2008 Shortchanging Women (And You)

Iowa women, just like many women throughout the nation, entered this election season with high hopes. For the first time in history, there would be a front-running woman vying for the nation's highest office. More importantly, after surviving the sound bite days of "soccer moms" and "security moms," women were ready to stand politically independent -- no modifiers required.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, there is cause for both celebration and angst in the feminist community. Without a doubt, this election has been as much about women as it has been about any other group or collective of issues. Early on, candidates from both sides of the aisle -- but especially the Democratic contenders -- announced their women's leadership committees. Due in large part to the fact that a viable woman had entered the race, campaigns were quick to tout their feminist credentials and female staff members. Official campaign press releases were issued when a candidate gained the support of a particularly well-known or well-respected woman.

Women, however, weren't content with platitudes, and, as the contest continued, it became clear to the campaigns that horse races listing female supporters and sound bites were not going to be enough. For this to be the political year of the woman, candidates were going to have to become serious about courting women -- the largest population voting block -- by speaking in detail about their core issues of concern. As any good campaign strategist will tell you, details do not a good sound bite make.

The Clinton Effect

Despite all the promise that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton brought to the race and all the effort put into her candidacy by prominent women's groups such as EMILY's List, many women have ventured to other campaigns. The exact reasons are as varied as there are women, but the phrase of "I'm not going to vote for someone just because she has the same internal plumbing that I do" is one often heard in Iowa political circles. For these women, most of whom are between the ages of 18 and 50, there is no urgency of the moment -- no feeling that this might be their last chance to do something for the overall betterment of women.

Click here to continue reading Lynda Waddington's post.

Check out the rest of HuffPost's Iowa coverage.

Comments

[Nutcase]

Perhaps some women would rather not have women leaders in the future having to defend all women because this one is so flawed.

Is she really a woman? I mean that in the political sense. She has been a stronger supporter of the war than the other Democratic candidates. That is likely because she wants to avoid the invalid criticism of women being weaker on defense issues. She has become a stronger backer of the status quo than any of her rivals. She may want to avoid charges of being a radical or she may just be a DLC, NAFTA, corporate lackey.

Whatever her reasons for her platform, I'm glad I won't have to explain away and apologize for her.