Sen. Hillary Clinton did not win enough delegates to capture the Democratic presidential nomination but she is not conceding to Barack Obama. It is a strategy of having it both ways that is familiar to Clinton watchers. Why should she surrender when, as she has said, "anything can happen"? The nomination is not official until the delegates convene at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Assuming, though, that this is truly the end of her 2008 campaign, the question now becomes: what about the next female candidate? Will it be easier for her because Sen. Clinton broke new ground? Will that next woman run as a liberal Democrat like Clinton, or a conservative Republican in the mold of Margaret Thatcher? Will she get the same attention as Clinton, or will she be like the second man to walk on the moon?
The media mostly ignored - and so did the public - a detailed analysis of what Clinton promised (everything), what it would cost (plenty), how it would be paid for (higher taxes) and the effect of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq when substantial progress is now being made (disaster). Gender and the parallel issue of Obama's race trumped substance. Those issues masked a retread liberal Democratic agenda, gift wrapped in new packaging and sold as "change you can believe in."
A major problem for those wishing more conservative women would run for national office is the smaller pool from which to draw candidates. Large numbers of conservative women adhere to the "family values" they preach. Many prefer the company of family members to that of politicians. It isn't that they don't have drive, vision, or care less about their country than liberal women; it is that their fulfillment comes at a different level and they are paid in a different currency.
For liberals, government is the ultimate solution to all problems. For many conservative women, solutions begin with individual decision-making and family.
Is there an experienced, conservative, "traditional values" woman out there who would be willing to put herself through the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton has fought with every eye examining her hair, makeup and piece of clothing (and accessories), rather than the substance of her views? If Hillary Clinton has made superficiality less likely in judging women in future national campaigns she will have made a great contribution. But I doubt it. Media superficiality is bottomless.
Finally: Mississippi to Start Drug Testing Those Receiving Financial Aid Benefits | Heather Ginsberg