pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
Posts: 520
|
 |
« on: December 05, 2008, 11:20:21 PM » |
|
My guess is that the legacy of the 2008 Hillary vs. Obama battle is going to put enormous pressure on Democrats to select a woman as either their presidential or vice-presidential nominee next time around.
The factors contributing to this will be:
* Hillary Clinton's near-miss this year at winning the Democratic nomination.
* Sarah Palin's VP candidacy and possible '12 candidacy.
* The increased presence of women within the national security apparatus (i.e. Hillary at State, Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security, Susan Rice as UN Ambassador)
Overall, there will just be the sense, I think, that having broken down one big barrier to the Oval Office (the color barrier), Democrats should aim to break down the other one (the gender barrier). And after Clinton's near-miss, I think much of the feminist community and many female politicians, including many Obama supporters, will rally behind a woman candidate.
That means that there will probably be at least one prominent woman running for president on the Democratic side in 2016. At this (very) early stage, I would suspect it could include some of the following...
Hillary Clinton
Lisa Madigan (IL AG and probable IL Gov after 2010)
Kirsten Gilibrand (NY Rep., who'd be formidable if she replaces Hillary in the Senate)
Caroline Kennedy (Again, a possibility if she replaces Hillary)
Janet Napolitano (Although rumors about her sexuality may hurt her)
Kay Hagan
(I can't really see Amy Klobuchar or Claire McCaskill running, but they're possibilities.)
And if a woman doesn't win the presidential nomination, I think politically, the victorious (male) Democratic nominee is going to be under ENORMOUS pressure to name a woman to the ticket, something Obama somewhat escaped because there was the sense that his nomination was historic enough and that it might be too risky to have no white males on the ticket.
|
