Whatever happened to Geraldine Ferraro?

[dazzleman]

I don't think Ferraro helped or hurt Mondale's chances in 1984.

Having said that, I think the manner in which she was selected reinforced negative stereotypes about the Democrats.  Feminist groups publicly threatened Mondale that they wouldn't support him unless he picked a woman as his VP candidate.  Mondale was reportedly furious because he had already planned to pick a woman, and now because of their public threats it appeared that he was giving in to blackmail from a special interest group.

The problem with Ferraro was that she was picked only because she was a woman.  A male three-term congressman from a New York City borough would never have been considered, and everybody knew it.

Mondale had little to lose by rolling the dice and picking a woman for his VP candidate, but he didn't end up gaining anything either.  I find it surprising that a woman hasn't been picked in the 20 years since Ferraro.

[dazzleman]

Unfortunately the notion of womens' rights got the tail end of the social movements of the 60s and 70s (though it was more permanent than almost all the other stuff that happened then), so the 'movement' was not completely finished when the winds were already blowing the other way. Mondale's big loss is a huge reason why no women have been selected for VP since '84. Actually the VP position is not that important... it would be better to have a woman as President before having a woman as VP.

Not sure I agree that Mondale's big loss is the reason no women since Ferraro have been picked.

For one thing, Ferraro had little to do with Mondale's loss.  It's not as if he stood a good chance, if only he hadn't picked her.  He would have lost big with or without her.

Part of the problem with picking a woman, then and now, is the scarcity of women in "feeder" positions to the presidency.  The most common "feeder" position for the presidency is a state governorship, and there are only a handful of female governors, one of whom is disqualified from the presidency because she was born in Canada.  There are some women senators, but in recent history, it is hard for a senator to be elected president.

There is also the fact that under the current political alignment, each party is effectively helped more than hurt by picking a "non-traditional" candidate, whether it be a female or a non-white candidate.  Because those most strongly committed to having a woman in office without regard to her policies will almost always vote blindly Democratic, and those who are irrevocably opposed to a woman for any reason will almost always vote Republican, each party has its own reasons not to take the risk of nominating a woman. 

For the Democrats, there is little gain to nominating a woman or a black candidate, since their imperative is to reach out beyond their hardcore base to more traditional voters.  Therefore, by nominating a "non-traditional" candidate, Democrats don't gain any new voters from their base, and potentially hurt their ability to pick up non-Democratic voters.

Republicans actually have more to gain from nominating a black or female candidate, and stand a better chance of winning if they do so.  That's why I expect the Republican party to ultimately place a female or black candidate in the White House before the Democratic party does.

[dazzleman]

Another interesting issue, if a woman is nominated for President, is whether it would be considered acceptable to attack her record and background in the same way as it would be a man.

For example, in the New York Senate race in 2000, Rick Lazio's approach of Hillary Clinton's podium may have had more of a negative impact because of the fact that it was a man "threatening" a woman. I don't care about things like that, but is it possible that subconsciously people saw it as worse given the genders of the candidates? Would negative attack ads against a woman not work as effectively because they would be more likely to be seen as mean-spirited?

This is a good example of feminist candidates wanting to have things both ways.  Hillary wants to obtain all the power that men ever had, but also special treatment because she is a woman.

The whole idea of Lazio "threatening" Hillary is laughable.  That woman would eat her own mother for breakfast if that's what it took to gain power.  She is a ruthless wench with mercury running through her veins.  But if she could manipulate her gullible and simple-minded supporters, why not?

[dazzleman]

I don't think that Hillary ever tried to claim that she was threatened in any way; I'm saying that this was the subconscious perception of the voters. I know some media outlets mentioned this possibility at the time, as well.

I certainly don't recall either her or her supporters claiming that they should have it both ways, or that this was the perception that they wanted people to have.

Hillary has always tried to have it both ways.  She was the all-powerful woman in the administration until something went wrong, then she hid behind her husband.  That was always the Hillary way, with her have-it-both-ways feminism.

Don't you remember the health care debacle.  Hillary was going to control everything, and rule like a dictator.  But when it went wrong, she hid behind her husband.  Ditto with all the scandals.  She was involved in every one, and she hid behind her husband.  But she still wanted the power.

And you can bet that she played on the perception that she was "threatened" by Lazio.  What's sadder is that her shallow, gullible supporters ate it up.  Hillary is a very shrewd and manipulative woman, who cares only about power.