A disturbing pattern
Submitted by Anastasia Pantsios on Mon, 08/16/2010 - 1:53pm.
Is being a woman a negative to serving on Cuyahoga's new county council as far as the Plain Dealer is concerned?
Someone pointed out to me earlier today that of the 16 endorsements the Plain Dealer made in county council races (11 Democrats, five Republicans), all but one went to men. And the one that didn't was District 9, a race that includes six women candidates and two men, neither of the two especially strong. So the odds were better there.
Now obviously some will mention the paucity of women candidates overall. And I get that, especially in my district (10) where, as the PD admits, the entire field was strong, and there are five men and two women. And there was only one woman in all five Republican races.
But I went in and read the editorials and noticed something odd: In three districts where there was an exceptionally strong woman candidate, they praised her highly and then passed her over to endorse a man whose qualifications were no better (and in one case, I believe, conspicuously weaker).
In District 1, for instance, they write,
"In a crowded field that includes four current or former suburban city council members and a pair of popular ballot names, two candidates stand out. [Nicole] Jones, once an aide to former Cleveland Schools CEO Barbara Byrd Bennett, has a solid grasp of county issues and has managed to negotiate North Olmsted's tempestuous politics with aplomb.
But [James] French, a first-time candidate, would be an even better addition to the first council."
In District 5, they dismiss Ann Marie Donegan thusly:
In one of the few head-to-head primaries for the new council, Democrats here have two fine candidates to consider. ... Trained as a nurse, Donegan is personable, hardworking and brings a valuable understanding of health and human services issues. While she surely would be a good advocate for her district, (Mike) Piepsny articulates a stronger countywide perspective, and that's what this job will require.
And in District 11, they brush off Sunny Simon:
"Democrats in the county's northeast corner can choose from a solid field in which two contenders, [Phil] Robinson and Simon, stand out. A member of South Euclid's City Council since 1999, Simon understands how government should work and how important it is to revitalize Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs. But Robinson trumps that experience with his polished approach to key economic development issues."
It's not any one endorsement that's troubling; it's the group taken together. In each of these races there is a woman whom they admit is highly qualified — but they opt to endorse a man who is no better. And I get a sense from reading what little they wrote about each race that experience they value in a man is considered negligible in a woman. When I looked at James French in District 1, I couldn't help feeling hat a woman with similar qualifications would have been dismissed by the PD as an inexperienced do-gooder and not taken seriously.
Unlike their strong right-wing bias, this isn't something I've noticed in the Plain Dealer before so it kind of took me by surprise. And I think it's important to look at the overall makeup of council as well as individual candidates. It would be extremely disturbing if this initial council was made up primarily of white men. To give the PD its due, its quota of black candidate endorsement was higher than the percentage of black population in the county. But a council that consists of ten men and one woman would be even more unbalanced than one that included few black representatives.
The county already has a terrible record in this area; prior to the appointment of Lillian Greene as recorder, every single countywide elected official was a man. If we're going to make a better government, better balance needs to be a consideration too.
Yeah, with respect to
Yeah, with respect to District 1, they blew that endorsement big time. It makes you wonder what's going on down there sometimes. I don't think some of the Ed Board folks are as conservative as you give them credit for, but frequently I find myself wondering if we even live on the same planet, much less the same city. These endorsements are becoming more laughable and confusing each cycle.
Did same to Jennifer Brunner in Lee Fisher endorsement
And I eviscerated that endorsement. It was absolutely the worst case I've ever seen of rewarding someone almost ENTIRELY because of longevity, period, without indicating how that longevity, in and of itself, would make a darn bit of difference as a US Senator for the state, a position that would be new to both Fisher and Brunner.
I've been watching this for months re: the lack of women and noted on Facebook, on August 9, when the PD finally endorsed a woman for one of the county council positions' primaries, (http://www.facebook.com/jillmillerzimon?ref=name#!/jillmillerzimon?v=wall&story_fbid=150909141590582&ref=share). I've pledged to work to recruit a Dem and a GOP female candidate in the District 6 race in 2012 (it's only a two year seat).
And you are so right about Nicole Jones.
The whole thing makes my blood boil and the media absolutely plays a role in it - from the Politico's article about bloggers who run for office featuring 11 men and just 2 women, even when they knew of at least three other women (including one who is running for the MD House of Delegates JUST LIKE Judd Legum of ThinkProgress) to these endorsements.
I would like the PD to unpack, publicly, the endorsement process, including how the individual editorial board members came down on each candidate. How is being polished an edge for the endorsement in one case but being able to handle political tempests with aplomb not enough to overcome a newcomer in another case?
Argh - you got me started. ;)
THe PD pretty much HAD to endorse a woman in District 9
The odds were in favour, as well as the qualifications. And if the woman candidates in the other races were few and weak, I'd understand. But even the Plain Dealer admits that there were numerous excellent women in these races — just in every single case, they thought a man would be better, according to a set of shifting standards that feels like they're moving the goalposts to serve an agenda of some sort.
I agree with you that they need to be much more forthcoming about the process and their reasoning. One of the biggest dangers of this county election is that voters don't know enough about the candidates and these really cursory council endorsements only make thing s worse because we don't really know WHY they dismissed a candidate they admit is outstanding and annointed someone else. I think it would have been more helpful not to bother endorsing in many of these races but instead, provide more in-depth information about the candidates.
Agreed re: info not endorsements might have been way to go
Yeah - I think I feel an op-ed coming on. ;)
Last endorsement, GOP in District 11 is woman
I've updated my post but here's the PD final primary endorsement tally: out of 17, 15 went to men, 2 went to women, not even 20%. If voters followed the candidate choices of the PD, are lovely brand new elected gov't for our county would have 10 men and maybe 2 women. For the record, according to the census, the gender makeup of our county, as of 2009, was 52.6% women. And of all the candidates who are running in the primaries, barely 25% are women. We can do better and we should do better.
Well, that's something, I guess
We do need more women candidates, but the mass dismissal of qualified ones already in the race is one more thing that's going to discourage women from getting in. If I were a woman and looked at their District 1 endorsement in particular, I wouldn't feel I could get a fair shake. Yet another mountain to climb ...