level the political playing field
Random header image... Refresh for more!

The Right Woman to Take Ted Kennedy’s Seat

In Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency, Massachusetts was the most telling primary. The three most powerful men in the state, Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Barack Obama yet Hillary still won the state by over 15 pts. The old boys club failed to fool the voters. They saw the best candidate and voted for her.

Once again, we have a woman vs. the old boys club in the run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. So let me share a spot of good news with all of you. According to the Boston Globe:

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has a higher favorability rating than any other candidate in the rapidly-coalescing field for the US Senate seat left vacant by the death of the late Edward M. Kennedy, a new poll released tonight shows.

Attorney General Coakley’s credentials are impeccable. Moreover, she had the good sense to be a fierce Hillary supporter last year, refusing to give up her vote at the Convention even after Hillary released her delegates.

Martha Coakley has sued for equal marriage rights, filing a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, protesting the fact that 16,000 married same-sex couples are being unfairly denied benefits. She defended children against clergy sexual abuse, has won settlements that protect consumers and fought those who are unfair to workers, indicting contractors in connection with prevailing wage law violations. Sounds like just the kind of voice we need in the Senate right now.

Given Massachusetts progressive bent, it is surprising how difficult it is for qualified women to rise to positions of power in that state. The Hill’s article, Coakley’s Tough Battle in Massachusetts Special Election, states

Martha Coakley has the statewide profile, the political know-how, and the early edge needed to win a special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. But is she the right gender?

By most accounts, the Massachusetts attorney general should be and is the frontrunner in the special election, at least for now, and as the lone female candidate in a field of male congressmen, she should have a built-in advantage with half the electorate.

But this is Massachusetts, and the bluest state in the union has a not-so-Democratic reputation for turning away female candidates.

Women have been elected to just four statewide offices, none of which have been governor or Senate. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) in 2007 became just the fourth woman elected to Congress in state history, and the first in a quarter-century.

It’s time to break that trend. January’s upcoming special election would be a good place to start.

Of note, Politico’s recent article Women Lawmakers Outperform Men:

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

Could that be because we are better at multitasking and are smarter shoppers?Hee hee. And the following information is just shocking – not:

The researchers also found that women introduced more legislation than men who served in their same districts, often hitting the ground running in their first terms.

“We find that, on average, women sponsor about three bills more per Congress per term than their male counterparts,” said Anzia. “They co-sponsor more bills than other members, and they also obtain more co-sponsors for their own bills.”

Since 1789, women have constituted just 2 percent of the total congressional population. The ratio of female to male representatives has increased in recent years, but the pace is still fairly glacial: Nearly 17 percent of House members are women today, compared with about 3 percent in 1979.

…Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win. … Large majorities of both men and women in candidate feeder pools, such as law offices and political organizations, believe there is a bias against women in elections, according to Lawless and Fox studies in 2005 and 2004.

Once women get to Capitol Hill, those hurdles may drive them to perform better, on average, than male counterparts who have faced a less contentious road.

We know something about that, don’t we?

While I was encouraged by the polling data in the Boston Globe, it is clear Ms. Coakley faces a tough battle and needs funding and boots on the ground to turn out the vote. As The Hill noted:

One Democratic consultant not aligned with any of the special election candidates said the glass ceiling is even tougher now because of the nature of low-turnout special elections and the timing of it, with a cold December primary and a colder January general election.

“She has to figure out not just how to get women votes but how to get senior women to vote for her and break a pattern where older women in Massachusetts don’t like women candidates,” the consultant said.

Coakley, who in 2006 was elected the state’s first female attorney general, is proudly running with the women’s mantle and has garnered the support of EMILY’s List and other women’s groups.

Emily’s List noted in an email the other day:

“In the 24 years since we founded EMILY’s List, I can’t think of a single race where the need was so urgent and the opportunity so great. We have a chance to make history once more, but we can’t afford to wait.”

Martha has everything going for her-intelligence, experience, competence and compassion-except the money- Shame of having a local campaign chest that can’t be used for a national position unlike the other candidates who are starting with well over 1 million dollars each.

Please do anything you can to help- $25-$4,800 ($2,400 for primary; $2,400 for general) Your money-no matter how small will matter-let’s level the playing!

Click the link in the sidebar to contribute directly to the campaign online, or make your check out to Martha Coakley for Senate Committee and send it to Martha Coakley Committee
Box 220
State House Station
Boston MA 02133

I am proud to support Martha Coakley and hope that, once again, Massachusetts voters can look at the field and choose the best candidate.

10 comments

1 Boston Babe { 09.19.09 at 12:05 pm }

This speaks for so many of us who were disheartened by the overt sexism during the primary last year-
Even Howard Dean finally admitted that “the biggest untold story of the campaign was the sexism”
check this out from last December at a Smithsonian symposium on the election- Shame it was too late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TTK2-Vip-U&feature=channel_page

this time we will not be denied- the best candidate will win – and it will be Martha!

2 westernMAgal { 09.19.09 at 12:41 pm }

Thanks for posting this. Good quote by Dean.

3 Tweets that mention The Right Woman to Take Ted Kennedy’s Seat | Women for Coakley -- Topsy.com { 09.19.09 at 9:30 pm }

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gender Parity, Gender Parity and Gender Parity. Gender Parity said: "Once again, we have a woman vs. the old boys club in the run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat." http://tiny.cc/B3TLw #women4martha [...]

4 OCDame { 09.20.09 at 7:35 am }

Our state’s one bright spot in its dismal record of voting for women was Hillary — maybe that was a turning point and the state will rally around Martha.

5 Jen the Michigander { 09.20.09 at 3:37 pm }

Great article. I just tweeted it.

6 Boston Babe { 09.21.09 at 12:27 am }

Thanks Jen- Wish I knew how to do that!

7 Tania { 09.21.09 at 7:23 am }

Hi, Amazing! Not clear for me, how offen you updating your http://www.womenforcoakley.com.

8 bruce nahin { 09.21.09 at 8:21 pm }

As many of you here are aware from my writings at TNA and Huff Po, I am a conservative white male, founder of Chippendales etc. I was involved in the woman’s movement from its beginnings( of the 2nd wave- no I am not old enough for the first wave) and have remained a feminist throughout my life, notwithstanding my evolving politics on other issues. I have no dog in the Mass. race. I live way out on the left coast. What is abundantly clear is the disproportionate division of males and females in our seats of power. Men will not truly be free until women are our co equals, in our homes, workplaces, and in the seats of government. I have developed a woman first voting philosophy that says in essence that irrespective of party or agendas, I will vote and support women candidates over men until equality exists, then I will vote based on issues and agendas..This means I support Coakley over her opponent, Palin over hers, etc. It is easy to do, hold your nose and push the button..it is easy once you practice it. Women will never achieve parity until all women back women candidates. Division caused by issues will simply divide you and foil the attempts at parity. Men wont vote for you over men, so if you vote for a man over a woman parity will fail. Many have used issues( ie abortion, economics,) to decide who to vote for- frankly the main issues to me is parity- the others can be put aside until parity is achieved..I know many of you will disagree, and that is why parity will not be achieved, you will tell me that this issue or that is so important you cant vote for a woman who supports, opposes etc a particular issue. My point is you would be wrong…Parity is the single most important issue there is, for until that happens, you will always be beholding to men.

9 MS4Martha { 09.22.09 at 5:52 am }

I agree with Bruce. Voting for women every time is fastest way to achieve proportional representation for women. Since women are half the population, once they are accurately represented, the government will have a stronger chance of developing solutions designed to benefit all.

10 msakel { 09.26.09 at 5:09 pm }

I fully agree with Bruce Nahin’s comments. And, thanks to Ani for this great site which I found from a link in another email from R. Lieberman in N.Y. There is also an article on HuffPost (ugh, but more readable lately!) by Nancy (?) on Martha and the “Hillaried” effect. I had no idea that Politico posted this column on “Women Outperforming Men” legislatively….We should all be grateful to Hillary for bearing the Primary Cross long enough for us to appreciate her suffering as our own…Things are a’changin’ and this century belongs to Women’s Rights/Human Rights…at last! Thanks to Bruce and Ani….

Leave a Comment