Very well written article-- also funny! I will disagree on picking Warren as Veep. She needs to stay in the Senate where she can actually do some good. She's also too old and nothing in her background makes me comfortable with her as Commander-In-Chief; Tammy Duckworth is a totally different kettle of fish in that regard. Finally, Warren's acerbic tongue and manner might be satisfactory in the Northeast but she would be alienating in large portions of the country, where psychic space is still large and well-respected. Plus, why would you add someone to your ticket whose support is at best lukewarm? Clinton might as well put Sanders in if she is playing the "enemies closer" game. A Veep must be good at least at faking loyalty, which means someone who endorsed you no later than month one.
Hillary Clinton in charge is OK, but Elizabeth Warren, too? That’s pushing it | Hadley Freeman | Opinion | The Guardian:
...It is now just about accepted that it looks bad for a leader to have an entirely male team, yet wholly female is still too perverse, too out-there; there is a sense that women are pushing their luck (and few things are less feminine than luck-pushing). The reaction to even the suggestion of an all-female anything, from a movie to a presidency, proves not just that it’s exciting – but that it’s necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment