Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Mikulski, four other women win Senate seats Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 16:16:30 EST Message-ID: \SE A;ELECTIONS '92 \HD Mikulski, four other women win Senate seats \BY Valerie Richardson \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES \DT SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - The much-ballyhooed "Year of the Woman" very nearly lived up to its hype as voters sent five Democratic women to the Senate and nearly doubled the number in the House. Joining what has been called the nation's most exclusive men's club will be one incumbent woman, Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, and four newcomers: Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, Rep. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and Patty Murray of Washington. Mrs. Braun, who helped kick off this year's push for women candidates with her upset primary win, becomes the first black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. "We've burst the glass ceiling and raised the roof," said Jane Danowitz, executive director of the Women's Campaign Fund. "It's more than we had hoped for. It's very clear that this is really a mandate for women candidates and one thing is clear - we're never going to go back to a Senate where the Judiciary Committee is all white male." Harriett Woods, president of the National Women's Political Campaign, called the results "a giant step forward." "We're ecstatic about the Senate victories," said Mrs. Woods, who was interrupted by frequent cheers at the NWPC's Washington headquarters. "To elect five women in a single election cycle is astonishing - we've never elected more than one at a time before." Her group predicted that 20 of the record 106 women House candidates would carry their races. Factoring in incumbent losses, the victories would bring the number of congresswomen from 28 to more than 40, said Mrs. Woods. "I think when this is written up tonight it will be women who elected the next president and changed the face of Congress," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Fund for a Feminist Majority. "I can tell you we are into a megatrend," Ms. Smeal said. "The big story is that women are no longer comfortable with being represented by essentially all male bodies and they want them to be integrated, they want them to be gender-balanced." Tempering the excitement over the five Senate victories were losses in the other six races. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challenger Lynn Yeakel narrowly lost her bid to unseat Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who was targeted for defeat by Democratic women's groups for his role in quizzing Anita Hill during the Supreme Court hearings on Clarence Thomas. Mr. Specter trailed Mrs. Yeakel by double-digits in polls for most of the summer. But when the votes were counted, Mr. Specter had edged out a win. "We tried, my friends, we tried," Mrs. Yeakel told supporters, conceding defeat. President-elect Bill Clinton had sought to help Mrs. Yeakel with campaign appearances in the state. He staved off furious efforts by President Bush and other Republicans during the closing days who sought to portray him as someone who couldn't be trusted and would raise taxes. Democrat Geri Rothman-Serot showed unexpected strength in her bid to unseat Missouri GOP Sen. Kit Bond, but was ultimately unable to pull off her challenge. Four of the long-shot candidates - Democrats Gloria O'Dell of Kansas, Claire Sargent of Arizona, Jean Lloyd-Jones of Iowa and Republican Charlene Haar of South Dakota - also went down to defeat. There was also bad news on the gubernatorial front. Two of the three women running for governor lost, Republican Elizabeth Leonard of Rhode Island and Democrat Deborah Arnesson of New Hampshire. The results were not yet counted on the third, Democrat Dorothy Bradley of Montana. Not all politically active women were thrilled with this year's infusion of female candidates. Some Republican women complained that "The Year of the Woman" should be renamed "The Year of the Democratic Woman," noting that most of the female candidates were pro-choice Democrats. "Most people I know don't really think it makes any difference if the left-wing feminist is a man or a woman," said Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum. "So Barbara Boxer replaces Alan Cranston - so what? What's the difference?" "There's going to be more women elected, no doubt, because a large part of the Democratic Party is liberal feminists, and they're putting a lot of money into electing women," said Susan Brankin Hirschmann, executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum. "What the media really means by 'The Year of the Woman' is 'The Year of the Radical Democratic Pro-Abortion Woman,' " she added. "Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know what these women stand for and will vote for them just because they represent change." Rachel McNair, president of Feminists for Life in Kansas City, Mo., said she was pleased to see female candidates running, but not with their pro-choice views. Still, "a pro-abortion woman is still better than a pro-abortion man because women are more likely to bring up issues like child-care, domestic violence, sexual harassment . . . and men are more likely to behave themselves when these issues are brought up." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM