Nurturing women candidates

With midterm elections approaching, the Democratic party is running women candidates as outsiders against a “culture of corruption.” In other words, “let’s exploit some stereotypes!”

“In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean [floors] and change [diapers]?” asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Women.” [Insertions mine.]

I’m glad the DCCC is making an effort to increase female representation in the legislature. But the way to do that is just to nominate more women candidates, and then trumpet their actual political strengths– rather than a list of stereotypes. (The article goes all Lakoff on our asses, noting that women candidates are a good fit for the Dems, who are “more concerned with nurturing, caring and domestic policy, while the Republicans care more about security.”)
Though I can’t be too upset at the DCCC. I think it is true, unfortunately, that voters respond better to politicians who are traditional/stereotypical (tough/decisive men, nurturing women) – which is a broader social problem that goes waaaay deeper than the Democratic party.
The public loves women politicians whose personal lives adhere to the stereotypes (devoted wife, mother, etc.), but has a much harder time stomaching women whose political positions are actually pro-woman. Note that Rahm Emanuel isn’t talking about getting more “nurturers” into office because they’d enact some great policies for women and families. He likes women candidates because he thinks they’re more electable.
I have to wonder: If the Dems were the party in power, would they give a shit about recruiting more women candidates? This article makes it seem like a desperation move… “Well, we aren’t winning elections with men, so I guess we’ll try anything. Even women!”
UPDATE: Broadsheet has a different take.