Thread by @ashtonpittman

THREAD: For America to take Hillary Clinton seriously as a candidate for president, she first had to serve as an attorney+child advocate+Arkansas First Lady+FLOTUS+Senator+Secretary of State.

And then we said: “Too establishment.”

Four years later, two white men lead the field.

2. All through 2016, we heard that the big problem with Hillary was that she had been in the system too long. & voters craved an outsider.

But 4 years later, two white men with 72 years spent in DC institutions between them lead the polls, while many qualified women lag behind?

3. After people said in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was just too establishment...

...and that they would really support a woman if only she was a less established outsider like, say, Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard...

...Warren and Gabbard both ran, and, well:

4. It was a double Bait&Switch.

Part 1:

America to Women: To be president, you have to follow all these men’s rules and outdo them.

Hillary: Done.

America: No, not like that. You played by their rules TOO well. Now you’re sullied.
(cont)

5. Bait&Swich Part 2:

America to Women: Want our support? Don’t stain yourself working in the system for decades like Hillary did.

Warren/Harris/Gabbard: K done

America: No, not like that. What we really need is a white man with decades of DC experience...like Bernie or Biden!

6. What was true when Hillary began her career is still true in a lot of ways:

America wants women to begrudgingly earn our respect by excelling while playing by rules written by men.

The catch-22: Now you’re part of the establishment—and that’s only okay when you’re a man.

7. It’s incorrect to say women in politics are part of the same “establishment” as the white men who were always there. Women got there because they beat a game whose rules were designed to ensure their failure. That’s why only one woman has been nominated by a major party.

8. The only woman ever nominated by a major party got there, mind you, only after we‘d already seen her in the White House for 8 years backing her husband’s career, & only after backing & serving as secretary of state to the male newcomer who beat her the first time she ran.

9. Those who said in 2016 that they really wanted a woman president, and they’d totally be behind her if a woman ran who wasn’t enmeshed with the establishment?

That seems a bit disingenuous—especially if you’re now backing a white man with decades in DC.

10. Be wary of words like “establishment” when used to criticize women in politics. We make women play by establishment rules to earn our respect, then tar them with the “establishment” label as soon as they succeed. It starts to look like we’re moving goalposts to keep them out.

11. In what world was Hillary Clinton—who was the only woman in her law school graduating class, the 1st woman US Senator from NY & the first to win a major party nod for president—more establishment than a white male billionaire from NY? Or than a white man with 3 decades in DC?

12. We told women that, to win, they needed to first establish themselves like men do.

In 2016, a woman ran. We said:
“Nah, you’re too establishment.”

Now we’re telling 2020 women:
“Nah, we like the 2 white men with a combined 72 years in DC. More electable.”

A rigged system.

FYI: This isn’t a criticism of Bernie or Biden, per se, nor me necessarily saying you shouldn’t vote for a white male candidate. My point is: Consider how gender and deeply embedded sexism color the way you view candidates and why may or may not support certain candidates.