OpenLeft’s Mike Lux, in his recently posted My Veep Thoughts, makes the following observation:
3. Speaking of women, while I have less fervent views on this than many people, my first choice would not be Hillary. There would be a lot of good things about it, but I’ve been convinced by all the ad nauseum debate that the negatives outweigh the positives. I also admit I’m a little nervous about the Bill Clinton soap opera factor.
Another woman was originally my first choice, with both Gov. Sebelius and Napolitano being appealing to me. But I have had one woman friend after another, including some Obama supporters, tell me that they think putting a woman on the ticket other than Hillary would be perceived as a slap at Hillary. I don’t quite get that, but I’ve been convinced that this would be a real problem.
Let’s think about that. Putting Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano (or any other woman) on the ticket would be a ‘slap at Hillary’. And for this reason alone, it’s a bad idea to put a woman on the ticket. I agree with Lux that a lot of women are saying this. I’ve certainly heard it repeated frequently. I totally reject the logic.
Consider the set of people that would love to see a woman attain the presidency. Now consider the subset of that group that would like to see Hillary Clinton attain the presidency. Now consider the subset of that group that would be opposed to seeing any woman aside from Hillary Clinton attain the presidency. This last subset is tiny compared to either of the first two groupings. For the vast majority of people that want to see a woman in the White House, it would be preferable if Hillary Clinton were not that woman. An even greater percentage would be appalled to see deference to Clinton stand in the way of an opportunity for another qualified woman.
In short, who cares whether a Sebelius or Napolitano on the ticket is some kind of slap at Hillary Clinton? From an electability point of view this argument makes no sense at all. There are tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of independent and conservative women that would never vote for Hillary Clinton but would vote for Kathleen Sebelius. Moreover, Clinton simply isn’t going to be on the ticket, so why should her ego present one more barrier to women attaining the highest reaches of power? Very, very few women are so devoted to Hillary Clinton that they would want to risk another several election cycles without a woman on the ticket just to protect her position as the top female leader of the party (and, in any case, that position currently belongs to Speaker Pelosi).
The reasons I like Kathleen Sebelius for vice-president are manifold. As a governor, she has an executive experience. As the popular governor of a red state, she fits into Obama’s message of post-partisanship and a 50-state strategy. As a Catholic she helps bring in a key swing demographic. Since her father was once governor of Ohio, she can help modestly in a key swing state. And she’s been a die-hard supporter of Obama’s and has worked hard for his campaign. She’s flat-out qualified and she’s earned her chance. I won’t be upset if Obama picks someone else, but I think she should be on the short list and get major consideration.
But she’s also a woman. And putting her on the ticket is a fantastic way to help most Democratic women get over their feeling of loss and frustration at Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for the presidency. One reason losing Clinton hurt so much is because there aren’t any other obvious women in the queue to pick up the banner. Obama represents another eight years before another Democratic woman gets a chance. And after eight years, where will that woman come from? One way to solve that problem is to pick a woman right now to serve as vice-president. We have a few qualified candidates, and none more so than Sebelius. The sitting vice-president is always the favorite to succeed to a two-term president and that is one major reason that Obama should not select someone from Clinton’s camp just to try to create a little party unity. Obama won and his faction should get the spoils. But his faction never was anti-women, it was anti-DLC. Picking a woman running mate will only make that more clear.
I’m not a Hillary fan and I would puke if she gets the VP spot. BUT
In politics “perception” counts.
It would be a slap to Hillary’s supporters and those leaning Hillary to name other than Hillary to the ticket. There’s a lot of emotion invested there in the Hillary for VP. It’ll be seen as “She’s was scorned.”
that said, it’s insane to think that no other qualified women should be named.
the compelling argument against Hillary is the drama and distraction that as former first lady and president they present.
Unquantifiable the loss in women’s votes if McCain names a woman and Sibelius gets picked.
It’s insane to think that no other qualified women should be named.
See, this is what I don’t understand. You mean to tell me that people would dismiss Sebelius out-of-hand because she’s not Hillary? That is insane.
Now if she brings nothing to the table, wouldn’t be an asset, then that’s one thing. But if we ignore her and the talents she can bring on the basis of a dreamed-up tokenism charge by some of the die-hards? Please.
Now, speaking of language, here: why are we asking of women who are governors and such if they are “qualified” or that we’d include “qualified woman” on a veep list? I HATE that.
The assumption in that phrase is that women (or men of any hue other than white) if they are considered for this position are not “qualified” and need that word as a–heh, pardon me–qualifier.
E.g., Ron Paul is seen as batshit crazy, but somehow he’s not unqualified. Funny how that works.
This is not a bash on you, idredit, because we’ve all been guilty of this at one time or another. It is just one more example of how right-wing dogma has infected our language.
The issue of ‘qualification’ to be president is a complicated one.
For me, the main non-ideological qualification is that you have managed a large organization. Now, a presidential campaign is a large organization. So…if you run one and win you have pretty much proved you’re qualified. But what of vice-presidents? I just don’t think it’s enough to be a sitting Senator or member of the House. You need to have been the CEO of a company or run a cabinet department, or been a superintendent of a school system, or the head of a law firm, or the chancellor of a university, or something.
That’s where women are at a disadvantage. The pool of qualified women is much smaller than the pool of qualified men. But governors certainly fit the bill.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
Booman,
I understand your general point and agree. Most of your examples demand consensus-building to move the organization forward – school super, cabinet dept, chancellor. That mimics what is necessary in government.
However, I don’t think being a CEO is quite the same. CEOs tend to rule from a somewhat more dictatorial perch (and you might argue after the Bush WH that is the new reality). It’s a top down approach that seems the antithesis of Barack’s community organizing approach. Besides, it’s so Republican. 😉
sorry you misread that in the context of my post. Hillary supporters are insane to think no other qualified woman, other than Hillary should be named.
I’m pleased not to be alone in my thought…better than I can write;
Now, Clinton did run, and she brings a lot to the table as a VP candidate. What troubles me, though, is the notion that Clinton’s campaign necessarily disqualifies every other woman as a possibility. Sebelius and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano may be women, but they’re apparently the wrong women.
Still the Clinton factor. All drama.
I would suggest that the VP is chosen like they are always chosen, for what they bring to the ticket. By that standard Clinton’s very, very high negatives disqualify her.
I don’t think that there is a huge pool of Clinton supporters who would think it’s a slap of if another woman is chosen. I think that’s mostly the work of the Rethug trolls.
My opinion, Obama runs to the center, and he has someone on as VP who sounds like FDR but is willing to kick McCain in the teeth on a regular basis. I’d like Edwards, myself, although he seems to be unenthused.
I agree, I think “FDR, very scrappy” would be an excellent VP choice for Obama. I’m just not sure who qualifies.
“I’m just not sure who qualifies.”
I’ve got an answer for you: Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer!
Webb fits that bill rather well too, I think. On the other hand, half way through his new book, I’m starting to think that Webb might be a very good candidate for Secretary of Defense.
To disqualify someone like Sebelius who is otherwise well-qualified to be VP on the basis of her gender is called…wait for it…sexism!
Her gender is not her most important characteristic, even when making political calculations about women’s votes. As a thought experiment, imagine if the Clintonistas’ logic were now that Obama has to name a woman as VP or it would be a slap at all of Clinton’s supporters. Would it then be OK for him to name, say, Katherine Harris? That would be silly, but it’s the same logic that says any female VP choice is a slap at Hillary.
If people are committed to the symbolism of a female attaining high office, the they should be enthusiasic about Sebilius. For people like me who thought that all other things equal, a female candidate for President would be good, but simply opposed “that woman” Sebelius is an excellent choice.
If on the other hand the issue is about Hillary rather than women, then only Hillary will make them happy.
Why would it be tokenism? She’s Governor of Kansas and she’s Catholic.
Also, is she always a bad speaker? Most people don’t stick around long enough to tune in to SOTU response, and of those who did, most of them probably remember little of it.
IIRC, she’s a quite active Obama surrogate. If that’s the case, then I can’t imagine that she’d be awful on the stump. One speech shouldn’t disqualify her when she has many strengths she can bring to the table.
If you can do it, it ain’t tokenism. She’s qualified and she brings valuable executive experience to the ticket. The SOTU response wasn’t major league, but the top of ticket has got the speechifying thing nailed. She doesn’t have to be great, merely competent. She’s been elected twice so I think she is probably good enough on the stump.
Generally speaking, if not Sebelius, then I’d like to see another gov/ex-gov on the ticket. McCain’s only front channel attack is “inexperience”. He’s got nothing else. The crucial issues all relate to the economy. Having someone who has actually run a government at some level would be a plus.
Why take a good governor and make her a do-nothing VP? While you make a case for following the President as the next President, one has to wonder about an eight year sacrifice to achieve that. I do not think that sex should be a factor. You see that as important to the Clinton faction I see it as trying to please all the people all the time. Obama should concentrate more on his energy policy which could translate into a better economy. Neither candidate sounds like they know anything about either energy or economics.
Sebelius brings 3 only. With Sebelius, McCain still wins KS. She brings nothing in national security, and that’s Obama’s big big deficit.
off subject..good to see John Edwards on ABC this morning and supporting Obama.
It is time and past time that we seriously consider putting a woman in the White House. In retrospect, it seems to me that we missed at least two splendid opportunities when we did not draft Barbara Jordan in the aftermath of Watergate, or Ann Richardson when W ousted her as governor of Texas.
But having said that, gender alone is not a reason to choose either a presidential candidate or a running mate. In either case, the candidate should be chosen on their character and ability. Gender should neither enhance or detract from the choice.
Choosing Hillary solely because she was a woman might have been the right choice but for the wrong reasons. Making the determination that Obama’s running mate must — or must not — be a woman for the same reason would be the same mistake.