the moment she announces her candidacy, she will turn around to see that no one is standing behind her.
...really? I'm not a fan of her, but she's huge. In politics, the issue is whether or not someone can win, first and foremost, and whether or not they will push for your issues. Unhg, its the president anyways, it isn't like they're they're really able to do a great deal anyways. What I don't look forward too, what I anticipate will happen, is that she'll win, and every lack of success will get spun into how its because she's a woman and a part of an underprivileged class... as the president.
He is the man who would stop Hillary Clinton from taking power and, eventually, castrating every man in America as she has planned to do all along.
To be fair, was she not the one that said the real victims of war are the women back at home... not... you know... the people that died as victims of war? The concept of castrating men doesn't seem all that metaphorically far-fetched.
He will be David, she will be Goliath
Wait, so she, as a woman, and as the US has never had a female president before, she won't be the underdog? Really?
This man will then be held up as a hero. He will be the man who saved us all from Hillary Clinton. Defeating Clinton will be how he proves his worthiness to all of America.
I'm very, very, very politically cynical and apathetic, so... this fictional guy will 'rescue' us from Hilary, but will doom us with himself. I think they're both probably pretty terrible, and I think our political system is largely just an episode of America's Got President. I don't think we're living in an age where people have the same sort or integrity, regardless of cost, that they use to - and a good part of that is because of the party system, because of how our elections work, and because the most important thing is not doing the right thing, but playing the game.
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
And that quote encompasses a lot of why I'm politically cynical and apathetic.
In each party, women are used as pawns in the quest for the appearance of moderation. The Right uses their women as a way to say “Look! We don’t hate women! Look at how much we love Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin!”—and the Democrats, well, they’re more than happy to roll over a woman in order to prove they’re not wimps.
DUH! Its the political system. Its not about doing what's right, but looking like you're better than the other guys. Its a game.
I hope that I’m wrong about all of this. But if I am right, I hope that the Democratic Party can find their way to their official nominee without needing to throw a woman under the bus to do so.
Why must we, should we, or what is so important about having a female president? Why not just have the best candidate for presidency full stop?