, , ,

Nice article. and yes, it begs the question — should the Democrats and Obama in particular start showing off the amazing and capable and policy-rockin’ women?

and why doesn’t he? Romney’s remarks (on how he’s big on equal hiring practices because he has “binders full of women“) and the Republicans’ abhorrent politics on abortion and rape (i can’t even hyperlink that. there is too much out there) should make it an easy win.

Is he scared that the thinking voter is going to ask: Why isn’t Hillary running? Or another women? Or have Obama already pushed it too much? remember what Prof. Slaughter said: Obama hired more women than any other President to work for him. But after one year of impossible working conditions, most had left. And were replaced by men…

The article suggests the answer is closer to the latter:

The Democrats’ huge lead among female voters crumbles – Obama’s team is thought to have placed too much emphasis on “women’s issues”, such as abortion, rape and reproductive rights, when it is jobs and the economy that preoccupy women more.

I agree — and it’s worth mentioned that women aren’t idiots or single-issue voters.

Hillary Clinton (right) and Michelle Obama


Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama: the queens of Washington (The Telegraph, Oct 29, 2012)


“The operating premise among most Democrats is that if Hillary does choose to dive in, the nomination will be handed to her on a silver salver. Now that we’ve nominated and elected an African-American, goes the thinking in the party, the time is ripe for a woman.” (…) “If Obama was a Martin Luther King figure, [Michelle] carried every black woman’s aspirations in her hands. She could so easily have failed, and yet she has become an enormous source of pride. Her grace and sincerity shine through.”