Eleanor Clift: Madam President

The First Woman President lecture series continues this week at the Dole Institute of Politics. So far it's been really good. I mentioned Carol Mosely Braun's talk last week. Last night Eleanor Clift, a panelist on the McLaughlin Group, contributing editor of Newsweek, and co-author of Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling, spoke about the potential for women to be elected into the presidency and why it hasn't happened yet. The key issue for her is the small pool of potential candidates. It's not that people don't vote for women, rather, there just aren't enough women willing to run. "The American people are more willing to elect a woman president than there are women willing to run," Clift stated. Much to the chagrin of many baby-boomer feminists, their daughters are choosing to stay home with a family at a higher rate than even a generation ago. Perhaps we're already seeing women take for granted all the work our mothers and grandmothers did to earn us space in the political arena. For my mother, just the fact that I could have easily played team sports in high school but chose not to, was irksome. She had longed to play basketball and softball in school, but wasn't allowed to. She's told me the story several times about wanting to be a school crossing guard in Jr. High, but only boys could do that job. Am I taking all her work for granted?

I like to think that I'm blazing my own trail. Political Science is still a male-dominated field. In my entering cohort I was one of four women, and the only one not intending to complete a Ph.D. and teach. I worked at a Top 100 PR firm in Tallahassee. My boss was excellent about finding talent and developing his employees, and relied on women. I have a feeling that that kind of environment may be rare.

But what will it take for someone like me to enter that pool of potential candidates? Just the fact that Clift mentioned that there aren't enough women willing to sacrifice a family life for their career makes me wonder if that's part of my purpose. I'm not married, not dating anyone, never really have had a steady relationship to speak of, and my personal goals are not necessarily conducive to 2.5 kids, a dog, and a white picket fence. Not that I don't want those things or think that women who do want those things are bad or don't have personal goals and ambitions. Maybe it's just where I am in my life that those things are not on my radar. I really need a man who has a flexible career and really wants to be a stay-at-home-dad. But even that has its problems. There's something about the male ego that just doesn't fit that model. And it never looks good in the political arena for a woman to "wear the pants," ie. Hillary Clinton. Female candidates have a whole new set of rules. They have to be feminine and caring bt tough and agressive; understanding and warm but decisive and commanding; intelligent and humorous, but not calculating or airy. It's an impossible dichotomy. Clift cited that a female president would have to be a perfect balance of Mother Theresa and Jack the Ripper. What an outrageous combination!

I was discussing this with some female colleagues this morning, and we were laughing about the obstacles facing women in office and the potential for female candidates. We decided the best course of action would be to join the military, volunteer for active duty in the Middle East, come back as a "war hero" and run for a state level position and just begin working up the ranks to governor. Then after a couple terms in a large swing state, make a bid for the nomination. I wonder how important party politicking will be for the first woman president. It's all speculation now until there actually is a woman elected.