WP, Eugene Robinson: The Power of 'Madam President'

[DeepModem Mom]

The Power of 'Madam President'
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A21

A friend of mine in New York -- a high-powered professional woman -- told me the other day that she thought the country had moved beyond the point where women should want to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she would be the first woman president. "Just vote for the best person," she said, with what sounds like impeccable logic.

But Clinton, according to all the polls, is winning overwhelming support from female voters. And the reason, I think, is that there's a flaw in my friend's logic: Except in some sort of arcane higher-dimensional geometry comprehensible only to mathematicians, you can't get beyond a point that you've never actually reached.

The fact is that we've never had a female president. And for many women across the country -- especially those of the boomer generation who have seen the role of women in American society change so dramatically -- Clinton's election would be a historic milestone and a source of great pride.

That's certainly not the only reason Clinton leads the national polls for the Democratic nomination. She started with universal name recognition and has proceeded to run a smart, largely mistake-free campaign. She is surrounded by the aura of her husband's eight-year administration, and while that may be a mixed blessing if she gets to the general election, it's a huge asset among the Democratic faithful. But her lead among women over Barack Obama and her other rivals is so huge -- and so much greater than her lead among men -- that it has to have something to do with gender. Which is perfectly understandable.

Obama, of course, would be the first African American president, which would be equally historic. And the predictable notes of caution that must be inserted into any column about Clinton's campaign -- that the polls in Iowa show a close three-way race, that anything can happen in New Hampshire, that Obama can rebound in South Carolina, that Howard Dean was leading in the polls four years ago, that nothing matters until someone, somewhere, actually casts a vote -- are more than cover-your-behind caveats, they're real. There's plenty of time for the whole nature of the Democratic race to change.

But some of the numbers are stunning....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801702.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[pnwmom]

1. "You can't get beyond a point you've never reached." How true.

And we will never know when when it's time -- when the country is "ready" -- to elect its first female or first black or first non-Christian, or first gay President, until it actually, finally happens.

And then we will all say, "Well, of course."

[jmp]

2. Democratic women and some independent women will vote for Hillary ...

Or any other Democrat. Republican women for the most part hate Hillary and wouldn't vote for her if she was running unopposed. This nonsense about women rallying around Hillary is exactly that ... nonsense.

[wyldwolf]

3. Byron York more or less confirmed what Penn said this week about GOP women

... on Bill Bennett's radio show. He denied the number was as high as 24%, but said there was a regretable buzz around Hillary among Republican women.

Further, a caller complained that Sean Hannity was taking calls from his women listeners lambasting the GOP on SCHIP and health care and were taking a look at Hillary Clinton.

As hard as it is for you to swallow, Clinton is popular with a wide range of people - including it seems Republican women.

[jmp]

4. Let Byron York name 1 Republican woman ...

That is looking forward to voting for Hillary. I am a former GOPer ... Dick Cheney would find a more receptive audience at a anti-war rally.

[William769]

5. Bingo!

That post alone is why you can't be taken seriously.

[wyldwolf]

9. I can name two

Donna Chiles and Susan Faircloth.

[jmp]

14. Never heard of either of them.

...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Penn's real polling number was 13%, which seems unremarkable

His 24% figure was bullshit... it included 11% republican women who were undecided, which he spun as "willing to consider Hillary"

I'd settle for 13%

[illinoisprogressive]

6. I am a democratic woman who will never vote for the corrupt Hillary

[William769]

7. We know, you have stated it every chance you get.

You prefer a Republican over Hillary, we got it.

[wyldwolf]

10. Instead you'll vote for the corrupt Obama

[Nedsdag]

11. Obama corrupt?

You have a lot of balls calling Obama corrupt after she had to give back Norman Hsu's money.

Oh, what about Johnny Chung? Marc Rich?

I can go on all day.

[wyldwolf]

13. yes, did I stutter?

[ChiciB1]

12. I'm Also A Democratic Woman AND A Boomer... And You Can Count

ME OUT! As each day goes by and I hear that SHE has it wrapped up, I wonder if I'm living in the country called America. A country that's supposed to be a Democracy! Guess not! So time for me to bow out and think other thoughts, it's DONE and it's OVER and even though I know politics impacts my life in severe ways, I KNOW my voice doesn't count anymore!

Why try?? I suppose I'll only have to hear it for about 4 more months now and then... that's it! I'm just so worn out trying and I'm going to try to keep my head above water while our Government sinks further and further! Besides, my dog will enjoy spending more time at the beach, WHILE IT'S STILL THERE!

[spooky3]

8. why isn't Robinson addressing the opposite side of the issue?

Instead of interpreting her lead among Democratic women's being "so much greater" than her lead among Democratic men as a result of women voting with "pride" for a "milestone", why not consider how this gap may be as much as result of many men's (and a few women's) being unwilling to consider her at all BECAUSE she is a woman?

I am separating out as a completely different group those people, male and female, who don't think she's the best candidate due strictly to her actions or policy proposals or other relevant criteria.

And could it possibly be that many of the working women in the voting pool see a female Dem. as more likely than men to sincerely understand and address gender discrimination on the job, the pay gap, harassment, work-life issues, etc.? In other words, rather than voting on the basis of "pride" and "history" they are sick to death of a half-ass approach to addressing workplace issues because nearly all of the candidates during their lifetimes haven't been on the short end of this stick? That's a highly relevant, practical reason to vote for a candidate.

MediaMatters noted that Robinson was part of a very inappropriate, all male discussion on Tucker Carlson's show the other day. Although he certainly wasn't the worst offender on that show, he also didn't speak up forcefully about some pretty offensive stuff. I like most of his columns, but I don't think he entirely "gets it" on sexism either.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710160010

And by the way, I'm an Edwards supporter from way back, though I'll gladly support any of our candidates who is the nominee in the general.