The White House Project

Citing his close personal and professional relationship with Tim Russert, veteran anchor Tom Brokaw has stepped up to lead Meet the Press through the 2008 election season. It’s a good interim move to maintain the respect and high level of quality which the show has become famous for.

What the Brokaw decision also allows is an unprecedented opportunity for NBC to give ample thought to who will hold the permanent reigns on Meet the Press. It provides the network with the chance to audition some of the women selected by over one hundred Huffington Post readers last Friday, who strongly feel these women deserve at least a shot at filling Russert’s chair.

Gwen Ifill, moderator and managing editor of “Washington Week” and senior correspondent for “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer”, easily led the pack among readers, with Rachel Maddow, host of Air America Radio’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and political analyst for MSBNC, coming in a close second.

Ifill and Maddow bested the next two winners, Lara Logan, chief foreign correspondent for CBS News, and Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News, by a considerable margin.

Voting by readers of this site makes it clear that each of these women should be given the opportunity to trial anchor Meet the Press, allowing viewers and NBC executives to sample those in the running before any decision is made about a permanent replacement.

I once hitched a ride back to my hotel with Mitchell and Ifill from a democratic convention, and listened as they mused about who beat out who for whatever story or subject with laughter and frustration. They are women who are accustomed to competition, alongside women and men, and whose work is of the highest quality because of it.

It wouldn’t be amateur hour with these women at the helm. By giving them each the opportunity to guest anchor the highly influential Meet the Press, their presence would help to normalize women’s place at the head of the table. Hosting such a show would undoubtedly up women’s odds for these important positions regardless of who ends up in this top slot.

As the second Sunday rolls around without Tim Russert, and while Brian Williams will be standing in this weekend, I am remembering the influence Meet the Press has had on the leadership of this country, due in part to the seriousness and poise with which Russert treated both his guests and those of us who occasionally were his critics. I was one of those critics, when the White House Project conducted a series of studies entitled “Who’s Talking” which showed how few women experts ever appeared on Meet the Press (and four other Sunday morning talk shows).

Granted, when it came to political guests, Russert and the rest had to take whoever the political sphere sent, but open slots still remained, and women were outnumbered in all the shows by nine-to-one in guest appearances. Instead of trying to cover up the findings, Russert and his executive producer did a “re-count” of our analysis; and when they found “Who’s Talking” to be true, they responded with the journalistic integrity and professionalism that so many have accorded to Russert and the program.

They even had us come over to the show to discuss our findings. They acknowledged that we had, indeed, counted correctly. But when we mentioned how they could have increased their numbers just by having women make the same number of repeat appearances that men did, they balked. “Look at all the repeat appearances the then fresh-faced Senator John Edwards made on your show,” we said.

“Oh, but he was a vice-presidential nominee,” they countered, “That’s why we had him on so often.”

We took them back to when Edwards made all those appearances, and showed them how actually took place before any mention of Edwards as Vice President. “Perhaps you helped make him a nominee.”

It was a friendly, respectful meeting. And I watched every Sunday because even when I saw the march of men, I had hope for a show where a powerful man had treated us seriously and respectfully.

I cheered when in this election season, I saw Russert take the opportunity the candidates’ diversity presented to offer up female pundits week after week: Mary Matalin, Michelle Norris, Gwen Infill, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd – a veritable platter of diversity, and much of it fresh and welcome.

It’s made me hope that one of these women might eventually take Russert’s mantle; after all, visibility is viability, and wouldn’t it be great to have the most prestigious and hard hitting show on the Sunday circuit feature a woman host?

In honor of Tim Russert, I invite all who read this to submit your favorite host and we will forward your suggestions to NBC.

It would be a great tribute to Russert, who opened so many doors in his life, to open this one in his death.

Back in the 1980′s, I was on the NYC Human Rights Commission that held hearings on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in the construction sector. The most moving story I heard during that period came from a male construction worker. He talked about what a typical day ensued, including the standard lunch breaks on the curb with his male co-workers, and the usual rounds of catcalling out to women as they walked by.

He never questioned any of it – not until the day came when the face that looked back at him was his daughter’s.

The young women those construction workers called out to were not being raped, physically threatened, or grabbed at. Catcalling is a relatively light offense compared to what happened to the women working in construction zones in those days – the heavy objects “accidentally” falling nearby, the lewd pictures, feces and threatening objects women found in their lockers every day.

Yet what each young woman received was an early lesson about their bodies and their place in the world. While boy’s bodies were growing into a source of strength and power, respect and pride, theirs were growing into a source of shame, vulnerability and possible danger. Lessons no decent father ever wants his daughter to have to learn.

But our daughters are still learning these degrading and discouraging lessons – most recently through the media coverage of the 2008 election. No one – not even Clinton herself – is saying that she lost the race for President because of sexism in cable news or the blogosphere, and the degree to which sexist coverage played a part is debatable. Yet we lost something for our nation’s daughters who were sent a strong message about fairness during the primary season – you can play, but it won’t be a fair fight.

Like the construction worker’s catcalls, pundits barraged the airwaves with offensive chatter – but with little to no accountability. On-air comments that created a hostile climate (the basis for sexual harassment suits) for millions of women were acknowledged by executives as “a few quickly corrected mistakes” in otherwise “fair networks.”

Sexual harassment laws protect women within the newsroom from being demeaned – but what about the women who listen to the messages? Where does the responsibility lie in news organizations and the media to ensure that the sexual harassment of women doesn’t stream into living rooms across America?

To be clear, I don’t believe there is a media conspiracy against women, or that the media was out to get Clinton, as some claimed in a recent New York Times article. Nor do I believe that Clinton and her supporters called the media out to cover a losing campaign.

Instead, I think that the media creates and reflects public perceptions, and needs to do a better job of it. Tomorrow, a group of nationally recognized panelists in media and politics will come together in New York for “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election”, to discuss how this election cycle has played out in the media, and how we can institute the changes that we want to see. It’s a conversation that is long overdue in this country.

Women – and their male supporters – are angry about the continued sexism that pervades American culture. They are angry for what women have had to go through, what they continue to confront, and what may happen to their daughters if this doesn’t change. Nor do they like what their sons hear being modeled for them.

Just as the harassment that female construction workers received was intended to intimidate and scare them off their jobs, this climate, whether purposefully or accidentally, certainly will make some women think twice about the costs of public life and seeking public office.

Apparently accountability is hard to come by – but daughters are a widespread phenomenon. So let’s start asking our network executives and our political pundits – do you want your daughter to hear this? Would you want these words used about your daughter? Would you defend your company if your daughter were described publicly in the way Hillary Clinton was described?

If not, let’s stop the too-familiar titles of “she-devil” and “witch” to our describe woman leaders. Let’s elevate the standard that we set for ourselves and for each other. Our daughters are listening.

When Senator Clinton decided to suspend her candidacy after eighteen months of rigorous campaigning last Saturday, I just so happened to be in Ohio, among nearly 100 women who had come together to – of all things – learn how to run for political office. Imagine the odds; after so many months of speculation, calls to concede and cries to persevere – Senator Clinton ended her historic race on the very day that this cadre of women were launching their political aspirations.

It was a unique moment for all of us. For me and my staff, it was our eighteenth Go Run political leadership training – and our first in Ohio – yet we had never experienced such a historic event in the midst of our weekend programs. But what about the nearly 100 women who had come together to garner the information, inspiration, and tools to run for office? What would Senator Clinton’s concession mean for their political futures?

Earlier that morning, these women had learned how to build a winning campaign plan, and were coming off the heels of a training on community organizing and field work. They were learning the nuts and bolts of how to win – just as they prepared to watch a woman admit defeat.

Regardless of party affiliation, candidate preference, or political ideology, Senator Clinton’s withdrawal was political history, so we gave the women the option of watching the concession speech. And many of them – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – did choose to watch. As one participant, Annie, later remarked in her blog about the event:

“About two minutes into Senator Clinton’s speech, it started. It was a sniffle at first, then a sob, then frantic searching through purses and totes for tissues – there was not a dry eye in the entire room…It was a very sad, somber day for all women in America.”

Despite the myriad of political and partisan leanings in the room, these women were deeply moved by the woman speaking before them. Yet within this emotion-laden and reflective room sat the hope, the vision, and the future of our country – the next round of women who have entered the pipeline to political leadership. They came together despite their differences (age, race, income level, and political party, to name a few) to learn from and about each other, to pool their resources, to network, and to make a difference. Despite the familiar charges (young women weren’t connected to her candidacy; conservative women reviled her; Obama supporters wouldn’t back her), women bonded this weekend over the historic run of a trailblazing woman for the highest office in the land.

In the end, representation really does matter. From a room full of political hopefuls in Columbus, Ohio, to the millions of women and men, girls and boys, who watched their televisions in earnest on Saturday, the significance of Senator Clinton’s candidacy is beyond powerful. Our nation witnessed so many firsts this season, and to see a woman come so close, to hear her acknowledge defeat with poise and candor, and to watch her put her full power behind another worthy opponent in the interest of her country and her party paves the way for us all to see other women running – and winning.

Senator Clinton implored her listeners on Saturday: “It would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.” I think she was speaking to the women in particular, encouraging them not give up their dreams of leadership simply because she lost this time around. And I hope the women across the country – and the women this weekend at Ohio Go Run – heed her call. If they do, several of them will surely be our nation’s future presidents.