and unfortunately too many are determined there never be any. That "progressives" spend their days attacking the most qualified candidate to run for the presidency in decades based on her gender demonstrates as much.
The "male establishment" is currently mobilizing to "take back" the country for white men, and they are assisted in that effort by women who resent greatly the fact a woman dare to challenge a lesser qualified man for the presidency. That is made obvious by the fact they find little to say about Clinton aside from her gender: they claim her an inadequate woman, not feminine enough, not strong enough, too acerbic, too shrill, and any number of other sexist attacks.
Elizabeth Warren urged Clinton to run and those close to her indicate she will likely also endorse Clinton. Barbara Lee is a member of the US House and Nina Turner a state house member, who seemingly made your because she endorsed the man running for Democratic nomination. Their qualifications do not approach Clinton's, who has been Secretary of State and a US Senator. Despite that, people who lack respect for the rights of their fellow citizens insist women are for Clinton solely because she is a woman, despite the fact her qualifications and preparedness far exceed her competitor's. In doing so, they purposefully denigrate the female candidate and insult women's ability to make rational political decisions. To assume support for Clinton, over a lesser qualified male candidate, is based on her gender reveals a profound sexism.
Additionally, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the presidential primary process. Anyone who wants to run, and can raise enough money to mount a somewhat viable candidacy, may do so. We even have a man who has spent years attacking the Democratic Party now seeking its nomination. You yourself could run. The DNC does not decide who runs. If they did, why would they allow only the candidates who ran this year? They merely provide the organizational structure for the primaries, the party, and its convention.
Dozens of Democratic representatives and senators, including Elizabeth Warren, wrote a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run for President. They know how tough it is for a woman to make it in modern political life and the forces that work to enforce second class citizenship. They themselves have witnessed people who claim to be "progressive" using any and every excuse they can to maintain white male supremacy, including insisting that that "corporations" sent women and people of color into the Democratic party to divert it from its "true purpose" of representing white middle class men.
Given that American society lags behind much of the rest of the world, the factors working against a woman president are great. The misogyny in this electoral cycle is obvious, ranging from one misogynistic slur after another to inartful, passive aggressive declarations that the current female candidate running just isn't the right kind of woman, to continual and rather transparent posts about Clinton's gender revealing that is in fact the basis for opposition to her, a point that is particularly apparent when people pointedly refuse to look at any of her actual policy proposals.
One tactic entails holding up women they think superior examples of womanhood, such as Aung sun soo chi. They hold up idea examples of womanhood. It is not enough to simply be a qualified candidate running for president. One must be the ideal woman, a Nobel Prize winner, a paragon of womanhood, exalted expectations that few if anyone can life up to. Another strategy involves pitting against each other, hoping to promote competition to undermine the existing female candidate's chances. After all, if there are several women running, there is less of chance to have one elected.
If Clinton doesn't win the nomination and election, we can be certain that the first woman president will be a Republican. Women who might otherwise run will look at how she has been treated and know what awaits for them. They might well conclude that so-called "progressives" are actually more reactionary than Republicans when it comes to the prospect of women in power. That is particularly true since "progressive" has come to be used by some to justify moving the country back to the mid-20th century rather than moving it forward.
In short, the reason we do not have many women candidates is the same reason we have never had a single woman president: sexism and misogyny, as displayed not simply by the "male establishment" but sadly by women too. I am, however, hopeful that their numbers are less than those who want women to share equally in all aspects of American society, or at least not outnumbered by those who show an obsession with undermining a female politician based on gender rather than seriously considering her ideas, policies, and qualifications.
= new reply since forum marked as read
