A Fortunate and Surprising Surge of Prospective Women Senators

I recently stumbled upon this "Politico" article by Josh Kraushaar called, "Female Candidates Line Up for 2010." Apparently the mixed gender in the 2008 election caused a spark in female confidence and support, which I think is great! The article explains that there are many female candidates, mostly Democrats, who are planning to run for Senate in 2010. This looks as if it may cause change in the chamber which currently only has 17 women senators. Karen O' Connor, the director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, says that, "it really is a landmark year because there's a farm team now...you have mayors, congresswomen, secretaries of state; they're waiting in the wings and they're not going to sit back any longer." Reading this excites me because it really shows that our class topic is relevant. The gender in this past election did cause a wave, not only of surprise, but also of support and identification for women.

The woman in the picture above is Carly Florina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO and McCain economic adviser. She is looking to run against Barbara Boxer for the Senate seat here in California. There is a slew of other women that are running in different states, and they list all of these determined women in the "Politico" article. O'Connor, whom I mentioned earlier, explains that female candidates have a better track record in elections when the economy is a main issue. This said, the United States should be looking to elect more females in the years to come. Jonathan Parker, EMILY'S List political director, tell us that "when kitchen-table issues are at the forefront, voters recognize it’s women in so many households across America that deal with these issues. That will resonate with a certain segment of voters." Although it is nice that this view will cause more women support, I don't think that it is the only factor affecting this increased support.

The 2008 election allowed us women to see how far we have come and after reading this article, I am sure that it inspired women to want to achieve greatness, not only in politics, but simply in general. Martha McKenna, who is a recruiter as political director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that, "it’s becoming more and more common for the strongest candidate to be a woman, and that’s a good thing for the party and the country.” I anticipate the 2010 elections; hopefully the Senate will be a tad more gender-balanced after that, and the demonstration of increased female support will cause a snowball effect of equality!

Solidarity among women--as reflected in common supporters of Clinton and Gillibrand

Read Nicholas Confessore's story in today's NYT, "Old Clinton Hands Line up Behind Gillibrand." It reports that many Hillary Rodham Clinton staffers and supporters are now working with or for Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy for New York after Clinton resigned to become Secretary of State.

The story features this quote from Karen Finney, who was a deputy press secretary for HRC in the White House and who is now an advisor to Ms. Gillibrand: “Kirsten has inspired the band to get back together ... It’s nice to be working for another great woman from New York.”

Here's an excerpt from deeper in the story, amidst many examples of women supporting Gillibrand:

Ms. Gillibrand’s back-to-back campaigns will also provide an outlet to the energies and enthusiasms of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent grass-roots supporters, especially in feminist circles.

One member of Ms. Gillibrand’s kitchen cabinet, for example, is Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton confidante and a senior adviser on the presidential campaign. Ms. Lewis recently launched NoLimits.org, a Web site and blog, to allow Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to network and stay in touch.

One Clinton supporter who spoke on the condition of anonymity said:

Hard-core Hillary supporters are fully expecting her to run again in 2016 ... That is one reality. Kirsten is a more local reality. But for folks in New York, she gives them a focus.

A comparative perspective on mothers in politics

Eleanor Beardsley's report on NPR about French Justice Minister Rachida Dati returning to work five days after giving birth makes a lot of good points about whether this is a good thing or bad thing for women.

Here's a quote from Florence Montreynaud, a writer and feminist:

I think it's terrible for all the women in France . . . . Because this example separates women into two categories: a few superwomen with a wonderful job, and millions [of] other women that are totally normal to feel a little tired after birth. These women are — what to say — sissy? Or weakling?

The editor of the French magazine Closer, however, praised Dati, 43, calling her a symbol of the modern woman. He said:

I think these images will stay on the memoire collective, on the memory of all the French women, because it's a very strong image . . . . I think this image gives hope to women in their 40s, women who want children. Because it shows that you can be pregnant and keep very important responsibilities in your job.

Dati happens to be unmarried, and she has not disclosed the identity of the child's father. She is also iconic in France because she is a rare immigrant success story, the daughter of Algerian-Moroccan parents.

One angle that Beardsley doesn't amplify but that speaks for itself in this report is how we judge women--especially mothers--for their choices. She reports poll results indicating that 56% of those surveyed disapprove of Dati's quick return to work.

French law provides a 16-week paid maternity leave and strong job protection for mothers.

How would we respond to her if she were the U.S. Attorney General? How do we feel about Kirsten Gillibrand working until the day before she gave birth eight months ago?

The new U.S. Senator from N.Y. -- as mother

N.Y. Governor David Paterson hinted that the U.S. Senate seat for New York, held until recently by Hillary Rodham Clinton, has become a woman's seat when he announced yesterday that U.S. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will fill the position. Caroline Kennedy, considered by many the front runner, had withdrawn her candidacy a few days earlier.

There is a lot I could comment on regarding Ms. Gillibrand's politics, but I want to focus here on the media's portrayal of her as a mother because this is a topic that keeps cropping up in our discussions of gender and the 2008 Presidential election. It is deep in the NYT story by Michael Powell and Raymond Hernandez before we learn that Ms. Gillibrand is the mother of young children -- including an infant. Here's an excerpt:

Ms. Gillibrand is indisputably intense; a rising corporate lawyer before entering Congress, she worked until the day before she gave birth to her first son, Theodore, now 5 (and received a standing ovation on the floor of the House when she did the same before the birth of her second son, Henry, who is now 8 months old).

The accompanying slide show on the NYT site also includes two photos of Ms. Gillibrand as mother, but they are the final two in the group of ten images.

So, it seems, Ms. Gillibrand's status as a mother does not loom large, at least not in the NYT coverage.

Race versus Gender

I just found a news article on Politico, a great news site for those interested in politics. The title of the article is "In politics, does race trump gender?"

Here is an excerpt from the article:

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time? Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics? Well, yes. It could be.

The article makes an interesting argument about how easy Roland Burris, the Senator-designate from Illinois, made his case to win the fight against congressional Democrats who had refused to seat him in the Senate. Burris was appointed by scandaled-tainted Illinois Governor Blago. Because Blago ignored warnings against taking such an action the Senate Democratic leadership threatened not to seat any successor. If sworn in today, Burris will officially take over President-elect Obama's seat.

In contrast, the author claims how difficult a time Caroline Kennedy is having in obtaining Hillary's seat. Kennedy has publicly announced that she is interested in Hillary's seat and even did a tour in New York a few weeks ago. Unlike Burris, who would be the sole African American in the US Senate, Kennedy cannot use the claim of being the only woman in the Senate to her benefit, because there are plenty of women Senators.

It's a great article and the author does make some interesting arguments (i.e. The Senate is 17% women, while women compose of 51% of the United States)

The election is over, but talk of sexism persists in relation to the open U.S. Senate seat for NY

Caroline Kennedy formally requested this week that NY Governor David Paterson consider her for the U.S. Senate seat for that state, the seat that will open when Hillary Rodham Clinton resigns to become Secretary of State. (Photo Jean-Pierre Muller/Getty Images).

Here is the NYT story. Kennedy had only just put herself forward for consideration when commentators started throwing around words like "sexism" and "nepotism." Here's what Nicholas Kristof had to say yesterday in his blog:

Caroline Kennedy strikes me as a very impressive woman with all the right priorities, such as education. But I also find it unseemly and undemocratic that she seems to have vaulted to the top of the Senate list by virtue of who her dad was. * * * Isn’t that sexist?

I'm not sure how it is sexist . . . unless he is drawing some analogy to McCain's selection of Palin --which many argued was just because Palin was female. Also, there is the argument that since Hillary Rodham Clinton has held the seat, it has become a "woman's seat" and should be filled by another woman.

Kristof continues in a way that implicitly acknowledges the latter argument by saying that choosing Kennedy would be "disrespectful" of other female NY politicians with more experience and public service. He then again asserts sexism:

Isn’t it sexist to rush to support a woman because of her father, while ignoring other women who have earned their own substantial credentials in their own careers in Congress?

I appreciate his acknowledging the fine work of congresswomen and other female politicians from NY, but I don't know that it's sexist to support a woman with a famous father when, as Kristof himself acknowledges, various political dynasties in our nation's history have anointed sons. The Bushes are a fine example.

Don't miss readers comments on Kristof's post. More than one notes that if an "ism" is at play, it's nepotism, not sexism.

In her column today, Gail Collins also takes up the "fairness question." She begins by observing that New York is taking Caroline seriously and suggests it is with good reason. Collins notes Kennedy's extraordinary success as a fundraiser, while also distinguishing between the good causes for which Kennedy has raised money in the past and the distinct challenge of political fundraising. She also views Kennedy as having other important political skills, saying, "it's easy to imagine Kennedy doing a Hillary-like 'listening tour,' having round-table discussions about the dairy compact or broadband access."

Collins acknowledges that picking Kennedy may not be "fair," but then life rarely is. Collins seems a bit more positive than Kristof about the prospect and potential of Caroline Kennedy as U.S. Senator. And, hmmm, Collins doesn't mention sexism, perhaps because she does not see it as a force or issue in Paterson's decision.