Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt Doesn't Matter Whether a President Has Kids
https://www.thecut.com/article/kamala-harris-childless-attacks.htmlLess than a week after Kamala Harris kicked off her run for president, two embarrassingly sexist lines of attack have emerged as the leading arguments against her from the right. The first is that shes essentially a whore who slept her way into politics because she dated a former mayor of San Francisco, who was separated from his wife at the time, over 20 years ago. That ones too stupid to engage with further. The second is that shes unqualified for the highest office in the land because she has no biological children and therefore no personal stake in this countrys future.
This latter attack, predictable as it was from a party whose VP nominee has called women without children miserable cat ladies, has understandably inspired a variety of frustrated reactions and angry clapbacks from the left. Many have noted, correctly, that the vice-president has two stepchildren who lovingly nicknamed her Momala and that its insulting to insinuate stepchildren are somehow lesser than biological children. Second Gentleman Doug Emhoffs ex-wife even came forward to defend Harris as a loving stepmother. Some have pointed out the irony of suddenly requiring that a presidential candidate be a biological mom when no president in U.S. history has actually given birth; others have poured out their own stories of struggling to have children to make the point that we shouldnt judge anyone for being childless.
Valid as all these rebuttals may be, theyre missing the point. Id like to look at the actual argument Republicans are putting forth here: that a candidate who has biological children necessarily makes a better leader because they have more of a stake in the future of the country and the welfare of future generations. It would make a compelling case, if true. But a comparison of Harriss and Trumps platforms and records makes clear that the candidate with biological children is the one who threatens young people and the future of the nation exponentially more than the stepmom.
Take the climate crisis. Its real, its here, and its making the planet more difficult for humans to inhabit. But Trump pulled us out of the Paris Agreement in 2020, making us the only nation out of the 200 who signed the landmark deal in 2017 to renege on the climate-change commitment. The ultraconservative Supreme Court, a third of whom Trump appointed, also just overturned the 40-year-old Chevron deference doctrine, making it exponentially harder for government agencies to protect the public from environmental threats like toxic waste pouring into rivers. Harris, meanwhile, has been a leader on environmental justice her entire career, prosecuting polluters as California attorney general and later sponsoring the Green New Deal. The urgency of this moment is clear, she said at the global climate summit in Dubai last year. The clock is no longer just ticking, it is banging. And we must make up for lost time.
*snip*
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 255 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
It Doesn't Matter Whether a President Has Kids (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Jul 26
OP
Bernardo de La Paz
(50,249 posts)1. Kamala Harris is like George Washington
The very first President was unable to conceive children. He tried but his wife had four (became three) children by her previous husband.
So George Washington had the same arrangement as Kamala Harris. Step-parent.
Peregrine Took
(7,489 posts)2. Bill Clinton brought up this childless thing against Jerry Brown when they were both running for presdient.
He went way down in my opinion after that - what a cheap shot.
getagrip_already
(16,783 posts)3. Plus she has children, step children are still children
Sure, they werent infants, but one was still a minor and both considered her a parent.
It is still a lot of responsibility.
So are foster children, or dependents of other family members you are caring for.