Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Next woman faces murky path to office
Solving puzzle of Clinton’s loss will show the way
WASHINGTON — The first woman president was supposed to make history by accumulating such deep experience that few could deny her ability to serve as commander in chief.
Hillary Clinton did that, and lost. Now female politicians and those working to elect them are sifting through her defeat to understand what her loss means for future female candidates.
Their effort is complicated by the very things that made Clinton’s nomination both inevitable and troubled: her singular standing and unique negatives.
While the number of women elected to office has grown markedly over the decades, polling shows that in a race for the White House they still must demonstrate they are capable of commanding the government and in particular the U.S. military.
That inevitably conflicts with another voter demand: for a fresh face.
“You can’t get those qualifications, get that resume, while also being able to present yourself as a change candidate,” said Kelly Dittmar, an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University at Camden and a scholar at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics.
“Men aren’t held to the same standard of proving their credentials.”
Clinton’s experience won her plaudits from voters who throughout the campaign saw her as best prepared to assume the presidency.
Most damaging, she was unable to fully benefit from the advantages that usually flow to a woman candidate — being seen by voters as more honest, trustworthy and a unifier who most cares about constituents.
That has left a puzzle: How much of the loss reflected Clinton’s particular vulnerabilities? How much involved opposition that any future woman candidate may face?
She also faced a unique opponent, Donald Trump, whose image of swashbuckling masculinity shaped the campaign more than any of Clinton’s milder efforts to use gender to her advantage.
Clinton’s supporters are casting Clinton’s reach for history as part of a decadeslong effort that, by definition, includes stumbles.
“It’s been a struggle, it’s always been a struggle — that’s the nature of the fight for equality,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Others suggest that this year’s campaign portends trouble for whichever women come next.
At a recent panel discussion at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, which included representatives from both campaigns, Trump’s manager, Kellyanne Conway, argued that the country was ready to elect a woman president — just not this particular woman in a year in which voters demanded change.
That drew a pained response from Clinton’s media strategist, Mandy Grunwald, who suggested that Clinton had rare standing to be seen as a potential commander in chief, given her tenure as secretary of state.
Clinton’s campaign was a real-world test that shined a bright light at some of the downsides of women’s candidacies.
The degree of punishment Clinton took from voters concerned about perceived ethical lapses was one of those. Voters were sharply critical of Clinton when it came to honesty and truthfulness.
The virulence of their sentiments suggested that women, usually held in high regard on those fronts, suffer more than male candidates when seen as not meeting that standard.
For female candidates, “that fall from the pedestal may be longer and harder,” said Dittmar.
Trump talked tough, invoking the specter of violence, repeatedly and on a range of issues. His official health report listed his testosterone level, an atypical disclosure that stood out given the lack of detail he released on other health questions.
Whatever the motive for that style, it appealed to concerns that many voters still have about a woman commander in chief and women’s role in society.
An April poll by PRRI/ The Atlantic asked whether Americans felt society “has become too soft and feminine.” Two in five voters said that it had; among Trump supporters, 68 percent said so.
Ironically, Trump himself may go a long way in clarifying the future path for female candidates. A successful Trump presidency could enhance the odds for a woman candidate with a business or military background. A failed Trump presidency could reinforce the desire for someone with more political or governmental experience, more empathy or the reams of policy proposals that gained Clinton little traction.