"No Woman with Obama's Résumé Could Run"

by: tremayne

Sun May 18, 2008 at 15:08


Those are the words of Dee Dee Myers, former White House spokesperson for Bill Clinton, in today's New York Times. She added: “No woman could have gotten out of the gate.”

I would not deny that Barack Obama has unique characteristics that give him a better chance than other first-term Senators to win the job, not the least of which is his ability to inspire, through his words (and delivery), the people who hear him speak.  But does Myer's really think there would be no scenario where a female Senator would have made astute political decisions (such as opposing a stupid war) and also have the charisma, speaking ability, etc. to at least "get out of the gate" on a run for the presidency?

The rest of the article is an interesting read on whether a woman President is possible in the near future assuming Hillary Clinton doesn't pull a rabbit out of her hat.  But I thought that Myers' opinion was questionable. What do you think?

  
tremayne :: "No Woman with Obama's Résumé Could Run"

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"No Woman with Obama's Résumé Could Run" | 31 comments
Agree with her (4.00 / 3)
She didn't say "couldn't run", since anyone can run (witness Liddy Dole in 2000).  She said "couldn't have gotten out of the gate" as you say in the body.  I think that's right.  But her larger point was that women at the state level generally hold back and wait to be asked about running for higher office, rather than putting themselves forward and risk being characterized as pushy or worse.  

The picture is changing, but we will need a few more capable women governors before we get another woman with a serious shot at the nomination.  I can see it in 8-12 years, though.  I don't think we have to wait a generation.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

Obama Really Was The Exception (4.00 / 2)
Look, on top of everything else, if Obama hadn't had one successful book out and high-profile book launch, it never would have happened.  His campaign came directly out of his book launch.  That has never happened in our history before, and is not likely to happen ever again.

But who's to say that something equally improbable couldn't happen?  I can foresee, for example, a scenario in which Angelina Jolie gets elected President.  She's actually one of the most respected Americans in the world, due to her UN work with refugees.  It could happen.

The question of women's representation in politics in general is a completely different matter, however.  And one that I think is far more indicative of the general state of our society, which is pretty abysmal.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
On That Note (0.00 / 0)
Did you see this NYT story on Obama's writing career? It seems to make the same general point.

I know that my own support for Obama was driven in very large part by reading Dreams from My Father. Audacity of Hope's not bad, but as many of the people quoted in this article say, Obama did an amazing job of making the reader feel like s/he could understand what drives him.

But like you say, that tour for Audacity sure did well, so that book must've connected with some folks too.

The proportion question you raise is a very good one. I know I've found myself thinking that there are many more women governors and senators than there are black women and senators, and that maybe this is a sign that the American public is growing more comfortable with women leaders than they are with black leaders. (Not that I think either category is where I'd like it to be.) But like you say, given the proportions, maybe there hasn't been as much progress as I was imagining.

[ Parent ]
Oh good lord no, there is nothing to wait for. (4.00 / 3)
The door is burst asunder. [This is a bold wild unsubstantiated claim, but still true. ] It is prejudice itself that has been dealt a mortal blow. I am not saying it's all over, life is perfect, time to rest. I am saying that the disaster of the last generation of Republican rule, of the sway of old stereotypes, the assumption that normal is acceptable, has been broken. Its not the rule of thumb anymore. Webb defeated a sitting Senator, in Virginia, because of his arrogance and racism, in this America. The America created in part by the obvious failure of Republicanism, the failure of a vision of governemnt, a vision of community. America is ready for these changes.

Those ideas, women leading, equal citizens etc. -what has been made fun of, derided irrationally, lumped underneath a title of "Dont Try" that is broken. 80% of American thinks we are the wrong track.

Women didn't lose this battle, I think New Hampshire proved this, given HRC as people hoped she could be, they voted for her in surprising numbers, but, and Im sorry to say this, HRC couldn't hold it. HRC fought hard, gritty with determenation and strength, but she didnt win. I honestly think HRC underestimated the American people she thought that if she was caring and calm, generous and warm she wouldn't be taken seriously. But the N.H. primary was proof enough, to me, that was wrong.

Women can, are and will be putting forward their visions, coming forward with a willingness to serve, committing to the strain of leadership, the risk of leadership. I for one hope for more, plenty more, till elected offices are filled to the roof with women's voices and votes and decisions.

This election, these circumstances have brought new ground.

I for one am tired of women fighting to protect the rights of women, I am ready for women to run things period. There is no more wisdom among women than among men, but to leave half of our wisdom out, now that we need all that we can get, is too stupid, even for an arrogant man to think.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I do think we will have to wait a very long time (4.00 / 1)
Despite the fact that the black and the womens's struggle were political allies prior to the Civil War, black MEN got the right to vote with the 15th Amendment and they took it without trying to make sure that women were included.   Women got the right to vote 53 years later.  53 years is 2 generations.

If you actually study the history of the women's movement...You will see that is the case.  There are periods of progress, then quiescence then retreat.  Almost nothing happened between the 19th Amendment on suffrage and the women's movement in the 60's.  In one of Lillian Hellman's books about her life she wrote about that fact that in the 20's and 30's the entire women's movement stopped exsiting and there was very little progress.  

The 40's and WWII saw women enter the workforce and then after the war retreat into even more prisonlike domesticity.
Progress and onward and upward may seem the natural order of events....but they are not.  Ten years ago, Women earned a higher percentage in terms of men's income then they do now. There is now only one woman on the Supreme Court....because it's considered unnecessary to replace that woman...you want to bet if Ginsburg retires...Barack Obama, if elected, could easily think it unnecessary to replace her with a woman.  You may not know but he has no woman in any significant position in terms of running his campaign.  (If that isn't sexism...well it tells you something about how he'll govern...doesn't it?)

When you decided that this woman wasn't worthy of your support you made a much more momentous decision than you realized .....and one much harder to undo.  I don't how how old you are but I fully expect to die without seeing a woman in the White House....unless it;s Hillary Clinton.

Why?....You're a perfect example....Woman as a whole don't put themselves forward or put themselves before others...they put others before themselves. Look Barack Obama has 90%, yes 90% African American support. They're not ashamed to support one of their own...to adamnantly put themselves before others.....they feel no guilt depriving the first credible woman of the presidency.  No women will get that kind of number....certainly Hillary hasn't.

When I was a founder of the first Women's Liberation Group in Boston in the 60's, that exact topic was one much discussed....Why not us?...Why not now? Why do we always find some leadership gift in someone who's not like us... and that leader is not one of us.  Almost ashamed to be so well....greedy, selfish, self aggrandizing....we've been brought up that way.

Dee Dee Myers is right .....but she wasn't just right about lower level female elected officials...she was right about you and all the others of her gender like you .....who don't put women forward.  

Read the guy below who thinks the work Emily's List does is mindless...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I Think That Improbable Things Happen All The Time (4.00 / 2)
And until they happen, groupthink always tells us they're not just improbable, but impossible.

I also think that Dee Dee Meyers is not all that different from her male counterparts, unlke her fictionalized version.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I think the feminist movement has damaged itself (0.00 / 1)
To me, a candidate's gender (if female) and race (if not white) counts as a small point and makes me more likely to support them, but does not close my eyes to all their other attributes.

I believe a woman would have had much less barriers to overcome than a black man, it just so happened that there was no woman with the talents and attributes of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race. For all the damage it's done, I think Hillary's candidacy has made it easier for the next woman candidate to succeed and I think it will not be that long till we see that happen.

Dee Dee Myers is simply following the premise of her book and advocating for a woman president of course. While such a generic argument is one I could support, its realization in the form of supporting any female candidate versus a male one can be disastrous.

Now when I think of Emily's List, I think of an organization that mindlessly works to get women elected, not caring which candidate is better for the country, which candidate will most benefit women or what results their efforts could have. Such mindless advocacy makes me weary of contributing to their cause. Their sometimes outrageous proclamation during this election will be hard to forget and has greatly diminished their standing with half of the Democratic voters.

hmm (4.00 / 4)
it just so happened that there was no woman with the talents and attributes of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

See I think that's the key problem.  Why did it "just so happen" that way?

I read that NY Times article too, and what strikes me is just how bare the female bench is in terms of future Presidential contenders.  Women are 51% of the population and the only woman who has been able to run a winnable campaign happens to be one who was a former First-Lady to a still-popular former President?

That's a systemic problem there.  

[ Parent ]
Absolutely, there is a systematic problem (0.00 / 0)
In fact I'm not talking about the talents and attributes needed to become president, I'm talking about something above and beyond that... at a level needed to overcome the "systematic problem" facing both women and African Americans.

Let's say you need to be one in a million to become president (because not everyone goes down that route, so it's not one in a hundred million). Well I think that if you're a woman you need to be one in fifty million and if you're black you need to be one in a hundred million. Obama may have been that one but Clinton just wasn't.

[ Parent ]
Tripe (0.00 / 0)
One more time with it's just this one....tripe, tripe and more tripe.

Barack Obama is actually less threatening to the hegemony of the white male to power than is a woamn...because women are out there in greater numbers than African American MEN and therefore they are a threat their hegemony.

Secondly as anyone with eyes and ears or a brain to process with should be aware thatn sexism is much more socially acceptable than racism...She suffered from that and he benefitted from the outcry and to some extent the criticism from the media was muted and thwarted becasue they were afraid of being accused of racism.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Don't do this please (0.00 / 0)
Please be more specific when comparing demographics. If Obama represents all African American men, then please don't forget to mention that his woman rival, Sen. Clinton, is a WHITE WOMAN, and not just a woman. You'd otherwise be counting women of color for Sen. Clinton when you should not. Now, is Obama a lesser threat (in terms of demographical support) to the white male power structure than a woman? Yeah, heck, he's a lesser threat than a WHITE woman if that's the way to measure it. Still, let me ask you, what's the point of making that sort of comment? Does this mean the sure money's on the white woman over the black man? Possibly. It makes sense in a way, but that, like Ms. Myers did, ignores the people running for office themselves. It's dehumanizing and wrong.

Secondly, please no more oppression olympics.

[ Parent ]
You live in your world, I live in mine (0.00 / 0)
In your world, I don't have the eyes, ears or a brain to understand what's going on. In my world, you are having a bad day (or week or year) and I hope things get better for you.

In my world, Senator Clinton had more advantage going into the nomination fight than any non-incumbent in recent history. In my world, she ran a terrible campaign (at times, but a good one at other times) and faced an incredible opponent and that's the biggest reason she lost.

In my world, she suffered sexism as Obama suffered racism. I believe racism hurt Obama more than sexism hurt Clinton but we will never know for sure. An analysis of exit polls a while back (I think Feb 6th) showed gender had a net effect of +5% for Clinton while race had a net effect of -0.5% for Obama. Accounting for more recent exit polls would arguably magnify those results and widen the margin. Exit polls are not perfect but they are a piece of evidence. I could insult you and say that you're dumb and therefore racism had a bigger impact, but that's not how I usually argue my case.

[ Parent ]
Sexism is socially acceptable, Racism is not (4.00 / 2)
I don't know what world you live.  but it is acceptable to sneer, demean and make fun of women.  Often times when it's pointed out, one is accused of being too sensitive or hey can;t you take a joke or one is seeing phantoms.....or the really good one you just used...okay Woman...just not this woman.

Everytime there was a whiff of racism..a suspicion even when there wasn't any racism,  there would be howls of protest from every corner...Condemnations galore.

When sexism reared it's ugly head.....almost every single left blog and 90% of the MSM hid its head in the sand...and even now just like you continues to hide its head in the sand.

Where was the outrage?....Didn't see at Kos or here...maybe an occasional whimper of protest.  There are blogs that kept a Hillary Sexism watch...it reached hundreds of itmes...were you exercised about it?  Didn't notice you were upset....Did this blog mention it?  No......but it called things race baitng as did many of the posters here and everywhere.

Now when I think of Emily's List, I think of an organization that mindlessly works to get women elected, not caring which candidate is better for the country, which candidate will most benefit women or what results their efforts could have. Such mindless advocacy makes me weary of contributing to their cause.

Woman understand women's lives....and let's just replace the word women with African Americans and you tell me that African Americians just mindlessly elect their African Americans to represent them.

Read this mindless piece of sexism you have written above with that in mind  and tell me why I chose to respond to you?  Sexism   hell yes...just look in the mirror.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
maybe if hillary clinton had run in 2004 (0.00 / 0)
as a first term senator with little experience in public office, she would have won.  but that exceptional instance aside, i agree that this is probably more an anti-racist moment in politics than an anti-patriarchy one.
I disagree with Dee Dee - consider Barbara Jordan (0.00 / 0)
Barrack Obama has some very special skills and talent.   First of all, he got attention with his great oratory skills.  

If there was a female with Barrack's skills I think she could "get out of the gate".   There are very few females with truly great oratory skills.  The greatest that I have ever heard was Barbara Jordan.  

Imagine if Barbara Jordan was with us today and she was young and healthy.  Assume that she had delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic Party Convention in 2004 that was consistent in quality to the speech she delivered in 1976 - perhaps the greatest speeches I have ever heard in my life.    Under these circumstances I believe Barbara Jordan could be as successful today as Barrack Obama has been.  

FYI - Barbara Jordan was considered by some to be a possible running mate with Jimmy Carter in 1976.   The time was not right then - it may be right now.    

No man with only Obama's CV could have become President. (4.00 / 2)
Certainly no black man could have, certainly no opne without Obama's sense, wisdom, calmness and vision. One without Obama's unshakable pride in America, and Obama's trust of American wisdom, certainly no one without Obama's deep beleif in our potential for greatness, our ability to create a more perfect union.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone really think Ken Salazar, also elected to the US Senate in 2004, could have achieved this? It's laughable on its face.

The fact is, people are more than their CVs/resumes. It's the totality of Obama that's unique, his ability to inspire with rhetoric, his calmness and demeanor, his professionalism, his empathy. People act like this has never happened before -- uh, JFK and RFK?

These types of people come around a handful every fifty years. That's what's going on here.

I do like that someone else also mentioned Barbara Jordan. She might have achieved some truly remarkable things had her health not deteriorated. She changed history with her remarks before the HJC in Nixon's impeachment inquiry.  

[ Parent ]
because Iowa has so many black people? (4.00 / 2)
Well if the "gate" was Iowa which has practically no black people in it, then Dee Dee's assertion is completely false. A charismatic first term woman Senator who opposed the Iraq war and was running on change and a new type of politics could very well have done just as well as Barack Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire too. Hell Hillary Clinton could have been that woman if she hadn't been a Bush enabling neocon for the previous 7 years.
Is this quote about women or Obama? (4.00 / 1)
Myer's point about women being systematically disadvantaged vis-a-vis men is well-taken.  But couldn't she have made the same point without talking about Obama?  Why bring him into the discussion?  What's troubling is the fact that her quote suggests that Obama is in the position he is in primarily because he is male.  This of course makes it easy to disregard his many talents as a politician, regard his eventual nomination as less of an achievement, etc.  This statement is just as bad and unnecessary as Geraldine Ferraro's.
No man with the following attributes could win: (4.00 / 3)
1. Funny last name that rhymes with Osama
2. First name no one's heard of
2. Middle name "Hussein"
3. Kenyan father

No, that could never happen.

Point and game (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
This is just a diversionary tactic (0.00 / 0)
silly lists meant to be cute doesn't really deal with this issue and her point...

Really you should think about this some without this silly gameplaying...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
This Ignores Obama's Own Liabilities (0.00 / 0)
I have heard this argument made by others and I might buy it if Obama were the preferred Prez candidate of our entire history, a white male.  However, Obama has had his own prejuidice to overcome as a black man.  I guess it comes down to which you think it is tougher to be - a woman or a black man.  My guess is black men think it is tougher to be them and woman think it is tougher to be them.  I posit that both have face some pretty severe prejuidice and it is not easy to be either.

My major problem with this argument is that Hillary Clinton is not losing b/c she is a woman.  She is losing b/c she has not run a good campaign and did not have a plan beyond Feb 5.  Let's not forget Mark Penn thought the California primary was winner take all.

Obama, on the other hand, has run a great campaign and was prepared for the long haul and that is why is about to win the Dem nomination.

"No Woman with Obama's Résumé Could Run" | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox