COLUMN: Voting for all the wrong reasons

From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99 From Mark Fiore's, "The Right Stuff," Fall '99Women have made phenomenal strides in public life over the last decade and the next millennium may begin on the same foot -- with a female president. Based on recent achievements by women, the nation now appears ready for such a milestone. In the world of entertainment, Oprah Winfrey is one of the industry's most powerful forces and women from Madonna to Lauryn Hill dominated this year's Grammy Awards. Even Goldman Sachs recently appointed the first two women ever to its management committee. With such success, it seems the nation is recognizing that women can accomplish anything. No wonder such a buzz is building over Elizabeth Dole's potential presidential candidacy and Hillary Clinton's possible Senate bid. Recent polls show Dole could easily defeat Vice President Al Gore in a race for president and that Clinton could knock off New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for a Senate seat. But unlike other recent achievements by women, the poll results seem to be driven less by individual competency than by a desire to elect a woman, any woman, to office. Both Dole and Clinton may not have the political accomplishments necessary for elective office. Dole, first and foremost, has never held elective office -- a dubious record considering she would be seeking the most powerful elected position in the world. Granted, Dole served as a Cabinet officer in two Republican administrations and campaigned hard for her husband in his three bids for national office. But such a political record pales in comparison to Gore's lengthy record of elected service. George Bush Jr., too, has learned from the experience of elective office, currently as the governor of Texas. Clinton, meanwhile, bungled the most significant political foray in which she was involved -- health care reform. As chairperson of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform -- a position her husband appointed her to -- Clinton pushed for expensive and broad guaranteed health care coverage for all Americans in the early 1990s. The Democratic-controlled Congress said "No thanks," soundly defeating the effort. With a sour taste still left in their mouths, senators and representatives a few years later strongly opposed Clinton's potential involvement in the nation's welfare reform initiatives. Clinton, however, has remained actively involved in political affairs. Indeed, she is now on her 19th overseas journey without her husband, a week-long trip to Africa. But such experience does not qualify a candidate for a Senate seat from New York. As First Lady, Clinton has not had the same level of accountability to voters that she would have as a senator. Plus, she would have to prove that she understands the issues of New York well enough to be able to represent her constituents. At the same time, Clinton has been able to avoid the need for political compromise -- a luxury she would not have as a senator. And then there is the question of what Hillary Clinton stands for. As she has campaigned for her husband, she has pushed his positions while rarely mentioning her own. Now is the time for her own stances on such issues as crime and education to come forth. The same goes for Dole. Although voters may like her Southern charm, they seem to know little of what Dole stands for. Indeed, the World Wide Web site for her exploratory committee -- http://www.dole2000.org -- lists only six issues on which Dole has taken a position: limited government, improved education, lower taxes, increased defense, the fight against drugs and government integrity. Those positions, furthermore, have barely been addressed. How would Dole improve education or fight drugs? By how much would she increase defense spending or lower taxes? And what about all the other issues -- abortion, crime, welfare and so on? Dole's silence on such issues becomes especially evident when considering the political record of Bush. During his first term as governor, he cut property taxes, increased public education funding, reduced welfare rolls and cracked down on crime. It may very well turn out that Dole and Clinton are the two best candidates for their respective offices. But at this point, voters throwing their support behind the two women should consider their own motives. Are they supporting the possible candidates because of their achievements and positions -- or because of their gender?