Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
To cite this article: Susan B. Hansen & Laura Wills Otero (2006) A Woman for U.S. President?
Gender and Leadership Traits Before and After 9/11, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28:1,
35-60, DOI: 10.1300/J501v28n01_03
Download by: [Fac Latinoamericana de Cien Sociales] Date: 20 March 2017, At: 10:23
A Woman for U.S. President?
Gender and Leadership Traits
Before and After 9/11
Susan B. Hansen, University of Pittsburgh
Laura Wills Otero, University of Pittsburgh
Did the trend of electoral gains for women in the United States come
to an abrupt end on September 11, 2001? With the country suddenly
focused on war preparedness, the once bright prospects for women seek-
ing elective office dimmed. Some women dropped out; others saw their
chances diminish in the polls. . . . Women had to face the hard reality
that voters may not trust them to lead the country in a time of war (Clift
and Brazaitis 2003, ix). Women (and probably men as well) who were
not perceived as sufficiently tough on national security issues were
likely to face opposition from party leaders as well as many voters.
Even before 9/11, several cultural and institutional factors made it
unlikely for a woman to be elected President (and thus Commander-
in-Chief). Recent trends in public opinion, media coverage, and the pro-
portion of women holding public office might have suggested that
the odds of electing women were improving. But as Bystrom, Banwart,
Kaid, and Robertson (2004, 219) argue, An increased concern with
military and defense matters would seem to put female candidates at
a disadvantage, particularly in races with national import. Lawless
(2004), likewise, concludes that women seeking public office face new
obstacles after 9/11 because of gender stereotyping of women as less
competent to address issues of national security.
This article considers several factors that could influence womens
chances of gaining the presidency and mitigating the impact of 9/11. We
first review trends in public opinion concerning support for a woman for
president, which by 2006 have rebounded from a decline after 9/11. We
then turn to survey data from the American National Election Studies
(ANES) to show how the desired leadership characteristics of presiden-
tial candidates affect vote choice. The results challenge the emphasis on
toughness or strong leadership as requisites for presidential timber.
While these factors are indeed important, voters respond as much or more
to candidates perceived as caring and compassionateeven after 9/11. As
the militaristic approach to combating terrorism is increasingly called
into question, opportunities for new leadership, and a different agenda
may emerge. On the basis of these trends, we suggest some strategic op-
tions for women candidates seeking the presidency.
100
90
80
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2000
(55 percent) agreed that the United States is ready for a woman presi-
dent; men were actually more likely than women to think so (60 versus
51 percent, according to the same CBS/New York Times poll).3 Only 50
percent thought that other people would be likely to vote for a woman,
perhaps projecting their own doubts onto their neighbors. Between 4
and 11 percent of respondents answered no opinion when asked this
Gallup question. And some of these, as well as some who answered
yes, may be unwilling to admit to an interviewer (who is more than
likely to be female) that they oppose voting for a woman for president.
Of course, even posing the question is problematic; Gallup has never
asked if voters would support a well-qualified man for president. The
question has been posed only for marginal groups or minorities (African
Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, atheists). In 2004, a Fox News
poll asked whether Hillary Clinton was qualified to be president (59
percent agreed), but did not ask that question about any of her potential
opponents. A 2005 CNN/USA Today poll asked whether the term strong
and decisive leader applied to Hillary Clinton, and 68 percent of re-
spondents agreed that it did. Again, that question was not asked about
any other potential candidate, male or female.4
Table 1 shows the differences in support for a woman candidate for
president across various social groups. The demographic breakdowns
that might help us sort out trends in opinion were provided by the
Gallup Poll only in 1987 and (to a lesser extent) in 2003 and 2006.
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 39
Source: Gallup Poll Report 1987; Jones and Moore 2003; CBS/Gallup Poll 2006.
Based on the 1987 data, we see little evidence of a gender gap, with
women only slightly more likely than men (83 versus 81 percent) to say
they would support a woman candidate for president. By 2003, support
among both men and women had increased. In 1987, the strongest sup-
port was evident among college graduates, Westerners, younger voters,
African Americans, and higher income earners. Since the proportion of
college graduates in the United States has been increasing, and they are
the group most likely to vote, we should expect that political support for
electing a woman president should increase. But clearly significant
groups in the population are unlikely to vote even for a well-qualified
woman nominated by their own party. We see the lowest levels of
support for a woman for president among southerners, those with less
40 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY
education or lower incomes, people older than 50, and Hispanics. Self-
identified conservatives, Republicans, and evangelical Protestants (es-
pecially fundamentalists), who are less likely to support leadership roles
for women, have grown in numbers and political influence since the
1980s. This might also account for some of the fall off after 2001 in
support for electing a woman for president.
Other evidence also shows voter resistance to women in higher execu-
tive office in the United States. The 2006 CBS/Gallup Poll showed that
older voters, Republicans, southerners, and conservatives were less likely
to agree that the country is ready for a woman president. Delano and
Winters (1999) find significant statistical evidence of electoral discrimi-
nation against women in highly prized, singular gubernatorial contests
between 1972 and 1998. After controlling for candidate and challenger
traits, partisanship, electoral contexts, and national and state economic
conditions, they conclude that electoral discrimination reduced the vote
share of female candidates for governor, especially Republican women
candidates. They also report that state parties were more likely to nomi-
nate a female only when the opposing-party candidate was perceived to
be too strong and a sacrificial lamb was required. Witt, Paget, and
Matthews (1995) found that Geraldine Ferraros vice presidential candi-
dacy in 1984 generated considerable opposition, particularly from older
women whose own social status and life choices were called into question
by a successful woman in a non-traditional role.5
Faced with these opinion data and the Walter Mondale/Geraldine
Ferraro loss, party leaders and convention delegates may well hesitate
to nominate a woman, particularly when the United States is as closely
divided along partisan lines as it appears to be today. And voters may
use the same calculus; John Kerry won the early presidential primaries
in 2004 largely because he was perceived as more electable than
Howard Dean (Burden 2005). However, as Dolan (2004, 156) reports,
voting for women in her study of congressional candidates, 1992-2000,
was based primarily on the very same factors that predicted votes for
male candidates: party affiliation and incumbency status. Demographic
characteristics of voters (sex, race, education, age, etc.) had very limited
impact. But she notes that issues were more important for senatorial
than for congressional candidates, and presumably would be far more
important in a presidential campaign where voters have more informa-
tion about candidates stands.
The pool of eligibility of female candidates for president remains
small (Whicker and Isaacs 1999). Given the numbers of women gaining
valuable experience in lower offices, we would expect more of them to
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 41
run for senator or governor in future years. But to date only 28 women
have been governors (although far more, over 60, have been lieutenant
governors), and only 14 women are currently in the Senate (Center for
American Women in Politics [CAWP] 2005). These are the offices that
have traditionally served as routes to the presidency, with only a few ex-
ceptions since 1932. Eisenhower had never held elective office, but had
a stellar record as a general during World War II. Geraldine Ferraro was
a House member tapped by Walter Mondale to run for vice president in
1984. George H.W. Bush had been a representative from Texas years
before being selected as Ronald Reagans vice president in 1980, but
he had held other intervening high-level positions including director of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Gerald R. Ford was a member of
the House before his selection as vice president.
Military leadership has been another route to the presidency. A few
women have advanced to positions as admirals or generals in recent
years, but only in administrative or logistical positions. Under current
rules limiting womens combat roles, female officers are unlikely to
acquire the combat experience or war-hero status that enabled Eisen-
hower, Grant, or Taylor to be elected president, or boosted the candi-
dacies of John Kerry, John F. Kennedy, or John McCain. On the other
hand, the rhetoric of support for the military has helped even candidates
like George W. Bush, who avoided service in Vietnam, gain the presi-
dency. And notable war heroes like former Georgia Senator Max Cleland,
Gen. Wesley Clarke, John McCain, and John Kerry have all suffered
defeats. But ongoing doubts about a woman as Commander-in-Chief
will plague any female candidate for president. The political party lead-
ers and media commentators who help define serious presidential
candidates are unlikely to move far from the established routes to the
White House.
particular, has the salience of the strong leader cue increased since
9/11? And do males and females assess candidates differently? To an-
swer these questions, we will consider the impact of candidate traits on
the two-party presidential vote since 1984 (ANES first began asking the
traits questions in 1980, but the strong leader question was not
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 47
Before the ads even started, when the candidate simply appeared
on the screen without speaking a wordin fact, before he or she
had any real traits at all other than genderthe dialers made deci-
sions about leadership potential. Women stayed even or were di-
aled down, but men were dialed up from the first second . . . men
had the instant advantage, based on their maleness. (19)
52 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY
However, these ads were for little-known women running for office,
who still needed to define themselves for many voters. But we have wit-
nessed several recent examples of women appearing cool and compe-
tent during a crisis: Janet Reno as the longest-serving attorney general,
Madeleine Albright during the bombing of Kosovo and speaking before
the United Nations, Dianne Feinstein after an assassination made her
mayor of San Francisco, and of course Margaret Thatcher during the
Falklands/Malvinas war. Prior political experience, especially in crisis
management, may help persuade voters to dial up rather than down
when confronted with an actual female candidate for higher office.
Candidates must rely on campaign ads and media coverage to create
and project a particular image. Historically, media coverage of women
politicians has emphasized their gender, physical appearance, novelty
as a candidate, and family relationships. Such slanted coverage would
not help a woman build a strong leader image. However, more recent
research suggests that media coverage of female candidates has become
more equitable in terms of both quality and quantity. Further, the emer-
gence of the Internet as a major campaign tool may provide female can-
didates with unlimited opportunities for balancing masculine and
feminine issues and traits in self-presentation (Bystrom, Banwart,
Kaid, and Robertson 2004, 217). Although television coverage may re-
inforce gender stereotypes, Bystrom and her colleagues found that
males and females appear to react similarly to Web-based information.
Any female presidential candidate should probably expect negative
attack ads and vigorous challenges, both from her major opponent
and from non-party groups like the Swift Boat Veterans who so suc-
cessfully tarnished John Kerrys record as a war hero in 2004. But
female candidates have made successful use of negative advertising
themselves. Bystrom et al.s (2004) analysis of video styles used in
senatorial or gubernatorial races between 1992 and 2002 found that
winning female candidates were more likely than winning male candi-
dates to use issue attacks or negative advertising. Democratic women
tended to emphasize being aggressive or a fighter, while Republican
women stressed their leadership and toughness.
Women politicians who can demonstrate their toughness and their
skills at crisis management may yet have a chance at national office. As
Figure 2 shows, potential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was con-
sidered a strong leader by 68 percent of respondents to an August 2005
CNN poll. This comports favorably with the ratings given to George
Bush in the 2000 and 2004 ANES surveys, and is well above either
Gores or Kerrys ratings. These data should be interpreted with some
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 53
FIGURE 2. Traits and Ideology: Hillary Clinton and the 2000 and 2004 Candi-
dates
Bush Gore Kerry Clinton
70
60
Percentage agreeing
50
40
30
20
10
conservative
is moderate
cares about
is a strong
dishonest
people like
is liberal
leader
you
is
is
Increase from 2000 to 2004
caution, since the question wordings differ slightly; the CNN poll asked
respondents whether the phrase strong and decisive leader did or did
not apply to Hillary Clinton, rather than asking them to agree or dis-
agree as did the ANES question. One might also wonder how Hillary
Clintons strong leader ratings compare with those of John McCain,
Bill Frist, Russ Feingold, or any other potential 2008 candidates, but we
were unable to find any surveys evaluating prospective male candidates
on this quality.
The CNN poll placed Hillary Clintons ratings on cares about peo-
ple like you well above Bushs and between the ratings for Gore in
2000 and Kerry in 2004. Her efforts to move to the center on issues such
as abortion and support for the military (Hernandez 2004) may have
succeeded; she was perceived as liberal by 54 percent of voters,
slightly below the percentages for either Gore or Kerry. Thirty percent
saw her as moderate and only 9 percent as conservative. But given her
reputation as a liberal (and Republican efforts to depict her as such), her
attempts at policy moderation may have led 43 percent of survey re-
spondents to doubt that she was honest or trustworthymuch higher per-
centages than for any of the 2000 or 2004 candidates.
54 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY
Women may also face competition from male candidates who make
effective use of traditional female issues with voter appeal, such as edu-
cation, health care, or family values. Thus, Brystrom, Banwart, Kaid,
and Robertson (2004, 51) found that more male than female candidates
used television ads depicting their own children. Given the importance
of the strong leader perception as a predictor of peoples votes, how-
ever, women candidates may find it necessary to emphasize this trait at
the expense of other qualities. Female candidates may also benefit from
voters strong preference for a candidate who cares about people like
you, since compassion has traditionally been defined as a feminine
trait (Lawless 2004) and gender schema reinforce voters perceptions of
women as more compassionate.
CONCLUSION:
OPTIONS FOR WOMEN
SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY
The Gallup Poll data summarized above show increasing public sup-
port for electing a woman president. While support dipped slightly during
the Vietnam war and after 9/11, these effects have been temporary. Anal-
ysis of ANES data showed that while perceptions of candidates as strong
leaders were indeed important, in several elections since 1984 the trait
that mattered most to voters was whether a candidate cares about people
like you. And this trait was more important in 2004, even after 9/11, than
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 55
Americas national security and have the right policies for combating
terrorism (DSCC 2006). Of course, the results of any partisan polls are
suspect, but the DSCC had posed the same question earlier and found a
distinct Republican advantage. Gallup and other commercial polls have
likewise reported declines over the past two years in the Republicans
advantage as the party best able to deal with national security.
The pool of eligible women as elected officials continues to expand,
and the national and international agenda is constantly shifting. The
war on terror may have caused considerable short-term difficulties
for women as potential candidates for the presidency or other offices.
But if the war as currently being waged is perceived as failing to pro-
vide either peace or security, alternative models of leadership may pro-
vide women with electoral advantages rather than disadvantages as they
seek the presidency. Weeden (2004) suggests alternative ways to com-
bat terrorism that could well advantage female candidates for the presi-
dency: alleviating poverty, improving education for women and girls,
enhancing public health, limiting population growth, and collaboration
with international agencies. As we have shown, perceptions of candi-
dates compassion and strong leadership are both good predictors of
how Americans vote.
NOTES
1. Since Victoria Woodhull first declared her candidacy for the presidency in
1872, several women have campaigned for the nomination: Senator Margaret Chase
Smith (D.-ME) in 1960, Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D.-NY) in 1972, Rep. Pat Schroeder
(D.-CO) in 1988, and Elizabeth Dole (R.-KS) in 2000 (e.g., Duerst-Lahti 2006, 35-36).
2. Inglehart and Norris (2003, 143) report a sizeable gender gap in attitudes toward
women as political leaders. Opinions of male respondents in the 74 countries they sur-
veyed vary little by age cohort, but younger women strongly supported women as polit-
ical leaders.
3. This survey is from January 20-25, 2006, and is available at www.pollingreport.
com/politics.htm#CBS.
4. See Herbst (1993) for discussion of the influence of polling questions and meth-
ods on American politics. The CNN poll is available at www.pollingreport.com/C2.
htm#Hillary (August 5-7, 2005).
5. This opposition may have been counterbalanced by the upsurge in political
awareness, interest, and involvement by younger women of both parties who were gal-
vanized by the presence of a woman on the ticket (Hansen 1997; Atkeson 2003). Many
feminists argued that the Democrats in 1984 did not take full advantage of Ferraros
appeal, forcing her to make many campaign appearances in the South where she faced
opposition, rather than in larger cities where favorable media coverage and enthusiastic
crowds were more likely.
58 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY
6. While questions on various other traits were asked in particular years, none
proved to have a significant independent effect on vote choice once the three most sa-
lient traits are considered. Hayes (2005) adds several demographic and policy factors
2
to his equations predicting votes on the basis of trait differences, but reports smaller R
values than those shown here.
7. In 1980, the strong leader cue was more important than party, although this re-
sult may well be due to the absence of the cares about you? trait question in that year.
8. We also ran regressions to test whether men and women relied on different traits
when voting for candidates. The results generally confirmed what we saw in Table 5:
men tended to see somewhat larger differences between the candidates as strong lead-
ers or as moral, and these factors weighed a bit more heavily as predictors of their
votes. Likewise, women were more likely to perceive differences in caring, and this
factor was somewhat more likely to influence their votes. 2004 was the only anomaly;
in that year, leadership was relatively more important for women, while compassion
mattered more for men.
9. See Norris (2003) for a detailed analysis of the gender gap in party identifica-
tion, voting, and opinions on issues. Women who are older, white, married, and more
religious are more likely to be Republicans than younger, minority, single, or secular
women.
10. Although party identification is correlated with candidate trait evaluations, the
relationship is far from perfect (in part because a high proportion of respondents see no
difference between the candidates on the traits). Further tests indicated that the com-
bined traits accounted for only about 30 percent of the variance in party identification,
suggesting that multicollinearity was not a major concern.
11. In 2006, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, despite their notable careers
in Congress, were 64 and 66 respectively, almost certainly too old for serious consider-
ation in 2008 or thereafter (although the candidate with the current most favorable
public image, John McCain, will be 72 in 2008). A promising woman governor,
Michigans Jennifer Granholm, is ineligible because she was born in Canada.
REFERENCES
Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Andersen. 1993. Gender as a Factor In The Attribu-
tion Of Leadership Traits. Political Research Quarterly 46: 527-45.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 2003. Not All Cues Are Created Equal: The Conditional Impact
of Female Candidates On Political Engagement. Journal of Politics 65:
1040-1061.
Balz, Dan. 2006. Rove Offers Republicans a Battle Plan For Elections. Washington
Post, January 21, A10.
Brooks, David. 2006. Hillary and The Ports. New York Times, March 12.
Burden, Barry C. 2005. The Nomination: Technology, Money, and Transfer Of Mo-
mentum. In The Elections of 2004, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Bystrom, Dianne G., Mary C. Banwart, Lynda Lee Kaid, and Terry A. Robertson.
2004. Gender and Candidate Communication. New York: Routledge.
Center for American Women in Politics [CAWP] 2005. Fact Sheet: Women Elected
Officials. www.cawp.rutgers.edu (December 29, 2005).
Susan B. Hansen and Laura Wills Otero 59
Clift, Eleanor and Tom Brazaitis. 2003. Madam President: Women Blazing the Lead-
ership Trail. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, Jeffrey. 1995. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda. American Jour-
nal of Political Science 39: 87-107.
Darcy, Robert, Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, and Represen-
tation, 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Delano, Sophia and Richard Winters. 1999. Gender, Party, Ideology, and Strategic
Behavior In Explaining Electoral Handicaps For Women Gubernatorial Candi-
dates. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Atlanta,
Georgia September 2-4.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. 2006. Democrats Say National Secu-
rity Will Be an Asset To Them In 2006 Elections. Press release, April 3. www.
dscc.org/securitypoll
Dolan, Kathleen A. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Can-
didates. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Doron, Gideon and Michael Harris. 2001. Term Limits. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 2006. Presidential Elections: Gendered Space and the Case
of 2004. In, Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, eds.
Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Richard L. and Zoe M. Oxley. 2003. Gender Stereotyping in State Executive
Elections: Candidate Selection and Success. Journal of Politics 65: 833-850.
Goren, Paul. 2002. Character, Weak Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.
American Journal of Political Science 46: 627-641.
Greenberg, Stanley and James Carville. 2004. Resolving the Paradox of 2004.
www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/greenbergelection04memo.pdf <1/2/2005>
Hansen, Susan B. 1997. Talking about Politics: Gender and Contextual Effects On
Political Discourse. Journal of Politics 59: 73-103.
Hayes, Danny. 2005. Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait
Ownership. American Journal of Political Science 49: 908-23.
Herbst, Susan. 1993. Numbered Voices: How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American
Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hernandez, Raymond. 2004. Keeping Close Eye On Senator, Clinton-Watchers In-
creasingly See a Hawk. New York Times, April 23, A19.
Hillygus, Sunshine D. and Todd G. Shields. 2005. Moral Issues and Voter Decision-
Making in The 2004 Presidential Elections. PS: Political Science and Politics 28:
201-209.
Horowitz, David. 2001. Horowitzs Notepad: The Enemy Within. www.frontpagemag.
com, Sept. 19.
Htun, Mala. 2004. Is Gender Like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity
Groups. Perspectives on Politics 2: 439-458.
Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of
Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37: 119-147.
Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural
Change Around the World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, Jeffrey M. and David W. Moore. 2003. Generational Differences in Support for
a Woman President. Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, June 17.
60 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY
Landau, Mark J., Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Florette Cohen, Tom
Pyszczynski, Jamie Arndt, Claude H. Miller, Daniel M. Ogilvie and Alison Cook.
2004. Deliver Us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of
9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 30 (9), 1136-50.
Lawless, Jennifer. 2004. Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping
in the Post-September 11 Era. Political Research Quarterly 57: 479-490.
Lewis, Jone Johnson. 2004. Women Prime Ministers and Presidents: 20th Century.
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa010128a.htm (January 1, 2005).
Lim, Elvin T. 2005. Values and the 2004 Presidential Elections. Paper presented at
the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4.
Louden, Allan and Kristen McAuliff. 2004. The Authentic Candidate: Extending
Candidate Image Assessment. In Presidential Candidate Images, ed. Kenneth L.
Hacker. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
MacManus, Susan. 2006. In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Pol-
itics, eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Miller, Warren E. and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nagourney, Adam, and Janet Elder. 2004. Bushs Rating Falls to its Lowest Point,
New Survey Finds. New York Times, June 29, A1, 24.
Newport, Frank. 1999. Americans Today Much More Accepting of a Woman,
Black, Catholic, or Jew as President. Gallup Poll, April 1. www.gallup.com/poll/
releases/pr880329.asp
Norris, Pippa. 2003. The Gender Gap: Old Challenges, New Approaches. In Women
and American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll. New York: Oxford University Press.
Polsby, Nelson W. and Aaron Wildavsky. 2004. Presidential Elections, 11th ed. New
York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, Deborah. 2004. Anxiety over Abortion: Pro-Choice Democrats Eye a
More Restrictive Approach To Abortion a Way To Gain Ground at The Polls.
Newsweek, Dec. 20.
Swain, Carol M., ed. 1996. Race versus Class: The New Affirmative Action Debate.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
United Nations. 2000. The Worlds Women 2000: Trends and Statistics. New York:
United Nations.
Weedon, Curt. 2004. How Women Can Beat Terrorism. Mt. Pleasant, NC: Quadrafoil
Press.
Whicker, Marcia Lynn and Hedy Isaacs. 1999. The Maleness of The American Presi-
dency. In Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? 3rd ed., ed. Lois Duke
Whitaker. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wilson, Marie C. 2004. Closing the Leadership Gap: How Women Can and Must Help
Run the World. New York: Viking Penguin.
Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. 1995. Running as a Woman: Gen-
der and Power in American Politics. New York: The Free Press.
doi:10.1300/J501v28n01_03