“If Hillary Clinton can’t win when she gets the nomination and you can’t get the nomination and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand. I mean, I think part of what’s going on today is women around the country are like, ‘OK, honestly!’ If it’s not going to be any of them, let’s get real. Is it just that it can’t be any woman ever?”
——The allegedly intelligent MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, making a statement with stunning disregard of facts and logic, indeed reality, in order to advance a divisive and false narrative.
This was an irresponsible argument in the midst of a generally irresponsible and dishonest discourse by Maddow while interviewing Elizabeth Warren following the end of her campaign. She was attempting to bolster Warren’s ethically bankrupt claims that it was sexism that doomed her campaign, just as Hillary Clinton claimed the same, among all the excuses and rationalizations she assembled (and is still assembling) to duck accountability for her own upset loss to Donald Trump, who was generally dismissed as a pushover.
If she wanted to educate her viewers, which Maddow does not—she wants to push an ideological agenda—she would explain that none of the women she mentioned were successful state governors, and that state houses and military command, not Congress, have been the launching pad for the majority of Presidents. She could explain that the failed candidates she mentioned all had thin resumes for a White House run, including Warren, who is a former university professor and lawyer barely into her second term as a U.S. Senator.
Hillary had the most impressive experience of the group, but there is no avoiding the conclusion that the only reason she was in a position to get the nomination was by coasting on her husband’s resilient popularity. She had not been an especially outstanding Senator, and her tenure as Secretary of State was marred by many dubious episodes, not the least of which was the email scandal that she persisted in lying about. Moreover, Clinton disproved Maddow’s theory by getting a plurality of votes cast in 2016, an achievement that will elect a candidate President approximately 90% of the time. She was unlucky, that’s all. Hillary nearly won despite more adverse baggage and dubious character than any Presidential candidate other than Richard Nixon.
As for the others, the explanation for their failures is remarkably simple as well as obvious. They were weak candidates, and the public was not so gullible as to fail to notice. Gillibrand packaged herself as the misandry candidate, playing champion for anti-male Furies like Emma Sulkowicz, aka Mattress Girl, who dragged a blue mattress around Columbia University’s campus in 2014 to harass a male student she falsely accused of rape, according to the college’s investigation. Gillibrand used the height of #MeToo hysteria to drive Senator Al Franken out of the Senate without a fair hearing, permanently alienating many progressives. She was never a serious contender, and left the 2020 field quickly.
Despite unjustified hype from the progressive news media, Kamala Harris became a less viable candidate the more the public saw and listened to her. At the end, her staff leaked to the press about chaos within and mismanagement of her campaign organization. She also had used a man to rise in California politics, as she had a very beneficial sexual relationship with San Francisco mayor and California power broker Willie Brown. She amassed a remarkable number of unethical quotes on Ethics Alarms; in reaction to one of them, I wrote, “Statements like Harris’s usually signal a politician who lives by smug half-truths, deception and exploitation of the foolish.” I nailed it. Later, she argued that that the Trump tax cuts hurts the middle class because people are getting smaller tax refunds. I wrote,
“The category is smart and educated politicians deliberately making an idiotic argument because they think the public is too stupid to see through it.… If you get money back, it means you were over-withheld, and Uncle Sam got free use of your money for months, while you lost the interest you could have made if you had it in the bank. Tax payers who rejoice over big refunds are the same saps who signed up for Christmas Clubs before they became illegal. And, apparently, they are also the citizens Kamala Harris is counting on to make her President. You know…morons.”
It didn’t require sexism to decide that Kamala Harris had no business running for President. It just required paying attention.
Senator Klobuchar never was accorded the front-runner status of Warren or Harris. She is a veteran Senator, again with no executive credentials, and not especially charismatic or compelling. Candidates like Klobuchar, male or female, seldom get nominated for President, and if they do, they literally never get elected.
That leaves Warren, who in a rational world, with a rational party, would have disqualified herself for serious consideration as a candidate many times over. Hmmm…which Ethics Alarms Warren alert should I choose? Here’s one! A sample:
For any normal politician in any normal political cycle, Warren’s humiliation on this point [her false claim of Cherokee heritage] would have made her candidacy impossible. She is a woman, however, and the Left wants a woman President by any means necessary. She also is running against a field of historic awfulness. Thus Warren can keep lying. Some of her lies are approved progressive whoppers, like when she said in a debate last summer, “Climate crisis is the existential crisis for our world. It puts every living thing on this planet at risk.” Nobody, even the most unhinged climate change researcher, claims the “every living thing” is at risk. Another false narrative that Warren has endorsed, knowing well it is a lie, is the “Mike Brown was murdered by a racist cop” fantasy. Some of her worst lies go back to her Senate run, but are continued now. For example, she claimed to have represented women harmed by defective breast transplants. In fact, she represented the defendant in those cases, Dow Corning. The deceitful description by her campaign is a masterpiece, calling Warren : “a consultant to ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury.”
So how could and why would Rachel Maddow slander the American public and culture by suggesting that the failure of these five inadequate women to win the Presidency means that no woman will ever be elected President?
It is because Maddow, like so many of her ideology, seeks to manufacture a false reality, one that foments distrust, hopelessness, anger, hate and division. To accomplish this she relies on the ignorance and lazy intellects of those who foolishly, dangerously, trust her.
What do you call someone like that?