The governor of Michigan says the United States is “ready for a woman president,” directly contradicting Michelle Obama’s recent remark that “we ain’t ready,” and the debate exposes more about candidate quality than gender alone. This piece examines Michigan politics, Gretchen Whitmer’s standing, the legacy of Kamala Harris as a 2024 nominee, and why the question of a woman president hinges on who runs rather than the idea itself. It calls out poor leadership without attacking the idea of female leadership and argues that readiness depends on talent and choices, not just identity. The article also points to the political theater on both sides and includes the original video embed for context:
Michigan can be stunning in winter, and I say that as someone who’s spent a lifetime here. Yet pride in the state doesn’t blind me to the poor picks Michigan voters have sometimes made. Electing leaders who underperform hurts everyday people and sours the idea that gender alone transfers competence.
Two recent female governors, Jennifer Granholm and Gretchen Whitmer, did not convince me they were the strongest hands for the jobs they held. Intentions are one thing, outcomes another, and results should drive how we judge elected officials. Whitmer, to her credit, has been effective on the campaign trail, winning comfortably in both 2018 and 2022, but pragmatic governance deserves the same attention as political skill.
When a sitting governor with good name recognition talks about national leadership, listening is sensible. Whitmer’s comment that she believes the country is “ready for a woman president” is a hopeful line, but it sidesteps the central issue: who are the candidates? Support for female leadership should not mean overlooking glaring flaws in those who run.
“As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,” the former first lady said.
Michelle Obama’s blunt remark grabbed headlines for exactly that reason. It isn’t an attack on the idea of women leading the country; it’s a reality check about the candidate Democrats put forward in 2024. Plenty of voters care about experience, temperament, and competence before they’ll vote based on gender alone.
“the last thing I want to do is disagree with her.”
Whitmer expressed admiration for Michelle Obama while disagreeing with her assessment, which is fine in principle. Saying you love someone and then offering a counterpoint is not hypocrisy; it’s political nuance. But nuance must be matched to practical questions: did the 2024 nominee demonstrate presidential readiness, or did her performance underline the former first lady’s point?
Kamala Harris’s time on the national ticket and as a presidential candidate revealed weaknesses that matter when the stakes are high. She was not the best candidate for that role in 2024, and many conservatives — and fair-minded independents — saw the campaign’s missteps as proof that identity politics can backfire. The lesson is simple: pick the best person, not just the person who checks a box.
The GOP shouldn’t pretend it has no responsibility here either. If Republicans want to win on the question of a woman president, they should make it easy for voters by offering capable conservative women for leadership, rather than treating the issue as a cudgel. Show competence, character, and coherent policy, and the argument becomes moot.
There’s also a media angle worth noting: coverage after the 2024 election often amplified narratives rather than examined root causes. When commentators and pundits focus on identity instead of ideas and performance, voters get a distorted picture of what really happened. Real accountability means asking hard questions about choices, messaging, and candidate preparation.
Imagining a future where America elects its first female president is not radical; it’s inevitable at some point. The conservative view should be that when that moment comes, it must happen because a candidate earned it through achievement, competence, and national appeal. That’s how you turn a milestone into lasting success rather than a headline that fades with the next term.
In the meantime, the debate between Whitmer and Michelle Obama is useful because it pushes both parties to think harder about how they recruit and vet candidates. Gender alone won’t win elections or govern well; the people and the parties who understand that will be the ones shaping America’s future.
That Evil Whitmer Witch can go to hell!