Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you could join us today!

Anne, Welcome to the Lake.

Nona, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Thank you so much for having me today. I’m looking forward to any and all questions — and appreciate such a thoughtful introduction!

Hi everyone! Happy to be here.

I’ll start with a more general question to get the discussion going: Anne, you show constantly in the book that personal attacks and scrutiny is par for the course for a female candidate. You seemed to convey that being sexist is simply accepted and even taken for granted in public. Do you think people are now more sensitive to sexism in the media and everyday life after the whole 2008 experience, and will give it a second thought? Or do you think it’s just made it all the more clear that our society is structurally and ideologically “stacked against” women candidates?

Great question — and I go back and forth on it. In some ways I feel like 2008 helped the learning curve, sensitizing people (including reporters like me) to the fact that dismissive treatment is often a trend, not an isolated experience, for women in public life. On the other hand, there wasn’t a huge amount of outrage, and there was constant confusion about what was acceptable and what wasn’t. I’m still not sure where the “line” should be drawn. Are we really not going to write about a candidate’s clothing when voters themselves judge appearance? And so on. So, not to be mealy mouthed in my first answer, but I think it’s a little of both. And it makes me extremely curious to see how the next woman who runs — assuming one will in the next 4-8 years — is treated.

Good afternoon Anne and Nona and welcome to FDL.

Anne, I have not had a chance to read your book but do have a question based on Nona’s introduction. Why are you pessimistic about breaking this barrier in the short term?

(Note: I’m one of those who does remember Shirley Chisolm as a candidate, even though she was mocked by most of the TradMed of the day)

As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right of each comment. By pressing “Reply” the commenter name and comment number pre-fill and allow everyone to track the conversation more easily.

(Note: If you had to refresh the page, Reply may not work completely if pressed before the page completes loading)

Hi there! I should say — it’s not that I’m pessimistic, point blank. I’m just more pessimistic than many people were coming out of 2008 that a woman will be elected president soon. It became very popular to declare that Clinton had paved a path that another woman would soon march down and straight into the White House, and I wanted to stop and really examine that, along with the assertion that it had been a tremendous “year of the woman!” when two women had lost. Basically, my take is that a) there aren’t that many women on the horizon who would be declared “presidential material,” and when I ask party leaders who their “female Barack Obama” is I get blank stares; and b) it’s harder than it looks. Clinton had all the money in the world (until she blew it, anyway), tremendous name recognition and still she lost. Why do we think there’s some lesser known, less able to raise money female candidate out there lurking? And for all the optimists out there, I ask: who? Name some names, and we can start talking about the possibilities in 2012 and 2016 (I propose a few in the book).

Welcome, Anne.

In looking at the voters, do you get a sense for differences between how GOP women view women in politics vs. how Democratic women view women in politics?

Thank you all for being here. I propose that we give Ted Turner more air time … to flesh out his idea of banning men from all positions of power for 100 years.

The Shirley Chisholm reference reminds me: you briefly talk about the Gloria Steinem oped, where she essentially says it’s easier to be black than to be a woman. But what about black women, or women of color in general? Why do you think they were pretty much left out of the discussion of voters’ loyalties?

(I often heard from my friends that it wasn’t because Clinton was white per se, but that she was a very establishment, elitist kind of white and not populist at all.)

Oh dear, I’m just finishing the intro to the book salon I’m hosting on 4/11. Here’s an exerpt

Returning to the alpha-male concept, of all leaders, a mere 1.4% were women. Of the 377 studied in detail, 2.4% were women, and of those only 0.8% were NOT widows of or daughters of.

I’m afraid the chances are pretty pretty slim for a woman becoming U.S. prez; predictable that the first would be an African-American male, not a white female, even though she is a wife of.

Thanks, Peter. I spent somewhat less time looking at voters, but I did talk to a lot of strategists on both sides — and heard some fascinating anecdotes from focus groups, in particular, on how voters respond to candidates. To speak in broad brushes here, there’s no question that the Democratic party has been friendlier to women candidates (which is why there are so many more Democratic female lawmakers at the federal level), but the sense I got was that geography made more difference than party affiliation. So that someone like Amy Klobuchar was having to work to convince older, female, Democratic Minnesotans that she could win — in a way Olympia Snowe doesn’t have to do with Republican women in Maine. There are also big structural differences between the parties, with, in particular, EMILY’s List helping boost awareness of female candidates on the Democratic side in a way that no Republican group has effectively countered.

I haven’t seen that. Where is that??

Of course, Clinton came to the race with “a lot of baggage.” Can anyone get to such a position and not have a lot of baggage?

I don’t have a good answer to that one. I do know that when I interviewed Condi Rice, she made it very clear to me that she wasn’t surprised Obama beat Clinton — and that in her experience being a woman had been more of a challenge than being black. But how could anyone ever separate out the two? As for Clinton as establishment and elitist: she certainly seemed that way to some. And then to others she was a populist, scrapping hero, at least by the end of the primaries.

Ted Turner has spoken about this all over the place, something that commenters here have confirmed.

It would explain why Jane Fonda was drawn to the man and to me represents a frank and honest assessment for how to reverse the damage of centuries of ego-centered rule.

Just curious: were those male strategists or female strategists?

The “baggage” issue is a great one. Exactly: what person rises through American public life, to the point of being able to run for president, without any missteps or personal issues of any kind? And wouldn’t we loathe that person as a robot?

I talked to both male and female strategists. There happen to be more men in politics, as you know, but I made sure to hunt down as many women who do this as possible.

I was fascinated by the Condi Rice section and wished I could have read more! I agree with you about not separating the two, and that’s why I get frustrated as a young feminist when people think feminism is a “white thing” (although given the historical stages, I understand it). It’s just that these identities intertwine, and we can’t necessarily understand our bottom lines unless we realize these “ism”s collaborate with each other.

How do Republicans and Democrats react to female candidates in times of war, economic crisis, breached national security?

I think the economy people losing jobs and homes will be the big issues. Do people feel safer with Women in charge on these issues if they run forcefully on them or is that just me?
Or do people think Women are to pushy and Socialist if they stand on these issues?

I’m not sure about the “happen to be” part of that.

Given the importance of relationships in the political world, the prominence of men in the backrooms of the parties surely also contributes to the ceiling (cracked or otherwise) that women have to deal with.

Condi was completely fascinating, I have to say. When I saw her, she was in the thick of writing her two books — one’s an autobiography — and I will be shocked if she doesn’t get into a discussion of this there.

You’re absolutely right — I wrote the “happen to be” part with an arched eyebrow you can’t see online.

Great point, Peterr !

Welcome to FDL!

To me, the most startling recent political success by a woman is neither Clinton’s near-victory nor Palin’s tea-party leadership but the election of Annise Parker as Houston’s mayor. How do you suppose lesbian candidates will scramble the interest in “hair, husbands, and hemlines?” If the candidate is not a sexual object for male assignment editors, does she discard a lot of that baggage? Do ‘fashion’ Pulitzer-winners like Givhan lose their toehold on her profile?

I wonder if we’ll see open lesbian candidates — and closeted ones — provide a new paradigm for women running for office, and the journalists who cover them.

Condi Rice also reminds me of another question (and sorry for these long questions! but) Before this whole Clinton/Obama/Palin thing played out, I’d always thought that the first minority or woman president was going to be a Republican, that it might be easier for that kind of candidate to make headway if they didn’t otherwise have the “crazy liberal” label attached to them. You know, like even though they’re black or female or whatever, that subconsciously they’re okay with the conservative social status quo? I’m thinking here of Joe Lieberman (as a Jew), or Rice, or Colin Powell. Am I totally off-base about this theory? Because I definitely didn’t see this dynamic playing out in your book, although you do say that Republican candidates seldom make an “issue” out of their gender.

While it’s important to me to see that women are treated well while running a campaign or not, it’s more important to me that who we elect has progressive values and sticks to them.

When I left the country in 1967, the only talking heads on TV were white male. The night I returned in 1975 and turned on the TV, there was a woman and a black man. I was ecstatic until they started talking. They sounded exactly like the white males. Later I encountered a black man working his way up the ranks who had also trained himself to talk like white males. When I asked why, he said he wouldn’t be able to get a job otherwise.

In short, I’d like to see that in our quest to put more women in office, we’re interested in bringing them in as the whole women they are. Of course I want them to also have progressive values and stick to them.

Do you bring up these two topics in your book?

While I share a home with a pollster, I am not one myself. That said, based on my anecdotal evidence, people don’t generally feel “safer” with women in charge. They worry that women won’t be tough enough to deal with issue X (a rowdy legislature, a nasty rogue foreign leader, etc.). But women can overcome that by presenting themselves as tough, and also bring a dose of compassion to the table, so that voters believe they’ll try to fix problems — like health care. On this subject, I highly recommend a piece written by my colleague Vince Bzdek in today’s Washington Post, on Nancy Pelosi and the health care overhaul.

To Teddy: That’s fascinating..a woman who is not quite a woman. Can focus on accomplishments, may be taken more seriously. Something to watch.

I’m afraid I don’t understand the relevance of Condi Rice to American electoral politics. Her rise was through academia, and being mentored by former SecState Schultz, and then selected by him and James Baker to tutor Shrub for two years before he was selected President.

Isn’t hers the exceptional rise of a career academic, and not something from which other women candidates can learn? A confluence of lucky choices put her where she was, not hard work in the electoral sphere.

It’s true that Condi hasn’t had much electoral experience, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from the flood of opinion/reaction on her and about her in the last 10 years!

My former State Senator, Carol Migden, will never live down her characterization of Nancy Pelosi in her first run for office as “a party girl from Pacific Heights.” I did not know, though, that Pelosi sought to head the DNC long ago.

From the post:

Closely examining what’s worked and what hasn’t in these women’s campaigns and careers, Kornblut unfolds a disturbing “damned if you do, damned if you don’t narrative” about the state of women in American politics: The big three—“hair, husbands, and hemlines”—are to be expected as points of merciless scrutiny.

This sounds like a fairly direct criticism of the media.

I’m a pastor, and so I’m generally busy on Sunday mornings and don’t watch the various Sunday morning political talk shows. But looking at the list of guests that is posted here at FDL every week, the # of women is shockingly low. Some guests are chosen because of the positions they hold (i.e., a general when the topic is war), but the pundit guests are generally overwhelmingly men.

Does your book get into the role that the media plays in the maintenance and/or destruction of the glass ceiling for women in politics?

Houston – and Iceland! I think your theory is a good one, although at the national level I think a lesbian candidate would have to have a strategy for minimizing the predictable onslaught from the conservative right. And let’s be honest, it’s not like Hillary Clinton was sexualized in the coverage of her — if anything, she had the opposite problem. That said, I write in the book that whatever woman candidate it is, she’ll have to be able to talk comfortably about all of this — looks, family, whatever — in order to set it aside. Or that’s my theory, anyway

I don’t dwell on it at length, but I do make the point that there are people who are skeptical about the need/usefulness of electing women, especially given that in some countries their election hasn’t brought about the peace/stability people had thought — and in fact some women have been every bit as conservative as the men who preceded them.

This is the same answer I give when people ask me about Michelle Obama — that she isn’t a woman in politics, she’s a woman married to a politician! You make a fair point, but Condi is interesting to me because a) she was on the public stage for 8 years and b) she’s obviously thought about running for office. And, given the dearth of examples, I’ll take whatever I can get.

Not to quibble, but I’m not sure why. In point of fact, she has no electoral experience. Her “achievements” such as they are — overlooking national security in the first nine months of her president’s tenure and lying America into a land war in Asia — would have been impossible had she not ‘hitched her wagon’ to Bush’s star.

What lessons about Winning can other women learn from Condi’s career, exactly?

There are other electorally successful GOPs, if the attempt was to balance the focus on Hillary: the Maine Senators, Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Hutchison, Liddy Dole.

Human leaders, like those of other primates, are alpha male. To get to be head of a country, a woman will have to be an “alpha female.” Think of the metallic descriptions of those who’ve made it who aren’t widows of or daughters of, like Maggie Thatcher, Iron Lady.

Despite the title, Anne’s book (as I’m sure she can tell you) isn’t only about women winning but also about what public image works for a female politician–what the public seems to want, what they applaude vs. what they condemn, who they relate to, etc.

Thank you for visiting Anne. In your mind, what was the single biggest reason why young women on the left had issues voting for Hillary Clinton. Was it a belief that President Obama would be a strong advocate for women, or a desire to end the wars, or problems with Hillary’s personality. Thanks for your perspective in advance.

My book didn’t do too much media examination — I was stuck on a campaign bus for much of the 2008 cycle and caught the TV coverage when it was over, for one thing — but I can attest that politics is still a pretty heavily guy-dominated arena. Recently I was in the Fox green room and looked at all the photos of guests they had on the walls and counted just four or five who were women. But is that the media’s fault? Or is it because there are so few women in politics? And isn’t there going to be some attrition in a career that requires absurdly long hours and zero flexibility for families? That, for me, is the bigger question: how to make it possible for women to work in these fields without having to drop out in their 30s to have children. Because until that happens, the only real model will be the Pelosi model, of starting in politics once children are grown. Or the model of not having kids at all.

To piggyback on that, I did want to ask you more about your claim that young women are “postfeminist” and didn’t see the momentousness in a woman being president. My first reaction was, “We do have gender consciousness! What is she talking about?” For my latest book, I traveled around the country and met hundreds of women, all of whom were thinking critically about these issues. I also know countless young feminists who carefully thought it over before voting for Obama.

My question is, even you yourself say in the book that people most frequently vote on party lines rather than gender/race, and that it was foolish of the McCain campaign to think they could court Clinton supporters with Palin. Why do you not mention/investigate young women, particularly feminists, who thought Obama would be just as good on women’s issues as Clinton? I for one know that a lot of young women cared about things like reproductive rights and equal pay, and didn’t think they were compromising these beliefs by voting for Obama. There are a LOT of young feminists out there who care about women’s issues!

Well, that list of GOP women also has its flaws, given that with the exception of the Maine senators they all have had their share of political problems. Your point is taken. I’d also say, I just found Condi interesting — and, until I interviewed her, thought she might run for president someday. (I left the interview pretty sure she won’t). I also devote a chapter to Meg Whitman.

What would you say was the biggest factor that put Caroline Kennedy out of the race?

Based mostly on anecdotal evidence, I’d say it was all of the above. Over and over, I would interview young women who would just shrug and roll their eyes over Hillary — they just didn’t like her. I can’t tell you the number of young women I talked to who also said it wouldn’t be that big a deal to elect a woman, and that they were sure it would “happen someday.”

Did you find any irony in the lopsided attention ‘Game Change’ got when your book came out the same time? Your book provides rigorous case study analysis (even if we differ on the cases chosen for study) while Halperin amd Heilemann provide blind/unsourced/paraphrased gossip and revenge stories. And yet theirs was the book that lit the cable gasbags on fire.

Do you think there’s a fundamental difference about the kind of stories men and women want to hear and tell? Is there something cultural about what sets our tongues wagging?

Anne, what do you think of the long-term prospects of Kirsten Gillibrand, assuming she successfully passes the test this November to win the seat in NY in her own right, and assuming she continues to make more friends with the lib Dem base with her votes?

She was not my 1st choice to be selected for that seat, Caroline was, but KG is smart, articulate, increasingly steeped in issues senators have to deal with, and is young, attractive and has shown a tough insiders ability to get what she wants. A mix of traditional and modern feminine characteristics, seems to me, in a pretty good overall political package.

To carry that a little further, in American politics women officeholders are also expected to tend the home fires while male politicians can not only attend to business but in so many cases seem to have extra time for, um, something on the side.

Oh, I don’t know why any young feminist WOULD think she was compromising her beliefs by voting for Obama — that seemed like it wouldn’t have to be mentioned. My point was more that Clinton didn’t tap into a sense of sisterhood the way she could have, not that Obama was somehow a lesser choice on the issues. And if you look at the inverse, Obama did persuade African American voters that he would be a better choice for them as president. Strictly politically speaking, that helped him win.

TPM thinks she ‘unstoppable’ FWIW. That is this Nov’s election.

How often are you on a show where you are the only woman on the roundtable of journalists? How often have you been on (or seen) a roundtable that includes only one man in the midst of several women?

It seems to me that the presence of so many men in the media shapes the way in which women candidates/officeholders are perceived by the public at large.

Well, obviously David Paterson… But, assuming there isn’t some hidden reason that has yet to emerge, it looks to me like she withdrew because of all the attacks on her performance and questions about her credentials. I wrote a piece at the time questioning the fairness of that, and still wonder.

Thank you. So young women are not as concerned about that ceiling perhaps. In future campaigns for any politicians, the mass media will play an even greater role it seems, whether we like it or not. My sense is that the media on the right or the left do not like and/or respect female candidates. That would seems to be a big hurdle. I don’t know why that is. Is it because the newsmedia is still run by traditional men for the most part. Or because women don’t represent as much buying potential for advertisers (though in reality they represent much higher commercial value to networks and advertisers).

Look, they wrote a tantalizing drama, not a political book. There’s a great piece by Jill Abramson in last week’s NYT on where theirs fits into the pantheon; check it out if you haven’t seen it. I don’t find it at all surprising that Game Change has done so well.

Right, and I know you bring up this point in the book about Hillary assuming she had all the young women in the bag and then essentially ignored us. But I think in this case, since both of them were pretty identical on women’s issues, Obama appealed to us in a generational sense, whereas (as I said before) I think a lot of young women saw her as less accessible, less “with it.”

That said, it just seems like you’re saying young feminists don’t exist and didn’t care about women being in the White house. For many feminists I knew, it was an agonizing decision.

CK sucked at performing. No matter what you thought about her in advance, once she opened her mouth she was toast.

The folks in Noo Yawk seem to think Andrew Cuomo has a lock on that seat.

Gillibrand is certainly on “the list” of women to watch. She had a rough patch early on but seems to have recovered, and of course there doesn’t now appear to be any real GOP opposition to her in NY for this fall. In my view, she has one of the most important ingredients, which is ambition. You have to have an insane level of drive to want to succeed in politics, especially nationally. She seems to have it, which could help her go far.

Oh, you are definitely right. But I am not sure most women — most people — think about politics as much as you do. I spend a lot of time in backwaters stopping random people on the street asking them what they think, and it’s those young women from whom I mostly got the “she’s not cool” explanation.

I guess it depends on your meaning of ‘hidden reason that is yet to emerge’ but her quite well-known affair with someone high atop the NYT is what sunk her. And has driven the NYT’s pursuit of Paterson since, in my view.

And since you mentioned her, why choose Meg Whitman? Again, no electoral experience. Nothing but corporate ‘success’ as defined by the worshipful business press. Unwillingness to be exposed to the electorate or questioned by the political press. Having hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on getting elected to her first political office — is that how the glass ceiling will get broken? And if it’s what will work, why isn’t working for Fiorina?

He hasn’t entered the race yet. I wonder why.

Sorry, that came out kind of harsh–I guess it’s less that you think they don’t exist and more that you didn’t bring them into the discussion of young women in the book.

Haha, and yeah, I did hear the “she’s not cool” explanation…even from feminists! Generational appeal is incredibly potent.

Cuomo — NY governor’s race. Gillibrand — Senate seat.

I certainly do not think Caroline had that kind of “drive” either.

Goldman Sachs has perfected the art of biz taking over govt, both appointed & elected. Why shouldn’t Whitman try that route?

A What If? question for Anne: In the recent book of interviews with Bill Clinton by historian Taylor Branch, Clinton is quoted as having suggested to candidate Al Gore in 2000 that he select MD senator Barbara Mikulski for Veep.

How do you think that would have played out with the electorate then?

Out of the box pick, like Al was looking for. Tough, no-nonsense woman, knows her stuff, could not be bullied by Dick Cheney in a debate, might even have cuffed him a few times herself. Possibly could have greatly energized a ticket that was in need of some added positive energy, and/or taken away more of the Nader encroachment on the left of Gore.

Downside: her single marital status and all the rumormongering that would have brought from the R campaign machinery.

Thanks, I’m a Canuck … *g*

O geez, brain fart. I didn’t remember there were 2 diff races.

Again, I was trying to look at interesting models of female leadership at the top levels, and Whitman is a really fascinating case study to me. If she wins, she’ll be the first female business leader to make the switch (we’ll see what happens with Fiorina). And yes, don’t you think it’s entirely possible that the first woman who wins will be wealthy? I frankly think that is a real likelihood, given the way our national politics runs. So it was something I wanted to familiarize myself with.

How did I miss that Mikulski nugget? She’s priceless, and that certainly would have been out-of-the-box. Then again, we would have been robbed of the Lieberman experience.

Can you explain something about writing a book while working for the Post? (This question has been asked of Bob Woodward here as well). How does that work, exactly? You’re covering the campaign 24/7 during 2008, on the bus. How do you keep your campaign coverage separate from material for your book? Do you hold things back for the book? Do you worry that a scoop for the Post might be stale if you hold it for the book?

We’re fascinated by the Legacy Media here, in case you hadn’t noticed, and any insights into that relationship would be great. When you appear on Hardball, for example, do you just talk about something from your latest article in the Post, or do you have a new nugget for Matthews? And do your editors ask about that?

Thanks for this chat, in case I hadn’t typed that already….

Not harsh at all! I love a spirited debate on this stuff. I do way too many events where people agree with me.

A Mikulski-Cheney debate would have been a thing of beauty.

(And I, for one, would have gladly given up “the Lieberman experience.”)

Wow, wish you would have been campaign manager for Gore back then.

Anne, speaking of Lieberman, wanted to make sure you saw this question: Before this whole Clinton/Obama/Palin thing played out, I’d always thought that the first minority or woman president was going to be a Republican, that it might be easier for that kind of candidate to make headway if they didn’t otherwise have the “crazy liberal” label attached to them. You know, like even though they’re black or female or whatever, that subconsciously they’re okay with the conservative social status quo? I’m thinking here of Joe Lieberman (not as a Republican but as a conservative Dem Jew), or Rice, or Colin Powell. Am I totally off-base about this theory? Because I definitely didn’t see this dynamic playing out in your book, although you do say that Republican candidates seldom make an “issue” out of their gender.

Thanks Anne. Just one more question and I’ll shut up and listen. So based on what you say here, young progressive feminists believed Obama would be at least as strong on women’s issues as Clinton. Has that conviction held up in your view.

Thanks for writing the intro today Nona, and thanks so much Anne for being here.

I think your comment about “insane levels of drive” is very true. I notice that almost all women who succeed in politics at the federal level possess that quality. And while it would be wrong to say that men don’t, it does seem easier to be a man and coast along on incumbent status and good constituent services. Women like Gillibrand keep their competitors at bay by being prodigious fundraisers and energetic campaigners.

What other female members of Congress would you note for being up-and-comers?

Well, an argument can be made that the first businesswoman to make it to the White House is Desiree Rogers.

Men better get used to the idea of women leaders. Nicholas Kristoff points to new studies on the success girls and young women are having in school compared to boys and young men.

¶Among whites, women earn 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees and 62 percent of master’s degrees. Among blacks, the figures are 66 percent and 72 percent.

It’s a good question — and thank you for putting me in the same paragraph as Bob Woodward. I had the benefit of not actually knowing I would be writing this book during the campaign, so everything “scoopy” I had went straight into the newspaper. Only when I started reporting the book in late 2008 did I go back and interview sources about the campaign, so there really was no conflict. But going forward, if I were to do another book while also covering politics, I’d probably do it the exact same way. My feeling is that news has to get out in time for it to matter to the public, not be held back to benefit me.

As for Hardball, I usually stick to what I know from reporting for the paper. I’d never break news there first. But television is a different medium, obviously, so I can share thoughts and observations in a fresh way – and sometimes give context that doesn’t work in print.

Would have been MOST happy to have been robbed of the Lieberman experience, though expect Milkowsky to have been raked over the coals.

That was my — and many other people’s — assumption, too. It just makes sense: a Republican woman is bound to be tough, and is a hawk, right? So she’s immediately neutralized the first, biggest negative for a woman running for president.

The problem with that theory is that first, the woman has to actually get the Republican nomination, and there just aren’t that many women poised to do so. There are many, many, many more Democratic women building up the necessary credentials. Also, would the GOP female candidate be anti-abortion? If so, she’ll provoke the same furious response from Democratic women, and not win crossover votes. And if she’s pro-choice, she won’t get the GOP nomination in the first place.

Anne–

With regard to the young women you spoke to about Clinton, were you dealing with a cross-section of women by socioeconomic class, or just ones from a particular group? It’s my sense that upper-middle-class/affluent Democratic voters overwhelmingly favored Obama, but that Clinton’s support came from working-class people. In short, apart from African-American voters (which Obama got for identity reasons–race trumps gender and so on), Obama got the Gene McCarthy demographic and Clinton got the Bobby Kennedy demographic–am I wrong in seeing it that way?

It feels to me like opinion is somewhat divided, and of course it depends on how you define women’s issues. He did sign Lily Ledbetter; he also made the Stupak compromise. What does that tell us? Is his Afghan policy good for women, or bad? I bet the jury is still out, right? What do people here think?

SO interesteing. Re that last point, that’s why I was puzzled by Meg Whitman. Isn’t she pro-choice (even supports funding for abortions) and Republican?

Do you think Hillary Clinton will move over to the Defense Department, should Gates ever leave? Obama’s retention of a “tough Daddy party” Defense Secretary is very frustrating, as it implies Democrats can’t handle war. And, you’ll notice, it hasn’t inoculated Obama’s war policy from criticism by Congressional GOPs.

My daughter, late 20s, convinced both of us to vote for Obama: She said she was sick of baby boomers, and when we pointed out that we are boomers, she stuck to her guns. I think for her it was strictly a generational issue.

I think he’s been good with a few things women-related: Lilly Ledbetter, lifting the Global Gag rule, and (initially) zeroing out abstinence-only education, which I guess isn’t only a woman’s issue but ends up being one because we’re the ones who get pregnant. Of course, the health care thing has put a wrench in the engine because of Stupak/the executive order, and $250 million back to ab-only ed.

That said, I really don’t know if Clinton would have had more power to change either of these things, given the hysteria over health care!

Don’t get me wrong. Men who run for high office usually have insane levels of drive, too. You have to in order to put yourself through the ringer of a presidential campaign.

Others to watch: Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Janet Napolitano, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Alex Sink, maybe? Kelly Ayotte? Robin Carnahan? Definitely Debbie Wasserman Schultz, although she is pretty well known already. Who else has candidates?

Yes, Whitman is, and that’s why many Republicans thought she’d get a tougher challenge for the GOP nomination. But she’s only running for governor of California, not the GOP presidential nomination, where it matters.

That’s a good shorthand for how it broke down, yes. Especially in the later states.

Mildly interesting that Ayotte is the only R on that list (not really drawing any conclusions from it though)

I think Hutchison was pretty well poised to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 until her disastrous decision to challenge Perry; now he’s better situated (as if America would ever choose a TX governor to lead us again!)

Dole did mount a respectable campaign for the presidency, and brought something new (her Oprah-like wandering in the audience wowed the political press in 2000, iirc) that was ascribed immediately to her gender. Her having been defeated in NC in 2008 shouldn’t tarnish her record as the highest-achieving GOP woman until Palin came along.

Ha! Yeah, I hear those stories all the time. Never underestimate the power of a generational pull.

And you think Hillary Clinton would be less “tough Daddy” than Gates? From what we’ve seen so far, they’re basically on the same page, aren’t they?

To answer your question — I have no idea. It wouldn’t shock me, and if you think about it, she had more defense expertise (after serving on SASC) than she did foreign policy. But hey, I love to stoke a good nomination rumor, so let’s go with it.

Check out the lead anecdote of my book (involving Geraldine Ferraro’s daughter, who did not vote for Hillary Clinton)

Whitman has balanced her pro-choice stance with strong support for Prop 8.

Not to sound partisan. The President’s reversal on his promise to make FOCA his first priority when he got into office was a surprise to many women I think. Also it’s difficult to imagine Hillary signing on to any compromise with Bart Stupak. But maybe all that’s not an immediate concern for progressive women. Being a man I am not sure.

Sorry to be so adamant on this point, but almost running for president and then dropping out (a la Liddy Dole) doesn’t qualify as a huge national political success in my book, either. That is not to say she wasn’t admirable, and didn’t do all the things you say, but I’d like to set the bar higher. Ditto on KBH.

I had a question about Sarah Palin’s everchanging image. You say in some of the last pages of the book (sorry to give it away!) that Palin hasn’t been much of a substantive political leader since she resigned from being governer–that is, she doesn’t say much. What do you think now, in light of this role she’s taken in the Tea Party movement?

Add Sheila Simon to that list, the new Democratic nominee for Lt Gov in Illinois, running with Pat Quinn.

I was fascinated by the Condi Rice section and wished I could have read more! I agree with you about not separating the two, and that’s why I get frustrated as a young feminist when people think feminism is a “white thing” (although given the historical stages, I understand it). It’s just that these identities intertwine, and we can’t necessarily understand our bottom lines unless we realize these “ism”s collaborate with each other.

There’s also a bit of class entering into it, as well as generational differences. There was a perception that older, upper-class women who backed Hillary were doing so primarily because they wanted to see a woman — any woman — in the White House before they died, whereas younger and nonwhite women were more interested in the policies of the various candidates.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has never had a competitive campaign, which makes her selection as head of the Red-to-Blue committee very odd. But one can see what Nancy Pelosi sees in her, as a safe-district female Democrat who won one primary for all the marbles for as long as she wants them.

DWS is as likely to be the first Jewish speaker as Cantor, in my view.

But regarding Napolitano, don’t you think her openly but unacknowledged closetness will hurt her with the national Democratic party? Norm Coleman had to change parties in Minnesota when Democrats made clear they wouldn’t nominate anyone who was dishonest about their sexuality. Won’t that hurt Napolitano’s chances at the national level too?

Agree, + Todd Whitman. All fast out of the field. A surprising pattern, I think.

That’s the problem with writing a book — then you’re stuck with it! Yes, I turned the thing in in August, and Palin immediately started talking. I still think she’s a work in progress, though. And her negatives are still unbelievably high, high enough that running for president will be difficult if she decides to.

When I see you throw that SecDef Hillary rumor out to Tweety on Hardball, I’ll remember where you got it!

Yes, exactly, and that’s always my explanation for why young women didn’t necessarily vote for Hillary. Perhaps older women/feminists just didn’t think intersectionally, as they didn’t (at least, not in the mainstream narrative) during the Second Wave.

Ha! Oh, the publishing industry. Still, I’m curious to think if what she’s saying feels substantive–or just opportunistic?

Did you feel there was class homogeneity among the young women you spoke with about Clinton?

I think you and I differ on electoral success as a criterion: Rice & Whitman vs Dole & KBH. Which is okay! I just think it’s interesting, since “to win” is in the subtitle of your book.

I don’t know, Napolitano told me (voluntarily) in our interview that she had to deal with the lesbian rumors in Arizona — and that, not incidentally, they were untrue. I don’t have any reason not to believe her. And given the problems various husbands have caused female candidates, maybe being single would be an asset.

Oh, speaking of which, I should have put Jenny Sanford on the GOP list. Just for fun.

Interesting, thank you. Let me repeat my plea: Anyone who has an impressive woman to watch, please throw it out there. I want to make sure I don’t miss anyone.

Totally valid point.

Look at Palin’s request yesterday to the teabaggers, one day after national exposure of a man ramming his car into another, holding a child, because of its owners’ Obama sticker: “Stop those drivers with Obama stickers on their cars and ask them ‘How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for ya?’”

She is a profoundly irresponsible inciter. Whether the first shooter is inspired by her or Glenn Beck is really a tossup.

Oh, something else about Dole. That “Godless” ad against Kay Hagan in the 08 Senate race! What a mistake. But kind of a gift to political junkies.

No doubt that she isn’t an inciter–I guess I’m just curious as to whether this could possibly ever actually translate into a real campaign (because unlike Beck or Limbaugh, she came thisclose to being in the White House). I’ve always said no, but these last couple weeks have gotten me really worried.

Former Speaker of the CA Assembly (and candidate for Congress) Karen Bass.

Congresswoman (and Jonestown survivor) Jackie Speier.

John Barrow primary challenger Regina Thomas.

North Carolina Secretary of State (and Richard Burr challenger) Elaine Marshall.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Chief of Staff, out lesbian and Democrat Susan Kennedy.

I wouldn’t underestimate her ability to stay in politics. Whatever voters say they feel about her qualifications to be president, her ability to define the debate is uncanny.

There was a perception that older, upper-class women who backed Hillary were doing so primarily because they wanted to see a woman — any woman — in the White House before they died

That’s one way to put it I suppose. Wonder what percentage of the electorate those older upper-class women represented. Thought the suburban vote went to the President in any case.

Sorry, no doubt that she IS an inciter!

Every poll shows her disapproval higher and higher as time goes on. You cannot build a successful political career on ever-increasing disapproval numbers. But you can build a remarkable media personality!

Anne, what do you make of the Massachusetts race between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown, relative to the things you discuss in the book?

One thing that leaps out at me immediately with regard to gender is the almost complete total pass that Brown got for his Cosmo nude centerfold photo spread from years ago. I can’t imagine a woman getting a pass had she posed for similar pictures.

Ha, I’m still waiting for that talk show…

I tend to agree, but I’ve also been proven wrong so many times I now know better than to discount something just because I haven’t seen it before.

I’d save yourself the headache. Palin resigned the Alaska governorship at least in part because she was fed up with harassment via bs ethics complaints. When you’re in office, your hands are tied behind your back to a large extent with regard to that kind of attack. Palin’s immediate reaction to getting hit is to hit back–that’s my sense of the kind of person she is. She won’t run for office again because she knows it’ll make her a sitting duck again. She’s had enough of that crap and I doubt she’s going to put herself through it again. The Clintons are willing to face it, but their commitment to public service and policy is infinitely greater than Palin’s. I’m sure she’s plenty content to be a female Limbaugh.

It’s funny, we had a book party on the night of the Massachusetts election, and you should have seen how much the women-in-politics folks were drinking.

No doubt a woman would be ridiculed mercilessly for having been a centerfold, and it would undermine her credibility, which, because she’s a woman, starts out low automatically. What I’m still trying to figure out is how a female candidate should combat the “this is my truck” phenomenon. It’s like getting voters to want to have a beer with you: how do you out-guy the guys and still get women to vote for you?

Anne, this is so interesting because Obama really does walk this line–except he’s a guy. Actually, a lot of what I was getting out of your book, especially toward the end when you compare us to other countries, was that our fundamental values (competitive, macho, capitalist) will always get in the way of us electing a female candidate, and that personal ambition will always be considered male. But given the far right’s strong reaction to Obama, constantly calling him “un-American,” “anti-capitalist,” etc., do you think that has something to do with the feminine qualities he’s associated with? Or is more racism, or is it really truly his policy choices?

Beer & trucks….how silly does it have to be? Sort of like Hillary’s looks…enough,huh?

Palin is going to make $1.2 million per episode from TLC, a network I’m giving up, for about 12 episodes. That, and her book, and her merch, put her in a category beyond her wildest dreams. By setting up her daughter’s media consulting firm, she’s enabled slush-fund payments to her family to skip generations, too. Very little of this would survive campaign-level scrutiny.

She’s another rodeo clown, just like Beck. Only Bachmann has actual ambitions politically, but her district will likely disappear.

Oh, sure, they are dangerous, just like Rush, in whom they’ll inspire to shoot an officeholder. It’s just a matter of time the way they talk. And their shock and faux-dismay will be something to behold when it happens — when not if.

Bake cookies while stirring the dough with your rifle butt.

Marsha Blackburn of not-Nashville: her campaign slogan the first time was “Marsha’s My Man”.

Yeah, it’s silly on the one hand. On the other hand, leadership is about communication, and how candidates relate to people — as people — is part of that. Trucks, beer, families, that’s all part of giving people a point of entry to understand who you are. I contend that it’s more complex for women, but not impossible.

Anne, why do you think there was no female commentator, no matter whether they were supporting Hillary or not, that did not confront Keith Olberman on the air when he said something like “I think someone needs to take her in a room and only he come out.”

That is so brilliant.

Wait sorry–can you explain the thing about her daughter’s media firm and skipping generations? I’m not familiar…

The kerfuffle over Obama’s bowling was a media attempt to “girl him up.” The idea was to ensure the Democratic nominee, whichever it was, couldn’t hold a candle to war hero Five-Crash McCain. Palin’s selection kind of ruined that, though, just as it ruined the experience argument.

I didn’t hear that one. Huh.

As we come to the end of this Book Salon,

Anne, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending your afternoon with us discussing your new book, women and politics.

Nona, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you haven’t bought Anne’s book yet, here is a link.

Thanks all.

Getting here very late, and just wanted to say that as a 64 year old woman I never thought I would live to see either a black President or a woman President. I’ve lived to see one, and maybe I’ll be alive for the second.

(As a purely local aside, Regina Thomas is trying for the second time to primary our POS Congresscritter John Barrow. She tried in 2008 but fell short. She’s a treasure, and if you want more women in Congress here’s her ActBlue page. She needs all the help she can get.) Thanks.

Like Michelle Obama’s arms; I’m just creeped, or amazed, at what folks want to pick at. Laura Ingraham will go after anything in that unkind, snarky way…just as Rush does.

Bristol incorporated herself as a media consultant recently; it will enable companies like TLC to pay her directly for service alongside her mom’s “work;” probably Teabagger money goes there as well.

Is it already that time? Wow. This flew by. Great questions, and a lot of fun. Thank you to everyone for joining, and for having such a great community here. Please feel free to email me at the Post if you come across the female Obama. And again, thank you for hosting me!

Thanks, Anne. I look forward to reading your book.

Perhaps a story from academia might help.

A woman in her 40s was being interviewed for a deanship at a relatively small institution, and at a general “meet the faculty Q&A” gathering, she was asked by one of the grumpier old men on the faculty (paraphrasing here), “Being a dean means having to deal with faculty egos, rivalries, and interdepartmental battles. What makes you think you can handle that?” Her answer: “I am the mother of a five year old.” She got the job.

If you are dealing with a childish opponent, calling them out on their childish behavior goes a long way with most folks.

Yes, thanks to both host and author for this chat today. I will buy this book.

Thanks so much everyone! I really enjoyed this.

That’s Nancy Pelosi’s line! She uses it ALL the time. And I have a feeling she’ll be using it even more after the last few weeks.

Great perspective you brought to bear on this, Nona. Thank you!

Anne, I have enjoyed you on the TV…good luck with the book. And, thanks.

Pelosi will go down in history as one of the greatest Speakers of all time – she likely has another ten or fifteen years of service ahead of her. But her writeup in every history book will forever be marred by her having taken impeachment off the table.

And by the way, she’s my congresswoman, which is to say we San Franciscans have given up our right to have a very leftist progressive voice in Congress so that America can have a wonderful Speaker, so — you’re welcome.

Thanks, you too!

Thank you for writing the book, Anne, and I am buying the book.

I’m sure she didn’t tap into that sense of sisterhood because that is the most forbidden thing of all for women to get together and do anything. Obviously the nation can barely deal with women in office the idea of one who connects with other women on a political sisterhood level would set the wingers and their elected representatives into howling non-stop. There may be a lot of young feminists but i sure don’t get any sense of a feminist movement anymore.

Sorry I didn’t get here for the live discussion. Spring Sprang in Minnesota and it was a day to walk the dog on de-iced pavement, and celebrate. anyhow…

‘Others to watch: Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Janet Napolitano, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Alex Sink, maybe? Kelly Ayotte? Robin Carnahan? Definitely Debbie Wasserman Schultz, although she is pretty well known already. Who else has candidates?”

Recently I have been impressed with Elizabeth Warren, a fairly minor appointee, but one who has the skills to cover Treasury and Labor Issues, and if she could run and be elected to the Senate (I am thinking a good opponent for Brown in MA in 2012). We tend to think of “tough” in terms of the Military, but “tough” can also include mastery of Finance, ability to toke it up with Wall Street, etc. I think Warren has some of that gift that would play well politically. As with Warren, many of Obama’s second tier younger appointees will be around for years.

A Note: Above you mention Klobuchar’s problems with older Minnesota DFL’ers, a group that very much includes me. I co-ordinated part of her Minneapolis Campaign the first time she ran for County Attorney, (about a third of the city), and understand where the objection was coming from. Most of it had to do with Hillary Clinton’s early involvement with the Amy’s Senate Campaign, Financial, (Bill and Hillary high end fundraisers) and appearances. Among older DFL Women there is a fairly strong dislike of Hillary based on her dissing Arvonne Fraser during Bill Clinton’s first term. Arvonne is among the founding members of the Second Wave Feminists, one of the founders of WEAL, NOW, etc, and was Carter’s Assistant Sec. of State for Women’s Affairs. Reagan abolished the office, Arvonne brought all the programs back to the Humphrey Institute, raised the money, and kept things going during Reagan and Bush I. Clinton then appointed Arvonne Special Ambassador to the UN for Women’s Affairs — but when Hillary decided she wanted to be star of the show at the China UN Conference, she got Arvonne fired. Arvonne has written her Political Autobiography, published in late 2007, and she spells it out. So lots and lots of bad blood. Amy’s early endorsement of Obama (who won nearly 80% of the votes in Precinct Caucuses in 2008, cleaned up most of the problem.) Local politics explain lots of these matters. For Amy to be properly positioned in 2016, she needs to take up a medium to large bore set of issues. Her strength is probably related to her highly successful career as a prosecutor, and she serves on Judicary.

Peggy: if you don’t get a sense of a feminist movement, then you haven’t been paying attention.