How could news of President Obama's first significant lead of the 2012 campaign in the nation's dozen top battleground states bring hope and change to Mitt Romney? It is a lead based on women voters -- one of Obama's biggest soft spots. Romney has the potential to gain a key political advantage by selecting one of several standout Republican women who would make excellent vice presidential candidates and attract the "woman's vote," which, contrary to the myth perpetuated by Democrats, is increasingly up for grabs.
The list includes New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (vice chair of the Republican Conference), Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
2012 can be the year where we finally break the glass ceiling in our highest political offices by electing a ticket with a woman vice president.
For the Republicans who currently struggle with lagging poll numbers with women, a woman on the ticket would erase many of their difficulties. Not that women will always vote for women, but a woman on the ticket would energize voters and claim ground Democrats have taken advantage of for too long. Who knows, it may even force Obama to ask Hillary Clinton to join him on the ticket after showing such strong leadership as Secretary of State.
Reasons people give to not nominate a woman in 2012 are weak. The first reason always given is that women are simply not qualified. The lineup of women mentioned above have sterling qualifications. Any man with the same resumes would run and not be questioned.
The second reason is what I like to call the "Palin reason," as in "well we tried that in 2008 and it didn't work so we won't do that again." That reasoning is insulting bordering on sexist. We nominate many men to many things and many times things don't work out. Does that make us not nominate another man next time? It's truly an absurd argument. Also, an equal case can be credibly made that Sarah Palin helped the ticket more than she hurt it.
We have the opportunity to join our international friends who understand the kind of leadership that women can provide, representing 51 percent of the population after all. Currently the United States lags much of the world in female representation in government. The latest survey from the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranks our country #78, tied with Turkmenistan and behind Iraq (#38), Afghanistan (#33) and the home of machismo itself, Spain (#18).
We only need to look at the effectiveness of Senators Olympia Snowe, Barbara Mikulski, Kirsten Gillibrand and Lisa Murkowski -- a bipartisan group of leaders who created a "zone of civility" and cooperation to actually get something done on behalf of the American people. This is what America can look forward to with more women in political leadership positions. This is what should finally convince political operatives that the knee jerk demeaning of women has jumped the shark and lost its value. It is a dog that just won't hunt this year.
We have an opportunity to really make history in 2012. Both parties need to step up to the plate and nominate a woman VP. We tell our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc., that they can be anything they want to be. But with the U.S. ranking #78 in the world in female representation in government and with most glass ceilings remaining unbroken, we aren't really telling them the truth. Putting one of these excellent women on the ticket would change all of that. Let's be bold in 2012 and finish what we started in 2008.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I think dismissing my concern about the intense, wasteful, enormously damaging militarism of a Secretary of State (the last two in fact) as "pacifism" is inaccurate and misses the point. Many people oppose the needless waste of lives and resources in Afghanistan and Iraq who are not pacifists. .
When you charge that my criticism of two intensely militaristic Secretaries of State, is “deeply misogynistic” unless I also criticize every other leader who is militaristic is absurd. Your blog singled out and endorsed Clinton and Rice as potential Vice Presidential candidates, BECAUSE they are women. So if I criticize them based on record and merit (or lack of it) not gender, I am the one who is biased? Using a powerful term like misogyny so loosely and lightly only serves to weaken the meaning and effect of its use when justified.
Saying “female faces virtually nowhere to be found at the top” is also absurd. Women are visible in leadership of Congress, the Supreme Court, federal agencies, universities, corporations, national non-profits, certainly not yet in equal proportion to men but “nowhere to be found”?
Good luck with your important cause, but you seem to be alienating rather than enlisting support for your cause.
But I like your spunk in standing up for what you believe in. It's one of the things I love best about our country, and I am sincere in wishing you all the best for your cause!! :)
Having 50 percent of bad leaders be women may respresent progress to you. I prefer that the goal be electing able effective leaders irrespective of gender. Based on my estimation, electing our last two Secretaries of State to higher levels of leadership would serve your goal, but not mine. Peace.
Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War vote lead to questions of good judgment and character (personal ambition at the expense of her nation) that undermined her Senate experience, and an inability to LEAD as successful presidential campaign (even with unprecedented advantages, which I posted about recently http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Know-some-secrets/hillary-clinton-female-president_n_1493289_153232130.html ).
Giving fair credit for experience when due is indeed important, but quality not quantity of experience also seems important, as well as what that experience tells you about the person and the potential leader.
"Two new scholarly studies that blow the whistle on the industry's lopsided reliance on male reporters find that the media first belittled her effort against Barack Obama, then jumped the gun to push her out of the race earlier than any other recent strong primary challenger." "Machismo and the Glass Ceiling"
The US style of campaigning and media coverage are created and maintained by men. We have massive change to undergo in US to reach political gender equality. We need to elevate women's ideas and voices on the national scene. as far as the gallup poll - how do americans see the honesty gap now that things have settled? There were problems with her campaign documented well in: "Notes from the Cracked Ceiling" Anne Kornblut. The Hillary campaign led by Mark Penn had difficulty placing a female candidate within the confines of our current campaign style. I have to move on now but I encourage you to read the book and the study and add to your repertoire. Best.
She continues a tradition of militaristic Secretaries of State who have been women, following Rice and Albright.
The last thing we need is for Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice to be a heartbeat away from controlling the nuclear arsenal.
Where did I mention Bush? Where did I absolve him? As a progressive, I have frequently criticize him for dishonestly and needlessly leading the nation to war, and for decisions that collapsed the economy. I also criticize Rice for her role in supporting him, and Hillary Rodham Clinton for her role in supporting Bush in launching a needless war as a Senator, putting her misguided personal ambition to look like a "commander in chief" above the interests of peace and her nation. Somehow I expect more from someone who claims to be a progressive. Don’t you?
I am very familiar with Hillary Clinton's hollow rhetoric on many topics, including women's rights. Her ACTIONS, however, portray a hypocrite. In my opinion the Clintons dishonestly used the power of a governorship and presidency to attack the characters of women with whom Bill was involved, simply to protect themselves and their ambitions.
Rather than continue to point to the absence of women from power in history, maybe on occasion we should look and critique leaders in power who are women? Some world class leaders have been women including Merkel, Thatcher, Ghandi, Meir, Robinson. Neither Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice, in my estimation, have that potential. And was my original point, both of them have used their power and influence to promote WAR, and I would not want to see them gain more power to do that.