All right–I’ve got to admit it–I miss her. Yup, I do. The recent debate (tho’ lively) just wasn’t the same without her. But here’s my take on Michele Bachmann‘s demise…
She was the lone woman on stage, often dressed in a white suit, in stark contrast to the long line of somber suits worn by her male competitors, many of whom looked straight out of a “Mad Men” script.
And she was fierce, pounding home her points: “I’m the only true conservative; I’ve been true to my constituents; I’ve never sold out or bartered my (and their) ideals.”
I could have been proud of her as my standard-bearer, if she just weren’t so flaming crazy and out of touch with reality (and it wasn’t the goggle-eyed picture on the cover of Newsweek that told me so.…)
So, why did Michele Bachmann lose…and even more a question: Why did the woman who called Iowa ‘home’ (born there) lose every one of the precincts in that recent state’s caucus? I have to admit: I cringed for her trouncing and actually felt bad for her. She’d waged such a formidable campaign. But she clearly misread (or was seriously misinformed) as to how she was doing in her campaign. No one had a finger on the pulse of the electorate.
But I could tell her how she came across to me…
My Open Letter to Michelle Bachmann: “Why You Didn’t Win:”
(1.) You confuse Christian ethics with an Exclusion Policy and in this age of supposed enlightenment, that doesn’t go over with many of us who subscribe to those tenets. In other words, we don’t feel comfortable with your posturing on a moral high ground, interpreting for others. There are just too many failed spokespersons who occupied those lofty heights before you, the same who came hurtling to earth when exposed as charlatans. We’re not saying you’re one of those; we’d just like to see more avowed Christian types who are non-divisive and accepting of others’ differences (you know…like Jesus.). If they seek to lend their skills at governing, we expect them to stick to the founding fathers’ belief of separation of church and state, while honoring the significant differences among us because we know: Our nation’s strength lies in our diversity.
(2.) You talked up your winning the straw poll of Iowa (the Ames Poll) as if that one success predicted victory on the big day (of the caucus), disallowing us in the electorate the right to arrive at our final decision based on full examination of candidates. News agencies would rightfully vet you and uncover your core beliefs (just as they’re now doing with Rick Santorum). In other words, you ‘counted your chickens before they hatched,’ and farming Iowans never do that…. they know better.
(3.) If it’s ‘not the time for a woman in America (to lead as President)’, it’s certainly not the time for a woman of your caliber to lead. In other words, if Hillary Clinton with all her substance, savvy, and sway could not scale the lofty heights and assume the highest position in the land, it certainly won’t be the time for a lesser player like yourself. You lack mainstream appeal and you’re out of touch with most of us, and we sadly know from experience: No one’s tougher on women than other women, and let’s face it: We’re the majority of the electorate. If we don’t like you, you don’t win.
(4.) And in that vein (and the biggest cause for the thumping you took): You harped eternally on the ‘fact’ you’ve raised 5 of your own and 20+ foster children. We hated that. Many of us struggle at raising even a couple of children in these challenging times, so when you throw down that gauntlet as super-parent, you suggest we’re bumbling incompetents.
Sorry, Michelle, you’re just too coiffed, put- together fashionably, or doing other things (like running a company, representing your district in the House, in Washington, or campaigning for President) to seriously parent. We know you’re not bringing forgotten lunches to school, attending PTA meetings, ferrying kids to sports, sitting in pediatrician offices. We suspect surrogates stepped into that breach when you answered the call to other duty.
We’re not knocking your choice, Michele, but by insisting you parented that brood, you inadvertently trash what we real Moms do every day, and we don’t appreciate that.
In other words, you marginalized and minimized us, and for that, we couldn’t forgive you.
So, Michelle, I applaud your tenacity, your Pit-Bull stance, your standing alone in an arena so heavily dominated by men…I even admire your appearing to juggle all those roles so seamlessly. But frankly, you’ll never sit in the White House as our first female President.
And I, for one, couldn’t be happier.
Now, chime in with your own take on this most recent woman who set her hat on the highest position in the land. Do you agree with my assessment? More to the point–What’s it going to take to get a female in this role? (Sorry, gents, but you guys haven’t been exactly been doing a stellar job in that position.) “It’s well-nigh time for a woman.”
What type of woman will finally wrest this mantle from the men (and join other progressive nations like England, Brazil, Israel, etc…etc…?) Or are American women forever constrained to merely ‘act’ as national leaders( Meryl Streep as England’s Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher)?
Share your thoughts below at Comment section…