Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
Posts: 34,526
|
 |
« on: February 19, 2012, 01:20:58 AM » |
|
|
« edited: February 19, 2012, 01:28:38 AM by Nathan »
|
Gillibrand has in the past demonstrated the ability to evolve her views without seeming like a flip-flopper. Being able to be pragmatic without coming across Kerry/Romney style is an underrated political skill. The fact that she has very feminine gender presentation (relative to people like Hillary or Thatcher, not necessarily to women in other fields than politics) might, conceivably, be spun as an unusual or interesting enough trait to offset any negatives, particularly since Republicans tend to win male voters anyway. Elizabeth Warren has some of the same attributes but is also a lot more of a magnet for controversy than Gillibrand, and can come across as 'dark'/'nagging' feminine rather than 'light'/'nurturing' feminine at times.
(It should be noted: I do not endorse the gender archetypes in the previous paragraph; it's just my perception of the broader perception of these people.)
For the record, I'm a huge fan of Senator Gillibrand personally and (most, but not by any means all, of the time) politically, but she wouldn't be my first choice for a 2016 candidate, partially because I don't foresee 2016 as being an incredibly good year for our party anyway (though that might, of course, change if Obama has a totally kickass second term or something).
|
