Is America ready for a straight white male and Christian president? It’s shockingly transgressive. Unrepentantly edgy.
But after running whatever the hell Kamala was, Barack Obama, and Obama’s crazy senile grandpa who kept insisting that he was really Irish and his uncle had been eaten by cannibals in WWII, they’re considering something different.
Some top Democrats are quietly debating a fraught question: whether the party’s best bet for winning back the presidency in 2028 is to nominate a man — perhaps a straight, white, Christian man.
A representative of the majority of the country in line with the history of nearly every single past president? Never!
The only possible reason for doing something so dismayingly different is that the country is racist.
Their fear, divulged with dismay in group chats, at cocktail parties and increasingly in public, is that parts of the electorate are too biased to support a woman or other diverse candidate for president.
The dataset for this is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. Kamala struggled with every part of the electorate who must have all been racists, sexists and ‘phobes. So did Hillary Clinton. Or maybe they really hated the candidate rather than her identity groups.
It’s the Dems themselves who don’t want to renominate Kamala, don’t want to encourage AOC, and know perfectly well that their likely minority candidates are non-existent or terrible. But rather than admit that, they want to call most of the country racist.
Democratic strategists have put it bluntly, with several saying a version of “It has to be a white guy.”
Just any random white guy. Right? He can be an absolute terrible candidate but a completely racist electorate will vote for him because he has white privilege.
The Dems could nominate Tim Walz, that disgraced Subway guy or Michael Jackson’s mummy and still cakewalk to victory? That’s how critical race theory says it works.
“There is a fear — and I actually don’t think this is just a grass-tops fear, I think you’d hear it from voters, too — that a woman has now lost twice,” a national Democratic strategist told Axios.
A ‘woman’. Not Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris. Who both had obvious reasons for losing. But a ‘woman’. Like the electorate just picked between two bathroom signs. This is what happens when your party is stuck on identity politics stupid.
“So not discounting the hundreds of other times men have lost … but is it the right thing to nominate a woman?”
Which woman? (Do women even exist?) Does her individual identity even matter or would it play out the same way if the Dems ran any woman?
“Besides Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are white Christians, though Newsom has called himself an ‘Irish-Catholic rebel.’”
I’m not sure I understand the ‘though’ part of it. Also Newsom is Irish-Catholic as he is a poor boy who can’t read.
“I love Michelle Obama,” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer told NPR, but “I think America is ready for a woman president.”
Yes, but is it ready for that president to be the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz?
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism. Daniel became CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2025.
Reader Interactions
In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,” please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not re-post the same comment.
