Pierce keeps reminding us), I am forced to consider the issue of Hillary Clinton's chromosomal condition as also becoming one of those things never spoken about, but always there.
This is a country run of, by and largely for, men. Men mostly have the power, the money - and a lot of issues related to hanging on to those first two items. If you think that jokes and nastier slurs directed at Obama are an indication of just how far we have to go, you can only imagine what the attacks on Hillary Clinton will be like. Any woman for that matter - just look at the condescension dripping from Senator Graham's remarks to Senator Warren.
Via Digby, here's a report from Kathleen Davis on what faces women in leadership roles. (Go to the link to see the charts showing the statistical breakdown.)
These findings, while from a small sample size, illustrate a well-documented phenomenon for working women: The Double Bind. The double bind is the idea that if a women is too "nice" at work or uses stereotypically feminine vocal characteristics she’ll be seen as too soft and won’t be taken seriously. On the flip side, if a woman is too assertive she’s seen as brusque and bitchy.
This paralyzing situation was rumored to be part of the reason why New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was abruptly fired earlier this year. Even if it wasn’t at the heart of her dismissal, the familiar critiques "abrasive" and "brusque" were often used to describe her management style, but not her male successor.
Unfortunately there isn’t an easy solution to this frustrating situation. Snyder found that even female managers critiqued women’s personalities and not men’s, hinting that these perceptions and biases are deeply and perhaps unconsciously engrained in the way we view women at work.
emphasis added
Look - America is now a country where we are mostly okay with our presidents ordering torture and drone attacks. We've devolved into fear-based governance, where we respect our leaders for their capacity to inspire fear in our enemies, while simultaneously stoking our own paranoia. Any women running for the White House is going to have to face the problem that a lot of Americans are going to have trouble believing a woman is tough enough for the job, while simultaneously criticizing them if they come on too strong. It's something that happens at the gut level, something people do not like to acknowledge - and the gut is where the GOP is coming from these days.
Hell - as Digby points out here, there are places in this country where the laws don't even allow a woman control of her own body. From the report Digby quotes, it's clear the law's execution is not about supposed concern for the unborn - it's about controlling the woman.
One would think that when the state incarcerates a pregnant woman in order to “protect” her fetus, they’d at least do everything they can to ensure a healthy pregnancy — that is literally the only supposed purpose of such a law, after all. You’d be wrong. During her time in jail, Loerstcher didn’t have access to prenatal care and when she was experiencing cramping, she wasn’t allowed to see her regular doctor. She was told she’d need to see a jail-appointed doctor who demanded she take a test to confirm the pregnancy — even though the only reason she was in jail in the first place was because she was pregnant. When she refused, she was thrown in solitary confinement and threatened with a taser.
Just as the Obama presidency and incidents like Ferguson, Mo and so many other have shown America is a long ways from getting over racism, a woman running for the White House, no matter how well qualified, well known, well-funded, is going to be fighting an uphill battle all the way. Republicans have already turned Democratic charges of their "War on women" into an object of ridicule, and the very
concept of feminism is becoming a bad thing.
There's the problem of Wall Street's bipartisan domination of the political system. It's not just about their grip on the economy; the financial sector is notorious for its sexism. And, a female Commander in Chief would have to deal with a military establishment struggling with its own sexual issues. As tough as those issues will be, there is also the certainty that the Republican party will be doing everything possible to undermine her efforts and destroy her authority by any means possible. It's how they roll these days, and it works for them.
There is a viral video parodying a popular song, which as Huffington Post observes, is more powerful in its message than the original.
While Meghan Trainor's hit "All About That Bass" celebrates body confidence, a new feminist parody takes more of an intellectual approach to equality.
Created by three Columbia Business School students, "Bitch In Business" puts a feminist manifesto to the tune of Trainor's "All About That Bass." The students, who are part of a group called the CBS Follies, describe the video as "a love letter to all the badass bitches who aren’t afraid to be themselves in the business world."
It's definitely
Not Safe For Work - but it's a pretty explicit exposure of the double standard women have to deal with every day in business, and elsewhere. If Hillary Clinton (or any other woman) runs for the presidency, that's one of the big obstacles waiting out there.
If you watch the video, the lyrics are at the bottom of the screen - you'll have to keep closing the pop-up ads to see them. Warning - explicit language and imagery.
https://www.youtube.com/...