Is "Commander in Chief" good for the Clinton campaign?

As Gloria Steinem wrote in her article “Women are never front-runners” in January of 2008, “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She goes on to quote results from one study by saying that this country “polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.” Women are not elected to political offices as much as men, despite having similar credentials. In the midst of the current presidential race for the Democratic candidate, it is a clear battle between a woman and a black man – is America ready for either candidate?

With its pilot episode airing in September of 2005, ABC’s television series “Commander in Chief” attempted to break the conception that women could not be front-runners in the political realm by creating a presidential administration in the control of Mackenzie Allen (portrayed by Geena Davis), the first female President of the United States. However, after only one season of 18 episodes, the show was cancelled officially on May 13, 2006 due to various reasons, including low viewer ratings.

For my final project, I want to examine this low viewer response to this series in comparison to its male-counterpart, “The West Wing,” which walked away with 3 Golden Globe awards and 26 Emmys during the course of its 7-season production. More specifically, I want to see how the influence of our media, through television, has any application to the politics of reality. It is interesting that in today’s society, more people vote for the American Idol contestants than they do in the presidential elections. Does the poor response to “Commander” give any indication as to the success of Hilary Clinton’s campaign, especially as a campaign to elect the first female President of the United States?