Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 11/07/2008 5:00 am

Post-Election Postmortem: Did the Election Help or Hurt Women in Politics?

JOAN:  I think it will dismember it; she appeals to the majority of the base. The base is 28 percent of the American electorate. And that means all the intellectuals in the Republican party who have already turned on her will not support her. I think it would be cataclysmic for that party, but I don’t think it will happen. She may try, but my bet is she would not make it. And, of course, four years is a lifetime in politics. We have no idea what … who the country would see as a potential leader by then.

JANE: I don’t think she will last. I think she’ll fade. Or she’ll go back to Alaska. Maybe if she does something stunning there. But she does have charisma. And when I first saw her, I thought she was like Jean Arthur in topsy-turvy versions of her movies, didn’t you? I mean, she seemed to have charm. And her speech, I thought, was so well delivered that I thought she was a star.

MARLO: She is a star.

JANE: She is a star. Exactly.

MARLO: And she’s funny. And she’s brave and she’s bold.

JANE: She is brave. I know.

MARLO: She’s very brave and bold and she seems fearless.

JANE: We want that from a woman.

JOAN: She’s also ignorant and maybe stupid. I mean, many people who know her don’t think she’s terribly smart. She’s quick. She’s a quick study.

JOAN: She has no depth of interest in anything.

JANE: And I think her ambition is what made us turn on her. Her ambition to take this kind of job or to take this kind of position, knowing that she’s not prepared for it, or not right for it. 

MARLO: What about Dan Quayle? I mean, he wasn’t qualified or right. I wonder if anybody has the guts to say, “No, I’m not qualified.” Dan Quayle didn’t think he was.

JOAN: He had two terms in the Senate. I don’t think he saw himself as unqualified. He knew the issues a whole lot better than Sarah Palin. He had no presence.

JANE: He couldn’t spell potato and he couldn’t think on his feet

MARLO: But I don’t think he was an overly intelligent fellow. I kind of see them as the same, in terms of the grasp of the issues and ability … well, actually she’s a better speaker.

JOAN: She has a lot more presence. He was never a star. She’s a real star.

JANE: Do you think she tarnishes, enhances or has any long-standing impact on the idea of a woman as a president or vice president? I don’t think she’s helped the cause.

MARLO: I think in the wake of Hillary, Palin’s a non-issue. I just think that Hillary is such a qualified human being, whether you want her for president or not, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, but she’s a very qualified human being, and held her own on that stage with all those guys, all those men, in all those debates. Sarah Palin could never do that.

JOAN: Yeah, but I think she has moved the needle, as Hillary did. I think it will be far more common, in the future, to have a woman on the ticket if the man is a candidate; that will not be as rare as it has been. And I think both Hillary and Sarah in particular, oddly enough, because she came out of nowhere, whereas we all knew Hillary. She wasn’t exactly the woman candidate. She was “Hillary Clinton.”

272 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Barbara Taylor
The question was “Did the Election Help or Hurt Women in Politics?” Women have been hurt by this election. The question is not necesarily directed towards Clinton or Palin. Women have gone backwards. Whether you agree or disagree with Clinton or Palin views, we as women did not stand up when sexism was brought into this race. In the case of some candidates, even women were sexist. I thought the fight was for all women, not women who only have “my” beliefs. In high school I watched “That Girl” every week; that’s who I wanted to be. Young, independent, single woman out to make something of my life. Now that I’m older, hiding the gray, moving a little slower, realizing there really is life after 30 - I’m only “That Girl” if I follow the viewpoints of others. Ms. Thomas none of this was directed at you, your character, Mrs. Emma Peel and Mary Richards gave me a vision that I could be something other than the little woman at home.
By Barbara Taylor on 11/07/2008 10:24 am
DeBúrca obj
I completely disagree. What the aftermath of this election is proving, is that McCain’s choice of Palin was sexist at it’s core. Now they’re throwing her to the wolves and admitting she was a “Hail Mary”. The choice of an unqualified woman for such a position, merely to pump up the base and to attempt to lure Hillary voters, as if women chose whom to vote for in such a shallow way, WAS SEXIST. Thinking they could dress her pretty and that would be enough, was sexist. And the fact that Obama won the women’s vote, was a stand against sexism. The fight IS for all women, and women decided what issues and policies they backed and didn’t allow window dressing to get in the way of an intelligent vote. Women won in this election because no cynical politician will ever take the women’s vote so lightly again as to put an unqualified woman into a position thinking merely her gender is enough to get the women’s vote.
By DeBúrca obj on 11/07/2008 10:36 am
Marina B.
I agree, DeBurca. The sexism was in the choice of Palin and her role as a spokesmodel for the campaign.
By Marina B. on 11/07/2008 10:56 am
Dona Howlett
De burca, I think in the future any woman approched be either Party who was not qualified would turn down the offer. The fact that Palin jumped in so rapidly was an indication that she was not intelligent to realize that she was unqualified. Men have been using the Oh your so pretty and smart to get women in bed for years………..We used to fall for all that crap (unfortunantly some still do) Palin is a good example. Smart Women have progressed enough not to be taken in by that BS that men use. Hillary didn’t make it this time………(which made me sad) Althougth I am thrilled with Obama’s Win……. A brilliant qualified Women will come along in the near future and we will see a Woman President. I just Hope I live to see that Great Event.
By Dona Howlett on 11/07/2008 10:12 pm
Dona Howlett
Forgive the bad spelling………….I’m so tired today.
By Dona Howlett on 11/07/2008 10:16 pm
rocky rocky
Are you taking care of yourself, Dona? Your admission is worrying me.
By rocky rocky on 11/07/2008 10:39 pm
Dona Howlett
rocky rocky, I didn’t sleep last night…………so I’ve been sleeping all day. Feel exhausted…………. When I say I hope to live to see a Women President………..I’m just being logical. I’m 76, Hope to live to at least 90………..So I still have time. LOL
By Dona Howlett on 11/07/2008 10:49 pm
rocky rocky
Glad to hear (see) you laughing, Dona. I deal with pain, too, and though what you have described is far more severe, I often feel I can empathize. Always happy to see your posts. Sleep well tonight. Best, R.
By rocky rocky on 11/07/2008 11:01 pm
DeBúrca obj
It just goes to show that whole mentality of anti-intellectualism that is like a cancer in that party.
By DeBúrca obj on 11/08/2008 9:20 am
Wine Warrior
Smart women are self-made and not determined by outward events. Smart women have not gone backwards. Just one of tons of women’s conferences, programs, websites, initiative groups etc. http://www.timeinc.net/fortune/conferences/women08/women_home.html There’s plenty out there and available for women with imagination and intiative and little for those blinded by their own restricting beliefs/lack of vision and oriented towards being manipulated by diversions like ‘sexism.’ Smart women know that life is challenging for most everyone. There are oceans of males with Ivy League degrees in banking/finance/economics that can’t find jobs today. What ‘ism’ should they employ to explain their circumstance and how would that help them? The ones that will find new means of making money will be investing their time in making their own lives better rather on than wasting energy finding excuses and blaming circumstances on things outside of their control. As the saying goes the Chinese symbol for crisis is the same for opportunity. Smart people want the best and the brightest to lead the nation—and don’t want an unsophisticated, barely educated, backward hick who can’t answer the most elementary questions in a position of power endangering the country and world. If any woman today has any trouble envisioning a life for herself that is other than being “the little woman at home” then her problem isn’t one of sexism but of imagination. When I traveled all over the US for a Fortune 100 company in a field where only 2% are females, women in our offices around the country would say to me something on the order of “I wish I had your glamerous job” and I’d think….well then do all I did to get it. That applies for everyone man, woman. It has never been easier with the Internet to create business out of thin air and imagination.
By Wine Warrior on 11/07/2008 12:19 pm
Marjorie C.
Barbara: Women have been hurt by this election. Okay, I see your reasoning. These two women brought out what we thought was yesterday. Yesterday women didn’t have the vote, yesterday women were expected to stay home and raise the kids, yesterday women were second-class citizens. It has shocked us that today women do not support other women more. Not all is lost though, it simply depends on who you hang around with. The Republicans received 55.6 million votes. Assuming half of the voters were women, that means 28 million women were willing to take a chance on Sarah Palin. For Hillary it was 18 million. 28 million women might not be anything to be proud of but it is a start.
By Marjorie C. on 11/07/2008 12:20 pm
Wine Warrior
You’re comparing apples and oranges. HRC didn’t compete in the general election….and the one that had the greatest voter turnout in decades because of Obama’s get out the vote efforts. Over 100 million of our 300 million population voted, but only around 50% and not 67% of past elections. If 28 million voted for Palin [using your guesstimate] that isn’t a surprise that 10% of our population are fear-driven regressives/racists who could be fooled by a practical illiterate given HER inability to answer the most elementary of questions that one would expect to be answered by a 6th grade civics class.
By Wine Warrior on 11/07/2008 12:39 pm
Marjorie C.
Wine: HRC didn’t compete in the general election….and the one that had the greatest voter turnout in decades because of Obama’s get out the vote efforts. That is correct and I realize that would be the reason her numbers would be smaller than Sarah Palin’s. I will reiterate. Senator McCain and his running mate received 55.6 million votes, 46% of the voters (I don’t think anyone has a handle on the gender). Senator Obama received 52% of the votes while outspending the Republicans 10 to 1 and having the full support of the mainstream media. One could almost wonder why, following such an unpopular Republican president as GWB, that Obama did not get something more resembling a landslide. He did not. My opinion stands that Governor Palin did not hurt Senator McCain’s bid for the presidency. Or to put it another way, would someone else running as V.P. have put McCain over the top. Would he had won the presidency if he had chosen someone else? Because that is what you seem to be alluding to. McCain could have won had he chosen someone else.
By Marjorie C. on 11/07/2008 3:56 pm
Wine Warrior
According to Open Secrets Obama raised $640M and McCain $320M, so that isn’t 10 to 1 spending, but does not include money the DNC and RNC spent…am too tired to check that. GWB won by very narrow margins over Gore, and didn’t win over Kerry by anywhere near what Obama did over McCain; yet GWB ruled as if he had a mandate. Obama has a mandate and won by over double the electoral votes and nearly 8 million popular votes, and turned solidly red states blue. Obama 365 electoral votes (projected)/65,302,008 popular vote [52.6%]. McCain 162 (projected)/ 57,335,106 popular vote [46.1%] GWB 286 electoral votes/62,040,610 50.7%, Kerry 251 electoral votes, 59,028,444 popular, 48.3% GWB won 271 electoral votes/50,999,897 popular. Gore 266 electoral votes/50,456,002 popular.
By Wine Warrior on 11/08/2008 12:07 am
Marjorie C.
Wine, And your point is? My opinion stands that Governor Palin did not hurt Senator McCain’s bid for the presidency. Or to put it another way, would someone else running as V.P. have put McCain over the top. Would he had won the presidency if he had chosen someone else? Because that is what you seem to be alluding to. McCain could have won had he chosen someone else. Thank you for correcting my figures, however they might get some final adjustment before the history book is closed. I’m not sure if Missouri and North Carolina are settled yet, and it truly doesn’t matter to this discussion.
By Marjorie C. on 11/08/2008 5:43 am