Henrietta Hay's Column

"It's not over 'til the fat lady sings," according to popular culture. Tomorrow she will sing. The question, of course, is what the song will be. This is, so they say, the Year of the Woman. All those people who said that this was going to be a dull election are having crow for dinner tonight.

This election has turned to be a doozy. With not only candidate choices at all levels, but also a record number of vitally important state ballot issues, and a couple of local questions, there's something here for almost everyone to get excited about. I know, of course, exactly how I hope it all come out. It is even possible that this year, for the first time in many years, I will vote for the guy that wins.

While the style of Presidential campaigns has changed a bit over the years, they're basically about the same as they have always been, the same games played by the same male establishment rules. In the early days what they lacked in television in coverage they made up in face-to-face confrontation. And did they ever confront! The early political battles were every bit as bitter as the modern ones, perhaps even more so. At least we don't have the candidates dueling with each other - yet. Character assassinations abound in the history books. Sexual accusations have been flying around from the beginning. Jefferson was repeatedly asked about Sally Hemings. Did he or didn't he? Candidate's wives have often been viciously attacked. They have called each other liars since the days of George Washington. John Quincy Adams was accused of installing "gaming furniture" in the White House when he bought chess set and a billiard table. Oh well, boys will be boys.

Debates are hardly a new political phenomenon. Lincoln and Douglas would have loved the comfort of air-conditioned studios. Those seven debates in 1858 took place in the Illinois summer sun, pitting the short, powerful "Little Giant" Douglas, against the 6 foot 4 inch "Honest Abe" Lincoln. Both were skilled politicians, brilliant orators and experienced dissemblers. They went head on head, one on one in front of a handful of people who couldn't even vote. After this year's choreographed performances, it makes you wonder about the progress television has brought, doesn't it?

It is interesting to watch people's reactions to an election like this one. They range from the completely apathetic, through the angry but won't do anything about it, to the confused, to the informed but aren't too excited, to the really involved. I suspect that the voters in 1800 were about the same mix. With the aid of the World Almanac and my handy dandy calculator, I figure that about 36% of the eligible voters cast their ballots in 1824. We haven't made a lot of progress. In the last presidential election we got up to 50%.

So here we are in 1992, with the old boy network still going strong but running a bit scared, the candidates still slinging mud while they try to get elected, and the electorate still trying to decide what to believe. So what's different this year? The women.

In the 72 years since the women got the vote they have made little progress in infiltrating the male structure of government. This year may be different. The mental picture which will live on in the minds of so many of us of those 12 three-piece-pin-striped-male-suits sitting in judgment on Anita Hill, started a major surge in female political activity that is not going to go away. There are a record number of women running for office at all levels all over the country. There are 11 women running for the U. S. Senate and 106 women running for the House of Representatives. Many of these are conceded to have a good chance at election. My own ambition is to live long enough to vote for a woman for President.

I'll go along with Gloria Steinem who says it won't be the Year of the Woman until we have half the Senate and half the House and a President once in a while. But I hope the fat lady's song includes a lot of women's this year.