The Political Lessons of Christine O'Donnell's Surprise Win

First I have to say that she is crazy. Someone who thinks that there are genetically-engineered mice that have full functioning human brains is several, more than several, cards short of a full deck. She stated that Castle and the Republican party were stalking her. All I can say is that she is crazy, it has nothing to do with politics.

In my opinion she won because voters are lazy. No one here in Delaware thought there was any chance she would win, so the Republicans that were for Castle didn't bother to go out and vote. Just one more reason to say that every vote counts, and if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to complain.

Adrienne, did I miss a specific example of someone you heard or read about saying without further explanation that Christine O'Donnell isn't qualified but then there was no follow up as to what that meant to the speaker of that statement? Is that what you're addressing?

I'm thinking that maybe that's it because I too am really demanding when it comes to people making general assertions - the media often does not follow up and demand specifics.

But if you don't mind, I am still interested in leaving a few other thoughts about the notion of qualifications:

I read your comments as raising this question about the role of skill and intelligence in analyzing political candidates - certainly a legitimate inquiry. And I read you as saying that you don't think that those are legitimate, good or otherwise worthy criteria to look to when voters asses candidates.

To be clear, if that's a correct interpretation, I disagree. To me, these are two legitimate criteria and they fall under the category of "qualifications" - for me anyway.

In addition, I read your comment as suggesting that, for you, looking to a candidate's position on policy is a better way to examine a candidate.

And in regard to that, I believe that that is one facet, just as looking at their skill set and intelligence, but I would never recommend that someone only look at a person's policy positions (OR just skills and intelliegence).

For one thing, those (policy positions) change - even within a campaign. For another thing, once a candidate is in office, the likelihood that he or she may have to compromise that position increases significantly and to argue that it shouldn't is not realistic given our democracy and federalism. I say this from being in the arena though for sure there are a few politicians who have hewn closer to their positions at all times than others. Whether the voter views this is a positive or negative is very very subjective, IMO (i.e., did the politician make the compromise for the greater good or tow the line and be in dissent because it was something he or she could not give in on)?

Also, I read your comments as saying that you believe looking at how long someone has been in office is extremely relevant when examining qualifications.

Again I see this only as another facet, whereas I read you as saying that this is nearly a litmus test: over and out in three years, based on this last comment.

And I disagree with that.

It's very disheartening to read so much cynicism in your comments - may just be me that sees that. But just like I told all my constituents, embrace the anger and do something with it - don't just get angry and stay angry without anything to show for it. :)

In the current climate, in multiple examples of actual individuals who, I would agree, should have left the party a long time ago and who the VOTERS should have helped leave the party a long time ago, a distaste for longevity is very understandable (I'm serving on a city council that has multiple examples of this - it's gut-wrenching in many ways but not a topic for this comment - would totally hijack!).

However, as a general proposition and in practice, I personally find the idea of cutting out skills and intelligence from a review of a candidate and relying more on policy positions and length of service to be, as you say about the general notion of qualificaitons, as being lazy.

Let me ask you this - do you think it's more this way: anytime anyone's critique boils down to some really general term - whether it's "Well he's got no experience!" or "She's got no qualifications!" would you agree that that's PRECISELY when we all must press further? The media should not let a guest or expert away with that - everyone should be made to back up that summary language with specific examples as to what they mean?

And THEN - if they can't come up with what that means to them via examples (i.e., what "qualifications" they look to), then yes - that would be lazy?

I just wouldn't accept that if you ask someone to back up saying that so and so isn't qualified, and then they cite failings related to skills and intelligence, that you then are still saying that that too is lazy.

I get that you do not like people using those notions as a measure of qualifications, but to say that they don't qualify as qualifications we look at...that's what I most disagree with you on. Skills and intelligence do matter, as do policy positions and length of service. I think these are all legit criteria for supporting or rejecting someone.

But what I don't think is legit, and again, maybe this is indeed where we AGREE, is to let it stand at that, whether it's "I don't agree with the policy positions" or "They're not smart enought" or "They've been in too long" - all these assertions need a follow up of "Why?" - why not, why too long and so on.

Interested to know if you think that might be it.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

The qualification argument is used to attack the other side, most of the time.

Length in office is a liability. If these new faces decide too quickly to become part of the establishment, you bet I'll be fighting them in 2012, 2014, 2016 and so on. I've fought against those candidates all my life and will continue to do so, professionally and personally.

Working and living inside the Beltway for nearly three years only proves to me that longevity in this city=corruption and allegiance to special interests. Constituents are the farthest thing from most members minds.

What are the perfect "qualifications?" If we're going to use the word, define it.

Would Lincoln be qualified? Huey P. Long certainly wouldn't be. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, etc. would struggle to run today. There have been a number of politicians, Senators and Members of Congress who lacked formal education and yet had successful careers and served their constituents.

Intelligence and skills are in the eye of the beholder. Take George Bush for example. His IQ and test scores were higher than Kerry, but he was painted as an idiot because he preferred to speak with a Texas drawl (as a Southerner I take offense at how our accents are judged). Obama is technically the most skilled orator EVAH, but look at his ratings and inability to get the country back on its feet.

Qualification is a lazy argument for people who can't explain why they don't like a candidate. It covers too broad of a topic to be legitimately used.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

Adrienne, I'm not sure why you want to throw under the bus the value of analyzing a candidate's skills and intelligence just to make the point that if people want to disagree with and not select a candidate based solely on policy positions, that's okay too.

Could you please clarify? Skills, intelligence and policy positions are all reasonable things to look at when analyzing whether a candidate is qualified for a voter's support - as you say it should in fact be up to the voter.

Longevity in office can mean many things. To say "having previously served should be viewed as a liability" - whoa. Are you going to use that rule of thumb in two years or four years or six years when some of these folks you support, who have no prior elected official experience, are up for re-election and challenged by those who have not previously served?

As someone who had not previously served in an elected capacity until I ran last year and won, I have to tell you - one reason was to help leadership succession, which requires keeping on some folks with long service - there is institutional knowledge to consider among other things. Have you always supported term limits, btw?

I read what you've written as throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding serving and the length of service. Is it really that tough to analyze length of service like any other factor in terms of what it contributes and what it doesn't, why and why not?

I actually do not think it's a "weird fact of post-modern society that you have to have extensive education or previous experience in office to be the perfect candidate" - history tells us that candidates by and large were from extremely elite backgrounds at this country's beginning, and in part that was due to how less efficient communication tools were back then - didn't reach the same audience. Also didn't have much diversity of voters. Remember what it took to get voter selection of the senators!

(I'm also not sure we're "post-modern" - are we!?!)

I will however say that as far as I'm concerned - there are no perfect candidates - none. I think it's actually impossible, without bending something somewhere in our minds. And that's okay, but that's the system, in my opinion. I've found maybe one or two, maybe three I can name who came close to a lot of the qualities I wanted and like.

But if perfection is the goal, yeah - we're going to fall short 99% of the time, I'm quite sure. :)

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Complaints of "qualifications" have been thrown about by both sides of aisle during the last two cycles. What exactly is a qualified candidate?

While I'm a conservative, I do see red flags in O'Donnell's race. I hope that she wins because I don't want a "bearded Marxist" in the Senate, but she deserves to be questioned based on her past. However, is she qualified? According to the Constitution, which should be the only thing that ultimately matters, she is.

To qualify for office, you need to be a citizen for 7 years and older than 25 to run for the House and 30 to run for the Senate.

Shouldn't we leave it up to the voters of each state to decide qualifications? Isn't it a weird fact of post-modern society that you have to have extensive education or previous experience in office to be the perfect candidate?

The main reason Tea Party candidates are winning is because they aren't part of the establishment! Having previously served should be viewed as a liability.

Palin had more experience in office than Obama, yet Obama was some sort of genuis-god during the '08 cycle. O'Donnell's resume is on the flimsy side, but according to the Constitution she is qualified.

Can we just give this qualification thing a break? If you don't like a candidate's policies, say it. Don't accuse them of not having the skills or intelligence to be in office.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

O'Donnell's appeal seems to in part come from voters wanting a fresh voice when they are fed up with the current administration and traditional Repub's but sadly, I also think there is sexism in the equation. She has the kind of physical attraction and to some degree the frightening charisma that Palin has that voters respond to. Let's hope these two factors don't outweigh the fact that she is completely unqualified and is guilty of unethical campaign spending, for starters..

Laura
Families of Two
http://lauracarroll.com

Hi Amy -

Just found this while googling for something else - title obviously caught my eye!

"Meg Whitman's First Hurdle: State's male GOP"

Of course that does not make it so just because it's a headline or in the media - I totally get that!! But still - seemed apropos.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-17/news/1719098... ( http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-17/news/1719098... )

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Thank you for saying that - I agree 100%. :) Thanks for your comments too - they clearly deepen the discussion and my thoughts.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Just want you to know that I enjoy this conversation. I love to see women having great dialogue about issues. We can agree or disagree -- very engaging. Thank you!

You asked where the stereotype of the GOP men not supporting women was. I provided what I consider to be evidence of it. If you don't find that evidence persuasive, that's your prerogative.

I believe there are already impressive conservative women available for and in the pipeline whom the GOP leadership, which is overwhelmingly male, has not looked to. I believe leadership has a responsibility to develop and maintain a deep bench. I believe leadership is using other excuses and allowing the perpetuation of even more to minimize the growth of female conservatives running for office.

You state your beliefs with complete confidence and that's great but that doesn't make your assertions beyond question (as my beliefs certainly don't make them beyond question! Just ask my mayor!)

I apologize but I'm not sure how your runway analogy works - I'd expect women in women's clothes and men in men's clothes. So the number of men would be relative to...the number of fashion shows for men's fashion, yes??

Pointing out the role that men in leadership play in identifying, recruiting, supporting and promoting women in politics has nothing to do with a woman's analysis for whether she'll run for office or not. These two things are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist at the same time: Women can and will analyze the decision to run for office and come to the conclusion that it's not for them. But at the same time, male GOP leadership can also be (and is) failing to identify, recruit, support and promote the women who do want to run or who may be in positions where someone asking them if they'd ever thought about running might have them think about in fact running for office.

That's all I'm saying. :)

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

You automatically relegate women to victim status. Does personal choice enter into the equation at all?

How do you explain the selection of Jane Norton as the "establishment" candidate in the Colorado senate primary? (She ultimately lost but not because she is woman) Also, how do you explain that at the national level, it's women making headlines for the GOP? Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Jan Brewer.

As an analogy, there are a lot more female than male runway models. Is that because we tell men to "sit on the sidelines and wait your turn"?

Give women some credit. Many of us make choices based on our personal situations not because men tell us what to do.

Please check out this comment where I detail multiple examples of GOP male leadership ignoring the existence of acceptable female potential candidates:

http://www.blogher.com/are-democrats-losing-their-... ( http://www.blogher.com/are-democrats-losing-their-... )

Supporting the so-called Mama grizzlies (and I guess O'Donnell really isn't even one since she's not a mama yet) at high levels and who are already self-funding to the tune of tens of millions of dollars is not nothing.

However, if there is to be real change, women at the local and state legislative levels need to be found, recruited, supported and promoted. Men in the GOP simply aren't doing that - and my state of Ohio is an excellent example of that.

Another example is the South Carolina state senate - not a single women in it, Democrat, Republican or anything else. Yes - Nikki Haley did it in the state House - and I've been writing about her for months, long before Palin noticed her. She is an excellent example of what I would think conservative women with an eye toward getting a hold in leadership would want. But guess what? The GOP men fought her too - except for Mark Sanford, and I'll leave that alone, though I do give Jenny Sanford credit for eventually and finally speaking up on the need for more women in politics in S. Carolina - but again, she's a woman in the GOP, not a man (and frankly, she keeps saying she is not in politics so...not sure what to say about that either).

The stereotype has ample support for why it exists. And it's not unique to the GOP - it's a huge reason why many women who skew left of center are livid with Democratic leadership on different levels too.

So here's to hoping that more men in the GOP and the Dem. party recognize that many times when women run, they win and stop promoting the "you need to sit on the side until you've done your time" attitude (again, very evident in Ohio GOP politics and not a stranger to Dem politics as well - it's a party structure problem for sure).

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Thank you for examining this topic in a different light.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

We need to put O’Donnell’s victory in perspective and remember what a small slice of the electorate voted for her.

According to the state of Delaware website there are 621,746 registered voters in Delaware See http://elections.delaware.gov/reports/e70r2601_201...

Only 30,561 voted for O’ Donnell –roughly 5% of eligible voters.
Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

I completely disagree with you about Christine O'Donnell. The criticism of her has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with what some believe are her lack of qualifications. That is more an establishment vs. newcomer than male vs. female. All one has to do is look to Colorado to see the male Republican candidate for governor has received worse treatment.

Those attacking Christine O'Donnell for her female attributes are on the Left. Not the right. Some on the right have problems with her stance on issues.

Conservative women do not see themselves as victims of sexism. That's not to say that it doesn't happen on an individual basis but not as an institution that you seem to imply. I still would like you to prove that stereotype you slapped on Republican men.

Also, I look forward to hearing the podcast.

Again, thanks for the dialogue. Have a great weekend.

I'm sure some have been, but in light of the fact that Republican women are the minority of the minority on Capitol Hill, I think the thing speaks for itself.

And it's jot just me -- it's now Friday, and I just finished taping a political podcast with a couple of conservative women who said they feel and believe the same thing -- that as a general matter, Republican men in power tend to like to keep the status quo and don't help promote women.

The GOP is already on the attack against O'Donnell, even though she now has a chance to win that Senate seat. Why do you think they'd do that? I'm guessing if everything about her as a candidate was the same, except she was a man, you wouldn't be hearing Rover and others attacking her.

Joanne Bamberger aka PunditMom ( http://www.punditmom.com )

You can also find me at The Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger ), MOM ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/joanne_bamb... )

Joanne --

I am curious, where did you find, as a fact, "that Republican men did little to foster women candidates." Can you cite your source? Is there a study that says: Republican men don't foster women candidates?

I am a conservative woman who has been approached several times (by men and women) about running for office but I choose not to do so because I don't want to take away any more time from my family.

I am not alone. Of my conservative gal pals, most who do run for office do so after their children have left home. For the conservative women I know, it's a matter of choice. Also, many of my conservative friends believe that they can have a much greater impact by influencing their private sphere. Again, just a choice.

Please don't make an assumption that Republican men have done little to foster women candidates. That's a stereotype of Republican men that is not true. That is not to say that it hasn't happened on an individual level but it is unfair to paint Republican men with such a broad brush and to assume that Republican women don't have the ability to make choices in their lives. We control our own destinies.

Thanks for post and for making me think!

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Voters do need to pay attention and look beyond the fancy facade and check the foundation. We live in a time with a 24/7 political news cycle. Unfortunately many of the important news stories can become lost in the digital landscape. A political sound byte without much substance can turn into an anthem for voters frustrated by government.
~ Chris

Thanks.

As someone who has been a candidate and now is the elected, we should also remind voters of the two very very different skill sets related to winning votes and getting elected, versus actually doing the deed of legislating and governing, aka getting stuff DONE. These two things are not comparable and frankly Sarah Palin is probable the poster child for just how different they are.

I think the biggest question we can't answer yet is whether voters will be cognizant of this fact in two years or four years or six years when these candidates have moved from being candidates to being electeds to being incumbents: what will they have to show for it, and what will the voters be demanding of them at that time?

I find a lot of hypocrisy, as was noted during Obama's run in terms of how high the bar is set for some candidates and then the bar is completely tossed out for others, all based on voter sentiments.

For example - guilty by association was a hallmark critique of Obama by Palin and other conservatives. How will they say its okay when it comes to who tea party candidates associate with? We've already seen this double standard play out with someone like David Vitter, where you can say you're for family values, then be an adulterer, and then still run and win primaries and very likely general elections, as an incumbent, for the conservative party that still wants us to think of it in terms of being values voters.

Talk about echo chambers.

I read someone's writing today about how narrow but deep Palin's hold is on voters. I couldn't agree more - and I think that the segment will only be more and more narrow.

IMHO of course. :)

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

I think you're spot-on regarding how this situation "speaks more to the longtime drought of GOP women in national elective office -- and the fact that Republican men did little to foster women candidates -- than it does about the Tea Party itself." Although I'm conflicted; I'm glad to see more women candidates - from any party - but I don't appreciate that many of the candidates floated by the Republican party have little to no experience serving in public office.

Sarah Granger blogs here ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/sarah-granger ) and there ( http://www.sarahgranger.com/Sarah_Granger/Writing.... ).

I can't imagine putting myself or my family through the gauntlet that running for office entails.

It seems we expect the kind of perfection in our political candidates that we never, ourselves, achieve. I can only imagine how an opponent might paint my past...

Then there's the expectation that problems years in the making can be fixed in a single election cycle. And a political atmosphere that paints compromise as weakness and employs purity exams to weed out the pragmatists among us.

I suspect that a lot of highly qualified people look for ways to make a difference without subjecting themselves to the horrible experience of running for office. I mean, does Christine O'Donnell cringe as much as I do watching her interview about masturbation? I've got a couple of decades on her, and I know I'd cringe at some of the things I said and believed back then.

We live in an age where our past lives on in digital code, easily retrievable (and broadly displayed). It's a brave person who decides to enter the Coliseum of politics and run for office.

Barb