Did women win in 2008?
EmailI like the idea that Secretary of State is now almost by default preceded by the title Madame. I would like it even more of course if her boss had that title too. Now that HILLARY CLINTON’Sname is so firmly out there in public as a candidate for America’s top diplomat it would be pretty tricky for team Obama to turn round and say no to all the women who have got so revved up about the prospect. But whether or not Clinton, and I mean Bill not Hillary, survives the vetting process, the mere floating of the Senator’s name has revived that favorite election argument – was this a good year for women or not?
Did the fact that a woman ran for the Democratic nomination outweigh the fact that she lost? Did the prospect of the Republicans putting a woman into the Vice Presidency trump the ticket’s failure?
According to the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR this was not a good year for women hoping to ride either Clinton or Palin’s skirt tails into public office. Women made a pathetic gain of just one seat in the Senate, bringing the total to 17 out of a 100 and only gained three extra seats in Congress, moving up from 71 to 74 out of 435 seats. Not a lot of pink power on that august Hill.
These dismal numbers notwithstanding, for me it was a more a year of extraordinary female potential, than dashed feminine hopes. Think of it this way. The next time a woman runs for the White House we won’t fall off our chairs in horror, wondering whether she has the chops to command in chief. We won’t wonder whether turquoise pant suits are too pretty to be powerful. We’ll have been there before. In the end, neither made it, but both Clinton and Palin definitely helped change perceptions. For that, thank you.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
No woman should be chosed because of the gender. A woman should always be chosen because she has proven to be capable of the job!
Posted by: FM | November 17, 2008, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
Women have been treated abysmally in politics this year.
Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were subjected to appalling “news” stories from “joutnalists” and an astounding amount of venom on the internet.
Now that Clinton is supposedly being considered for the position of Secretary of State you think that means women have won? Wrong. Women were stamped on, stood on, trashed and lied about, often by other women. Imagine if 96% of American women had voted for Hillary Clinton, jsut as 96% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama.
Women have to be more than “capable at her job”. It seems that women have to be Superwoman to be considered as equal to a man, any man. Clinton is much, much more capable than Obama and that may, just may, get her an offer to serve him as Secretary of State. Personally, I find that insulting, not flattering.
Posted by: Keith | November 17, 2008, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
Women lost BIGTIME. First, Hillary, then Sarah Palin. The press demonstrated that sexism is fashionable, and supported Obama as he attacked both women (directly or through surrogates) on anything but subtantive issues. Now, Obama wants to get Hillary out of the way: The plan is that she’ll become Sec. of State, then be asked to resign for some reason, so she’ll be out of politics. Make no mistake: Obama has always disposed of those who acted against him.
Then there’s Michelle, who needs to coverup lest we keep thinking she’s trying to send some sort of message with her sleeveless in the winter, spandex-bottom clothes. She’s trying to attract fashion critique instead of command respect. Truely bizarre. Michelle is definitely of the post-feminist crowd.
Posted by: tina | November 17, 2008, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
tina,
I agree that the Sec. of State position could be a way to take Hillary out of national politics altogether. I’ve read that some of her close advisors think that too. I wouldn’t trust Obama at all.
Posted by: Keith | November 17, 2008, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
“…Imagine if 96% of American women had voted for Hillary Clinton, jsut as 96% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama. Women have to be more than “capable at her job…”
The same can be said for African Americans. The Black man we elected had to be SEEN as almost perfect to get to the highest office. That’s not to say that he IS, or even that he himself claimed to be,though, but he was held to some pretty high standards.
And as for 96% of women voting for Hillary–that wasn’t going to happen for the same reason 96% of women didn’t vote for Palin…issues.We didn’t fall in line and just vote “female”.
Barack Obama’s candidacy gave minorites a reason to believe,and need for change.
Unless you live your life in a black man’s shoes, you can’t understand the feeling of hope that he brings. The majority of Blacks are democratic anyway, so you can’t say that Blacks voted by race alone.
Posted by: JDL | November 17, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
It will always be that old standard, a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It seems to me that people are not really ready to place a woman in such a position as president even if her credentials are excellent. Maybe there will come a day when things will change when God is ready to do it. Self discipline is the key. It will open doors and make everything possible.
Terri Pattio
The secret to success is right here in a FREE ebook I read. Check it out.
http://mlmsuccesssecrets.successin10steps.com
Posted by: Terri Pattio | November 18, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
I was right with this (mostly) until the last sentence. Clinton pretty much undid all the damage that Ferraro’s damage did all those years ago. And thank goodness for Hillary, because if it had been Palin and Palin alone that took the stage this election season, she would have set women in politics back another 25 or so years.
The only thing Sarah Palin proved is that if you pander to hate, then hate can become gender blind to its fury if aroused.
Posted by: The Daft Dem | November 22, 2008, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm