Ten O'Clock News; Women voters on Ferraro

... Vice president has such a nice ring to it. The theory was that Geraldine Ferraro could help Walter Mondale win women's votes. And, since there are more women than men, win the election. But in practice it just didn't work that way. For many, Ferraro's candidacy meant a vote for Mondale. It made the election a little more exciting for me and significant. For some it cost a vote for Mondale. If anything ever happened to Mondale. God forbid. I was concerned as to whether or not Geraldine Ferraro was really capable of taking over the country in his place. But, for the vast majority of Mondale voters it just didn't matter. If Godzilla had been running against Reagan I would have voted Godzilla.In the end, while there were little bits and pieces of a Ferraro vs. Bush candidacy, it was really decided on a Reagan vs. Mondale candidacy. During the primaries. Gary Hart started calling Walter Mondale a captive of the special interests and the tag stuck. If you accept the premise that women are a special interest group that premise is debatable, then the question for the women's movement that pushed Ferraro's candidacy

is how to deliver the women's vote. I think the women's movement, in general, has a very serious obligation now, as much as the Democratic Party does now to reach out, not just talk to themselves. More women have to get into the political system, on the inside, and broaden their base. I-- I have felt, since the ERA did not succeed, that they had an obligation to do that. Mondale wanted Ferraro because he hoped she'd help him win but women's groups wanted Ferraro because win or lose she would help women crash through the barriers they face when they run for office in America. She was picked on I think more than a man in her position might have been. I think it's too bad that people were jumping all over her earlier in the campaign. Let me help you with the difference, Ms. Ferraro, between Iran and the embassy in Lebanon. I almost resent, Vice President Bush, your patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy. I think women are increasingly independent of men in the way they vote and much less likely

to accept the shibboleth of 20 years ago that might have said, "Listen, honey, you don't quite understand, this is a very complicated issue and believe me, so-and-so is the right person to deal with it. They're much more likely today to, to say, wait a minute I think I do understand. In Massachusetts, where Mondale actually beat Reagan among women, there are clues for candidates who want to capture the women's vote. Part of the answer lies in the issues women value. And I guess the nuclear question was the, probably the biggest issue for me. Pro-choice. Human rights. ERA. Central America. We reject the notion that women must be treated as second-class citizens. We reject the idea that we cannot halt the nuclear army In the Massachusetts Senate contest, John Kerry won almost 2 to 1 among women, while men split evenly along party lines. Kerry's appeal to women though is more than just issues. In most cases, I think it was a more generalized sense that somehow he was more committed to searching for

avenues of compromise and negotiation and openness to the, to prospects for peace that was not true of his opponent. uh, The second thing was beyond war and peace, I think Kerry's whole sense of priorities, national priorities, was one that women found much more attractive than men. Kerry's victory not only suggests the gender gap exists, but also reaffirms the notion that men and women are fundamentally different. The vote of women is going to move more toward candidates who in their estimation perceive the complexity of the world we live in and try to deal with those complexities. They don't value short, firm, decisive answers that are decisive just for their own sake nearly as much as men do. To measure the difference between men and women, look at the real gender gap of 1984. The fact that men voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. I'm Christy George.