311
Michelle Obama says US ‘not ready for a woman’ to be president: ‘Don’t even look at me about running’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
311 points (92.6% liked)
politics
26418 readers
2675 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Look what thinking cautiously has got us. Look what thinking audaciously has got them. What rational rational Republican voter would have thought that Trump was a good potential candidate in 2016? Rational opinion was that Trump was a candidate doomed from the start. Yet the Republicans through caution to the wind and went for the inspiring candidate. And look what it got them.
Every election we choose the path of least resistance. Every election we talk ourselves out of the truly inspiring candidate, all in the name of electability. How many Democrats have voted against the progressive primary candidate, the one who could inspire, the one who could rally....all in the name of electability? Hillary was the candidate in 2016 because she was more electable than Bernie. Biden was the candidate in 2020 because he was more electable than Bernie. Biden was nearly the candidate in 2024 because sticking with the incumbent was simply the rational and cautious move.
Maybe it's time we have faith for once. Maybe it's time we believe in ourselves and our message for a change. Maybe it's time to stop talking ourselves out of running our strongest potential candidates. As a great poet said, you have to believe in impossible things, or else they can never come to be.
The difference being that the right wing is populist and authoritarian by nature. You can't drum up the left with the same methods as the right. Biden was a boring geriatric neo-lib, and he's the one who won.
I don't wanna wish on a star when I'm gambling with fascism. Yes I want progressive policies, I want more than progressive policies. I would have no problems with AOC being the president. But it's not about what I want. It's not about what you want. It's about what the 10s of millions of voters who don't lean far left want.
I don't have that kind of faith in the average American voter, even the average non-Republican voter. I think progressive policies are a winning platform, I just think AOC specifically is too risky of a run right now. Run Tim Walz, or some other 50-65 year old white progressive, with AOC as VP. That'll make it easier for her to demonstrate the efficacy of her platform so she can run afterwards.
I like her, if anything she's a bit moderate for me, but she's DC young. The stodgy moderates might not show up because they're afraid she's inexperienced. If you can find a way to sway millions of voters between now and then, great. I'd love to see it.
But we're not doing ourselves any favors by appealing to our hearts at the expense of our brains. Maybe the next 3 years will alter the political landscape in a way that makes her a safer candidate. I'm both excited at that prospect, and terrified at what would be necessary to do that. But if not, we have to face the landscape as it is.
A chance at the best candidate isn't necessarily worth the risk of the worst candidate. We cannot afford to be reckless right now.