Note: I’m not going to respond to any comments that don’t address the specific analyses in this stack but take the opportunity to offer your own complaints about Hillary or Kamala. Feel free to have your say, but don’t expect me to respond.
I am 86 yo, white woman, retired physician/psychiatrist and life long Episcopalian. In the 1990s, I began seeing depression in young men returning home to die of AIDS who were abandoned by their “good Christian families” because having AIDS meant they were GAY! That led me to start writing a book, “Everybody’s Nuts! Or Why Even Good People Do Terrible Things!”
Later I learned that no white Christian church ever denounced lynching in the more than fifty years it went on. Those who spoke up were ostracized or fired. I now know that the trauma of war turns religion violent as it did in nazi Germany after WWI and in the South after the Civil War…and probably in Israel after the October attack by Hamas.
Now a group of white Christians, fed lies by Rupert Murdock’s Fox News and Wall Street Journal are supporting violence against women, immigrants and others, are accepting the biggest lies of all from Donald Trump. As if having unregulated guns and anti-immigrant, racist policies make us safer, rather than following the teaching of Jesus to love others and embrace the wisdom and energy of all people in this country to make life better for us all. Finally Kamala Harris is doing that for the nation. She is already bringing us all together to heal our national wound of hatred and fear. Hurray!
Thanks Susan. I will be following your analysis throughout.
When I've seen clips of Harris campaigning, I get a sense of enjoyment, a sense of having fun. That's hugely important and if she can keep that up I think she will win.
Racism, misogyny, anti-gay, anti-socialism sentiments have defined this white Christian nation for too.long. It’s more than time to work together to end the paranoid positions that allowed us to see others as the enemy, rather than our partners in solving problems that face us all: building a better future for all young people. Seeing failure in young people as needing education and training, not incarceration. Addressing climate change so we have a less polluted environment and spend less on energy. Regulating guns so we protect the young. Get money out of politics and medicine so we attract dedicated honorable people as doctors and office seekers in government. We can only do this if we all work together…and that will take galvanizing many groups of people, but mainly the young. Their energy and idealism can bring us home .Kamila Harris has started this process in less than a week! Let’s all support her! Hurray!
Many good points here, as I can see even while just skimming (I should be preparing for my canvassing effort this morning, not writing this!). However, Clinton wasn't the first woman candidate for president. Think of Shirley Chisholm in 1972. Clinton was the first woman major party nominee. Chisholm was the first Black womaan in Congress, elected in 1968.
the cat woman comment from JD Vance has been blown way out of proportion. If his comments about childless people were taken in context, it would be clear that he is speaking of lack of support for family values and support for working men and women. He had a great interview with Megan Kelly where his comments were played in full and he elaborates on his views. It’s so easy to take things out of context and make it a gotcha. It will be done for comments Kamala has made as well. I think we would all be better served if we looked at actual accomplishements and policies - not soundbites. I can elaborate but I think I’ve made my point.
The media does grab onto things and run with them, no doubt about it. But Vance’s policies are no less wacky than his off-the-cuff comments. I think he’s made his conception of “family values” pretty clear, cat nonsense aside.
I’m keeping an open mind and getting to know him better before putting him in a slot. I read his book and he seems like someone who’s worked hard and overcome a lot. Served in the military, well educated, family man, etc. . I am willing to try to get to know Kamala as well as I’d like to learn more about what she actually believes, what policies she supports, etc. She seems a bit too far left for me - and I was hoping the democrats would have chosen a more moderate candidate and VP to bring the majority middle together. So far, I’m not seeing that from either side. Sad because the major of American’s are not far left or far right and we feel ignored and frankly, frustrated.
I’m all for an open mind, and I appreciate the conversation with you. My conclusions about Vance are based on a lot of Vance-watching and reading, in addition to reading his book (which I remember liking, with reservations. And now I learn he didn’t grow up in Appalachia at all!) Given all the different “Vances” I’ve seen, he seems a total opportunist, who changes his views as needed for his advancement. Re. Kamala: We may have different conceptions about what constitutes “far left,” as I don’t see Kamala that way, although that’s certainly how the GOP is branding her.
I’d say both sides are doing a good job of branding their opponent.. I think it depends where you start out regarding what is far left.. there are policies that are definitely far left from my moderate vantage point.. it really depends on what your priorities are.. as far as how comfortable one is with far left or right policies. I am really disappointed in how the primaries went for both parties.. we could have done so much better IMO and be in a better place. I hate the divisiveness.. I believe we all have more in common than not it’s just the loudest voices get all the press..
I want to see an evaluation of her policies, both domestic and foreign. Right now I am not impressed with anything she has stood for in the foreign policy realm except for Ukraine and domestically I can't think of a single thing I agree with her about. (I am more European in my view of abortion. Those demanding abortion through the 9th month of gestation will never get my vote)
And while the right can play the race/"women" card. I also don't want to be called a racist or to be told I am supporting misogyny if I think she is a horrible candidate and not fit for the office of the President. Already there are articles out how "White women" owe it to the sisterhood to vote for her. I want my vote to be earned. It should not be taken for granted or demanded. (Yes, I will write in a name and let it count as a protest vote if I cant be impressed)
And as far as Hillary, her hubris lost her the most winnable Presidential election in history. I really couldn't care less what she has to say about anything since then. That women are angry at her, she earned every bit of derision lobbed at her.
And as far as Chisholm I remember her. Kamala is no Shirley Chisholm.
PS. I also believe that the famous speech Elizabeth I gave about having the heart and stomach of a king, is propaganda. It never happened.
The only people demanding abortion in the fifth month of a pregnancy are women in very bad situations. They are not running for office. Your points belong with those who can rant better than they can think.
That's a ridiculous and a misogynistic statement. Next time you can carry a child in your womb, you tell me what to think about abortion.
By the way, It is not a "bad situation" to find out in the 5th month of pregnancy that your child has a disability. But our ableist society says its better to abort the baby than to carry that child and foist it on society. That is not a bad situation. That is eugenics.
Excuse me, but men SHOULD have a voice in ANY matter of public policy - because such matters affect ALL of us.
I'll concede that Larry Konigsberg's comment was not well-phrased and could be interpreted as sexist -esp. the concluding phrase, which is also ad hominem: "Your points belong with those who can rant better than they can think."
However, there's no need to assert that men have no say in the abortion debate because they do not have uteri. By that "logic," adults should have no say-so over children and only non-human animals should vote on their treatment, since humans cannot fully understand their predicaments. :-)
Wonderful read! It is by no means a stretch to associate the "childless cat lady" with being a witch (as a pejorative). In fact, I believe they are using that phrase as a euphemism for the term during this election cycle. Women who live, think, and speak independently have always been feared and often labeled a witch, either by their contemporaries or historians. The difference is that we now proudly embrace those terms and the power they imply.
Too bad the Republicans didn't nominate Elise Stefanik, or Trump at least selected her to run as his V.P. As for Kamala, if folk don't vote for her the more likely reason is that she is married to a Jew, not that she is a woman or black.
Because I'd like to see a woman as president in my lifetime. Just not the woman you would like to see as president. If Trump won with Stefanik as VP, she quite likely would run in 2028, G-d willing, for president.
OK, I understand what you were saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I’m not a fan of Stefanik myself, but since you are a fan of hers, do you consider it worth electing Trump to have her in the wings?
Good question and my answer is yes, I prefer Trump to Kamala, and I am impressed with Stefanik's intelligence and position on many matters of importance to me. But as with Biden I think Trump is too old. I preferred Nikki Haley during the Republican primaries. Some of the world leaders who have impressed me the most are Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, and Golda Meir of Israel.
Gadfly that I am, I could probably go through my FB Friend Susan's OP with a fine-tooth comb and point out several logical and rhetorical flaws - and some ideological assumptions and precomceptions.
I'll just list 3-4 for now:
1. Attributing Hillary's loss to her pants suits may account for only 0.01% of the popular vote. She may have lost even more votes had she wore skirts that exposed her thick claves and ankles! (No, I'm NOT being sexist; I'm guessing at the sexist response of SOME trivial voters.)
2. Hillary WON the popular vote, so the U.S. population was hardly averse to a woman POTUS. Her loss in the Electoral College was due to poor strategic planning - i.e., not visiting Wisconsin and other swing states.
3. In elections, "WOMEN" (plural) is NOT on the ballot. The name of an individual WOMAN (singular) is. Thus, THAT particular woman - including all her policy ideas and persona - is what intelligent voters get to choose, not her gender per se.
While I'd like to see a female POTUS, I'd like to see one nominated and elected who does not come with lots of negative political "baggage" as both Hillary and Kamala carry. (Yes, the male candidates - and winners - often have even MORE skeletons in their closets!)
BTW, many may not be aware of this aspect of Kamala's early rise in California:
Finally, the NY TIMES Editorial Board has come out against Harris as the Dem. standard-bearer. Are they composed of sexists? Racists?
“There are other qualified Democrats who could take on Mr. Trump and win, and picking a candidate without a real contest is how the party got into a position of anointing a standard-bearer that large majorities of Democrats and independents had profound concerns about.
“While the hour is late, there is still time to put leading candidates through a process of public scrutiny before the party’s nominating convention begins on Aug. 19, to inform the choice of a nominee and to build public support.”
Frank, this stack wasn’t an analysis of why Hillary lost. For that, please see my book. It’s fine if you don’t want to, of course. But if you want my responses to your points that’s the place to go. Your points here don’t really address this stack, and seem to radically misunderstand much of it, too. (Just one example: I claim Hillary lost because of her pants suits? Please!) Either you read stack too fast, or you were just so anxious to have your say about Hillary and Kamala that you basically ignored it.
I pointed out at the outset that I was only going to mention 3-4 items in your stack. Admittedly, the ones I selected may not have been the most important issues - for you or me.
Since "pants suits" were mentioned, that happened to be one that I responded to. Yes, I admit that ignored some topics. (Can't I CHOOSE which things I wish to reply to?)
Likewise, since much of the argument has to do with why a woman can't be (or hasn't been) elected POTUS, I pointed out that Hillary WON the popular vote, suggesting that American voters are not SO sexist as to eliminate a female candidate from consideration.
I look forward to reading your book for all the details.
Note: I’m not going to respond to any comments that don’t address the specific analyses in this stack but take the opportunity to offer your own complaints about Hillary or Kamala. Feel free to have your say, but don’t expect me to respond.
I am 86 yo, white woman, retired physician/psychiatrist and life long Episcopalian. In the 1990s, I began seeing depression in young men returning home to die of AIDS who were abandoned by their “good Christian families” because having AIDS meant they were GAY! That led me to start writing a book, “Everybody’s Nuts! Or Why Even Good People Do Terrible Things!”
Later I learned that no white Christian church ever denounced lynching in the more than fifty years it went on. Those who spoke up were ostracized or fired. I now know that the trauma of war turns religion violent as it did in nazi Germany after WWI and in the South after the Civil War…and probably in Israel after the October attack by Hamas.
Now a group of white Christians, fed lies by Rupert Murdock’s Fox News and Wall Street Journal are supporting violence against women, immigrants and others, are accepting the biggest lies of all from Donald Trump. As if having unregulated guns and anti-immigrant, racist policies make us safer, rather than following the teaching of Jesus to love others and embrace the wisdom and energy of all people in this country to make life better for us all. Finally Kamala Harris is doing that for the nation. She is already bringing us all together to heal our national wound of hatred and fear. Hurray!
Sumter Coleman
THANK YOU, Sumter, for this comment, which reflects years of experience and reflection.
Thanks Susan. I will be following your analysis throughout.
When I've seen clips of Harris campaigning, I get a sense of enjoyment, a sense of having fun. That's hugely important and if she can keep that up I think she will win.
The groups that got together when she was in the 2019 primary called her the “joyful warrior.”
Racism, misogyny, anti-gay, anti-socialism sentiments have defined this white Christian nation for too.long. It’s more than time to work together to end the paranoid positions that allowed us to see others as the enemy, rather than our partners in solving problems that face us all: building a better future for all young people. Seeing failure in young people as needing education and training, not incarceration. Addressing climate change so we have a less polluted environment and spend less on energy. Regulating guns so we protect the young. Get money out of politics and medicine so we attract dedicated honorable people as doctors and office seekers in government. We can only do this if we all work together…and that will take galvanizing many groups of people, but mainly the young. Their energy and idealism can bring us home .Kamila Harris has started this process in less than a week! Let’s all support her! Hurray!
Sumter Coleman
Many good points here, as I can see even while just skimming (I should be preparing for my canvassing effort this morning, not writing this!). However, Clinton wasn't the first woman candidate for president. Think of Shirley Chisholm in 1972. Clinton was the first woman major party nominee. Chisholm was the first Black womaan in Congress, elected in 1968.
Yup. You’re right! I shall edit that, my friend. And I promise to write back to your emails, too. I’ve enjoyed them!
I'd add Indira Gandhi to the list of historically significant heads of state.
Oh, and while we're in Asia, Benazir Bhutto, too.
the cat woman comment from JD Vance has been blown way out of proportion. If his comments about childless people were taken in context, it would be clear that he is speaking of lack of support for family values and support for working men and women. He had a great interview with Megan Kelly where his comments were played in full and he elaborates on his views. It’s so easy to take things out of context and make it a gotcha. It will be done for comments Kamala has made as well. I think we would all be better served if we looked at actual accomplishements and policies - not soundbites. I can elaborate but I think I’ve made my point.
The media does grab onto things and run with them, no doubt about it. But Vance’s policies are no less wacky than his off-the-cuff comments. I think he’s made his conception of “family values” pretty clear, cat nonsense aside.
I’m keeping an open mind and getting to know him better before putting him in a slot. I read his book and he seems like someone who’s worked hard and overcome a lot. Served in the military, well educated, family man, etc. . I am willing to try to get to know Kamala as well as I’d like to learn more about what she actually believes, what policies she supports, etc. She seems a bit too far left for me - and I was hoping the democrats would have chosen a more moderate candidate and VP to bring the majority middle together. So far, I’m not seeing that from either side. Sad because the major of American’s are not far left or far right and we feel ignored and frankly, frustrated.
I’m all for an open mind, and I appreciate the conversation with you. My conclusions about Vance are based on a lot of Vance-watching and reading, in addition to reading his book (which I remember liking, with reservations. And now I learn he didn’t grow up in Appalachia at all!) Given all the different “Vances” I’ve seen, he seems a total opportunist, who changes his views as needed for his advancement. Re. Kamala: We may have different conceptions about what constitutes “far left,” as I don’t see Kamala that way, although that’s certainly how the GOP is branding her.
I’d say both sides are doing a good job of branding their opponent.. I think it depends where you start out regarding what is far left.. there are policies that are definitely far left from my moderate vantage point.. it really depends on what your priorities are.. as far as how comfortable one is with far left or right policies. I am really disappointed in how the primaries went for both parties.. we could have done so much better IMO and be in a better place. I hate the divisiveness.. I believe we all have more in common than not it’s just the loudest voices get all the press..
Kamal Harris has managed to galvanize a positive campaign about the future. Embracing us all and involving us all. Hurray! Sumter Coleman
I want to see an evaluation of her policies, both domestic and foreign. Right now I am not impressed with anything she has stood for in the foreign policy realm except for Ukraine and domestically I can't think of a single thing I agree with her about. (I am more European in my view of abortion. Those demanding abortion through the 9th month of gestation will never get my vote)
And while the right can play the race/"women" card. I also don't want to be called a racist or to be told I am supporting misogyny if I think she is a horrible candidate and not fit for the office of the President. Already there are articles out how "White women" owe it to the sisterhood to vote for her. I want my vote to be earned. It should not be taken for granted or demanded. (Yes, I will write in a name and let it count as a protest vote if I cant be impressed)
And as far as Hillary, her hubris lost her the most winnable Presidential election in history. I really couldn't care less what she has to say about anything since then. That women are angry at her, she earned every bit of derision lobbed at her.
And as far as Chisholm I remember her. Kamala is no Shirley Chisholm.
PS. I also believe that the famous speech Elizabeth I gave about having the heart and stomach of a king, is propaganda. It never happened.
https://open.substack.com/pub/susanbordo/p/right-up-to-the-moment-of-birth-really?r=384ha&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The only people demanding abortion in the fifth month of a pregnancy are women in very bad situations. They are not running for office. Your points belong with those who can rant better than they can think.
That's a ridiculous and a misogynistic statement. Next time you can carry a child in your womb, you tell me what to think about abortion.
By the way, It is not a "bad situation" to find out in the 5th month of pregnancy that your child has a disability. But our ableist society says its better to abort the baby than to carry that child and foist it on society. That is not a bad situation. That is eugenics.
Excuse me, but men SHOULD have a voice in ANY matter of public policy - because such matters affect ALL of us.
I'll concede that Larry Konigsberg's comment was not well-phrased and could be interpreted as sexist -esp. the concluding phrase, which is also ad hominem: "Your points belong with those who can rant better than they can think."
However, there's no need to assert that men have no say in the abortion debate because they do not have uteri. By that "logic," adults should have no say-so over children and only non-human animals should vote on their treatment, since humans cannot fully understand their predicaments. :-)
Wonderful read! It is by no means a stretch to associate the "childless cat lady" with being a witch (as a pejorative). In fact, I believe they are using that phrase as a euphemism for the term during this election cycle. Women who live, think, and speak independently have always been feared and often labeled a witch, either by their contemporaries or historians. The difference is that we now proudly embrace those terms and the power they imply.
Now this is a face that brings joy and optimism. Love it!
Not grumpy Trump.
He has no joy which is sad
Thanks for your analysis, Susan!
I’d have hoped that the first woman president wouldn’t be a fucking halfwit, but you get what you get.
Too bad the Republicans didn't nominate Elise Stefanik, or Trump at least selected her to run as his V.P. As for Kamala, if folk don't vote for her the more likely reason is that she is married to a Jew, not that she is a woman or black.
Any of those reasons would be terrible reasons not to vote for her. But why “too bad” Trump didn’t select Stefanik?
Because I'd like to see a woman as president in my lifetime. Just not the woman you would like to see as president. If Trump won with Stefanik as VP, she quite likely would run in 2028, G-d willing, for president.
OK, I understand what you were saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I’m not a fan of Stefanik myself, but since you are a fan of hers, do you consider it worth electing Trump to have her in the wings?
Good question and my answer is yes, I prefer Trump to Kamala, and I am impressed with Stefanik's intelligence and position on many matters of importance to me. But as with Biden I think Trump is too old. I preferred Nikki Haley during the Republican primaries. Some of the world leaders who have impressed me the most are Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, and Golda Meir of Israel.
Gadfly that I am, I could probably go through my FB Friend Susan's OP with a fine-tooth comb and point out several logical and rhetorical flaws - and some ideological assumptions and precomceptions.
I'll just list 3-4 for now:
1. Attributing Hillary's loss to her pants suits may account for only 0.01% of the popular vote. She may have lost even more votes had she wore skirts that exposed her thick claves and ankles! (No, I'm NOT being sexist; I'm guessing at the sexist response of SOME trivial voters.)
2. Hillary WON the popular vote, so the U.S. population was hardly averse to a woman POTUS. Her loss in the Electoral College was due to poor strategic planning - i.e., not visiting Wisconsin and other swing states.
3. In elections, "WOMEN" (plural) is NOT on the ballot. The name of an individual WOMAN (singular) is. Thus, THAT particular woman - including all her policy ideas and persona - is what intelligent voters get to choose, not her gender per se.
While I'd like to see a female POTUS, I'd like to see one nominated and elected who does not come with lots of negative political "baggage" as both Hillary and Kamala carry. (Yes, the male candidates - and winners - often have even MORE skeletons in their closets!)
BTW, many may not be aware of this aspect of Kamala's early rise in California:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-kamala-harrisandwillie-brownhad-a-relationshipover-adecadeafte-idUSKBN26Y2RJ/
Finally, the NY TIMES Editorial Board has come out against Harris as the Dem. standard-bearer. Are they composed of sexists? Racists?
“There are other qualified Democrats who could take on Mr. Trump and win, and picking a candidate without a real contest is how the party got into a position of anointing a standard-bearer that large majorities of Democrats and independents had profound concerns about.
“While the hour is late, there is still time to put leading candidates through a process of public scrutiny before the party’s nominating convention begins on Aug. 19, to inform the choice of a nominee and to build public support.”
Frank, this stack wasn’t an analysis of why Hillary lost. For that, please see my book. It’s fine if you don’t want to, of course. But if you want my responses to your points that’s the place to go. Your points here don’t really address this stack, and seem to radically misunderstand much of it, too. (Just one example: I claim Hillary lost because of her pants suits? Please!) Either you read stack too fast, or you were just so anxious to have your say about Hillary and Kamala that you basically ignored it.
I pointed out at the outset that I was only going to mention 3-4 items in your stack. Admittedly, the ones I selected may not have been the most important issues - for you or me.
Since "pants suits" were mentioned, that happened to be one that I responded to. Yes, I admit that ignored some topics. (Can't I CHOOSE which things I wish to reply to?)
Likewise, since much of the argument has to do with why a woman can't be (or hasn't been) elected POTUS, I pointed out that Hillary WON the popular vote, suggesting that American voters are not SO sexist as to eliminate a female candidate from consideration.
I look forward to reading your book for all the details.