If you think the 2010 campaign for governor of Minnesota is heavy on testosterone, you not only are correct, you may also be wondering how, after decades of progress on women's issues, we ended up with a 1910-style contest between rich white men.
Mark Dayton, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner: It's easy to imagine these patricians in beards and top hats debating how to get more wheat to market while nodding condescendingly to the "ladies" in the audience and telling them to run along home and make supper for their men. (Emmer is the least wealthy of our troika of white men, but he seems to enjoy the most support among those burdened by fortunes.)
It is clear that something important is missing from this campaign discussion. The needs of the wealthy, who would be devastated if required to pay the tax rates they used to pay before government lent them a helping hand, have been thoroughly discussed. So has the necessity to cut billions from the state budget while ensuring that vulnerable groups, such as the Minnesota Vikings, receive the assistance they need to get by on revenues of only $221 million a year. Poor babies.
So, no: It's not the wealthy that are missing from this campaign. It's the women.
Women make up a majority of the state's population, the electorate and the workforce, and they are not getting a fair deal. Affordable and dependable child care, equal pay and equal protection for women and girls should be among the most pressing issues of the campaign. But the 2010 campaign for governor has pushed women's issues to the back burner, where the men of 1910 would have liked them to remain.
The campaign didn't start out this way. When the DFL Party endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher for governor in June, she proclaimed that Minnesota was about to "make history" with the chance to elect its first female governor. But history is made by winners more often than by losers. Kelliher lost to Dayton in the primary because her campaign made her seem like just another one of the "guys."
Now, instead of a woman heading for the governor's office, we can't even get women on the agenda. (For the first time in memory, a major party -- the Independence Party -- didn't bother even to endorse a woman for lieutenant governor.) Does the lack of discussion about women's issues mean the state of women is good?
Afraid not.