#WomanPresidentMatters

Progressives fall into as many traps as other political enthusiasts, even those they (we) don't love so much. This was my point in my last posting about how Opposites Distract. You can feel The Bern (or the Sand) of Senator Sanders and of The DonDon Trump, but among wildly different outlier crowds. But like it or not, both crowds are outliers and need to be considered that way. Trump's are unreasonable; The Sand's are not.

Which is why it isn't acceptable for us to let get lost in the shuffle the fact that being a female president likely matters; matters a lot.

As I was arguing about this in my Twitterverse, the New York Times came out with a piece about the momentum to put a woman in charge of the global UN establishment. Women do things differently, regardless of other factors like their policy inclinations. And the world needs a different, more gender-sensitive perspective.

So why not the same for The Hill(ary)? Arguably, President Obama was doubly challenged by his foolish haters because of what he wanted to do AND because of the color/shade of his skin. They built a massive, systemic wall of opposition to force him back because he is a Black guy who carries all that means in reality with him.

Color, for people of color, cannot be ignored no matter what us "white folks" wish for. Doing so erases the awareness they struggle with across their lives. The same is true for gender. Men or women cannot wish gender into oblivion.

Unfortunately, those feeling The Bern of Sanders are forgetting this and need to consider it seriously. As great as he is, he is less likely to be selected as the party nominee than Trump is to lead the crazy folks! And though I applaud the enthusiasm of the B men and women, I would rather that energy be directed toward forcing all of our best resources together into one campaign aimed SPECIFICALLY to continuing what President Obama, as a Black president, started.

Remember, technically, one person has to be President and one VP; and they have various benefits and obligations. But the leadership team can be a team, a marriage. And nothing would stop that gathering from having an awesome team of its own who advice (without consent) on directions.

If The Hill and The Bern do this, we all win and we do it with respect to the important factors that shape great results.

But the important thing to remember is that, like The Hill or not, this thinking and acting outside of the election boxes cannot be done by Hillary alone or by her friends or funders. It needs to be a strategy undertaken by the army of women who see its value. They then become the power that keep the leaders heading in the "feminine" ways.

This logic is so clear that, to be honest, I didn't think it needed to be debated by progressives (Social Democrats or otherwise). Sadly, the #BlackLivesMatter confrontations with patterns of prejudice sent signals that women should be reading for the same reasons. Black lives are impacted more horribly than are white ones across the socio-economic spectrum. Women live through similar blockades of their own, and we as collective allies ought to see this -- see those troubles coming -- and fight them, not the vicious anti-Hill, anti-women tactics that further get in the way.

If it's good enough for there to be a world of momentum to have a woman lead the UN, there should be ten times more momentum to recognize that an American #WomanPresidentMatters. With respect, Senator Bernie, burn up the VP slot as an ally to a gender title wave, don't pretend it isn't there. And Joe: Don't run. Be part of the gender team for a new genderation!

NOTE TO TWITTER FOES: This is not the detailed piece I promised, more of another version of my argument. My full response is in the works in another format, but I'll share.