But there’s more at stake here than the health of the party in one presidential election. Viewing women as adversaries—ideologically and also within their own parties—is an urgent next step in helping the nation adjust to the idea that female politicians are just like, you know, regular politicians. That means we have to swiftly abandon the processional model, in which one diligent woman takes her hard-earned turn, while the next waits patiently in the wings.
Ambitious men don’t behave that way. They realize that, in politics, very few (legal) acts get you the attention that running for president does. Primaries can bolster fund-raising capabilities and help politicians gain more influence within their party, sometimes setting them up for vice-presidential and Cabinet slots. Driven candidates also run for president in years when they don’t have much of a shot in order to become better known to voters and position themselves for the next round. Ronald Reagan ran for, and lost, the Republican nomination in both 1968 and 1976 before winning in 1980. Al Gore lost his 1988 bid for the Democratic nomination before being elected vice president in 1992 and then winning/losing the general in 2000.
Besides, if more women don’t run this cycle, next time could be a long way off. Should Clinton remain the only Democratic woman on the ballot and win the nomination and the presidency, that’s good for her and perhaps good for the country. It’s not necessarily good, however, for the other female prospects in her party, who would have a decade sucked from their presidential timelines. There are surely other ways for these women to build their profiles, and it’s true that Clinton has a strong record of hiring and promoting women, which would help lots of future leaders. But it’s clearly not the same.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member