What Does Clinton's Campaign Mean for Women Candidates?
June 4, 2008
With two hands over my eyes and plugs in my ears, I could still tell you that Clinton losing the nomination is going to inspire all sorts of disingenuous hand-wringing concealing glee over women’s chances in politics. Again, I’m grateful to the LA Times for stalking out in the other direction by giving the space this week to Katha Pollitt and myself to discuss these issues, knowing we’re two feminists and unlikely to either throw in the towel on women or be happy about it. Later today will be the next round, and as I’ve already written my part, I can tell you that I lament that the U.S. can’t follow the lead of countries that have seat quotas in legislative bodies for women, a simple measure that would go a long way to make historic runs like Hillary Clinton’s seem less like “make it or break it” moments for our chances to have a female President.
For those about to gloat about the end of women in politics, I salute you.
What is probably feeling like the end for a lot of feminist Clinton supporters should be treated more like a beginning. Katha sez:
Clinton has shown that a woman can be a mainstream, non-symbolic candidate of a major party—she can raise tons of money, run a professional campaign, get lots of votes from men as well as benefit from the female side of the gender gap, and come this close to winning.