Post-DNC Convention analyses have primarily dealt with the nomination of a woman to be President as being an historic achievement of "breaking barriers" to women seeking our highest political office. How many of you buy this self-serving characterization, which can only become fulfilled by electing Hillary as President?
The same type of rhetoric was used to elect President Obama, but what "barriers" did he actually break? Despite his personal popularity, is the country now more inclined to elect another Black President? If not, what barrier was broken?
These questions also apply to Hillary's nomination. Other than her cadre of supporters seeking personal gain and/or validation by her election, why should anyone else else care about her gender? Is it because she is such a flawed candidate that her gender is her strongest attribute? Doesn't this denigrate the accomplishments of other female heads of governments who have achieved their successes through personal merit? Interestingly, even her harshest critics in this country don't cite her gender as a reason to not vote for her.
Let us remember that, prior to WW2, most women were devoted to raising families rather than pursuing careers in business or politics. Since then, we have elected only eleven Presidents (and only seven since the Civil Rights Act). Is it so surprising that a woman didn't happen to be included in that small group? Could not a Margaret Thatcher have been elected during that period? Why isn't she the feminist ideal?
My point is that these "barriers" are simply contrived political concoctions designed by the purveyors of identity politics to benefit particular candidates at any given time. Not being a white male is not a handicap to electoral success, and it shouldn't be an excuse for failure.
The same type of rhetoric was used to elect President Obama, but what "barriers" did he actually break? Despite his personal popularity, is the country now more inclined to elect another Black President? If not, what barrier was broken?
These questions also apply to Hillary's nomination. Other than her cadre of supporters seeking personal gain and/or validation by her election, why should anyone else else care about her gender? Is it because she is such a flawed candidate that her gender is her strongest attribute? Doesn't this denigrate the accomplishments of other female heads of governments who have achieved their successes through personal merit? Interestingly, even her harshest critics in this country don't cite her gender as a reason to not vote for her.
Let us remember that, prior to WW2, most women were devoted to raising families rather than pursuing careers in business or politics. Since then, we have elected only eleven Presidents (and only seven since the Civil Rights Act). Is it so surprising that a woman didn't happen to be included in that small group? Could not a Margaret Thatcher have been elected during that period? Why isn't she the feminist ideal?
My point is that these "barriers" are simply contrived political concoctions designed by the purveyors of identity politics to benefit particular candidates at any given time. Not being a white male is not a handicap to electoral success, and it shouldn't be an excuse for failure.