To be fair, a lot of more qualified women are getting less media attention than less qualified men.

And wCho are these more-qualified women being ignored by the media in favor of less-qualified men?

"Playing the male savior to women is lame."

Actually, it's very much a thing among the Left. Postmodern feminism's slobbering acquiescence towards the high-status men within their own tribe is already legendary; we've already seen how PM feminism is willing to put aside all of its principles in order to gain the favor of the men who have the power and authority to give them things that they want, e.g., Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. (The mistake these men made? They got old.) It's all very hypergamous and polygamous, with all of these women trying to get close to the very highest-status men in their tribe

Perhaps Nicolek is referring to Fauxcahontas? also known amongst the Cherokee Nation as white woman who speak with forked tongue.

Or perhaps Amy "I like to throw things at my staffers" Klobachar?

Kamala "Sleep with Willy Brown, then back my prosecutors when they suborn perjury to get a conviction" Harris?

Kirsten Gillibrand? perhaps the least offensive of the lot simply because her resume is a bit thin. But she was a "blue dog" Democrat, but has subsequently become woke. Had a rating of 100% from the NRA, now down to 13%. So, a typical politician who bends in the wind, is neither hot nor cold.

Don't forget the "sneaky fucker" aspect. As Cousin Dave points out, many progressive women want to be close to those men. But many/most/all progressive men want to be that man.

Cory Booker said, "I will have a woman running mate."

Could the potential candidates include transgender women? Could a transgender woman pass the Biden sniff test?

To my point...

To be fair, the VP is usually pretty insignificant. Unless you have a credible fear the president is going to die they usually don't matter. After all Obama picked Biden as his VP. Supposedly to add maturity and gravitas to the ticket. Not really sure where that nutty idea came from. We only hear a bit about Pence these days. Cheney seemed to have more influence than most VPs. A bit of an outlier. But Al Gore or Dan Quale? Who cared. You can go back further if you want.

As to the pres spot, many countries have had female pres or prime ministers. It has not been any obvious improvement over having men. Margaret Thatcher did some great things (according to conservatives) but also did the Falklands war and was extremely hated by many in England. May screwed up Brexit. Merkel has been very dubious as a leader and fickle. If the idea is that women make better leaders, please show your work. If you just want to check diversity boxes, then you don't care much about the fate of real people in a real country.

Perhaps Nicolek is referring to.... ~ I R A Darth Aggie at April 30, 2019 7:33 AM

Not one of those women is more qualified. The Democratic field is currently littered with people "who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president."

"To be fair, the VP is usually pretty insignificant."
'
It does seem like the Veep choice matters a lot less than it used to. Back in the day, parties used to worry about geographically and culturally "balancing the ticket", as in JFK's choice of Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. Not quite sure when it went out, but the last serious attempt it at was probably Ronald Reagan, the Californian, running with George H. Bush, the quintessential Easterner.

(Of course, the half-serious joke about Bush choosing Quayle, or Clinton choosing Gore, was the implied threat: "If you knock me off, this dumbass is going to be your President".)

"The Democratic field is currently littered with people "who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president."

Point conceded. But Pubs shouldn't get too huffy about this.. perfect description of your current party leader.

"but also did the Falklands war"

We can argue about the necessity of it, but Thatcher's prosecution of that war was pretty spot-on. Britain won decisively, and the defeat resulted in the Argentinian junta being overthrown -- a worthwhile outcome.

Point conceded. But Pubs shouldn't get too huffy about this.. perfect description of your current party leader.

Except, of course, that he's had 2 years on the job. And amazingly enough, hasn't got us into a new hot shooting war with...anyone.

...did the Falklands war.... ~ cc at April 30, 2019 9:18 AM

The Argentinians "did" that war. The Argentine military invaded the islands and claimed them for Argentina, over the objections of the island chain's residents; an unprovoked "act of war."

That Britain's military won, despite having neither the manpower nor the resources with which to conduct an extended campaign, only bolstered Thatcher's standing with the British public and the world in general.

Not quite sure when it went out, but the last serious attempt it at was probably Ronald Reagan, the Californian, running with George H. Bush, the quintessential Easterner. ~ Cousin Dave at April 30, 2019 11:25 AM

It never went out. The Veep choice is still the preferred way to balance the ticket.

Bush I chose Quayle because Bush I had a reputation as a liberal Republican (socially liberal) and the hyper-religious Quayle balanced the ticket as a social conservative.

Bill Clinton broke with tradition, choosing fellow Southerner, Al Gore, in order to field a ticket of "young and dynamic" candidates - to counter the older and more staid Bush/Quayle ticket.

Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp because Kemp had credibility with African-Americans, the former HUD secretary being the only Republican in recent memory to receive a warm welcome from the NAACP; not just once, but on multiple occasions.

The formerly hard-partying Bush II chose Cheney to give his ticket Washington experience and the appearance of a more stable hand at the helm. It didn't hurt that Cheney's presence helped bring Bush's father's support network on board.

Southerner, Al Gore, chose Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, to help capture the Northeastern vote as well as the Independent vote, Lieberman being known to vote with Republicans on some issues, more so than Gore.

Kerry tried to follow the Bill Clinton "young and dynamic" gimmick with his choice of part-time North Carolina senator, John Edwards, but failed to gain the votes necessary to win.

Obama went back to tradition with Biden. Biden was also chosen to balance that ticket, since he had Washington experience and Obama did not, still being in his first term as senator. Biden, being a favorite of unions, also helped bring in the union and blue collar vote, something with which the African-American Obama would have struggled.

McCain balanced his ticket with Palin. She had credibility with the social conservatives in the party whereas McCain did not. Having a women on the ticket was supposed to help balance having an African-American on the opposing ticket. Despite a decent resume for a candidate and a solid performance in the debate with Biden, her "not ready for prime time" performance on the campaign trail helped sink the ticket with non- social conservative voters.

Hillary Clinton's choice of Kaine as a running mate was an attempt to bring Southerners to the polls to vote for her since Kaine was a former governor of Virginia. She miscalculated - he had been elected governor by the DC suburbanites in Virginia, not by the Southerners in the western part of the state. And he was soundly beaten in the debate by Mike Pence.

Pence balanced Trump's ticket with Washington experience and bona fides with the social conservatives of the party. That way, Trump's past social liberalism and support for abortion would be balanced by a staunch anti-abortion candidate on the ticket.

On McCain/Palin I still say if it has been Palin/McCain then Palin would have been president. I agree the role McCain required Palin to play didn't go over well. But McCain drove off too much of the Republican party even for what little credibility he left her to salvage. Similar issue with Romney which has only become more obvious over time. Obama actually lost votes since he was elected. After all he had a record by then and had ticked off a lot more people. But Romney still wasn't enough to defeat a weakened Obama.

The VP can provide a little boost. Mostly they can shore up one state in the electoral college. But expecting more than that today is unreasonable.

*her "not ready for prime time" performance on the campaign trail helped sink the ticket*

In all fairness, she was busy watching the Russians from her porch, and America decided it was better for her to keep an eye out from there than all the way East in DC.

Now that I think about it, Biden should've joined her. They could've fired their shotguns into the air to scare off the invasion.

Now that I think about it, Biden should've joined her. They could've fired their shotguns into the air to scare off the invasion. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 30, 2019 4:50 PM

The difference here is that she never said she could see Russia from her porch. That was a Saturday Night Live skit. Whereas Biden did actually advise firing a shotgun into the air to scare away would-be home invaders.

@: "In short: Pandery-wandery! All the way to Trump's re-election!"
_________

For the sake of the country, I hope so.

You can tell President Trump has done a very good job when most criticisms center around his personal flaws rather than over the success of his policies.

None of this is a defense of his personality flaws. I wish he'd close his twitter account and implement a filter between his brain and his mouth. But I will pick a personally flawed individual with sound and successful policies, over a someone like President Obama who is squeaky clean personally while eloquently sending the country off a cliff.

An analogy. Your loved one needs surgery, and you have a choice between two doctors. The first is a personally decent man who is faithful to his wife and never speaks improperly, but isn't a very good surgeon. The other is a jerk who is unfaithful and has unsophisticated rhetoric, yet is one of the top surgeons in the country. Which one operates on your loved one? I would hope the one who is a better surgeon.

While personal character is of immeasurable worth, it is not the only consideration in every context. The bad surgeon who is a good man may be in my wedding, and my be one of my best friends, but he isn't operating on my kid. As such with the President. The country is better off, and hasn't got entangled in any more wars, and those are very good things even if you are rightly horrified by his tweets.

@: "In short: Pandery-wandery! All the way to Trump's re-election!"
_________

For the sake of the country, I hope so.

You can tell President Trump has done a very good job when most criticisms center around his personal flaws rather than over the success of his policies.

None of this is a defense of his personality flaws. I wish he'd close his twitter account and implement a filter between his brain and his mouth. But I will pick a personally flawed individual with sound and successful policies, over a someone like President Obama who is squeaky clean personally while eloquently sending the country off a cliff.

An analogy. Your loved one needs surgery, and you have a choice between two doctors. The first is a personally decent man who is faithful to his wife and never speaks improperly, but isn't a very good surgeon. The other is a jerk who is unfaithful and has unsophisticated rhetoric, yet is one of the top surgeons in the country. Which one operates on your loved one? I would hope the one who is a better surgeon.

While personal character is of immeasurable worth, it is not the only consideration in every context. The bad surgeon who is a good man may be in my wedding, and my be one of my best friends, but he isn't operating on my kid. As such with the President. The country is better off, and hasn't got entangled in any more wars, and those are very good things even if you are rightly horrified by his tweets.