Ellington

What a delicious post over on DailyKos by Georgia10 about Ann Kornblut's new book, "The Ascent of a Woman."

I think Kornblut does a good job of running through the possible explanations and pointing out their shortcomings. The excuse that the right woman hasn't come along, as she points out, "would seem to explain everything and nothing."

Rather, some think that the cause is a "pipeline" problem; there are not enough women in political positions to work their way to the highest executive office in the land:

"There are very few women in the pool when you think about it," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "The pool that candidates tend to come from in this country are U.S. senators and governors, and until recently we've had very few women in those positions. That's something that's really held us back. It's the whole pipeline that's been problematic, and frankly, our pipeline hasn't been doing that well lately."

There are just 14 female senators. At the state level, there are only 8 female governors. A pipeline problem, indeed.

[...] Personally, I think the pipeline problem provides a partial explanation. Not just at the governor and congressional level, but with respect to politics as a whole.

The political arena is dangerous and cutthroat. It requires an offensive, aggressive posture, which, when assumed by males, comes off as a strong resolve of character. But when women adopt a similar posture, when they participate in politics with the same vigor as males do, I have too often seen the reaction to be one of disdain. The bottom line is that an aggressive male politician is viewed as a leader, while an aggressive female politician is viewed a bitch. I've been called the same for holding strong political views, as if the uterus inside me somehow requires silence or at the very least muted acquiescence to the world around me.

Watching CSPAN and seeing the Senate in session is sometimes like peeping into a treehouse, with a "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" sign on the door. Do you ignore the sign and bust in, or stay on the sidelines?

The internet I think will revolutionize the role of women in politics. Because online, behind asexual monikers, women of all faiths and colors and experiences can pull up a chair to the national table and participate--indeed, even lead--the political discussion without having to deal with preconceived notions of what a female in politics must do, or say (or look like!). And if and when we do decide to remove the anonymous veil or reveal the fact that we are indeed, women, and damn proud of it, there is a sense of accomplishment.

You see, because here, in the online world where you are judged by the content of your writing rather than by your gender, there are no boundaries. Revealed as females or not, we participate with passion and resolve, and no barrier--least of all that of gender--will prevent us from effectuating change. And who knows. Right now, there may be a feisty female netroots participant reading this on her monitor who just might become the first female President of the United States. Yes, I'm talking about you...

Previous Comments

ID

106347

Comment

The good news is that the change is in our hands. Right here in Mississippi, we ladies (and interested gentlemen) must do more to get young women interested and connected into the political process. Let's discuss ideas on how to make this happen.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-10T13:14:48-06:00

ID

106348

Comment

I'm taking the baby step of being more INFORMED of what's going on politically that affects me as a woman. Like the HPV vaccine.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-12T12:45:14-06:00

ID

106349

Comment

I'm all for a woman becoming president. I'm supporting Hillary Clinton which I know will piss lots of people off, including many women. After all she's smart and determined. She's poised and temperate or self-controlled. She didn't try to kill Bill nor destroy the family when he accidently cheated a time or two on her. Instead she privately scolded him, and bought him some britches with a zipper strong enough to keep that thang contained. Good decision I think. Moreover, she's not the Elizabeth Dole or Nancy Reagan type that I can't stand. She's not the so-called perfect type that often turns out to be quite imperfect. She's a normal, smart, and pwerful woman that would put America back where it belongs - respectability.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-12T12:58:09-06:00

ID

106350

Comment

Anyone else in Mississippi voting for Hillary Clinton? What do you women find wrong with her? I liked her idea on universal health coverage. After that proposal I learned most of our physicians, many of which are friends of mines, are a bunch of no good, selfish and out for themselves peoples. Don't mess with Bill!

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-19T14:25:17-06:00

ID

106351

Comment

Ray, I will STRONGLY disagree with you on that health care plan. I still have my copy of it. Some of you anti-corporate types would love to know it exempted major corporations. If one had either 500 or 5000 employees, I can't remember which, it was exempted from the plan. It would criminalize paying a doctor for extra services. thats right. You want something not covered or paid by the plan and want to write a check to opay a doc to do it, forget it, you could go to jail. Was explicit about that. Gave the labor department the power to unilaterally on its own w/out congressional approval to impose tax increases on all employees in an area if it was determined that the contributions in that area were not enough to meet the plan's requirements. We fought a revolution to get rid of taxation without representation and her plan would have undone that. I'm not making this stuff up. Its all in there in black and white. I read it for myself. It was filled with things like that. I don't care what she or the media said, the actual plan was pretty ugly. If you get worked up over Mary Hawkins telling you what to do, this would send you into orbit.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-19T14:54:41-06:00

ID

106352

Comment

I could support Hillary, but it doesn't mean she's automatically getting my vote. I want to see where she would stand on the issues compared to other candidates. I would, however, support her over any Republican. The only thing I'm worried about is how much the Republicans will rake her over the coals on everything, like they did Bill. In fact, I think she'll be villified even more. If she runs (and wins), I want her to be a strong Democrat and not someone who'll fall to her knees whenever they attack her.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-06-19T14:55:05-06:00

ID

106353

Comment

Donna, I think it is a pipeline problem. You have to pay your dues, you jus tdon't walk into a senator's or cabinet official's job. having kids etc does slow one down if going down that path for awhile. I don't think Hillary is the answer to democrats. She and Bill thought nothing of sacrificing the Democratic Party for their own interests. In fact, the Democratic Party was worse off under them. Except for abortion and guns, there was almost no issue they would not flip flop on. They were all about power, not principles. I think Hillary has stronger principles than Bill, but they still are extremely Machiavellian to the detriment of everyone else. Right wingers don't just say that, people like Nader and Hitchens have said that as well.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-19T15:01:23-06:00

ID

106354

Comment

This is slightly off-topic, but it's worth mentioning that the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church yesterday. She will become the first woman to serve as a national primate in the Anglican Communion. I think the "pipeline" problem is exactly right; people talk about why we haven't had black governor or black senator, but we haven't even elected a black candidate to statewide office since Reconstruction. We had a chance in the 2003 state treasurer's race, but Gary Anderson was so badly promoted that 68% of Mississippians had no idea who he was. (It always confuses me when people say that he lost due to his race. How could he have lost due to race when hardly anybody even knew what his race is?) I would vote for Rodham Clinton if she got the nomination, but to be honest I'm kind of tired of the Clintons. They pander too much. Their platform seems to be "watch the polls." While this is generally preferable to Bush's platform, it's not particularly inspiring and I'm not even sure it would be enough to win a presidential election. Plus the fact that she's the wife of an ex-president kind of mitigates the effects of having a woman elected to the post to begin with. Anyone remember Lurleen Wallace? On the other hand, if Sen. Clinton runs and loses, it will be seen by many as a sign that America isn't ready for a woman as president. So my feeling is that while I would love to see a woman become president, Hillary Rodham Clinton would not be my first choice. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-19T15:03:33-06:00

ID

106355

Comment

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, ? 200,000,000 + Americans

Author

JAC

Date

2006-06-19T15:06:13-06:00

ID

106356

Comment

I am so ready for anyone other than another Bush or Clinton in 2008. I don't like dynasties, and some Republicans are suggesting that Jeb Bush should run in 2012 or 2016 depending on who wins in 2008. I don't know much about Hillary's politics, but I hate to hear her speak. She has an awful public speaking style that only makes me wish her husband could run again. Now he can give a speech!

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-06-19T15:15:55-06:00

ID

106357

Comment

That's a good point. If HRC does turn out to be successful, I can easily see historians looking back on the 1988-2016 period as the "Bush-Clinton Dynasty." Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-19T15:16:00-06:00

ID

106358

Comment

You know, it's not at all hard to imagine a scenario that goes like this: 1989-1993: George H.W. Bush 1993-2001: Bill Clinton 2001-2009: George W. Bush 2009-2017: Hillary Rodham Clinton 2017-2025: Jeb Bush 2025-2033: Chelsea Clinton 2033-2041: Jenna Bush (etc.) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-19T15:19:07-06:00

ID

106359

Comment

I don't like dynasties, either. I'm ready for a non-Clinton or a non-Bush.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-19T15:29:18-06:00

ID

106360

Comment

Thanks everyone. I thought we needed a good invester of our monies, too. Maybe Kerry or Biden infused with Byrd's or McKinney's meanness or distaste for republicans, and the nerves to say it is what we need in the next democrat for president. What woman would y'all suggest? Who's in a better position than Hillary? I'm beginning to believe Hillary is largely villified because of her connection with Bill and no other reason. So what if the health plan had kinks, they could have been worked out. Indeed Bill was about winning. His motto was criticize me for being in the wrong place today and I won't be caught there tomorrow by you. What's wrong with learning and changing? I will change all of your minds within the next year or two. Try to be openminded, alright. She'd make an excellent president. Why do we set such high standards for a person who will automatically take on a job that could require you to do things exhibiting very low standards? I'm mindful that no real good reasons were set forth for not supporting her. I will force out of all of those stealth reasons that you're still withholding. We won't be denied. Smile.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-19T16:00:51-06:00

ID

106361

Comment

Isn't Hillary a very smart and capable woman? What do you think Emily, Kate and Ali? Jump in, I need your opinions.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-19T16:10:32-06:00

ID

106362

Comment

You too Pikersam. Jump in. the beginning of conversion is to know where y'all actually stand. I believe I know where Donna stands, and the most glaring reasons. Smile.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-19T16:13:26-06:00

ID

106363

Comment

What woman would y'all suggest? OPRAH!!

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-06-19T16:32:10-06:00

ID

106364

Comment

Condoleezza Rice's name gets thrown around a lot.

Author

James Hester

Date

2006-06-19T16:37:45-06:00

ID

106365

Comment

I don't want a president with an oil tanker named after him/her. Just sayin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-19T16:43:06-06:00

ID

106366

Comment

Both are outstanding black women. I could vote for either. However, Oprah wouldn't run. I question how well Condoleeza would do without protection from the press and public. Hillary is the one. Where are these other smart and opinionated women whose post I often read? Where are they hiding. Ladies, let out the Hillary hate, you'll feel better, and I'll know what to say. All this guessing is unnerving and wasteful. I'll wait until tomorrow before singing the song, "I Am So Wonderful, and Who Is Afraid Of A Female President?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-19T16:54:40-06:00

ID

106367

Comment

Oh God, it's so hard. It's going to be such a task for a woman to begin with. You know I'd vote for Oprah in a second, but everyone else mentioned just has too much baggage. My vote is far from the winning vote ;) I want the woman to WIN! And right now I'm for Kinky as Prez with Jill Conner Browne as VP.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-19T17:07:49-06:00

ID

106368

Comment

you are right Ray, we need a presidential candidate that slaps cops.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-19T17:07:50-06:00

ID

106369

Comment

I have nothing against Hillary, I just don't think she's the one. I admire her strength as a strong woman and I have nothing but respect for her, but she's got too many skeletons in the closet to be the first woman out there. But that's just me. I'm not for our first shot being a woman who will be scandalized from word go. I know the scandel is inevitable for all, especially a woman, but she's just to polarized to make it.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-19T17:09:50-06:00

ID

106370

Comment

My take on this is straight, short, and simple: If she promotes a lot of policies I like and at the same time keep the negative aspects of her policy to a tolerable minimum - then I'd vote for her. Otherwise, I'll cast my vote for another Presidential candidate.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-06-19T18:16:40-06:00

ID

106371

Comment

Ray writes: Isn't Hillary a very smart and capable woman? Of course, but so is Kay Bailey Hutchinson and I sure wouldn't vote for her. Presidential votes can't really be a matter of "why not," primarily because "why not" makes a very bad campaign slogan. ("Clinton '08: Why Not?") We need someone who will energize the base, and who is a sufficiently compelling candidate as to draw in moderates. Hillary Clinton is not, IMHO, that person. I don't think she can win the nomination or the presidency, and I would not support her nomination, but if she does win the nomination, she'll get my vote. I just had a fun telephone conversation with an activist friend who is very excited about Joe Biden. I think Russ Feingold has a lot of potential. But I'm hard pressed to name women who can win. Oh, I can think of several I'd like to see run who I believe could take the White House--Maria Cantwell tops the list--but none of them seem to be interested. JimNWR writes: Condoleezza Rice's name gets thrown around a lot. I am afraid to say that Rice probably has a better chance of becoming the first woman president, and the first black president, than anyone else of either party. Secretary of state is already a very high position on the executive branch. She has gravitas. She's a compelling speaker. She would be, I think, the first Ph.D.-holding president in U.S. history. I don't like what I've seen of her platform, or her work as secretary of state, but if Iraq stabilizes by 2008 or 2012 she could very well run and win. As someone who would like to see a Democratic executive branch for a while--or at least an executive branch that is not unitary and war-focused--I would not be happy with that outcome, but one of the very few points of agreement I have with Dick Morris is that I believe the presidency is pretty much hers if she wants it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-19T18:46:16-06:00

ID

106372

Comment

I'm not sure who the right woman is to run for president. I don't think America is quiet ready. 2012 will be the year. I think it also depends on what direction the USA is headed at the time. Just supposing.... Condi will have the best resume once Bush II is done. If we are still having tensions with Russia, and Iran/N. Korea (who are doing and saying very scary things - regardless of Iraq) then again Condi is better suited. However, as much as I don't think she stands a chance, she is too polarizing, Hillary as President would probably result in some global ass kicking just to show the world the "She is boss!" Also, you have to take party into account. If it is Hillary against Condi then I don't see the Red/Blue states changing from 2004. If it is Hillary against McCain, Hillary wins. Hillary/Allen - Allen. Hillary/Gingrich - Hillary. A lot will more will come to light after the Fall elections. Hillary and Condi may not even get their own party nominations? But, I find it hard to believe the Red States and Blue States will change enough to keep a Republican from winning

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-06-19T19:00:36-06:00

ID

106373

Comment

If Hillary were to actually get elected, we could look forward to at least 4 more years (providing that she doesn't get assassinated) of nit-picking everything she says and does. I really don't understand the hatred so many people have for Hilary, but sure can't deny its existence. I will most certainly vote *against* her in the primary, but if she gets through that, I would love to have her as President, though I’m pretty sure that there would be nothing accomplished under her administration- she would be put on the defensive even more than Bill… My first choice would be Oprah…

Author

Rico

Date

2006-06-19T19:07:37-06:00

ID

106374

Comment

The Right will demonize any Democrat president especially in a post-9/11 world, but Hillary is such an overused and easy target that I personally hope the Dems go with someone else, though few names come to mind. She comes with a lot of baggage and I don't think she has the political skills of Bill, though certainly he will be a close advisor. I think she is a smart and ambitious lady, but other than her positions on health care and Iraq I really haven't studied her positions enough to say whether I would support her or not.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-06-19T19:16:50-06:00

ID

106375

Comment

I'm worried about Rodham Clinton because the whole appeal of her candidacy seems to be that we'll get Bill Clinton's policies without getting Bill Clinton, which is not necessarily a compelling idea. She has done little to market herself as an individual with her own convictions, and if she continues this path, she will not win the nomination. I can think of several other candidates I'd rather see get the nomination. Joe Biden. Russ Feingold. Bill Richardson. Chris Dodd. Wesley Clark. Are they all men? Yes, and that sucks. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-19T19:48:09-06:00

ID

106376

Comment

TH, if the Democrats had had the backbone they should've nominated Zell Miller. After you get through gagging, he is a much more serious politician than Bush. has a service record that Bush could not impugne, would attract enough middle of the road voters away from Bush, and is a much more experienced and accomplished politician than Bush. yeah, he's a little conservative for some sections of the democratic party but he would've been electable (remember, alot of conservatives don't like Bush) and probably would've beaten him. A hard left candidate like Dean has no chance of winning. that is why Hillary and Bill moderate their ideas and words and why Kerry flips all over the place. Zell would've beaten Bush and I honestly do not think it would've been close, especially after debates.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-19T21:55:31-06:00

ID

106377

Comment

Zell Miller is a Republican in Democrat clothing.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-06-19T23:18:00-06:00

ID

106378

Comment

GEB, I would disagree. Disagreeing on taxes and military does not mean he is a Republican. I still say he would've probably had the best chance of beating Bush. I think bush compared to him in a debate would've looked like Quayle did compared to Benson. I think Miller is closer to the Connally/Bentson mode, moderate Democrats who vote conservative on some issues, liberal on others. Bush would've lost.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-20T00:08:08-06:00

ID

106379

Comment

I have two concerns about Miller: (a) He's cranky, or at least I see him as such. I think voters would pick up on that, too. (b) He takes the wrong side on "culture war" issues. If we're going to talk moderate Democrats who could have cleaned Bush's clock, I'd have backed Joe Lieberman. I disagreed with him on the war, but he really did nothing worse than John Kerry did--the only difference was that he didn't try to distance himself from his decision. And for all his right-wing reputation, and his (remarkably sincere, I think, for a politician) moral convictions, he was and is a social progressive. And with the VP nomination in 2000, he was the logical frontrunner in 2004. But I think the lesson Democrats should take away from the success of Bush is not to run Democrats who are more like Bush in terms of their platform, but rather who are more like Bush in terms of their consistency--passionate candidates who stand for something and don't get blown around with every new poll. So yeah, Lieberman would work in that role, too, but I don't think Miller would. Kerry wasn't so hot, either. And Dean has shown himself to lack moral conviction. I think Russ Feingold is probably the best hope for 2008. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-20T02:20:19-06:00

ID

106380

Comment

Very good comments, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary has some work that's still left undone. I can't stand Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I hated her when I was in Texas. She thinks and acts too much like the men in her party for my taste. Oprah, Jill and some of the others mentioned aren't viable at all or certainly aren't any more viable than Hillary. I certainly hope Hillary runs so we can see how blind and crazy republican loyaltists, women in general, the democratic party, southerners, and the rest will treat her. I'm still convinced that the hatred of and reluctance to support Hillary are based in ancillary and extraneous matter beyond her ability, capability and character for the job. I aver we should willingly see what she has to offer or not offer. I still can not understand why a woman after seeing all the f___ ups men have committed in that job for decades would wouldn't gleefully support a viable and capable woman candidate of either party. The fact that she may not be able to win isn't persuasive. After all, a man has lost his bid for the job every election. I'm left to wonder whether women are still languishing in the good ole days when they were taught a woman can't and shouldn't do some things like become the president. Mouths can say one thing and actions quite another. I wish I could infuse her with a little bit of Ann Richard's go to hell, kiss my tail type of personality. My only worry about her is that she's too nice. Hopefully, she realizes this too, and will step up the meanness.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-20T09:12:00-06:00

ID

106381

Comment

Ray, I do get furious when Hillary is faulted for things like her hair, her clothes and the way she carries herself (the jokes about her being a man make me crazy!) However, I'm not going to support a woman for the simple fact that she is a woman, if that makes sense. I hope that our first woman up for office is a WINNER because it will be hard enough for us on that road to the white house as it is. I can't imagine the backlash if the woman lost that we'd have to endure. I'm not saying I won't vote for Hillary. I'd have to know who's she's up against before making that decision. Do I think a woman can handle the position? Absolutely. Do I know the best woman for that job off the top of my head? No. But I'm not so sure I know of the best man right now either ;)

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-20T11:09:01-06:00

ID

106382

Comment

National Organization for Women president, Kim Gandy will be speaking at the Reproductive Freedom Summer Kick-off Rally July 15, 2006.

Author

Jackson Area NOW

Date

2006-06-29T12:16:12-06:00