The Characteristics of the First Woman President

The New York Times published an article on the characteristics of the first woman president and, yes, the assumption is that Senator Clinton will not win the nomination or be president. (You can also view women legislatures and potential candidates). Here are the characteristics of what the first woman president will need:

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....the first woman to be president probably will not come from the established names in Washington.

According to the article, this profile develops from political strategists and talents scouts.

Beyond those essential characteristics, there are two extremely controversial sections in the article. The first develops from a quote by Dee Dee Myers, the (first female) press secretary for William Clinton. She stated, “No woman with Obama’s résumé could run....No woman could have gotten out of the gate.” The assumption is that women need to prove that they are capable of being elected to office where as men avoid this scrutiny.

Yet, I disagree with this statement as it deflects away from the other important qualifications such as political judgment, political style, political charisma, and rhetorical kairos that enhance the potential candidate. While I may agree that there is a smaller pool, a mix of self-selection and some attitudinal barriers, I think that focusing on experiences perpetuates the problem just like acknowledging the "essential characteristics" is a problem. In this election, Senator Obama exceeds in judgment, style, charisma and kairos, and, with a message of change, the lack of "political experience," [also known as longevity in office and in the spotlight] is a benefit. Ann Richards would have been a similar candidate to Senator Obama, unfortunately, she did not attempt to seek higher office and lost her election while a Democratic President was in office.

The second controversial passage is from Karen O’Connor, the director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, who stated, “Who would dare to run? The media is set up against you, and if you have the money problem to begin with, why would anyone put their families through this, why would anyone put themselves through this?” For this reason, she said, she doesn’t expect a serious contender anytime soon. “I think it’s going to be generations."

The basis for this section is on how the media treated Senator Clinton, which may not be the best analogy to use as it is not clear. While some could argue that there have been an enormous amount of sexist claims made during the presidential election (this would depend on frames of reference and characterizations of the political process), making Senator Clinton the example for this piece is not the best idea. First, the public's perception of Clinton's negatives, from the Clinton legacy, her failures on Health Care, dishonesty, her political personae, etc., are much too high to render this a fair discussion on the topic. Just because she has progressed further than any other woman does not help. Second, as I have argued before, she cultivated a relationship with the media that would cast her as a victim at times because it was politically advantageous for her (New Hampshire, "Boys Club," using SNL in the debate, recent ad in Oregon about the media pundits) to rally some sections of her base. Finally, with the worst incident, the Schuster Comments, she attacked MSNBC and wanted the networks to suspend and fire its reporters (Matthews and Schuster). After this incident, Matthews, Schuster, Olbermann, and Carlson really started their attacks on Senator Clinton. I would argue that while Schuster's comments were bad, it was a tactical error by the Clinton campaign to go after MSNBC because it ensured worse treatment in the future on the opinion shows and not the news segments. To use the media treatment of Senator Clinton as a reason why a woman candidate should not run treats all women the same and overlooks some of the tactical faults of Senator Clinton's campaign.

This second controversial point may not extend to other presidential candidates though we, hopefully, will not know until 2016.