MORE ON THE MOMMY CANDIDATES: The Times, a bit late to the party, has a trend piece on the mommy positioning of female politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Unlike Dana Goldstein, who wrote on this site that Democratic women would be foolish to play into the "mommy party" stereotype, during wartime no less, Robin Toner of the Times says, "motherhood and a focus on children can become one more political asset to be showcased -- a way of humanizing a candidate and connecting with voters, especially other women." I find this pretty unconvincing. Democrats hold a strong advantage among female voters; strengthening it is not their primary challenge. The deterioration in Dems' support among women in 2004 was among so-called "security moms." These are moderate, suburban, middle-aged voters who are pro-choice and concerned with health care and education. They will tend to vote Democratic if they feel safe enough to choose on those issues. But protecting their families from terrorism comes first, and softening your image is not the way to assuage their concerns. Finally, I think the reason Senator Clinton needs humanizing is not because she hasn't touted her concern for raising children adequately (see her association with Marian Wright Edelman and her book It Takes a Village.) The reason Clinton is widely viewed as robotic is the same reason Al Gore and John Kerry were: She is stiff in her public demeanor and her policy positions stink of careful poll-following. If anything, it seems to me that ham-handed image framing, regardless of what exact kind, is precisely what politicians with that rap (however unfair it may be in some cases) should avoid.
--Ben Adler
