General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The debate over whether Hillary should be our candidate is over... [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)when she took that appointment to that board and started the process of changing the culture there. She was the wife of a governor. That was many, many years ago.
I mean, really. Did you even read the NYT article? Her influence WAS limited, but the prospects for women, while still "paltry" improved substantially in the wake of her tenure. Her very PRESENCE was the first step of a long road.
How many Black senators flooded the halls of Congress after Ed Brooke broke the post-reconstruction ice? That would be "none" pretty much. So, what does that mean? Did Ed fall down on the job for failing to change the culture? Did he "not do enough?" Even women remain under-represented in Hill politics--until the Senate approaches fifty-fifty on that demographic, we have a ways to go. Why not "blame" those women for not "fixing" the problem in a male dominated organization? Because that IS what you're doing when you fling insinuations about HRC.
The point is, someone has to go first, and going first changes the culture. That was her contribution during her brief tenure there, and for people to even try to play a bullshit 'gotcha' game is pretty pathetic, IMO. No "there" there in that kind of argument at all.