More's the pity, I think.

hating her. Still, she won the popular vote. But we have this Electoral College to deal with. I hope we have some really good Dem strategists looking at the 2016 election and planning accordingly...it seems we hear about "people voting against their best interest" constantly...it is driving me to distraction...

But sexism is still alive and well in this country. I just don't think that we will elect a woman as president before we elect one as VP first.

ETA Obama brought all of the closeted racists out of the woodwork. Hillary (even in defeat) brought the closeted sexists out of the woodwork. We still have a long way to go.

We are up against a very misogynistic society. And it's not just republicans. Even many who might vote for a Democrat will still think twice about voting for a ticket with a woman at the top. I think we need to start out w/ a VP nominee first as well.

said she experienced more discrimination as a woman than as an African American.

She also said:
The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "It's a girl."

The way I understand it, a group of local businessmen hosted a group of lawmakers on a visit to our city (Saratoga Springs, NY) and my Dad was assigned to Shirley Chisholm. At first, he wasn't sure what to make of the tiny lady from downstate, but it didn't take her long to win him over with her wit and intelligence. He really cherished that experience and smiled whenever her name came up.

of putting a woman on the ticket because then we will lose.

What pained me in 2008 was that African Americans stood by Obama, because he was black. They said so.

But women were quick to declare that just because they were women they were not going to support Hillary.

Yes, also here, on DU.

"cackle" her clothing. If she was using a calm tone of voice, she was too cold, if she was passionate, she was hysterical.

It was such an eye opener, and if anyone thinks another woman candidate won't be subjected to the same treatment just by virtue of being a woman, then are in for a big surprise.

There is yet no equality and I dont see it for decades to come.

of our country. Hopefully, we will have a strong women who could slam dunk a Repub. We thought we did last time, but we underestimated the Hillary HATE factor.
If it takes a ticket with 2 men to beat them, then we should take two men. Remember, we have to really smash them to win, because of the cheating they will do and the EC.

Democrats shouldn't be afraid of having another woman at the top of the ticket in 2020. Kamala Harris hasn't been the target of right wing lunacy for the last quarter of a century the way Clinton has been.

Kamala Harris would be pretty good I think.

She has star quality.

Personally, I think she's the one who could energize the Obama coalition

a minority?

I have reservations about her for supporting forfeiture.

She'd better clear this point before declaring her candidacy.

She prove that she can win in red districts. While she may not be liberal enough for the purists, no one will be. But Gillibrand will appeal to many moderates and working class whites in the rust belt.

After seeing what happened to Hillary I've come to the conclusion that if you don't turn out the Obama coalition in overwhelming force you're not winning.

Or a Hispanic woman.

threatening as it used to be. A large turnout of women voters, which we saw in Virginia recently, could be where we are heading, esp. if Trump continues to be a
a bitter disappointment (and downright scary, IMO). Let's hope...

I think the 2016 campaign and election made very clear that the evidence concerning your second sentence is weak. This does NOT mean that we should just accept the misogyny; instead we have to work harder than ever to push back.

I live in VA and it’s important to remember that there are many more highly educated women (and men) here, especially in Northern VA, than in many other states. Education was a good predictor of support for the Dems. The GOTV effort was fantastic and should be duplicated everywhere, but it’s going to be harder to achieve the great results in other states that you might otherwise think are similar, but which really aren’t so similar.

military working at the Pentagon. I was working for the ACLU's Washington D.C. office at the time and felt acutely uncomfortable with some of my military and retired military families. However, they were very nice to me and I kinda changed my mind...

That only about 15 percent of employed people in the area work for the federal govt, including the military.

IDK. We moved there from Westchester county, New York. I thought I had walked into a whole new world. I knew NYC, having commuted there to my job in the peace movement and my (then) husband's job.

I got separated from said husband and joined Parents without Partners, where I met my now husband. So it was a good thing! We are now in New Haven, CT.

...that they'd be with her automatically, rather than have to mmake the effort.

I wonder if Elizabeth Esty, one of CT's women in the House, would entertain a run. My congresswoman is Rosa deLauro, but I doubt she'd want to.

Tammy Duckworth also comes to mind. But again, I don't know if she wants to run...

and sidestep an ambush journalist's leading question.

She should've pivoted to trump and Moore instead of trashing a fellow, and still respected Democrat.

There will be tougher questions on the campaign trail so I question her judgment and readiness for 2020.

rather than someone who answers them head on. Interesting.

not to fall into their traps.

Why in the world would she trash Bill Clinton after the endorsements and funding she got from the Clintons — not smart to give repugs that kind of ammunition for future commercials against her and Democrats.

Bannon has already commented on how he plans to use her comments.

It is hard to believe that they are pushing Bannon's agenda.

are left-leaning.

of a Senator who has made sexual harassment a key issue.

don't back up their allegations.

and won't trash Hillary.

She answered a question. Let's no engage in a cult of personality where the dear leader can not be criticized.

in the almost 20 years since Bill Clinton has been out of office there hasn't been a single accusation against him.

Nothing like the trump and more allegations of sexual assault and pedophilia.

Gillibrand should've been smart enough not to go there.

Why trash a popular Democrat?

She probably blew her chances for 2020.

The reporter did.

I want people smarter than that to represent us in 2020.

It was a fair question to a Senator who has made sexual harassment a key issue during her time in the Senate. Let's not fall into the cult of personality where the dear leader dare not be criticized.

between two adults and the reporter knows that yet still broached a question equating it with the crimes of alleged sexual assault and alleged pedophilia that trump and Moore are accuser of.

Gillibrand unfortunately fell into the trap laid by the reporter by responding hastily and unthinkingly by going along with the reporter's leading question instead of turning the interview back to the relevant and topical questions of 2017 of the Moore and trump allegations of which Bill Clinton of the 1990s had nothing to do with.

Not smart.

Lewinsky worked for him. He had all the power in the relationship. I don't think it was an impeachable offense but I'm not going to defend Clinton's behavior either.

Let's not make excuses for political leaders when they do wrong or we are no better than Trump and Moore supporters.

the crimes that trump and Moore have been accused of and are now confronted with in 2017.

And why do you seem so determined to go along with the trashing of a Democrat?

We all know adultery is not good but the man was impeached, for God's sake. Is that not enough punishment for you?

It was still unethical behavior. And it is not trashing Clinton to be honest about it.

fall into those kind of journalistic traps.

Many on this site have already cancelled her off the 2020 list.

Haven't you seen the postings to that effect?

Include me as one who wants a representative who doesn't fall for ambush questions.

as much as you are wishing it to be.

trump's admitted, criminal groping and kissing of women and Moore's alleged criminal pedophilia?

The reporter equated those situations with Clinton's consensual, non-criminal affairs.

Having worked in news for many years, I know some reporters use questionable methods to make a name for themselves.

IMO this was the case with that question.

God, it's open season on Clinton from the 1990s because a prominent Dem in 2017 didn't have enough political instincts than to fall into a journalist's trap.

A trap is a trap because there is no good easy answer. I suspect that she spoke from both hind sight of the cost to the party long term - including 2016 - and in context of the fact that this issue is more out in the open than it ever has been.

A year ago, the best answer might have been that the vote in the Senate was totally party line - suggesting that though no one was happy with what Clinton did, it was completely political. Every Democratic Senator who spoke on the record gave a speech that in a very broad sense could have been outline I) The Senator's personal reasons why Clinton's actions were bad and II) why this did not reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors - a phrase with no real definition other than what sitting Congresspeople think it should be at the time. The Republicans has similar part I sections followed by a statement that he needed to be removed. One could add that, in fact, his punishment is pretty severe. I do not mean the agreed upon temporary loss of his law license, but that when he is discussed in the future the fact that he was impeached will always be mentioned prominently.

Then -- I suspect, any good reporter would have returned to his original question and asked, had you been in the Senate or House, how would you have voted?

Now remember that Gillibrand has made this an issue. She fought for making it easier for women in the military to make harassment complaints. In her book, she wrote of the pervasiveness of this problem and mentioned that even as a Congresswomen and Senator, she had peers who stepped over the line. She is someone who was calling not just for a change in laws, but a change in norms and behavior. Given this, her answer -- preceded by a pause -- and including the truth that values on this are changing, gave her opinion on what Clinton should have done - resign.

In fact, imagine if instead of saying, what unfortunately may be his most remembered words, "I did not ...", he spoke of having not lived up the values that he had and that he had told Al Gore and the cabinet that he was resigning. That was January 1998. Instead of spending nearly a year from January 1998 through February 1999 where the country and the administration were distracted by this, we had moved on with President Gore. By November 2000, President Gore would have had almost 3 years in office. I have no idea who his VP would have been because he/she would have been chosen as someone who could help bring the country together and for whom confirmation would be easy.

Two things are for sure in that scenario. One is that the debate we are having now might have happened then and, as Democrats, we would have more credibility speaking against hostile workplaces for women. The second is that a man, known as often drunk until he was 40, could not have run on bringing honor and decency back to the White House. Of course, when you change something as big as this - we have no idea who would have run on the Republican side.

Appears to be a "mission statement". What do YOU think Lewinsky meant by that remark?

and don't care. That is just blaming the woman. Something conservatives do.

conservatives would say Lewinsky had "intent", provided this incident would ever have been pursued in a court of law.

No one said it would nor that it was illegal behavior. But it was highly unethical.

is certainly shared by the dreaded conservative community.

have an affair with a subordinate? Someone he has complete power over?

So you believe she was in fear of losing her job if she didn't "perform"?

But there was definitely a power difference.

Let's not be fooled into believing Lewinsky was some kind of "Mary Richards".

But she was an intern.

on good terms, agreeing to disagree on this issue.

Union Yes!

... and not just Lewinsky.

If what happened in the 90s happened today? He'd be crucified...

And as I pointed out above, since leaving office almost 20 years ago, there hasn't been a single allegation against Clinton.

Interesting.

criminal sexual assault or criminal pedophilia, even though his enemies tried their hardest to do so.

But why the hell are some here on this progressive, Democratic site trying to convict Democrat Clinton of non-illegal events even further than his impeachment (he was fucking impeached, for God's sake) when Moore and trump's alleged criminal assaults are the things we should be focused on?

People are being honest about his behavior. You obviously can't handle that and are in "the dear leader cannot be criticized" mode.

It's ridiculous that we are even discussing this on a Democratic site.

We've known for decades that Clinton had affairs.

Newsflash: It's not news. Why be stupid enough to dredge it back up again and do repugs a favor?

doesn't mean we still can't be honest about Bill Clinton. They are not mutually exclusive.

kissing women and Moore is alleged to have committed the crime of pedophilia.

Let's not do the repugs' dirty work by continually dredging up Clinton's affairs from the '90 that they can use in future campaign ads, which I'm sure they will against Gillibrand if she runs for president in 2020.

Guess she skipped Politics 101/How to handle hostile media questions.

is spinning to excuse Clinton's behavior and to silence any discussion of it.

doesn't mean blind loyalty and absolutely no criticism of political leaders when they do wrong.

Last edited Mon Nov 20, 2017, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

had affairs.

Do you not get that, or ironically does your blind loyalty to Gillibrand exempt her from criticism?

He doesn't get a pass on that. It was highly unethical behavior.

Gillibrand?

And are you sure you're in this country? I've acknowledge several times that he had an affair with Lewinsky, the intern.

Why don't you know that Lewinsky is the intern?

Ask any HR person.

Quit it with the Moore / Trump ish ... "He hasn't been found guilty in a court of law" bullshit...

It's a serious issue and a handy club that anyone could have picked up and beaten on the party at any time.

When it comes to sexual assault and all of the bullshit we are seeing today I don't give a flying fuck what letter is after the name.

I retain the right to look at a problem rationally. I can compare what I know and think about what is likely.

This is an easy opportunity for the Republicans and as long as the Clintons hold sway in the party, we are going to continue to get hammered for it. Women deserve their say to include the nine for Moore, two for Franken and however many it was for Bill Clinton and whoever else shows up.

They deserve their say too and it's hypocrisy of the highest order to dismiss them just because of who they are claiming acted inappropriately against them.

Democratic party leaders aren't saints ( I certainly hope not) or celibate monks and they have the same drive for power that other elites have. It's necessary to rise to that level.

It's also what drives sexual assault and harassment. It's not sex... It's power...

We are still getting beaten over the head on the Clinton / sexual assault issue even 20+ years later.

I'd have more respect for her if she stuck to her guns.

hypocrite

and she is hedging that it will help her with her constituants if she distances herself from the Clintons.
She is my Senator and I will continue to vote for her to remain in the Senate.

but there are quite a few women I could get on board with.

Maybe as VP.

... to smear and attack her. It's disgusting. (I don't want to get too worked up about it, so I'll refrain from saying anything further.)

I really like her and I'm looking forward to seeing what the future holds for her. Great things are ahead.

who would have my support 100%

Do you remember the fits and spells of the Cruz campaign because he was born in Canada?

We haven't resolved this issue. We've got a SCOTUS that is right leaning as it is. We just don't know what would happen.

We really don't need any more impediments to one of our candidates. I'm sure Tammy would be great in many ways. But this issue needs to be resolved before we tempt fate and the repukes...

will come back to hurt her imo.

in the U.S. Senate.

experience. This is NO TIME for freshmen or someone out of the blue to suddenly declare their candidacy. We need EXPERIENCE and a proven steady hand. These are serious and dangerous times and NO TIME for on the job training.

I keep thinking of how steady Biden was for Obama who didn't have the years of experience that Biden had in the Senate. Of course, when Beau got sick there was a tremendous amount of sympathy that went to him. I would hope such heartbreak would never happen to any candidate...

Less physical age and more the public perception of someone who was in the national eye since 'Baby got Back' was a number one hit...

Quit making the same mistakes....

states that HRC lost in the Electoral College vote in 2016. There has to be a strategy that will work.

How do you think Kamala will fare in those states?

And no one would be a better President

...from people claiming to hate "purity tests" on any particular issue, but who at the same time will say they do not want Gillibrand because she dared to run counter to the acceptable conventional Democratic party wisdom on Bill clinton.

We need her to STEP the fuck UP. It's more than whom we recruit. She has to want it, and is ready to lead. Where are you? if we have to cajole and beg, I don't want her.

HRC fits your qualification for really wanting and being ready to lead. HRC faced down her foes and pushed on.

I agree it has to be one helluva determined lady. For instance, what if our ideal female candidate had once had an abortion? Her right to privacy would be demolished and the RW machine would go after her mercilessly.

... But also too many cons that weren't objectively looked at.

... But we have to spend time on Bill in relation to the scandal and Hillary maked the news every few weeks for one reason or another.

Just wait until 2020 when they try to have a role in the next election.

Next verse same as the first...

to find out this information. However, even if she did, I don't really think it would be an issue.

That wonderful "pro-life" position would never have to be that something could "offend" them, but here we go around with the double standard...she would be branded for life but the opportunity for the male to go scot free wouldn't...