Obama and the "Other Women"

Ever since the primary season was wrapped up in June (well, at least for most of us), the new hot topic has been the veepstakes.  It's mostly a parlor game, but an admittedly fun one for us political junkies.  We get to look at maps, polls, and demographics, while scanning the news to find out who is appearing where with whom, and who says what about whatever. It's our summertime Kremlinogy. Good stuff.

This season, a lot has been written about if Hillary would be on the ticket, and, if so, what impact she would have on Obama's prospects in November. Now that it's looking like she probably won't be on the ticket, a major topic has been what would happen if Obama picked another woman.

According to many here, including a couple front pagers, Obama would be a fool to pick any other woman besides Hillary.  Apparently, McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano have their own glass ceiling to crack, and it's firmly under Hillary's feet.  To me, this is an odd kind of sexism that reduces all potential female veeps to a single demographic: their gender. Forget that Sebelius is a two term progressive executive from a red state; she's a woman. Forget that McCaskill was an early supporter from a swing state; she's a woman.

I get the argument that Clinton was the only veep prospect that won 17 million votes, but that's an argument that could be used against potential veeps of either gender.  When applied only against the female prospects, the argument becomes sexist. This argument hasn't come up near as consistently (or predictably) when the names of male candidates such as Bayh or Biden come up.

Some say that for Obama to pick a female candidate would be tokenism and an insult to women.  I've read that if Sebelius (the most often mentioned potential female running mate) is picked, this will be a turn-off to women, and it will hurt Obama's chances among female voters.  Guess what?  Not so much.  Like the mythological problem Obama had with Latino voters, like the mythological problem Obama has with "working class whites", this canard is just a tall tale spun by a small group of diehard Clinton supporters.  

According to a new poll out, 29% of women voters would be more likely to vote for Obama if he picked a female running mate.  More interestingly, 47% of women who voted for Hillary would be more likely to vote for Obama if he picked a female running mate, while only 4% would be less likely. Turns out that it's just a disproportionately vocal 4% that we've been hearing from around here (and at goofy sites like Alegre's Corner and Hillaryis44).  Turns out that their pretense that they are speaking for all women is just that: pretense.

The article in full here:

AMERICAN WOMEN NO LONGER SEE HRC AS FIRST WOMAN PREZ.

On the heels of fresh coverage claiming women and feminists remain bitter about Hillary Clinton's defeat, here's a bipartisan poll that offers some real numbers. Sixty-nine percent of American women do believe Hillary was a trailblazer for other female politicians, but their hopes for the future of women in politics aren't pinned on her shoulders -- less than one-third now believe she will be the first woman president. Optimistically, though, about half of the women surveyed believe the U.S. will have a female president by 2016. What that suggests is that many women would be thrilled by the pick of any woman as a vice presidential nominee.

Here are some other takeaways from the poll, conducted by Republican Kellyanne Conway and Democrat Celinda Lake:

       * Obama would benefit twice as much as McCain from offering the second slot to a woman (29% more likely to support Obama if he picks a woman vs. 15% who would be more likely to support McCain).
        * Forty-seven percent of Hillary Clinton's primary voters said they'd be more likely to vote for Obama if he chose a woman running mate, and 4% said less likely. This is the exact breakdown of current Obama supporters overall.
        * Obama also holds an advantage among Independent women, who favor him by a twelve point margin (42% for Obama to 30% for McCain). However, one out of five Independents are still undecided.
        * Despite all the talk about sexism in the presidential campaign, the majority of women voters laid the blame for Hillary's loss squarely on her and her strategists' shoulders; they largely reject gender as a cause of her demise. Thirty-four percent believe she lost "because of the kind of campaign she ran"; 31% said because of "who she is and what she stands for"; and 21% said "because she is a woman."

--Dana Goldstein



Display:


Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (none / 0)

None of these 3 come close to passing the Commander-in-Chief test.  Obama, with his lack of experience, can't go with a candidate even weaker than himself on security matters.

Hillary passed the Commander-in Chief test during the primaries.   Still I think Obama would be nuts to pick her too.  I don't see Hillary as being a good number 2.  I think the campaign would be a mess.


by RichardFlatts on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (2.00 / 6)

What is this "Commander in Chief Test" I keep hearing about? Is it multiple choice? Are you required to use a number two pencil? At what point during the primary was it administered to the candidates, and were their scores posted online somewhere? Cause I don't remember hearing anything about anyone passing or failing any test other than from the candidates themselves.


by Cincinnatus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:41:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (2.00 / 1)

The imaginary commander in chief test for someone who won't even be commander and chief. It is by far the silliest rational I've encountered.


by Dog Chains on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I shouldn't but I'll bite. (2.00 / 1)

What did Clinton specifically do to pass this mythological CiC test during the primaries?

I didn't back her, but I don't hate her, yet i can't see what her grand CiC experience is.

And the VP slot is not he CiC slot, so I think one picks the VP with an eye on winning the election, which can be any number of factors, not "national security" exclusively.


by notedgeways on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (2.00 / 1)

She passed the 'CIC test', how?  Because she said so?  AUMF?  Also, did Bill pass the 'CIC test' in '92?

I'm not saying either hasn't, but by perpetuating this mysterious test, you are doing nothing but playing into McCain's hands.


by mikeinsf on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary passed the Commander-in Chief test... (2.00 / 1)

Sorry. I can never resist slapping down a McPuma.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (2.00 / 2)

Wow, first day here and already you try and cause divisions. Careful you may be labled as a McTroll.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (none / 0)

 How many McCain points was that worth, you reckon?


by QTG on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (none / 0)

 Not 30 seconds after I typed the McPain Coints sentnce, hannitty says, "Obama is a weak candidate, and everyone now realizes it." in that smarmy creepy voice of his. It's one of today's talking points.....


by QTG on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCaskill, Sebelius and Napolitano (none / 0)

The commander in chief test?  What fresh silliness is that?  Jesus H.Christ, you people come up with some doozies!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Like the mythological problem(s)... (2.00 / 2)

The only one of those "problems" that hasn't been debunked is McCain's edge with Stupid/Racist White Voters.


by Glaurung on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:38:31 PM EST

Re: Obama and the "Other Women" (2.00 / 2)

I have no problem with Obama picking Hillary if Bill shuts up and stays on the sidelines.  The problem with Hillary is Bill and his ego.  I wish that Bill Clinton would realize that he is no longer the head of the democratic party.  He needs to let go, just like Jeese Jackson needs too.  These guys can't stand not being in the limelight.  Bill Clinton should quit taking his bitter pills.  At least he is making Hillary look like an angel.


by Spanky on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:49:10 PM EST

Re: Obama and the "Other Women" (2.00 / 1)

I feel the same way.  I think Hillary would be a fine choice, but they would need some kind of deal that he would keep quiet on political and foreign policy matters and stick to his charitable work.

Unlike most, I think it's doable.  He certainly was quiet during most of Bush's disastrous tenure, until Hillary started running.


by mikeinsf on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the "Other Women" (2.00 / 2)

You don't 'neutralize' someone like Bill Clinton.  He's either a formidable asset or a huge liability.  I'm for HRC as VP, provided Obama thinks a healthy working relationship is possible.  But I think that it also depends on figuring out a role for Bill both on the trail and with regard to the administration.  

For the former, I'd set him to barnstorming the small towns like he did effectively for Hillary during the second half of the primaries.  He loves retail politics and high school gymnasiums and works them like a rock star.

For the latter, I'd dispatch him to work on the Israel/Palestine morass with his old friend Tony Blair.

But no one can get Bill Clinton to sit down and shut up.  Not even Hillary.  Nor should they.  Put him to work.  It's what he wants and he's incredibly talented at it.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and the "Other Women" (none / 0)

Okay, let's bet the farm on the possibility of a guy who has never been on the sidelines one minute of his entire existence and who realizes that his time on earth is short will sit quietly on the sidelines.  Sounds good to me!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: JFK hated LBJ (2.00 / 0)

Agreed.

And I don't think it's the maturity (or brains) of Obama that was ever the problem.

It's the constant need for division within the party by ardent supporters of both candidates. While admirable during the primaries, rehashing old wounds against Clinton or Obama just serves to hurt the Democrats.


by Babloo328 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:59:27 PM EST

Re: JFK hated LBJ (none / 0)

LBJ was in the Kennedy assassination up to his neck, not a good comparison for you.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.