319
Michelle Obama says US ‘not ready for a woman’ to be president: ‘Don’t even look at me about running’ (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
183 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Younger men threw their support behind Donald Trump in 2024 after favoring Biden in 2020

The United States is still not ready for a female president after more than a century of unsuccessful campaigns for the White House, according to former First Lady Michelle Obama.

“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” Obama said earlier this month in a live conversation with actor Tracee Ellis Ross that was published Friday.

“That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying,” she said. “You’re not ready for a woman. You are not. So don’t waste my time.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 110 points 11 months ago (29 children)

I agree Michelle shouldn’t run. I’d argue, though, that we’re ready for a woman leader, but we need one presented without a bunch of past baggage (Hillary) or a party agenda (Kamala and arguably Hillary, too) and with their own ideas and not what the think tank says will win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    People laugh but I 100% believe AOC would win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    AOC

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Great VP pick

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Eh. She already meets the requirements. She's old enough. That's it. And she is eminently more qualified than the current president. She'll be 39 in 2028. The youngest president, Teddy Roosevelt, was 42.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    I still think being young AND a woman AND progressive might be courting a bit more voter reluctance than I'd want to gamble with. The progressives will eat it up, but we're gonna need some moderates to get over the finish line.

    I'd prefer she go VP for a Tim Walz type for two terms and then run after that. She's only going to get better at navigating DC politics, which she'll need to actually accomplish any of whatever platform she runs.

    I feel like pushing AOC in 2028 is premature. I'd definitely vote for her and hope she wins, but the odds don't seem great and the consequences of losing are more dire than I'm personally comfortable with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Look what thinking cautiously has got us. Look what thinking audaciously has got them. What rational rational Republican voter would have thought that Trump was a good potential candidate in 2016? Rational opinion was that Trump was a candidate doomed from the start. Yet the Republicans through caution to the wind and went for the inspiring candidate. And look what it got them.

    Every election we choose the path of least resistance. Every election we talk ourselves out of the truly inspiring candidate, all in the name of electability. How many Democrats have voted against the progressive primary candidate, the one who could inspire, the one who could rally....all in the name of electability? Hillary was the candidate in 2016 because she was more electable than Bernie. Biden was the candidate in 2020 because he was more electable than Bernie. Biden was nearly the candidate in 2024 because sticking with the incumbent was simply the rational and cautious move.

    Maybe it's time we have faith for once. Maybe it's time we believe in ourselves and our message for a change. Maybe it's time to stop talking ourselves out of running our strongest potential candidates. As a great poet said, you have to believe in impossible things, or else they can never come to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    The difference being that the right wing is populist and authoritarian by nature. You can't drum up the left with the same methods as the right. Biden was a boring geriatric neo-lib, and he's the one who won.

    I don't wanna wish on a star when I'm gambling with fascism. Yes I want progressive policies, I want more than progressive policies. I would have no problems with AOC being the president. But it's not about what I want. It's not about what you want. It's about what the 10s of millions of voters who don't lean far left want.

    I don't have that kind of faith in the average American voter, even the average non-Republican voter. I think progressive policies are a winning platform, I just think AOC specifically is too risky of a run right now. Run Tim Walz, or some other 50-65 year old white progressive, with AOC as VP. That'll make it easier for her to demonstrate the efficacy of her platform so she can run afterwards.

    I like her, if anything she's a bit moderate for me, but she's DC young. The stodgy moderates might not show up because they're afraid she's inexperienced. If you can find a way to sway millions of voters between now and then, great. I'd love to see it.

    But we're not doing ourselves any favors by appealing to our hearts at the expense of our brains. Maybe the next 3 years will alter the political landscape in a way that makes her a safer candidate. I'm both excited at that prospect, and terrified at what would be necessary to do that. But if not, we have to face the landscape as it is.

    A chance at the best candidate isn't necessarily worth the risk of the worst candidate. We cannot afford to be reckless right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 70 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    I'd say it's pretty hard for a woman to both have enough experience to be taken seriously as a candidate and simultaneously have no past baggage or party agenda.

    And I don't think most male candidates are held to that standard, either.

    The misogyny is palpable. In the country as a whole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    country as a whole

    Species as a whole.

    More progressive cultures are getting over this tribalistic, divisive stuff -- they will tend to flourish over time.

    More conservative cultures will double down on division -- they will tend to wither.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    While they certainly implode... I think there's the old problem.

    Like say you have 5 co-operative communities that focus on building up great resources, polite trade with eachother, no focus on millitary.

    Then you throw in 2 Viking type communities, extremely warlike, that have no independent ability to gather resources... but specifically focus on pillaging.

    Obviously the vikings take out the poorly defended villages to build up resources, before going after eachother, in the long run everyone dies out because the vikings wreck everything for everyone, and leave nothing for themselves.

    I feel like that's kind of a form of what happens with capitalism vs socialism types. we've got elements that really just want peace... but the warlike ones will just continue to survive, as long as there are enough peaceful societies to wreck... and unfortunately the peaceful ones are the ones to go down first, in spite of being the only ones that would survive long term without the others existance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I didn't say "undefended"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's the point though, not even completely undefended, still not 10% of the same level of defense as the primary points of capitalism. IE just note how much force, propoganda etc... is pushed at any country that isn't capitalist enough. Right now fishing boats are being bombed. or even non military force, like the trade embargo's on cuba etc...

    and heaven knows how many government sponsered coups etc... Point is a lot of resources go into doing everything possible to make things that aren't capitalist enough have a very steep uphill climb.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure socialist and communist countries also do perverted things like blatant propaganda, needless use of force, etc.

    Cuba is a great example. Cuba wasn't embargoed 'because Communism!' (though that was, stupidly IMO, part of the USA political messaging)

    Castro did summary political executions & imprisonment , killed the free press , enacted torture ...

    What exactly did you want? Continue doing business like "NBD, you do you?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I'm not doubting the problems of any government. however to make the case that it's not grounded on the fear of communism... It's not like that's exactly uncommon in countries we are continuing to do business like NBD, Isreal, Russia, Saudi Arabia to name a few off the top of my head.

    Again not disagreeing with the general concept that communist countries aren't exempt from committing atrocities. Difference is a capitalist country does them "it's a growing pain", or "they are starting out, once they get big enough they'll fix it, just like the US did".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Not true. Clinton won the popular vote

    I want to vote for a woman, but not a Zionist with plans for lots of tax rebates

    I didn't vote for Biden, I didn't vote for Clinton, I didn't vote for Harris, and I didn't vote for Obama (but I did caucus for him because public option)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It's hilarious. Everyone in this thread literally ignoring the lived experience of women, trying to convince everyone their country isn't misogynistic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Any woman who runs will be running with the baggage of feminist politics. This is not the right time for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I disagree. I just think what I want is a candidate that has a coherent policy and their campaign to be elected isn’t solely/majority “but I could be the first female president” slop. Hillary and Kamala could have been great presidents, but when the selling point is “I’m a woman” and not much else, that’s not going to resonate with enough people to win an election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    That's what you want. And if Lemmy elected the president, I seriously believe the country would be a better place. But it doesn't, so what you or I want doesn't really matter that much. What matters is what the stodgy moderate majority wants, and a large portion of them are subtly guided by subconscious bias.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent