Kate Zernike of the Times talks to political pros about the likely profile of the next woman President (who is unlikely to be Hillary in 2009):
That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).
She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Barack Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits.
Oh, and she may not exist.
But this composite of Madam President is suggested by political strategists and talent scouts, politicians and those who study women in politics. It is based as much on the lessons of the Clinton candidacy as on the enduring truths of politics and the number and variety of women who dot the leadership landscape.
Somewhat bizarrely to my mind, the woman modeled here did not emerge from the military. And why not? Women have been graduating from service academies for a while, and there are plenty of important non-combat career paths that would allow a person to develop some national security credentials over ten years or so. [Hmm, or maybe not.]
Heather Wilson strikes me as someone who should have been mentioned in this article, but wasn't - that makes me think that either there is more to her scandals than I realize, or else the Times is daft (OK, or both).
As to Ms. Wilson's qualifications - she is from a western state, is a graduate of the Air Force Academy (and a Rhodes scholar), gained executive experience running a state agency in New Mexico, has been elected to the House where she served on the intelligence committee, and is now aiming for the Senate. Wikipedia has coverage of her ethics and missing file scandals, which may or may not be why she is not on this Times short list.
Let's get some reaction (via Memeorandum) from the blogs:
No More Mister Nice Blog opines that Hillary's experience with sexism may be Hillary-specific and not reflective of a general level of sexism; Prof. Althouse agrees:
I think people were open to the idea of a woman President, but Hillary Clinton did not suit us. We don't want someone else like her. We want someone different. For starters, how about a woman who did not build her political career through her husband?
Karen Tumulty of TIME also thinks it was antipathy towards Hillary, not women in general.
FREE CONSULTING: A friend of mine who does image consulting glanced at the accompanying graphic and had some free advice to a couple of the prospects - Sarah Steelman (R, MO) needs to either lose the Farah Fawcett hair-style or put up a fundraising porno site ("You'll want to see my position for controlling your gun"); Lisa Madigan (D, IL) ought to find something better than the embarrassing high school yearbook photo that screams "Spitball me".
Trying to help.
You're always just trying to help, TM. It's your trademark.
Posted by: clarice | May 18, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Of course she would have to be one of JOM's lady commenters.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Almost a perfect fit for Condi.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 18, 2008 at 02:29 PM
I really look forward to the first woman president who gets elected in spite of being a woman. Any other criteria is just stupid.
Posted by: Jane | May 18, 2008 at 02:35 PM
TM's accompanying graphic that didn't accompany.
Posted by: sbw | May 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Clarice's picture must have been omitted by mistake.
Posted by: sbw | May 18, 2008 at 02:38 PM
A woman President would have to be a Democrat, wouldn't she, because a Real Woman can't be Republican any more than an Authentically Black person could be.
Posted by: bgates | May 18, 2008 at 02:38 PM
How did Chelsea Clinton get on the list? Seriously, dont you need to have run and won somewhere before you run for President anymore?
Posted by: Gmax | May 18, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Lisa Madigan of Illinois doesn't really belong in this list either. She only got elected because of a man, her father, who is Speaker of the Illinois House, and has been for some time.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 18, 2008 at 03:06 PM
"How did Chelsea Clinton get on the list?"
It's in the genes.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Dungarees? I usually only find lint or spare change in the pockets. Chelsea finds a free pass to run for the C in C?
Posted by: Gmax | May 18, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Who put the dung in the dungarees?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Why isn't Dianne Feinstein on the list?
Posted by: ROA | May 18, 2008 at 03:52 PM
HEH,sbw..I am remarkably unsuited for the task. I do think it would be great to have someone with some real executive experience--military or corporate--instead of just another pol in the WH though.
Posted by: clarice | May 18, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Wilson sounds like Plame. Started spying when she was 14 and dad worked for NSA, Air Force. Wilson's dad was Air force, Roswell. 'Alias.' She's on Energy, which is the original WMD, nuclear power plants, training. She's on the intelligence Committee, which is probably where Plame went and went for 'No Fear.' Signals means NSA. Tactical means something short term. Technical R&D is CIA. She probably was in communications while at Air force.
She sure is an example to those girls like Plame. Plame and Wilson moved there? Like Plame and Chelsea, it's mom and dad getting them jobs on taxes.
Posted by: Doilson | May 18, 2008 at 04:16 PM
OTOH Madigan, the CEO of EBay appeals--imagine such a successgul business from selling carp out of attics and basements...
Posted by: clarice | May 18, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Women have been graduating from service academies for a while, and there are plenty of important non-combat career paths that would allow a person to develop some national security credentials over ten years or so.
I'm not sure this is entirely practicable, though certainly it is becoming more feasible. In the normal progression of things, officers join combat (or at least combat support) units, if possible command at the company level, attend mid-level school, command at the battalion level, do a staff tour, and then go on to achieve some meaningful operational posts at the higher levels. The process takes about 20 years, and is still largely closed to women (who are competing for a very few operational slots with even fewer command opportunities), and it takes decades for meaningful change as women now in Service academies start up the ladder with new expanded opportunities. In short, there is no real expectation that a Colin Powell-style career path will be available to women in the near future; and when it is, it'll still take at least ten years or so to ripen to potential candidates.
Besides, those types of candidates are largely absent from modern politics. A more modest resume bullet (having served) takes only a few years, and is compatible with the follow-on demands of a political career. In that case, the military credentials are mostly a moral issue, but that's probably the best one can do. Even a stellar ten-year career adds little experience in dealing with national security considerations, and trying to short-circuit the process doesn't work. Those few who deal with operational-level assignments without having the earlier tactical ones are, in my opinion, generally not equipped to absorb the experience.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 18, 2008 at 04:19 PM
The Republican broads on that link are much hotter (relatively speaking) than the Dems. Chelsea looks alot like that Hubble guy.
Posted by: Horny Dude | May 18, 2008 at 05:26 PM
Clarice.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Wilson named her children Joshua and Caitlin. Bleh.
And her lawyer husband entertaining a teenaged client when the family's away? Really stupid or evil?
Posted by: Ralph L | May 18, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Clarice
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 05:40 PM
PeterUK, remarkably unkind. :)
Posted by: larry | May 18, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I didn't know Clarice had a Kitchener mustache. Cool.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 18, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Not unkind at all,your country needs Clarice,or those like her.It is the curse of the West that our body politic is swamped with,chancers, second raters,back stabbers,snake oil salesmen,halfwits,buffoons,crooks,poodlefakers,degenerates and cads.
Honour and public service are a thing of the past.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 18, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Thanks,PUK.
There are plenty of people who fit the bill.Unfortunately the present system makes public service so unappealing, generally only the unappealing strive for it.
There are exceptions. We talked about Lt Col Allen West. I had the opportunity to meet him a few weeks ago and he is better than his proponents said. (I'm having a fund raiser in DC for him in Sept.Let's hope we can raise enoughmoney for him to match the funds of his well00financed and very inferior opponent.)
Posted by: clarice | May 18, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Clarice, David Patterson is a politician, but he surely didn't expect to be Governor of New York. I heard him speak last week on "New York is open for Business." He said the things that needed to be said to move this overblown, overgrown ship of state back to where it belongs. So, Clarice, maybe the people who deserve office are those who are not looking for it.
Out of kindness, though, we'll give you a pass. ;-)
Posted by: sbw | May 18, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Why isn't Dianne Feinstein on the list?
Feinstein is mentioned in the article, but is already 74.
Posted by: Jim Hu | May 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
"But this composite of Madam President is suggested by political strategists and talent scouts, politicians and those who study women in politics."
Otherwise known as the usual "expert" suspects. Can you dig up their composite of the first black president? I'm sure that would be good for a much needed laugh right about now.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
JM Hanes,
That was.....What RUSH would say: RIGHT ON!!!!! RIGHT ON!!!!
Posted by: Ann | May 18, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Speaking of Hillary, Mark Levin links to an article at NRO about Obama and his Social Security scare threat:http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/18/obama-warns-seniors-on-social-security-threats/ ">Obama warns seniors on Social Security threats
But the best part of the article is this:
"Obama was in Oregon, where he is favored to win the state's presidential primary on Tuesday. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a second straight day in Kentucky, where she is favored to win when its voters head to the polls the same day."
"She attended worship services at a Methodist church in Bowling Green, and happily sang hymns and joined in Bible readings. But her smile faded when the pastor launched into a sermon about adultery, asking his congregants whether the devil had ever whispered over their shoulders in their marriages." LOL
Posted by: Ann | May 18, 2008 at 11:33 PM
What about Michelle Obama? If the trend continues, she should be the first woman President. Woman? Check. Minority? Check. Angry about the white power establishment? Check. Married to a viable Presidential Candidate whom the Media worships? Check. And (God forbid) if she winds up hanging out in the White House bitchin' for 4 or 8 years, she'll have exactly the experience Hillary had when the Press started singing her praises as a potential President. By then, with the corruption and paybacks in Chicago politics, she could easily slide into Obama's old Illinois Senate seat, make kissy-huggy with Oprah and Reverend Wright, have coffee with Kofi etc, and it'd be morning in America all over again.
Posted by: Daddy | May 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM