Editorial

Classified Advertising

Against All Odds

EDITORIAL Page 324 L ast week, when Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar suspended their presidential campaigns, you could hear a coast-to-coast collective sigh of female frustration. “Are we ever going to see a woman be elected president of the United States?”

I strongly believe we will. But not until (we) women make it so. As Elizabeth Warren said, “If you’re not willing to get out there and fight, nothing is going to happen.”

I don’t think there was a perfect presidential candidate. I’m not sure there ever is. So we’re down to three white male septuagenarians, all of whom are flawed (i.e. human), but certainly no more or less so than at least one of their six former female opponents. But apparently, the male candidates are flawed in ways not tied to their gender. With Elizabeth Warren, I kept hearing criticisms mostly reserved for women. She “sounded scolding,” “like a schoolmarm.” Hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman commented that when Warren spoke about him her tone was “as if chiding an ungrateful child.” Even when The New York Times Editorial Board broke with convention and endorsed not one, but two women – Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar – they took issues with Warren’s demeanor. One male editor asked, “Do you find her a little patronizing?” Kathleen Kingsbury, Deputy Editorial Editor, who wrote the endorsement, chimed in. “It just comes off condescending. And there just is this risk in a lot of the ways she talks that if you don’t agree with her, you’re dumb.” The Times endorsement ended with: “May the best woman win.” Not so fast. When men take umbrage, they’re “indignant” or “defiant.” “Presidential” is the highest form of that characterization. I’ve never heard a male candidate accused of “sounding scolding,” or “like a schoolmarm.” Or worse, twisted into