<p>If you’re referring to my comment, epiphany, I wasn’t referring to you</p>
<p>^ oh sorry.</p>
<p>No problem! I didn’t intend it to be snarky toward the person who made it, either.</p>
<p>So much for the refreshing thread! Can’t we all just lighten up and be allowed to express ourselves? It’s gonna be a loooooong road ahead!</p>
<p>that’s a good reminder. Someone on a radio talk show said this, this morning. I remember not too long ago - - yes, in my lifetime – when this kind of debate would be going on 4 months before an election, not 16 months before. </p>
<p>I also wanted to say just what my perspective is on The Experience thing. No question, of course experience is important. But the personal connection that the voter feels toward/with a candidate can be really crucial in (a) getting that person to the polls in the first place, and (b) continuing to be engaged in the political process after the fact. I get concerned about the disappearance of passion for public office, & of idealism in general. Young people are proving that they still “have it” when it comes to community service (for example, internationally, & not when it’s “engineered”). But for the kind of idealism directed toward governmental service? As it is now, it seems that mostly it’s people with money and/or connections who gravitate toward working in Washington. The Capitol and the Corporate Arm of the nation working together. The more that happens, the more separate the governing apparatus becomes from the everyday citizen, & the more scandals & abuses & corruption have the opportunity to flourish.</p>
<p>I’m glad that the idea of registering for gov’l service (as an option) was raised during the debate, as a supplement to Selective Service registration. This is one way to nurture idealism, as well: one bridge to higher forms of service that may not depend on connections to get there, or even law degrees. We talked about this on one of the education threads: the fact that there is now, for example, a non-military leadership academy designed on the National Service concept. An academy is a great idea, I think. And so is simply a direct step to service after high school or college, for those who want it for itself or as a Gap experience. What do others think?</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>I think the confusion may stem from the definition of “marketing” her gender.</p>
<p>Senator Clinton is not “marketing” her gender. She’s looking at the universe of voters, looking at what unique attributes she brings to the party, and strategizing about how to maximize her votes.</p>
<p>It’s no different than the Republican candidates “marketing” their white maleness. White male voters vote overwhelmingly Republican and respond to the issues and “macho” personas that Republican candidates emphasize.</p>
<p>Female voters tend to vote signficantly Democratic and respond overwhelmingly to issues that Clinton has addressed for her entire career: health care, education, etc.</p>
<p>It would be incompetent for Clinton’s strategists to look at her poll numbers, see the strength of her female support, and not target those voters.</p>
<p>BTW, I think there is a distinction. In the early days of women in politics, I think the message was some variation of “I’m just like a man” or “I’m just as good as a man”. I think Clinton has moved beyond that. I think her message is “I’m the best candidate in this race” and “As a woman, I bring things to this race that men can’t”. She’s positioning her gender as a PLUS, not as something to be apologized for.</p>
<p>My own personal view is that it would be a big mistake to underestimate the impact of voting for the first female President in 230 years will play in this election.</p>
<p>"“As a woman, I bring things to this race that men can’t”.</p>
<p>Perhaps that’s where we differ. Or, not that I think that women don’t have different viewpoints than men (sometimes) that can be politically helpful, but perhaps I’m still uncomfortable about announcing the obvious. I may be confirming (simply) that I am indeed among that 14%. Whatever. There should be a poll that asks, ‘If you were considering two equally qualified candidates – one male, one female – whose positions & personalities you found equally attractive, would you vote for the female just because she was female?’ And my answer would be, No. If I felt that they were truly equal, I would vote for one without anxiety about whether the other would win. I would still try to decide on the 3 categories mentioned above, coming down marginally more for one than the other. But I would not be swayed for or against by gender. So obviously I’m not a typical voter, in i-dad’s view or the research shows or something.</p>
<p>But as to marketing her gender, I disagree with you. The rest of your post contradicts your statement that she is not marketing her gender. It’s not horrible to do so, but i.m.o. it does bring with it many potential negatives that I don’t think are yet present in your statistical tables because not everyone who answers those polling questions is even aware of how much gender may influence their own decisions.</p>
<p>“Positioning her gender as a PLUS” = marketing her gender.</p>
<p>I also don’t think that Geraldine Ferraro said she was just like a man. I most definitely remember at least her <em>followers</em> becoming greatly excited about how supposedly different she would be “as a woman.” I think role models are great, for both genders, all professions & occupations. I just think there’s a danger in emphasizing the role model aspect over the core competency aspect, because the former is in danger of diluting the latter when much emphasis is placed on it in a <em>campaign</em> and on a <em>debate stage</em>. (Different from personal appearances to girls’ schools, women’s forums, etc.) For example, I’ve already said that I think the way she handled that (admittedly stupid) question was less than she was capable of doing, that she was not assertive enough, actually, in confronting that question. Any guy who would recoil from an assertive woman is never, ever about to vote for HRC. So she should just stop trying to please, or being ambivalent in speaking to, that group of antedeluvians.</p>
<p>No way! The British press had a field day about Thatcher’s handbag–and she had it sculpted into her statue for posterity! Mind you it wasn’t daily coverage–but her fashion got coverage. <a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EEDA143AF937A25753C1A96E958260[/url]”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EEDA143AF937A25753C1A96E958260</a></p>
<p>Angela Merkel? Is she getting daily fashion coverage?</p>
<p>:) thanks for that correction, cheers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Granted, it’s early days yet, but this is part and parcel of the voter problem in this country. People don’t watch the debates, read up on the candidates, and decide for themselves; instead, they prefer to “learn something” from reading what others think of what’s going on–whether substantive or not. When you do that, you can’t really be all that picky about the content–or what you find yourself “wandering into,” can you? </p>
<p>hereshoping: I agree with you. You know things are bad when the critiquers start getting critiqued. ;)</p>
<p>If two candidates were exactly equal in my eyes otherwise, yes I’d probably vote for the woman on the principal that it’s high time. Every spring I get to vote for the board of Overseers and directors of my college. Since I think they have too many white male lawyers, bankers and corporate types I have a very simple system to vote for them. I vote for women, people of color and people with interesting jobs. Usually, since I get five or six votes, I don’t have to vote for any boring white guys at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My answer would be “yes” because we’ve had 230 uninterrupted years of all white male Presidents. I think the country would benefit immensely from a balance of male and female perspectives.</p>
<p>I am at a severe disadvantage responding to debate perceptions because I try to follow most of the candidates on C-SPAN, so I’ve seen many of their campaign appearances, stump speeches, town hall forums, etc. I can tell you that, when Clinton makes an appearance in a room of women political activists, it’s electric. A perfect example was her appearance at the New Hamphsire state Democratic dinner last February. NH Democratic politics is heavily dominated by women including the long time state poltical chair, Jeane Shaheen, Katrina Sweet, and others.</p>
<p>On Ferraro: I don’t think the comparisons are particularly relevant. The position of women on the national political stage is vastly different than it was nearly a quarter century ago. 22% of the Democratic Senators are women. 23% of the Democratic members of Congress are women. 18% of the Democratic governors are women.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not inside information. Just watching the campaign. For example, the NY TIMES reporter who did the major feature on Clinton’s female staff said she was shocked at how easy it was to arrange the photo. The campaign was clearly pushing the article.</p>
<p>I don’t think a few jabs at her gender are going to rattle Senator Clinton. This is a politician who has endured the harshest glare of the national spotlight for nearly two decades. She’s endured John McCain’s “jokes” (“Why is Chelsea so ugly? Because her mother is Hillary Clinton and her father is Janet Reno.”)</p>
<p>In her first Senate campaign, she was scheduled for one of those light happy talk morning drive radio shows on some podunk station in upstate New York. You know, the local celebrity DJ pattering a bit in between top 40 songs. She shows up in the studio, they go on air, and the first question out of the DJ’s mouth was, “Were you sleeping with Vince Foster?”</p>
<p>Let’s just say that she’s battle tested.</p>
<p>“I can tell you that, when Clinton makes an appearance in a room of women political activists, it’s electric.”</p>
<p>I know that. I’ve seen it too. Half the U.S. population (though not all of that half). The question is, in terms of votes, does she have enough men who love her to balance out the women who do not love her or do not relate to her?</p>
<p>I really like a candidate who appeals equally to both genders. Call me hopelessly modern.</p>
<p>An interesting point, mathmom. However, understand that some people view HRC as more of a “Beltway Boy” than Obama (for example). So to me, I’d rather see not-same old/same old of the male persuasion than same old/same old of the female persuasion. (Assuming my 3 “categories” above were equal for both candidates)</p>
<p>I guess what I’m trying to say – & I’m not expressing myself well today – is, I’d rather break out of the predictable politican mold than the predictable gender mold, because a different gender will not necessarily move the country ahead in new & exciting ways if (she) is more committed to The Washington Ways than to innovation. I don’t necessarily think that a different gender brings with it a more visionary agenda, but I do think that a fresh face of either gender brings with it the possibilities for a greater commitment to vision and greater perceived vitality among the citizenry, which also helps to support & carry out that vision.</p>
<p>(Hence, Obama)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “vision” for any President, only goes as far as the necessary 60 votes in the Senate will take it. That’s why, honestly, I don’t pay much attention to the litany of “plans” put forth by Presidential candidates. </p>
<p>For example, a “plan” for legislation to achieve universal health care within 4 years at a cost of an additional $120 billion a year is just pandering, plain and simple because it will never get 60 votes in the Senate.</p>
<p>We have heard the same old, same old about “changing the ways of Washington” for every election I can remember. But, the simple fact of the matter is that our Constitution set up a system of government specifically and painstakingly crafted to be highly resistant to change – with the main mechanism being an overrepresentation of the hinterlands in the US Senate. Our system of government is incremenalist by design.</p>
<p>My biggest criteria for the next President:</p>
<p>a) The experience to work with the Penatgon and the State Department to start getting us out of iraq and rebuilding a complete mess in foreign policy. We can’t afford a President who takes two years to figure out the Pentagon.</p>
<p>b) A President who will restore some basic level of competence in the Executive Branch. I don’t expect that the next President will do any better than the last 43 in getting every policy decision right. But, the incompetence, cronyism, and corruption of the current administration has got to go. As does the fundamentally flawed decision-making process of the Bush administration.</p>
<p>c) Somebody who will throw a couple of moderate to liberal justices on the Supreme Court so that there is a balance which will make it more difficult to overturn the 20th century. I am intrigued by Clinton’s suggestion the other day that the Court would benefit from a few judges who have some life experience outside of law school, legal think tanks, and the bench.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m much more of a bottom line guy. The question for me is, “Can the Democratic nominee carry the states Kerry won plus either Ohio or Florida?”</p>
<p>Getting a single white male vote in the deep south is irrelevent to the Democrats because the Republicans would still carry the deep south states even if they nominated a gay, Latino, abortion doctor as their candidate.</p>
<p>BTW, a female candidate is much riskier for the Republicans to smear than a black candidate. They will have no limit to the racial smearing of a black candidate because they don’t get any black votes anyway. So what if their advertising is racist? However, even Karl Rove would have to be little careful with a gender based smear because 54% of the electorate is female.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a big ask.</p>
<p>Florida has issues of electoral fraud. That way is fraught with danger.</p>
<p>Ohio…is Ohio. Let’s just say I haven’t noticed a liberal trend there in the last five years. Can you point to a Ohio drop in Limbaugh listerners?</p>
<p>Some of your points in 156 I agree with. But I think Edwards is even more committed to getting us out of Iraq, quickly, than HRC is.</p>
<p>cheers, this is imp. reminder about the fraud. (Ohio, too, not just Florida!)</p>