Women like a man who's sensitive to their needs, but a politician isn't a boyfriend. A Dec. 1 New York Times article describes Barack Obama advertising himself as the best candidate for women because of his upbringing. And feminists are listening. But the question becomes why is Obama so appealing to women?
It's a good thing feminists aren't basing their endorsement on gender. Instead, people perceive Obama as being more progressive than Hillary. Is it true? The man barely mentions gender on his Web site, except to discuss fatherhood. Other candidates have issue sections dedicated to women's rights issues.
Similarly, Hillary has no defined platform. Rather, she's only stated her support for previous legislation passed during her controversial political career.
While the past holds significance, it does not necessarily dictate future actions. Voters don't know how Obama will enact his policy if he doesn't put his ideas into words - once he's elected, being raised by a single mother means nothing.
All other candidates have clearly stated their stances on women's rights on their Web sites. Obama's reluctance to commit to a position likens him to John Kerry, who was trying so hard to please everyone that he appeared a hypocrite.
While Hillary denies playing the gender card and John Edwards has one of the best platforms outlined on his Web site, the truth is that politicians lie. Obama has sensationalized his past, using his upbringing to appeal to women voters. When it comes to the nomination, voters are going to need a clear, defined platform. Obama doesn't have one.
Increased female participation in the caucuses has revolutionized the electoral process. Instead of relying on the past, Obama should be looking toward the future, being decisive on what he can do for the women of today.
Being "sensitive" to the aspirations of women will only get a candidate so far. As always, voters want to know what specifically a politician will do and which steps he will take to make it happen.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
