ARE WOMEN CANDIDATES TREATED LESS FAIRLY THAN MEN?
We “rethink the week” with Valerie Endress, Professor of Political Communication at Rhode Island College; and Ron Abramson, immigration attorney from Manchester, NH. We discuss Amy Klobuchar’s complaint about Running for President While Female. If a woman with as little experience as Pete Buttigieg threw her hat in the ring, people would laugh her off the stage. She would not get the same support, the same attention, or the same campaign contributions that Buttigieg is enjoying. Klobuchar is correct: there is a double standard for male and female candidates.
ANOTHER BILLIONAIRE CANDIDATE?
In addition to gender, we discuss the role of vast wealth in one’s ability to run for office. Former NYC mayor Bloomberg has recognized an opening in the Democratic field and has offered to spend many of his own billions to promote himself for president. We wonder why anyone would think the Dems need another contender (especially another billionaire contender) to join a field that already includes a lot of high-quality candidates (even if some of them are not doing well in the early polls). We also note the disrespect that Bloomberg is showing for the voters by choosing not to enter the early primaries and choosing not to participate in the Democratic debates.
DOES “ELECTABLE” MEAN SIMPLY STATUS QUO?
Why do centrist Democrats think that the party needs a “safe” nominee, which to them means a centrist nominee? We can’t understand why centrists think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are “too extreme” to be a “safe” bet to defeat Donald Trump, when Trump is the most extreme, most unsafe president our country has ever had. And why do centrists think Joe or Amy or Pete are more “safe” (as candidates) when their status quo policies are more aligned with the interests of the 1% than with the overwhelming majority of working people in the US?
WHAT’S UP WITH NIKKI HALEY?
We also discuss Nikki Haley’s refusal to distance herself from Pres. Trump in spite of his corrupt and dangerous behavior. She wouldn’t even join the group of “adults in the room” who were trying to protect our nation from the consequences of the president’s worst instincts. Is she trying to position herself to become the vice presidential nominee if Trump throws Pence under the bus? Is she eying the presidential nomination in 2024?
WILL IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?
Finally, in anticipation of the opening of public hearings into impeaching Pres. Trump, we wonder whether voter sentiment will be changed at all. True, now voters will be able to see and hear first-hand the evidence about Trump’s corrupt “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the country is more polarized today than during prior impeachment proceedings. And Trump’s base will probably never be persuaded to abandon him. But are they the ones whose minds need to be changed? Or is it independent voters and “swing” voters? And energizing the democratic base so they actually turn out to vote?
At the very least, democratic candidates must improve their ability to communicate to voters why most Americans’ interests would be well served by voting against Trump. If that message does not come through, loud and clear, then all the debating about the details and minutae of the candidates’ respective policies will go for naught.
