Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton is on the glide path to the Democratic nomination, with few credible challengers stepping forward. And Ross Baker, a political scientist professor at Rutgers University, thinks he knows why.

Clinton and the political "colossus" that is Nancy Pelosi are scaring away all the good male rivals, Nurse Ratched-style. They are "towering and intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate."

He writes more in USA Today:

While the Democratic bench isn't as full as it has been, there is still no shortage of qualified male candidates who will probably not step forward in 2016. In the Senate there are potential hopefuls who could win the hearts of the very people who consider Clinton too middle-of-the-road: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. There are well-regarded governors such as Jack Markell of Delaware and Andrew Cuomo of New York or former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. None of them has given the slightest hint that they might consider a run.

First off, if I was to make a list of who would mount a run for the White House if Clinton didn't, I'm not sure many of these people would make it (s0rry, Sen. Merkley). Which leads to this: If these candidates were so formidable, wouldn't they just run against Clinton? If they thought they could amass the millions and millions of dollars it would take to mount a run for the White House -- against Clinton or anyone else -- wouldn't they do it?She's a clear favorite, yes, but an open primary doesn't come around every four years.

To Baker, it is Clinton's gender that is a big, big stop sign. Hedoesn't seem to see a failure on the part of any of these potential male candidates to do the years and years of work it requires to become a contender. Nope, all of them are just afraid to run against Clinton because she is a woman -- not because she has a much higher profile, much better presidential resume and political network.

He calls this failure or fear of going "toe-to-toe with a powerful woman is, in the final analysis, a form of patronizing that ill-becomes a party that has stood so steadfastly for women."

But haven't male Democrats run against women before, you might ask? Yes, they most certainly have. Like in 2008, for instance. That contest was rough and tumble early on, with none of the candidates shaking in their boots at the thought of challenging Clinton, who after all was a powerful woman back then, too.

(Baker argues that Obama's race gave him a special angle. He was also a much better candidate and reshaped the electorate as a result, but never mind that).

So what to make of Baker's argument, one that doesn't account for the fact that men dominate every single level of politics and nearly every other powerful industry you can think of? I have never thought of Clinton scaring away all the good men because of her gender.

More:
The Fix: Are men afraid to run against Hillary Clinton BECAUSE shes a woman?