California Skirt-Tails, not Coat-Tails, May Be Clinton’s Ride to Power : Convention: The state is poised to give the nation a slew of new leaders. Boxer, Feinstein and Kathleen Brown return as stars. It was Pander City.

It’s a long way from tea with Lady Bird Johnson at the 1964 Democratic convention to last week’s record-breaking Manhattan fund-raiser for seven Democratic women running for the U.S. Senate.

True, tea and cookies and a “kinder, gentler” Hillary Clinton played roles in the 1992 Democratic convention. But so did a slew of women candidates and officeholders.

In the wake of polls trumpeting voter preoccupation with domestic problems, a drumbeat of women’s issues--abortion rights, family leave, health insurance and education--pulsated through convention speeches. The Democratic conclave frequently took on the aura of The Week of the Women. It was Pander City. Several women said it was about time.

A key element of the Democratic Party’s general-election strategy surfaced the minute Texas Gov. Ann Richards gaveled the convention to order: The overriding message of presidential nominee Bill Clinton is “change,” and the Democrats see women as the natural messengers to deliver it.

There are about 10 million more female than male voters. Sixteen of the 18 women running for the U.S. Senate, and 95 of the 154 women seeking a job in the House, are Democrats. These statistics suggest a powerful communications tool that could reach a trove of voters.

Throughout the convention week, the face of the pro-change messenger projected on television, inside Madison Square Garden and on the front pages of newspapers was frequently that of a Californian. One headline heralded the emergence of a new generation of California political leaders--one that wears skirts. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), for example, is a national player in the Clinton campaign. She will have the ear of the candidate and a bully pulpit from which to address issues of concern to both women and minorities.

This convention also anointed three bone fide media stars from California--its two women senatorial candidates, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and state Treasurer Kathleen Brown. As has Clinton, these women have overcome negatives to remain politically viable.

Feinstein has come back from a narrow loss to Pete Wilson in 1990 and gubernatorial and Senate campaigns plagued by charges of financial and ethical lapses. Boxer’s campaign was nearly derailed by her involvement in the congressional check-bouncing scandal. And Brown appears to have distanced herself from a big and potentially damaging piece of political baggage--her brother Jerry.

For 1992, it appears the image of change can offset questions of character.

Clinton understands the necessity of capitalizing on the popularity of his party’s female candidates. He told a woman’s caucus meeting, “I believe that our ticket will carry Illinois because of (U.S. Senate candidate) Carol Moseley Braun, and Pennsylvania because of Lynn Yeakel (also running for the Senate).” And, he added, “I’d be glad to be on Dianne Feinstein’s or Barbara Boxer’s coattails any day.”

Voter enthusiasm for Boxer and Feinstein could boost Democratic turnout in a state critical to the Clinton ticket. The Democratic nominees will likely spend so much time clinging to the “skirt-tails” of California’s Democratic women that they might as well rent a condo near LAX.

While California’s women leaders were bestriding the national stage, the 1994 gubernatorial campaign was beginning. In all likelihood, that contest will pit Kathleen Brown against state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, a key Clinton supporter and the state delegation’s chair, for the Democratic nomination. While media demand for Brown--from the network morning shows to California local news feeds--was persistent, Garamendi staffers groused they couldn’t even sell their man to the media. Such are the trials and tribulations of a white, male politician in 1992.

Why does California seemed poised this election year to deliver so many new women leaders? For the same reasons that record numbers of women are running nationwide.

Women are coming up through the political ranks in greater numbers, and they are better prepared. In many states, particularly in California, reapportionment cracked the glass ceiling of incumbency, which had blocked upward political mobility.

More women are raising the money needed to run a competitive race. One of the premier events of convention week was a fund-raiser put on by EMILY’S List, a feminist political action committee. A record-breaking, one-shot amount of $750,000 was raised for women Senate candidates.

Women candidates are strong, too, because the anger generated by last year’s Clarence Thomas-Anita F. Hill hearings still festers. Hill was elevated to the status of an icon here, and references to Supreme Court Justice Thomas, especially after his pro-restriction vote in a Pennsylvania abortion case, repeatedly drew boos.

Barbara Johnson, a veteran California politico and Boxer adviser, thinks women candidates have also been helped because women’s issues are now part of the basic political agenda. Unlike 1990, when domestic concerns were eclipsed by war, the economy and foreign policy in 1992 has brought about, in Johnson’s view, “a convergence of need” to deal with domestic issues and “available resources,” women candidates whom voters identify with these issues.

The withdrawal of Ross Perot from the presidential battlefield may also fuel the momentum of Democratic women as a political force, particularly in key states like California, where high-visibility female candidates are running.

Perot and these women share elements of the same message. They all positioned themselves as agents of change. And some of the pro-choice vote parked with Perot rather than Clinton.

For Clinton, the question of utmost importance is whether Democratic women’s skirt-tails will help sweep these voters into his column?

Some say the message sent by the Democrat’s white, male ticket is, “This is not your father’s Democratic Party.” But women and their growing political clout make it clear that this is not your mother’s Democratic Party, either!