And, apparently, the only reason her candidacy is still going is sexism. A bit of CDS (Carly Derangement Syndrome) from Ruth
The sexism that propels Carly Fiorina’s candidacy
How depressing is it that, out of the more than a dozen announced or prospective Republican candidates for president in 2016, only one, Carly Fiorina, is a woman. Even more depressing: that Fiorina, as long-shot as her candidacy is, would not be taken even semi-seriously were it not for her gender.
That is a tough and controversial thing to say, but it requires saying. I would love to see a female president, of either party, and I expect I will — if not in 2016, then in an election to come. But the female president I would love to see is one who is fully qualified to be president — qualified by dint of experience, not of chromosomes. Carly Fiorina is not that woman.
That assessment has everything to do with biography and nothing to do with ideology. (If South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte chose to run for president, you might find me disagreeing with their positions but not questioning their qualifications.) In my view, Fiorina’s background simply does not prepare her to be president.
No, Marcus would come up with any excuse to slam and slur any Republican woman. Hey, remember when Ruth slammed Obama for having done nothing other than getting elected to State office then to the US Senate? Me neither.
For the record, I would say precisely the same about retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Politics isn’t brain surgery, but being a brain surgeon doesn’t prepare you for high-level politics, and Carson isn’t prepared. I’m writing about Fiorina because, frankly, as a woman, her candidacy offends me.
Ruth then goes on to note that Hillary has pretty much done nothing but be a coattail for Bill (“Yes, Clinton’s path to power came through her husband”), before moving to
But back to Fiorina: She has a checkered, to put it charitably (failed, to put it more bluntly), business career and no political career whatsoever, having lost her previous run for elective office. It is the height of chutzpah to imagine that she is remotely qualified to be president. Or, since it’s the more likely endgame, for vice president either.
Let’s see: started out as an AT&T sales rep, moved up to being named the most powerful woman in American business by Fortune magazine. Eh, there’s no point in pointing out all of Carly’s business experience, mostly successful, sometimes not (just like life. Weird, eh?) Experience of which Barack had zero, and Hillary hasn’t had since her Whitewater days. Unless you count the graft involved at the Clinton Foundation.
Notice, though, the other big complaint: Carly hasn’t been elected previously. This goes straight to the heart of the notion of a political aristocracy, something the Founders were very concerned with. There’s no requirement for previous political experience in the Constitution. In fact, the original idea of the Founders was of citizen politicians, who would serve a short time then return back to private life, rather than people who make being an elected official their career. Ruth continues in this vein, then drops in a jaw dropper
I would have serious qualms about any candidate who seeks the presidency without government experience, no matter how much value he or she produced for shareholders. Business demands different skills than politics; the presidency isn’t the place for on-the-job training.
Um, what? Refer back to Captain Sisko above.
It’s not sexist to criticize Fiorina for being unqualified. What would be sexist is to hold her to a lower standard than a man with similarly paltry credentials.
It was considered racist to point out that Obama had no actual experience, other than winning a few elections and making a few speeches, that made him qualified to be president. Ruth can write this, but, if Fiorina was running as a Democrat, you can bet the farm Hollywood McMansion that her tune would be 100% different.
Read: Ruth Marcus: Carly Fiorina’s Candidacy Offends Me »
