By Colleen O’Connor
The Biden campaign’s search or the right woman to be his Vice-Presidential nominee has dragged on for over 5 months. He first committed to selecting a woman on March 15th.
Why no decision, yet? Not for any discernible rational reasons. Here are five unpleasant reasons that come to mind.
First, after declaring his intentions to name a “woman” to the ticket, Biden then named a man; a 76- old white, male and one-time Connecticut Senator, Chris Dodd to lead the search. The biggest reason given, “trust.” They have been bosom buddies for 30 years.
Herein, lies the problem. The country has changed. Connecticut is not representative. Chris Dodd is not representative. Even Joe Biden is not representative.
Women make up the majority of the Democratic voting base and Republican women have swelled those ranks with cross-over voting evidenced by their 2018 contribution to the Democrats historic House gains.
Women are the majority of voters now. Biden can count. But, which woman?
That leads to: Problem #2.
All of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates collected polls, focus groups and opposition research on each other, including Biden. They already know the strengths and possible weaknesses of every woman now under serious consideration.
Those details exist on Senators Harris and Warren; as well as Governor Whitmer, and candidate Abrams. Somehow, the appeal of these women, neither Biden or Dodd seemingly comprehend. Or are willing to admit.
So, more contenders are added to the mix. Now fourteen women in all. Former ambassador, Susan Rice, never a candidate for office, has recently joined the roster.
Third, there is an age, sex, and racial gap that eludes both Biden and Dodd. They remain stuck in the Eisenhower 50s. How else explain Dodd’s newest insult, that Harris is “too ambitious.”
Tone deaf does not adequately define it. Since when, in these “Dark Ages” of pandemics and economic calamity is being “too ambitious” a deal breaker? Remember, FDR and the New Deal? Too ambitious?
Harris, speaking to an audience of young Black women, rebuked such obliviousness and lack of foresight.
They “are burdened by only having the capacity to see what has always been instead of what can be. But don’t you let that burden you,” she added. “I want you to be ambitious.”
The veteran Democratic operative, Hillary Rosen was even more blunt – Dodd was “showing off” and should just “Shut up.” Adding, on Twitter, “This is the kind of crappy behavior this process doesn’t need.”
Fourth, by allowing this “vetting process” to drag on with “teasing” headlines or hoping for meg-donor persuasion, Biden’s “beauty contest” has descended into a modern day “cat-fight.” Each side leaking or uploading some “damaging” info to score points.
Think former GOP Rep. Clare Booth Luce’s play, “The Women.” That is the 50’s presumption. Then contrast, “Thelma & Louise,” the 1990s female buddy movie about two outlaw women that remains a classic.
Frankly, Harris has been the likely choice for the V.P. slot from the beginning of this charade. Even the Vegas bookmakers agree. As of Wednesday, Harris remains their odds-on favorite for the job.
If not she, or Warren, then whom? Who can seriously assume the presidency without the stamina, experience, and personality needed to govern our divided country, should fate intervene?
Harris covers all the bases necessary to help defeat Trump/Pence. She is telegenic. Not abrasive. Highly intelligent. Able to handle slings and arrows and counter with strong debating skills in committee and during campaign.
She has run the gauntlet of a presidential campaign; been elected twice to the statewide office of Attorney General of California; where she oversaw more than 4,500 lawyers, investigators, sworn peace officers, (thus demonstrating managerial skills); and best of all represents the country as it is today.
Age 55, she is young. Also, as a highly educated woman of African, Indian and Jamaican descent, and married to a white man, she checks all the boxes. In short, she represents the reality, hopes, and aspirations of 2020 America better than ether Trump or Biden.
Which brings up reason #5. Why the stall?
Biden continues to procrastinate, “I’m going to have a choice in the first week in August,” adding “and I promise I’ll let you know when I do.”
Now, he says, maybe “next week.” Why can’t he make up his mind? Who or what is he waiting for? Some tragedy in the wings? A big hurricane, the astronauts landing, or death of prominence that might steal the news lead? Fear of being overshadowed? That the V.P. choice will generate more enthusiasm than the Presidential nominee?
Whomever, whatever, whenever, the endeavor has passed it’s “sale by” date; whether intended to elevate the admirable profiles of all fourteen women, or just to tease a headline. Instead, the current “vetting” process has become demeaning to all women.
Time to stop.
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
Ms. O’Connor, it seems to me that you won’t be happy no matter the outcome, so what is your end game? Are you just trying to trash old white guys just for the sake of it? Are you jealous? And by the way, the last time I checked ambition isn’t necessarily a desirable quality, as defined by Merriam-Webster:
a : an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power
b : desire to achieve a particular end
I’m sorry but I just don’t understand how a process to decide on a vice-presidential candidate, a process that is apparently focused only on women candidates, is demeaning to women? Hell, politics is demeaning by its nature. Men being vetted in the past faced all kinds of demeaning treatment. The fact is that Biden looks like a sure thing, unless he really screws up. That means whoever the woman is, she will very likely be the first woman vice president in history. And, she will be next to a 77-year-old president meaning she has a chance of becoming president. I would think most women would delight in this. The process may be demeaning, and I mean to everyone, but it is what it is, so to say it is now particularly demeaning to women is in itself an odd focus.
To the other commenters: Sorry guys, you don’t get to decide what demeans women. Only women can do that. In my opinion, this has felt like a strange beauty pageant/Bachelor scenario for a while. Adding more candidates when he already had the best choices also seemed unnecessary and insulting. I do think that this feeling of delay is only compounded by the times we’re living in, everything is dragged out and feels like a time warp while news keeps moving at the speed of sound.
Real talk though:
Since the 1980’s most VP candidates have been selected before the Democratic convention. In 2020 Biden technically has until August 17th. In 2016, the candidates weren’t announced until 3 days prior and in 2008, Biden wasn’t announced until 2 days before the convention. So, although he’s not late at all, it’s more about the broken promise that is causing the feeling of dismissal and disrespect to his female candidates. After almost 4 years of suffering through a president that has been consistently lying to his constituents, it is especially hurtful to expect an August 1st announcement only to have it moved last-minute. Personally, I’m really looking forward to voting for a female VP and am hoping for Rice.
Was this a serious statement? “To the other commenters: Sorry guys, you don’t get to decide what demeans women. Only women can do that.”
Women who believe men cannot understand women are close minded people. I have a wife of 33 years and a 27-year-old daughter. I don’t accept that statement at all. And, if you want men on your side, even if you believe this, enunciating it like that does not help.
Hi Geoff, I never said that men can’t understand women. I said that men can’t decide what demeans women. Its kinda like sexual harassment, its all about how its received, not the intention.
I don’t get it. Where did you get the idea that men are deciding what demeans women?
“I’m sorry but I just don’t understand how a process to decide on a vice-presidential candidate, a process that is apparently focused only on women candidates, is demeaning to women.”
She provided 5 reasons. You decided that those reasons were demeaning to everyone instead of accepting that they were demeaning to women.
I agree with you that some of the reasons like the delay (which is normal based on precedent) and the in-fighting does apply to every nominee, no matter what their gender.
However, I do think we can all agree that no presidential candidate has declared that they will be nominating a “man.” We’re in uncharted territory here and it deserves to be handled with respect. Also, women are the voting majority, we don’t need “men on our side” so don’t act like you’re doing women a favor (and that we have to mind our p’s and q’s) to keep you from voting for the dumpster-fire that is our current administration.
I leave you with a quote from AOC “And so what I believe is that having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man.”
“You decided that those reasons were demeaning to everyone instead of accepting that they were demeaning to women.” No I did not.
“we don’t need “men on our side” so don’t act like you’re doing women a favor (and that we have to mind our p’s and q’s) to keep you from voting for the dumpster-fire that is our current administration.” Of course you do because women, like men, do not all believe exactly the same things. You need men voters as much as men need women voters.
“Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man.” Maybe not but it does not follow that having a wife and daughter does not make a decent man.
But, since you have now compared me to that asshole who cussed her out on the Capitol steps, I have no more enthusiasm for continuing this discussion with you.
If anyone is thinking that this is going to be a fight against good and evil, remember that this is politics. EVERYONE is ambitious and we should expect political decisions to be made accordingly. Joe will announce when his campaign decides the time is best for his campaign.
Susan Rice has WAY more federal government experience than Kamala Harris and is not hobbled by the obvious friction demonstrated during the primary debates vis-à-vis Harris/Biden.
She is, as Joe mentioned pointedly “simpatico” . . . and THAT is politics, folks.
I like Kamala Harris a lot, I think she would be a good choice. The only worry is that she holds a senate seat that the Democrats need. It appears, from a bit of reading, that the governor can appoint a successor to serve out the term. If that is so, then the seat would be filled by another Democrat, so it would not be a worry. But, there are several good candidates for the position and Susan Rice is also a good choice, I agree.
If Donald Trump was a cow pie, I want to see how far they could toss him.
I like Warren for vice president.
I like Kamala Harris for Attorney General.
I like Susan Rice for Secretary of State.
I wish Biden would appoint Bernie Sanders for president.
Wait, What?!
Thanks for speaking up here, Colleen, I really appreciate it. You are definitely irritable, and for good reason. There has been something off about this whole process, starting with Biden’s own many flaws, but never mind that now. We have to be all-in for Biden, right?
I personally wouldn’t say his cat-and-mouse game “demeans” women, but it’s definitely condescending and shows a tin-ear. He is pitting female candidates against one another in unbecoming ways, “Bachelor” style. Not respectful. I hadn’t realized he’d handed off the chores to aging opinionator Chris Dodd.
Every commenter here thus far has a different choice, so maybe it is tough to decide among so many stellar candidates. I happen to think Kamala is unqualified to be Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat from the Presidency.She is barely qualified to be a U.S. Senator from California. I remember Barbara Boxer, and she is no Barbara Boxer.
Groucho, I like Xavier Becerra for Attorney General, but I too wish Biden would appoint
Bernie Sanders for President.
Ok, I’m with Groucho, whether he’s male or female. And for the most part, I’m with Colleen. Ambition is a wonderful thing, if “the desire to achieve a particular end” is a good end.
And, sorry Geoff, but what women may find demeaning is indeed decided by women, whether or not you’re sympathetic and astute in discerning that yourself, too.
I was over the “teasers” months ago! I mean, come on! Just b/c “Well, this is the way its been done since the neolithic” is a really sorry excuse. He’s like a kid who can’t make up his mind over a candy bar, obsessively worried over making the wrong choice!
He said “woman” eight months ago. Then he chummed out “Black woman” about five months ago.
So pick already. All on the short list have been thru the vetting process. Does he think we’re all waiting for some reality show “reveal”? That making people hold their breath will make the choice more ecstatic? That waiting until the last possible moment will “make it too late to change your mind”? Its already too late. Just pick someone so you can both move on to developing a solid platform before…now what? Only 60 days before the vote?
He should have picked someone 3 months ago. Now its all verging on annoying. And I can hear Trump’s new nickname now: “Indecisive Joe”.
“sigh, bernie…” she said, under her breath, so as not to appear as a bernie bro… :-)
Okay, I had enough of this so I did this research:
The following list is when these candidates picked a running mate before or at the convention:
Obama – 2 days
Bush #2 – one week
Kerry – three weeks
Gore – one week
Dole – 2 days
Reagan – at convention
Mondale – 4 days before
Dukakis – 6 days
Bush #1 – at convention
Bill Clinton – 4 days
McCain – days before
Romney – two weeks
Hillary Clinton – 3 days
t-rump – 4 days
Clearly, Biden is not an outlier at all, the convention doesn’t start for another two weeks. Only two people on that list announced earlier than the rest, one two weeks in advance and the other three weeks in advance. So, please, let’s drop this criticism of Biden who is doing nothing different than all the people on this list going back to 1980, forty years ago.
Hahaha, ok. (and I noted Kerry, a former preferred pick of mine, is the ‘outlier’ on the list). So what does this show? That there’s a tradition? That its always been this way? That we can’t start coloring outside the lines now? :-)
If I were really going to get down to brass tacks, the idea of picking a candidate based on gender, or color, or political affiliation, is in itself somewhat off-putting for a far lefty like me. What happened to simply picking the candidate with the best qualifications? Fortunately, my ‘righteous’ POV is backed by my belief that some of these women candidates actually DO have the best qualifications.
Having said that, this election is obviously about getting Trump out of office, over and above picking a presidential candidate with the best qualifications for the office. So my high ideals mean bubkas right now. I get that.
But if anything, the list just shows me ‘more of the same’. Don’t rock the boat, do anything different, or have a longer, confident vision. Wait to see what the ‘party’ wants, what the ‘head-bangers’ want, what will ‘play well’… and now we’re back to sort of ‘tv ratings’… ugh.
Let’s just get on with it-
It shows that criticizing Biden for delaying his pick is meaningless.
“What happened to simply picking the candidate with the best qualifications?” Maybe that is what he is doing. He has a list of highly qualified women to choose from. It’s a cinch he won’t just go for a pretty face, regardless of the low IQ, like McCain did. Because of the scrutiny politicians face today, VP candidates have to be carefully vetted, a bad choice could ruin it as it did for McCain who would have won had he picked a qualified running mate. And, considering Biden’s age, this choice is especially critical because the VP may well be the President one day. And, on top of that, sending that orange-haired idiot packing is vital for the whole country, men and women together, so there is nothing wrong with being very careful.
On this point: “If I were really going to get down to brass tacks, the idea of picking a candidate based on gender, or color, or political affiliation, is in itself somewhat off-putting for a far lefty like me. What happened to simply picking the candidate with the best qualifications? Fortunately, my ‘righteous’ POV is backed by my belief that some of these women candidates actually DO have the best qualifications.”
From me: Picking someone based on gender, or color or political affiliation is especially off-putting to probably the vast majority of conservatives and republicans as well, including those raised with the principles of MLK, as many of us have been and are.
It is far more characteristic of Lefties and far Lefties to have the idea of picking a candidate based on gender, color, and political affiliation. Seems Democrats and Lefties focus on identity by far the most.
I was raised when Margaret Thatcher and Martin Luther King were normal influences on western society, and I never thought that got put by the wayside. People rise to the top as they do by their efforts, skills, relevance, bearing, and good ability in leading.
(Btw, it’s more straight to call it ‘race’, or ethnicity(hair splitting) for short, instead of ‘color’ for short. But I understand, ‘race’ is more controversial and implies too much definition, ‘color’ sounds less controversial,… but I’ll vote ‘ethnicity’ being the happy medium. And, not to go into albinism, and other color nuances)
Get with the times Scott. MLK would be considered a white supremacist sympathizer in this day and age. Calling for color blindness and treating people equally just upholds the old wasps that run the system doncha know? That’s not good enough. You gotta actively tear it down, be anti-racist and fight racism with reverse racism.
Bull pucky. Your point, which I believe is made in all seriousness, misses the entire point of these last 60 years of trying to undo America’s original sin. What exactly is “reverse racism”? So, when the whipped grab the whip out of the overseer’s hand, you would call that “violence” I suppose.
“It is far more characteristic of Lefties and far Lefties to have the idea of picking a candidate based on gender, color, and political affiliation. Seems Democrats and Lefties focus on identity by far the most.” Wow, what a way to bend a well intentioned motivation that would never occur to the other side. Yes, Democrats recognize that women and people of color have been shut out of the system so they try to do something about that. The other side makes your next argument.
“People rise to the top as they do by their efforts, skills, relevance, bearing, and good ability in leading.” How do people who have been shut out of the opportunities to develop skills manage this? History is replete with very qualified women and people of color, who could run circles around white men, who were shut out by rules those white men created. So, the Democrats attempts to right injustices from the past is a criticism? What has your side done?
Wow, you’re really twisting this into victim-hood emphasis misunderstanding directions. Typical.
And, ‘wow’, I disagree on your first point.
I’m talking about the modern era of which I’ve lived in.
I’m familiar with the history of injustices in the world.
And again:
“People rise to the top as they do by their efforts, skills, relevance, bearing, and good ability in leading.”
I’ll have to stop here on this thread.
Best wishes!
I quoted you directly, where is the misunderstanding?
So, we disagree, I have no problem with that.
So, you don’t want to continue, I have on problem with that either, I guess you didn’t enter the thread for the discussion.
With this sentence you just did what I warned about “And, sorry Geoff, but what women may find demeaning is indeed decided by women, whether or not you’re sympathetic and astute in discerning that yourself, too.” You’ve just rejected the possible empathy and understanding of all men.
This reminds me of what I experienced in college about race. I went to Michigan State and it was attended by lots of people from Detroit and the rest came from basically rural Michigan, most of whom had never experienced black people. There was a large population of black people from Detroit and this was when the Black Power movement was taking place. Some of these rural kids were interested in learning about black people but they were put off by the militancy, there was no desire to help them understand. One black acquaintance told me it was not the job of black people to educate white people about black people. I tried to explain that these people were largely blank slates and this was an opportunity for black people to make friends with some, to have some on their side. They rejected that idea and, sadly, I watched them create a bunch more bigoted white people.
The point is that people are capable of understanding and do understand but to just write off a group as never being able to understand is self-defeating. Women are human beings just like men so we can understand a lot. This attitude does not help your cause at all.
Except, and accept, that you can be sympathetic, and that is acknowledged and deeply appreciated. But you can’t be empathetic because you are not a woman and have not walked in our shoes. Its that simple. Its not judging or dismissing, its just a fact. Just like I can be sympathetic to the feelings of oppression that Black people have experienced, especially b/c I lived thru Jim Crow laws and experienced the counter-shame of being forced to sit in the front of the bus. But I cannot be empathetic because I am not Black.
Well, we’re going to have to disagree on this one.
I’m not black but I grew up as a Navy kid long before the military was treated with the ridiculous high esteem they are today and long before the pay went up. Military kids were looked down on everywhere we went and, in those days, the military was not well paid. My dad retired as a captain, a high rank, but we never had two nickels to rub together. I can empathize with people who are discriminated against for not having much money and for being discriminated as a class of people. It is clearly not on a par with what black people have suffered but I think my experiences make me capable pf being empathetic to a degree. A person does not have to share the exact experiences of another to be empathetic.
I’m good with that :-)
Me too, retired. :{-) (I have a mustache)
Oh, and by the way (sorry again, Geoff, don’t mean to pick on you :) ) the idea that “most women would delight in this” is not a verb (? is it a verb? I guess so) that I would choose, as a woman and a feminist.
WaPo ran an interesting article the other day about the fact that the suffragist movement wasn’t actually an ‘end’ result (voting), but rather a ‘beginning’ result (women in politics). Getting women into leadership roles, in industry as well as politics, has taken many, many decades and it has been tortuous road littered with a lot of hair-pulling.
So a woman VP isn’t something I take delight in, I’ll leave that ‘genteel’ couching in the front parlor, its something I insist on at this point!
retired, The phrase “to take delight in” means to very much enjoy. Why anyone would object to that characterization is beyond me. You certainly have the right to phrase it as you prefer it but I hardly think that warrants the criticism you are leveling. There is nothing “genteel” about that phrase.
Ok, that’s fair, and debatable.
I’m all about language. And my latest peeve, in the scope of things that might be considered ‘genteel” is the over-used and absurd Congressional phrase “my colleague across the aisle”. Sick to death of it!
There is nothing collegiate about Congress right now, and when I read an article the other day about the various far-right groups, the 3%ers, the boogaloos, the Proud Boys and the latest comer, the American Wolf (headed by Diaz), I was horrified that these overdressed gunslingers had actually co-opted the phrase “…dialog with my colleagues across the aisle”. Pretty hard to dialog with the muzzle of a gun in your face, right? And who are their “colleagues”? And where and what is that “aisle”? Got me thinking:
Similarly, pretty hard to dialog with a colleague like Collins, Jordan, Gaetz, or Gohmert. So I’d like to throw that phrase in the trash. Why not say, “My opponent across the barricade”, or “My enemy on the other side of the great divide”, or “my evil co-worker on the other side of the lunch room”? Because these men are not colleagues to the other half of the room.
The language we use puts a spin and a context on the subject.
Delighted is a charming term. It just doesn’t ring right for me with the subject matter.
If I had to choose a term to reflect my view on a woman VP, I’d probably choose relieved.
And again, please don’t take it personally- I’m just a word nut!
I’m with you on that, why don’t they just say “that asshole across the aisle” and be really honest.
It’s also a bit patronizing as well. Assuming women will vote for you because you have a woman on the ticket, no matter how much that truth bears out.
Me thinks….it’s his run, his partner, his call. Whenever is better than never. Actually the later the better so we don’t have to listen to you know whose tweets putting down whoever Biden picks.
Now what I want to know is what will he wear to the convention. JUST KIDDING!!!!!
Chill, the VP pick will come soon.
What a great conversation. Debbie, don’t you mean you want to know what SHE, Biden’s pick for Vice President, will wear to the Convention? Yes! No kidding about it.
Meanwhile, how about Geoff Paige for VP? He is clearly such a decent guy. Meanwhile, I think he should listen to the voices of the women here and humbly accept the different truth of what they have to say, however difficult it is to do.
Ms. Zimmerman, I use my real name here and there is no “i” in my last name.
And, I am a nice guy and I also know better than to just accept that the women who have commented here speak for all women. I listen to everyone until they start to resort to insults.
I agree. Now, the only reason for the delay is because of the stimulus package is more important and perhaps Senator Harris is working on that. This is the biggest decision of his presidency. My hope is that it is Senator Harris; if not her, then Susan Rice. Although all of the women being considered are qualified, these two will be the best fit for Biden. It seems every week a new candidate gets their name in the spotlight. Without going into the why’s of my argument, I believe Harris and Rice will push Biden the most. They will bring the best out of him. Biden’s campaign manager, since taking over, has done a fine job. Things get delayed a bit, but the right decision is usually made. I am hoping this is the case here.
Even AOC has come out defending Biden on doing the right thing and not rushing this massively important decision. This is just…politics. It’s a smart move to have the possible names floated in the media, and gauge responses from different parts of the potential tent of voters for Biden. There is too much on the line to mess it up.
To Doug and Tyler- Biggest decision of his Presidency? Massively important decision?
Tbh, sort of hoping not. I mean, come on, at the end of the day people who want Trump out of office are going to vote for Biden no matter who he picks for VP, right? Its not like some Biden supporter is gonna say “Wait, I don’t think Susan Rice is the right choice, so I’m gonna vote for Trump.” And with respect to the color of the candidate? Well, there’s only one Caucasian on the list, Warren, and we know he isn’t going to pick her.
Apparently the strategists have been spinning, “A good choice will not help his campaign, but a bad choice can hurt it”. I don’t agree. In this election, as long as he doesn’t pick Ivanka or Ghislane for VP, I expect he will maintain his base (which, one would think, is pretty large at this point!)
I think his VP selection is more significant than it’s ever been.
Many of us aren’t looking forward to choosing between an immoral hate-monger and a gropey senile puppet. His Veep could easily be in the drivers seat before his term ends. And it will certainly influence my vote.
Yes most voters know firmly which side of the fence they’re on, but even then it can influence turnout among those voters. Both candidates are playing to their base for turnout, not really looking to win over independents.
You’re glossing over the independent voters Biden is trying to bring into his tent that may have no problem staying on the sidelines if they don’t like his VP choice. Reality is many people have doubts he can last into a second term – thus, his VP pick is a massive choice.
Has anyone said this? Nothing Biden has done is anything close to the volcano of misogyny from Trump. There is no comparison.
Well, it appears now that I am a comparison, Frank. That’s what a get for being audacious enough to try and get into the discussion that apparently is for women only.
You should have seen the real sexist comments I had to delete. There are men around who don’t think women deserve a role in government, or at least don’t deserve to be at the top of our government.
Show the comment. You can delete any sensitive words if you like.
Don’t feel bad Geoff, at least Frank didn’t censor and call you sexist you for describing this V.P. selection process sexist for excluding half the population solely based on their gender.
sexism noun
sex·?ism | \ ?sek-?si-z?m \
Definition of sexism
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex
kh, You may have confused me with someone else, I did not call the selection process sexist, if I understood your comment correctly.
No, but I did. And I agree with you that people need to speak for themselves. We have enough class/race/gender warfare already. Their point either has merit or it doesn’t… claiming they speak on behalf of an entire group does not give it any more credibility.
KH – I agree with 92.7% of what you say.
Look up the definitions of “male supremacy”, “history of misogyny”, or “how men have ruined our country, and it’s time to vote in women at the highest station.”
Share with us how the USA has been ruined (numerous different answers by different people, if they feel so strongly),…. and, why ‘many’ people throughout the world (not white males btw), want to leave their country of origin to come live in the USA, and of which has been the situation for a long time,… more than century…….?
Here’s a good one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2paiKp6_YU
What was the point of that? Perhaps you can translate?
Certainly this country and most others have a long history of treating women as second class citizens, or worse, property.
But fighting sexism with more sexism, or fighting racism with more racism… good luck with that. Fighting division with more division only gets you more division.
If there’s one positive about today’s political climate, it’s how heated and at times colorful discourse can be amongst people who are basically on the same side.
Yep, that’s the fun part, and the beneficial venting. As Geoff says, when its reduced to insults and name-calling, there’s just nothing constructive. I like having differences of thought with people, both those in the choir and those on the other side (of sanity, haha!) :-). It stretches my own brain and can frequently lead to some self-check, which is always educational-
Congrats Colleen! You got a great discussion going – and gracias to all those who have contributed. Colleen wanted everyone to see this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/smile-more-critics-see-sexism-041222491.html
Hahaha- good link! And I noted that Ed Rendell made the comment that Rice “was smiling, not something she does often, and was actually quite charming”. Ok. Flattering- maybe. That’s up to Rice to decide. But I’d throw that one in the genteel front parlor, too. I mean, its just not that far from “there there, sit in the corner, honey, and just look nice”!
Wouldn’t it have been great if he’d said, instead, something like ‘This woman has great leadership skills and tons of experience” Or, “Rice has the ability to bring together people with opposing views” or almost anything that addressed skills and performance rather than appearance. We just don’t say things like ” Robert Mueller smiled a lot and was friendly”… I mean, sounds creepy, right? :-)
I have confidence in Biden. He is married to a smart, successful, kind woman and they appear to have a great partnership, respect and appreciation for each other. I assume his VP pick will be a good fit to carry us forward to new and better days based on the classy lady he is married to.
He should pick a VP that’s bald so he doesn’t fee inclined to sniff their hair.
kh-.goood one!
But just maybe, Biden’s sniff-er-roo can detect if someone is sick or has a disease. Better to smell one’s hair then their armpit. HA
The above comment should say Debbie not kh, sorry for the mistake
kh-.goood one!
But just maybe, Biden’s sniff-er-roo can detect if someone is sick or has a disease. Better to smell one’s hair then their armpit. HA