Gillibrand

[clarence]

Watching her now with the DoD budget hearings in the Senate... what's all the fuss? Why does everyone think she will run for President- seems like a nice person but nothing extraodrinary at all!

[You kip if you want to...]

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.

[Vote UKIP!]

"OMG, a woman Senator from New York... she's just like Hillary Clinton," basically.

Unlike the stereotype of liberal women, Gillibrand is more feminine than, say, Hillary or Napolitano.

[HST1948]

I never really got the whole Gillibrand for president thing.  She comes across as a nice, sincere, and intelligent person and she would please most of Democratic base, but to me, she just doesn't come across as presidential.  Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher. In addition, her speeches in my opinion lack a certain quality to them that grab you.  Don't get me wrong, I like her a lot and think that she is a great senator.  My sister has been able to meet her several times through her work as a news reporter, and said she is a wonderful and sincere person, I just don't see her as president.

[SirNick]

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.

[Reginald]

She's not the best choice out there, no. But the buzz surrounding her makes more sense to me than the talk about McCaskill or especially Klobuchar.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Not being Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher does not disqualify you for the Presidency.

Being Margaret Thatcher does disqualify you for the Presidency.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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).

[Beet]

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.

[HST1948]

Her voice is is very feminine, and lacks the conviction and severity of Hillary Clinton or Marget Thatcher.

I understand where this is coming from, but it still seems sexist. Especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton deliberately altered her natural voice to make it seem deeper, and not only was she criticized for this ('being phony' and whatnot) she still didn't come close to matching the booming, authoritative sounds emanating from the Senator from Illinois. Culturally I suppose we are trained expect to hear a strong voice from the President, but in this day and age it's more important that the voice reflects a strong personality behind it. The rest has no objective bearing on leadership ability.

I absolutely agree with everything you said, and I did not intend to be sexist.  What I was just trying to get at was that Americans tend to like candidates with strong authoritative voices and good speech making abilities.  I think Gillibrand would make a great president and would be one of my top choices in the primary