Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice -- very Obama. But by choosing a female running mate, Obama would, unfortunately, thrust the Hillary die-hards and their ever-more marginal discontentment back into the spotlight. That said, anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn't deserve the designation "feminist." So I'd relish watching the reactions to a Sebelius nod, not only because such a choice would double down on Obama's most effective message -- "change" -- but because it would reveal exactly which Clinton boosters are ready to widen the lens and enthusiastically support women's leadership as such.I always thought the most telling detail about "feminists" who were insistent that Hillary be on the ticket was this claim that a Sebilius or McCaskill nomination for the VP slot would be the highest insult. What we see in that attitude is not so much feminism but Hillaryism.
UPDATE: Locking comments for just a bit guys. I don't want this to get ugly. We're not there yet, but we're teetering. Let's all take a breather and get some fresh air. Will resume in an hour.
UPDATE#2: OK, back open folks. Nothing to the face please.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Very solid point, I would love to see how PUMA reacts...
PUMA--all 200 of them, including the Republicans who started the group--would freak out loudly and publicly, and the media would dutifully cover their response with the same degree of seriousness that they gave the Bigfoot story, which is to say too much. And people like me will have another drink and wish it were November already.
You nailed it. It's Hillary or no one to these people and that is something I don't understand. 'Course I've been in the "we need a woman for President, but NOT THAT WOMAN" camp for way too long...
One still runs across the occasional "Sebelius? No. Because if he's decided to go with a woman, why not Hillary?" comment. Because obviously the only political credential either one has is her gender.
I'd love to see Sebelius. Partly because I think she's an excellent choice for governance, and partly because I find all the "it's got to be an old white guy" to be vastly irritating, as though gender and race are the only characteristics any of these politicians have.
Kathleen isn't an attack dog. But let's let Obama do the attacking, unleash Hillary and Joe and Jim at every opportunity, and move onward. I'd really like to see, after the convention, a united party calling the GOP and McCain campaign out on their flip flops and vague ideas like getting rid of social security. We had some of that when Obama sewed up the nomination. And I do still abide by the theory that it's August, so dithering about how John didn't do badly this week Oh Noes All Is Lost Barack Will Never Win When He Leads In MidAugust by the Same Amount as in June Ohhh Deeeaaar is rather premature.
The TNR group actually went off into some sort of mass delusion whereby Barack's only hope at this point is to pick Hillary, who will bring Latinos (don't polls show that they switched over immediately?) and be such a bold choice that the GOP will be unable to react (they have nothing on any Clintons, and never expected to face a Clinton this year...uh huh); it's quite discouraging.
I wonder how many feminist Hillary supporters simply aren't aware that there are several other viable female contenders for the presidency. I'm not talking about PUMAs, but those who aren't political junkies and don't recognize names like Sebilius or McCaskill right away. When I pressed a Hillary-supporting friend on why she preferred Clinton during the primaries, her main argument was that this would be that last legitimate shot a woman would have in a while. She didn't follow politics closely enough to know the number of female governors and senators who could easily make a run in the next few elections. Maybe once some of these soft supporters realize Hillary wasn't the only female politician in the nation, they'll shed Hillaryism for true feminism.
I almost want him to pick Sebellius just to give feminists at large a chance to separate ourselves out publicly from the most extreme Clinton supporters. I can't imagine the bulk would not have any positive reaction to seeing the prospect of a female Vice President of the United States for the first time in history.
The majority of Clinton supporters are not of the uncompromising nutjob variety. They just were very passionate about their candidate. But as we know, it's always the mouth-frothers that get the mike.
I love the distinction between Hillaryism and feminism. I never saw Hillary as much of a feminist. She has remained in an abusive marriage with her philandering husband for decades. And whatever power she had in her life until she was elected to the Senate was directly derived from being a beneficiary of the white male patriarchy. I just don't see her as an icon of feminism.
Hillaryism, on the other hand, is completely about the promotion of Hillary. Sebelius isn't going to be the VP, so it's really a non issue, and this small but loud movement to promote Hillary will eventually have to fade away.
...it's quite discouraging
I share Deborah's sentiment. On the other hand, it is Grand Guignol political theater (don't you have to be a comeback kid at some point these days?), so the media can select at least one melodramatic narrative that ultimately favors Obama, if desired.
Sebelius seems like a risky choice - though not necessarily a bad one. For all Hillary's (many) faults, her much-touted "common touch" & especially her familiarity to voters did offer a counter to the "he's not one of us" label that unfortunately gets attached to Obama. It's not that Sebelius doesn't have the common touch or couldn't work on that level of reassurance, but (in addition to pissing off the Hillaryists) I'm not sure there's enough time to make her familiar to middle-of-the-road voters. I'm afraid that as our economic, military, and foreign policy situation moves from malaise to crisis, people will "cling to" the familiar, even when that's Batty McCain...but maybe I'm not giving voters enough credit. That said, I'd find Sebelius a much more exciting pick than Bayh.
when hillary talked about putting 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, it was her own glass ceiling.
All the other women out there are on their own...
Beware the anecdote-based evidence, but...
My mom is a longtime Feminist and was a strong Hillary supporter, even taking on some (baffling to me) beliefs about media complicity in anointing BHO. She echoes the "presumptuous" and "empty suit" criticisms of BHO made by the PUMA crowd.
A few weeks after the primaries had ended, and BHO was clearly the nominee she was still smarting from the primary. I asked her if she would take a female VP candidate as an affront to HRC supporters. She looked at me as if I was crazy, and said the thought that would be a wonderful thing. She could not comprehend a self-professed Feminist who supported HRC being offended by a female VP.
It makes me think this pundit idea that the PUMA's would prefer Bayh over Sebelius is either too clever by half or completely insane.
Just for the record, I doubt he'll pick Sebelius. But it's fun to speculate. She's a solid Veep choice, but strategically there's better choices.
I have to agree, and disagree on this post. I am a feminist, who supported HRC during the primaries, and who supports Obama now (not excitedly, but he is my preference). I would mostly prefer Clinton (and would be delighted to have her) as vice president, but would also be excited (though less so) about Sebelius, Napolitano, and any other who is clearly qualified.
However, I think any pick -- regardless of that pick's gender -- will be compared to Hillary Clinton. By her feminist supporters, and by her male un-feminist supporters. If the pick is a good female candidate, most feminists will be excited, rightfully so, even if disappointed that HRC's close 2nd place probably was a factor in a different woman getting chosen. But feminists will be excited.
However, I think to non-feminist HRC primary supporters, especially white men in swing states, a pick of Sebelius will be disaster. I think a woman not named Hillary Clinton will appear like affirmative action to a white male swing voter living in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Fears these voters may already have about Obama due to race will only be magnified (imagine the Jesse Helms ad against Harvey Gantt being re-done with a pair of white male hands saying 'they had to give your job to a black man AND a woman). Many non-feminist men supported Clinton not for identity politics reasons with her being the first major female presidential candidate to win so many votes, but because they liked her beer-drinking style, her strength on homeland security (even though that hurt her with many other primary voters), and the identification with her on bread-and-butter issues combined w/ a reputation of being a fighter. Perhaps Sebelius could be sold in the same way to these swing white voter men, but my hunch is any woman not named HRC doesn't make feminists mad, but makes non-feminist Clinton supporters think 'What? Huh? They went for the next qualified woman instead of the most qualified candidate?'
I'd like to add that Hillary Clinton's feminist credentials are impeccable. Comparing her legislative and political record (prior to the Senate) on women's issues to these other female candidates, she is generally much better. I would be delighted to have a female VP (on either ticket, but preferably the Dem. ticket), but she does have impressive feminist credibility. From the human rights speech in China to her calling out the Bush administration for creating a rule in HHS that equated the birth control pill with abortion, thus potentially causing many women to lose access to the pill had she not tried to stop this, she has a great record. But again, as a feminist, I'd like a feminist woman as Veep (not just any woman, Amy Holmes for instance, need not apply). Hopefully, it will be HRC. But Sebelius and Napolitano could do well too. McCaskill, though, does not appear to me to be feminist in her public comments, though I could be wrong (she seems mostly a Democratic pol, regaling in her being the only elected blonde female senator pushing Obama, and thus raising her profile).
Above commenter wrote: "I love the distinction between Hillaryism and feminism. I never saw Hillary as much of a feminist. She has remained in an abusive marriage with her philandering husband for decades. And whatever power she had in her life until she was elected to the Senate was directly derived from being a beneficiary of the white male patriarchy. I just don't see her as an icon of feminism.
Hillaryism, on the other hand, is completely about the promotion of Hillary."
As a feminist, I take MAJOR issue with this. I am so tired of reading this. First, her personal life is her business. Many feminists have made choices about men in their lives that are similar, sometimes regrettably and sometimes not so. Feminism is not about women leaving men. This critique of Hillary Clinton as the anti-feminist makes my blood boil. It is similar to people who say Obama isn't 'black enough.'
Second, you claim Hillary Clinton is all about the promotion of herself. Yes, she is. THAT is feminism, especially in politics. How do elections work? There is one winner. How do you win? You promote yourself. Why should Hillary Clinton fall on her sword for the good of others (or should any woman)? Politics is rough, and finally we have a woman who actually isn't afraid to play it. That is feminism. A woman who is doing what it takes to succeed in politics. Isn't that what the men having been doing, including Obama, since the dawn of democracy? Obama wisely and impressively knocked Clinton and the rest out of the way through his political skills during the nomination. I don't begrudge him for being interested in only promotion of himself. Neither do I begrudge Hillary Clinton for self-promotion. It's their job.
Finally, you claim she is part of the 'patriarchy,' presumably because she is married to Bill Clinton. Well, given the barriers to women in politics, many of the first women in major elected office have been spouses, daughters, mothers, etc. of political families. Similarly, why does Ted Kennedy get put on a pedestal when he tore the Dem. party apart in 1980, taking his failed nomination fight to the floor of the convention, yet you accuse Hillary Clinton of being simply a product of the patriarchy and her famous last name? Did Kennedy get his start due to his name? Has it only been due to his name since? Of course not. Has Hillary Clinton carved out a role separate (and in my view) superior to Bill Clinton much like Ted Kennedy has? Of course. What's the difference other than gender for HRC to be accused of not being a real woman and feminist.
Finally, which woman would you hold up as not part of the patriarchy? Sebelius? She is the daughter of a famous Ohio governor and married into the family of a Kansas congressman. Before she was ever in politics herself. Does that mean she did no work to get there? Of course not. Sebelius, just like Clinton and Kennedy and Obama, are impressive. And many have famous names from political families and others don't. But you don't get to be governor or senator as a woman or a black man without some of your own hard work.
Ok, enough for the rant. But let's please put aside that Hillary Clinton is not a real woman, a real feminist. When I hear people say "I'd love to see a woman president, just not Hillary Clinton," it sounds to me just like the racists who say "I'd love to see a black president, just not Obama."
Talking with a few friends, my understanding is that Sebilius is especially disfavored because she is considered to be the "anti-Hillary." Where Hillary is brash and confrontational (and to a lot of people, simply off-putting), Sebilius is sweet and conciliatory. There is some thought that Obama picking Sebilius is essentially choosing a doormat over an independent woman.
For a certain subset of Hillary supporters -- middle-aged women -- this is the ultimate sin. It is their husband leaving them for his younger secretary all over again. (And the fact that Sebilius is relatively more attractive doesn't help.)
Chris:
How is Hillary's feminist record any better than Sebelius? What has Hillary run? Sebelius is running a whole state. The buck stops with her. People were supporting Hillary because she basically promised to bring back the good ol' days. Some would argue that Sebelius is more qualified then Hillary. Besides, there is a reason only one sitting Senator has been elected in approximately 100 years.
Talking with a few friends, my understanding is that Sebilius is especially disfavored because she is considered to be the "anti-Hillary." Where Hillary is brash and confrontational (and to a lot of people, simply off-putting), Sebilius is sweet and conciliatory. There is some thought that Obama picking Sebilius is essentially choosing a doormat over an independent woman.
For a certain subset of Hillary supporters -- middle-aged women -- this is the ultimate sin. It is their husband leaving them for his younger secretary all over again. (And the fact that Sebilius is relatively more attractive doesn't help.)
Finally, which woman would you hold up as not part of the patriarchy? Sebelius? She is the daughter of a famous Ohio governor and married into the family of a Kansas congressman.
Could we please refrain from building up our own strawmen only in order to tear them down?
I notice you skipped over Janet Napolitano, Jeanne Shaheen, Christine Gregoire, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, etc. There are plenty of female Democratic governors and Congresscritters who are smart and capable women in their own right.
As for:
When I hear people say "I'd love to see a woman president, just not Hillary Clinton," it sounds to me just like the racists who say "I'd love to see a black president, just not Obama."... I really don't even know how to counter that, other than to say that I think that is such an unfortunate way to walk through the world.
"For a certain subset of Hillary supporters -- middle-aged women -- this is the ultimate sin. It is their husband leaving them for his younger secretary all over again. (And the fact that Sebilius is relatively more attractive doesn't help.)"
Please spare us your armchair psychology. Joe, I am glad you understand women voters so well.
And as I noted before, I would be happy with Sebelius as VP. It would be a major symbolic step for women, just as would Clinton, Napolitano, or any of the rest of them. I just noted that SUBSTANTIVELY, to my knowledge, Clinton has done more in terms of promoting issues that matter toward women (not that Seblius hasn't also). But Clinton has, quite remarkably, been out front on issues like the Bush admin equating abortion to the pill and for other health issues, yet at the same time creating a perception to swing white men that she is tough and moderate. Sebelius is a moderate because she (wisely in Kansas) hasn't championed abortion rights, though she is pro-choice.
So it isn't about tearing down Sebelius or any of the rest. I like her, and Clinton, and Napolitano and others. But when people suggest they'd love a woman candidate, just not Clinton, especially because she allegedly is where she is due to the 'patriarchy,' it makes me really mad.
Chris, if you can't see the difference between a Hillary Clinton and a Janet Napolitano, for example, then it is pointless to explain it to you. Hillary's much touted "35 years of experience" was comprised of being 7 years as a senator and the rest as the wife of Bill Clinton. She has been a beneficiary of the white male patriarchy, and you can't argue that and be anything less than delusional.
Given that I am from Arizona and I have voted twice for Janet Napolitano for governor, I am somewhat familiar with her background. Janet isn't married to anyone and her rise in politics is fueled by her own steam. She ran for governor as a "clean elections" candidate twice, which means that she went into office without being beholden to anyone but the voters. She's a damn good politician who has operated effectively as a Democrat with a Republican legislature. She landslided her last election because she grew a huge base of independent support during her first term as governor.
Really, Chris, I do not want to get into an argument with a "feminist" about whether or not Hillary Clinton is a feminist. To me, she isn't. There were plenty of women who succeeded on their own steam from Hillary's generation. She could have been one of them, given her abilities and her opportunities, but she latched on to Bill and took the ride and settled for being the smaller half of a power couple.
"First, her personal life is her business. Many feminists have made choices about men in their lives that are similar, sometimes regrettably and sometimes not so. Feminism is not about women leaving men."
It would be one thing if he was just the no-name husband of a senator, but Hillary built her career on being Bill's wife and has remained so long after he's made it clear he doesn't respect her and Chelsea. Why should we take her feminist bona fides seriously when she doesn't apply them in her own life? If a feminist is married to a pig and continues to be married to him as he cheats on her and disrespects her over decades, the feminist in question lacks the courage of her convictions. Without being First Lady, she doesn't get the Dem nomination for the New York Senate seat (winning it over a feminist actually from New York), she doesn't become a Senator and she doesn't get to run for the presidential nomination.
"Second, you claim Hillary Clinton is all about the promotion of herself. Yes, she is. THAT is feminism, especially in politics. How do elections work? There is one winner. How do you win? You promote yourself."
You should still have some ideals though. On the biggest issue that she has faced as a Senator, the Iraq War, she sold out the party and her country just to help her presidential run. War tends to hurt women more than men, making it a feminist issue. Wars lead inevitably to things like the gang rapes of women and young girls. The Pentagon admits to having photos of an American soldier raping an Iraqi woman at Abu Ghraib. Her early and eager support for the war helped bring these rapes about. Reason no. 1 why she lost was the Iraq War. If she had been willing to take the risks of a principled stand against the war from the start, she would have been the nominee.
In the end, Clinton's run was more the death knell of the second wave of feminism. She alienated young feminists, thus compounding her problems.
...this would be that last legitimate shot a woman would have in a while.
Heard that a lot. Variously a generation, 50 years, 100 years. I looked around and still don't know where they were looking--both in terms of no other possible woman candidate arising in 100 years, and in terms of Hillary's inevitability once nominated, due to a vague notion that independents couldn't wait to extend the Bush-Clinton-Bush 20 years out to 28.
Politics is rough, and finally we have a woman who actually isn't afraid to play it.
Sebelius is a governor. She got there playing politics and doing a damn good job as insurance commissioner and then as governor. Similar stories for Pelosi, Palin, McCaskill, Napolitano .... This idea that Hillary is the first woman to successfully play politics is flat-out wrong, and demeaning to a host of other women. (The argument that her key advantage was Bill's access to rainmakers, which other qualified women have not had, is probably dead-on though.)
And when I say I'd love a woman, but not Hillary, I mean that a) her two instances of executive experience, health care and managing this campaign, are negative endorsements; b) she comes across as an eager hawk--perhaps to leap that cic barrier, but it still makes me put her in the category "too eager to prove she's not afraid to use force."
Jay C said the following in response to my earlier comments: "I notice you skipped over Janet Napolitano, Jeanne Shaheen, Christine Gregoire, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, etc. There are plenty of female Democratic governors and Congresscritters who are smart and capable women in their own right."
In their own right. This phrase bothers me. I love the list of women you've mentioned, especailly Mikulksi, truly a pathbreaking American (and overlooked by many commentators of history I might add). But when do we ever dismiss male politicians because they weren't "elected in their own right?" Never.
There are so many women -- and men -- who come into politics because of family, friends, and connections. You belittle all women in politics, regardless of how they got there, by claiming a woman with a famous political name didn't get elected in "her own right" if you don't also say the same about those men with famous names. To make matters worse, men, and especially white men, have traded off of their family names to run for office for all of history.
Historically, few women would have entered politics, due to bias, had they not been widows. There is a study by two professors called "The Entrance of Women to the U.S. Congress: The Widow Effect" that shows that most women (Mikulski excepted) initially were elected to Congress because they were widows of a congressman who died. Is this how I would prefer, in an ideal world, how women gain office? No. But the study also shows that once the female widow is in office, that other women (without family connections) are more likely to run for higher office. Simply having that role model, no matter how they got there, can make a huge difference to encourage women to enter the political arena.
So, yes, perhaps in an ideal world, women AND MEN, btw, without a famous name would have a better chance. But, also in an ideal world, female spouses wouldn't be expected to quit their jobs to be at their husbands' sides as they run for president. Also, in an ideal world, women who put their careers on hold for 20-30 years to support their husbands' political careers also have a right to enter into their own political careers in present-day America.
But to suggest that Lois Capps, Nancy Kassebaum, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Jeanne Shaheen (whose husband was not in elective office, but was a major player in NH Dem. party politics and the Gore NH campaign manager in '08), Christie Todd Whitman, Doris Matsui, Kathy Castor, Mary Landrieu, Nellie Taylor Ross, Elizabeth Dole have not done anything in politics, public policy, or were not really ever elected "in their own right" is a real sexist comment.
Especially since no one ever says that Evan Bayh, Beau Biden, the Udalls in Congress, Ted Kennedy, Arnold Schwarzenegger-Shriver, Chris Dodd, George H. W. Bush (son of Sen. Prescott), Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Mitt Romney, Andrew Cuomo, George and Jeb Bush, the Daleys, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Chuck Robb, Kendrick Meek, Mario Diaz-Balart, and John Quincy Adams didn't get "elected in their own right." And of course, this is just scratching the surface. But other than George W., I've never heard a person say anything about these people not doing anything in politics "in their own right."
And finally, regarding my comment 'When I hear people say "I'd love to see a woman president, just not Hillary Clinton," it sounds to me just like the racists who say "I'd love to see a black president, just not Obama." -- here's what I mean. If someone said, I can't support Hillary Clinton as VP because she supported the war and I did not. That is fine. and a fair position.
But when they just say they'll support a woman, any woman, but have no issue-based reasons and instead say Clinton is 'too power hungry' or what not, that makes me question their belief that any actual woman with a chance of winning would ever garner their support. What non-power hungry woman did you have in mind?
I think Chris has a point that Hillary Clinton has some actual feminist credentials. Most notably in being outspokenly pro-choice. She pushed for legislation for Plan B contraception, for instance. Although most Dems, Obama included, are solidly pro-choice, Hillary Clinton has shown leadership on this issue.
But I would also argue that she has taken stances that are not pro-feminist. Supporting the Iraq War, for instance. And in assisting to smear the women who Bill Clinton had affairs with, for another (very typical double-standard-for-sexual-indiscretions-stuff that is appalls your average feminist.)
Also, I think it is her role as Bill Clinton's wife that both supports and refutes her feminist cred. It's a bit of a Rorschach test for how we understand gender roles.
Hillary Clinton took a more subversive path to power. That in itself ... I'd say that's actually pretty feminist. Turning power structures on their head. Using what's available at the time, in an unfair world. I believe this is what made so many conservative types scream holy bloody murder at the notion that the First Lady might actually be as much of a politician as the President himself. It's like the Clintons revealed a truth they'd rather not acknowledge: women of powerful men are generally speaking fairly savvy and politically astute. And they always have been.
At the same time, no, she didn't forge her own political path. As women like Sebelius and Napolitano and Rice and Albright and Whitman and Pelosi have.
And it's awfully rich to see her dissing Obama as having no political experience, when in truth she has not a lot more than he does.
Whoops typo in my post above: "wives of powerful men", not "women of powerful men."
To Breukelyne, sure we don't entirely agree. But that's ok!
But Sebelius, Whitman, and Pelosi -- along with Hillary Clinton -- are also from famous political families. That is my point. And I don't have a problem with them using their family names, connections, and money to get where they were. Good for them.
My problem is that Hillary Clinton is held to a double standard. The same women who claim she isn't a feminist because her last name is "Clinton" hold up other women with famous names and families as paragons of success. We don't want to admit it, but until the 1990s, really, few women without famous names were elected to any major office. Before, 1992, only 2 women were in the Senate. And now there are only about 15.
Pelosi is actually alot like Clinton. Famous political family in Maryland, but makes her way in a different state (of course using the money and connections of her famous family). HRC "made her own way" by getting elected in New York. It is easy to forget today, but there were a lot of people who were convinced she could never win as a 'carpetbagger' in NY. It's not like she ran for Senate in Arkansas.
And same for Sebelius. Famous name in Ohio, moves to Kansas. Marries an elected (GOP!) politician there, and then wins. I, however, think all of these women won in their own right.
I'm not bringing any of these women down by pointing out that they also have famous names and families. I think they are great, just like Napolitano and Mikuklsi and the others that have been mentioned are great successes in politics. Regardless of their names or families, they have ALL done impressive things IN THEIR OWN RIGHT given the lack of historical electoral and policy successes for women.
"But when do we ever dismiss male politicians because they weren't "elected in their own right?" Never."
George W. Bush
Hillary Clinton is a malignant cancer within the Democratic Party.
Holding Hillary up as a champion or icon of feminism is fraudulent, delusional, dishonest, and nonsensical. Hillary is only interested in what's best for Hillary. She took an active role (behind the scenes) in smearing and sliming the reputations of women who accused Bill Clinton of engaging in inappropriate behavior with them. Hillary allowed herself to be publicly humiliated by Bill because she knew he was her meal ticket to achieving the political power she has lusted after her entire life.
Bill and Hillary are no friends of liberals or progressives. They are center-right democrats who thrive on the politics of triangulation, obfuscation, distortion, and mendacity.
Hillary ran a shameless, gutter campaign against Obama based on race-baiting and fear-mongering. I don't think she's a racist, but she certainly pulled out all the stops to pander to the bigoted impulses of ignorant working class voters. She's nothing more than Dick Cheney in a very ugly pantsuit.
To Breukelyne, sure we don't entirely agree. But that's ok!
But Sebelius, Whitman, and Pelosi -- along with Hillary Clinton -- are also from famous political families. That is my point. And I don't have a problem with them using their family names, connections, and money to get where they were. Good for them.
My problem is that Hillary Clinton is held to a double standard. The same women who claim she isn't a feminist because her last name is "Clinton" hold up other women with famous names and families as paragons of success. We don't want to admit it, but until the 1990s, really, few women without famous names were elected to any major office. Before, 1992, only 2 women were in the Senate. And now there are only about 15.
Pelosi is actually alot like Clinton. Famous political family in Maryland, but makes her way in a different state (of course using the money and connections of her famous family). HRC "made her own way" by getting elected in New York. It is easy to forget today, but there were a lot of people who were convinced she could never win as a 'carpetbagger' in NY. It's not like she ran for Senate in Arkansas.
And same for Sebelius. Famous name in Ohio, moves to Kansas. Marries an elected (GOP!) politician there, and then wins. I, however, think all of these women won in their own right.
I'm not bringing any of these women down by pointing out that they also have famous names and families. I think they are great, just like Napolitano and Mikuklsi and the others that have been mentioned are great successes in politics. Regardless of their names or families, they have ALL done impressive things IN THEIR OWN RIGHT given the lack of historical electoral and policy successes for women.
There is also a point that Chris makes I would agree with, that many successful men get help from either their family name or their wife's connections/money/family name.
John McCain certainly benefitting from marrying Cindy, a very very wealthy woman, for example.
I would say the Clintons, both of them, are just generally blatant about grabbing for power. Love or hate Bill, he could lie his way through anything without compunction. People either love him for being honestly dishonest, or can't stand him for being such a sleaze.
In Hillary's case, it can take on an extra misogynist tone, that reaction to her grabbing so boldfaced for power. But it's also not so unusual to be turned off by the sight of it generally. I think some of it is just disdain for Clinton-style politics.
Americans want their politicians to be more smooth about hiding their ambitions. Pretend they're someone we want to have a beer with. Pretend they are humble just-folks people. Etc. In other words, pretend they are not politicians. We say we don't want to be pandered to that way, but we do.
Hillary Clinton is not smooth about it. I think this is why some people love her. And also why some people hate her.
It seems to me that every thing she's done in the Senate has been "last minute" feminism. Her career focus has been on children's issues. She could have really burnished her credentials when she was on the board of Walmart. Then maybe the largest sexual discrimination case in the history of this country (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
http://www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/press_releases/wmcc.html ) would not have been filed. She was the governor's wife. She could have used that position as leverage to forward a feminist agenda and meant it. Or, she could have kept quiet and let Walmart use her as the female in upper management token.
@ Chris: I was typing my post above before I read your posts.
Yes, you're right about a lot of the "self-made" women listed as pulling from various contacts. Including their own marriage partnerships. Good point.
I am really not a Clinton fan, but she is an interesting figure. She encapsulates a lot of complexities about how we see women in general.
I don't see her as a feminist (we probably disagree here, but it's all good), but I do sense the specific double-standardness of gender she provokes in some.
PUMA's are not, for the most part, feminists. Any critical evaluation of their websites, blogs and e-mail messages would reveal a basically conservative slant with no awareness of what feminist issues are. Some feminists would be disappointed if another woman were chosen, but only because they think, as I do, that Hillary Clinton is supremely well qualified and has already proven her ability to get votes and has, proven herself to be a supporter of feminist goals and positions. I'm a 69 year old feminist who would welcome anyone to the ticket who would be good for the country, help defeat McCain, and support women's equality of opportunity -- male or female.
Chris:
I used the phrase "in their own right" specifically in response to your negative analysis of Sebelius's bona fides. It is not an arguement I would have ever made in a vacuum.
If the phrase bothers you so much, perhaps you shouldn't try to wield it the concept behind it as a weapon.
Deleted for spam
Please pardon me. Work is making me an exceedingly grumpy bear today.
Jay C, no problem. Work is making me grumpy this week.
But when they just say they'll support a woman, any woman, but have no issue-based reasons and instead say Clinton is 'too power hungry' or what not.
How many people said they'd support "a woman, any woman, except X"? (My italics.) I always read this comment in terms of "I'd love to see a woman in (position X a woman has never held) but I don't like (Sarah Palin/Nancy Pelosi/Libby Dole/Hillary Clinton)'s policies, so I'd prefer the other candidate."
And I did seem to hear, from women from Steinem to Albright to Venocchi, "She's a woman, you 20- and 30-somethings, isn't that enough?" To which we replied, "You're kidding, right?"
Jay C, no problem. Work is making me grumpy this week.
By her endorsement of Obama, an under-experienced artificially marketed candidate, Sebelius has eliminated herself from serious consideration as someone a true feminist would vote for. Hillary's present support of Obama is undermining her credibility as well.
Deborah said "And when I say I'd love a woman, but not Hillary, I mean that a) her two instances of executive experience, health care and managing this campaign, are negative endorsements...."
Deborah, on health care, I don't agree with you, but that's an acceptable reason (along with policy disagreements) to vote against her.
But really, you voted against her because of her "managing this campaign"? So does that mean you considered supporting her until you heard about the discord between Solis Doyle and Mark Penn in March? Or in this month's Atlantic? Somehow, I doubt it. This strikes me as one of those lame red herrings for not supporting someone (before the campaign was occurring, you knew she would run a campaign poorly??)
Also, did you consider any of her successes at executive experience? Managing the first lady's office? Managing major education reform in Arkansas? Managing and running the Children's Defense Fund? Being a partner in a law firm? I doubt it. And in fairness, I don't think any of the candidates other than Richardson had as much executive experience.
T-NC,
as others have noted, excellent point. the business about hillary or no female makes no sense whatsoever.
i do believe, however, that obama should pick hillary.
i've just come around to this view, however, as the campaign has gone along. assuming that bill's vetting could be done - his library and other issues - hillary is exactly what obama needs. she has shown a real talent for attacking opponents in exactly the way that obama seems constitutionally incapable of doing. i just saw a tape of him attempting to criticize phil gramm - a lowhanging target if there ever was one - and he stuttered and obviously was having trouble doing so. hillary would take to that task with relish. he desperately needs someone to perform that function on the campaign and no one could do it better than hillary. additionally, as a white female, she is allowed to say things that no male, especially a black male, could ever say.
all other candidates pale in comparison to what hillary could bring to the ticket. sometimes the most obvious choice is the one staring you right in the face, and in this instance, that choice is hillary.
and sebilius?
please! they should patent her style and market her as a cure for insomnia.
as far as i'm concerned, she disqualified herself with the worst in history state of the union response. absolutely pitiful. you only get one chance to make a first impression and hers was fatally flawed. also, she probably couldn't even bring along kansas, so what is the point?
i love mccaskill and could easily see her as a very positive addition to the ticket. she also might help him take missouri, which would be a real coup. plus, she and obama have great chemistry together. they both just light up when they are together. that kind of chemistry and the way it will play out on stage and during the campaign is invaluable. she's my favorite dark horse. (in additon to jim webb, if he would consider taking what he has said he would not accept.)
Deleted. No trolling. Make your argument. Leave the ad hominem at the door.
Frankie D, I saw Sebelius's SOTU response too. It was bad. But it wasn't the worst. Did you see Tim Kaine's? That was the worst, and Sebelius was almost as bad. No pizzazz.
"However, I think to non-feminist HRC primary supporters, especially white men in swing states, a pick of Sebelius will be disaster. I think a woman not named Hillary Clinton will appear like affirmative action to a white male swing voter living in Ohio or Pennsylvania."
and then:
"Please spare us your armchair psychology. Joe, I am glad you understand women voters so well."
Wow, Chris. Hypocrite much? And so blatantly?
"My problem is that Hillary Clinton is held to a double standard."
Who are you to carp about anyone being held to double standards?
Sebellius' SOTU response delivery is said to be both horrible and unrepresentative of her usual public speech.
@ Feminist: I heard from a few middle-of-the-roader Dems who were leaning Hillary until the wackadoodleness of her campaign began to show itself. A lot of them decided for Obama at that point.
It's both looking at management style and the "Clinton fatigue syndrome" thing. When people don't feel that strongly towards either candidate (and a big chunk of Dems out there didn't much care about either Obama or Clinton, just getting a Democrat elected), it doesn't take that much to push them into one camp or another.
To Frankie D,
yes, i was also similarly disappointed by kaine's address.
i had had a good deal of curiosity about both kaine and sebilius, as i'd never seen either at the time of their respective addresses and was wondering what all the fuss was, with each.
and both did disappoint, though, subjectively, i though sebilius was a bit worse. it is an arguable point, however.
lots of times local pols work very well in their state, but their appeal just does not translate nationally. i lived in wisconsin when tommy thompson was a political god who could have stayed in office as long as he wanted to run. but his just-folks, beer-drinking, homespun style just didn't work well on a national scale.
both sebilius and kaine probably fit into that category.
the one plus about kaine, however, is that he might be able to bring virgina into the democratic fold, as it is more of a purple state.
because kansas is so deep red, it is doubtful that sebilius could do the same with kansas.
I consider myself a strong feminist and I really don't understand the support of Hillary just because she is a woman. I thought feminism was supposed to free us from gender bias. I would have loved to support Hillary---but the quality of her campaign compared to the quality of the campaign Obama ran changed my mind. I saw in Obama's campaign better management skills, smarter strategy and a fresher approach.
"i do believe, however, that obama should pick hillary."
Then Hillary should have kept Bill under wraps recently, and not had him running around making comments favorable to McCain and negative for Obama.
And it doesn't help that her brother and other Clinton supporters in PA are meeting with McCain's camp.
Also, Hillary as VP gives her way too much leverage to kill Obama's chances in November. The last thing he needs is Clinton putting on a performance like Joe Lieberman did in 2000.
Regina,
There was real dust-up in the femisphere when people started saying feminists owed it to the cause to support Hillary by virtue of her gender. Your position seems to have been the majority position on a lot of boards. There was a split, and it seemed to fall on generational lines.
jon h,
i have some of the same concerns you have.
i don't disagree with what you state about bill and other hillaryites.
however, i agree with lbj's old saying about preferring to have someone who is potentially troublesome in the tent pissing out, rather outside pissing into the tent.
hillary in the fold, as veep, would have a vested interest in seeing obama become president.
hillary as non-veep candidate would, as you and i fear, sabotage obama. i firmly believe that she and her minions are currently laying the groundwork for a 2012 run, and that she will only perfunctorily assist obama - all the while her supporters undermine him - if she is not on the ticket.
i have no illusions about hillary or the people around her. they care nothing about the party; they only care about their own fortunes.
and that reality, i think, argues even stronger for a position for her on the ticket.
i simply think that she can help obama win and despite my misgivings about her, that is what is important now.
Obama will Never get all of Hillary Voters, He will only get only 25% to 1/3 of Hillary Voter,
Obama will not even get half of Hillary Voter
By Paul Valenzuela - Aug 20th, 2008 at 3:51 am EDT
It saddens me all my life as a democrat, it going to be the first time ever I am going to have to Vote Republican,I did vote for Hillary,
We all know Obama is not going to cut it as President of the united states.
He has to many problems, Rezkl the slum lord, Rev wright, Micheal Obama,
One of the His own campaign guy who was looking for the His VP ,, who was caught up in
Country Wide Loan scandale and Then resigned, Obama is not a Rock star, but he is a Elitise
He a full flip floper, back and fouth,, on every issue there is,, and yet so many are voting for him
Obama Never won a debate, not one, The Media Baby him, He has No agenda and took and adopted all Hillary agenda even Cnn has reported how he adapted all of Hillary Health care and other issues,
Why does Obama never took deal with hard question and when he is really given, a hard question.
All Barack Obama does is Stammer like a stuttering fool, He can not deal with hard question.
Now the Obama Camp are blamming the Reverand for the questions in southen california.
At the lake forest california town meeting,
This is so typical of the Obama Camp, just like how how he screwed all the other to get in office,
The man is an empty suit, He a crook, I am a registered Democrat, who only voted for Democrat until now, So many democrat are not going to vote at all for barack Obama, there going to vote at all, I do not believe in throwing my vote away, so like many other Democrats, I am going to vote for McCain, I do believe who would be better,
I wish barack Luck he going to need it , like
this blog,, a copy being sent out everywhere,
Soon as the Obama camp sees this blog the will remove it like so many others,
You think the Mob, where bad, the Obama camp are so much worst,
I can not wait to see Obama screw up on the debates ,, he going to blame everyone for a bad debate because he a stuttering fool.
Previous commenter said: "I consider myself a strong feminist and I really don't understand the support of Hillary just because she is a woman. I thought feminism was supposed to free us from gender bias."
I don't get this comment at all. You don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton, but you have to have issue-based reasons. "Mismanagement" has become a popular red herring on this blog, but from the reporting the main mismanagement came from campaign manager Solis Doyle blowing through cash before Super Tuesday. Then she was hired by Obama. Will many of you turn from Obama because he hired this mis-manager? Of course not. It's a ridiculous red herring. The best political candidates don't 'run' their campaigns, the staff does. Obama's staff clearly were more tight-lipped and ran a tighter ship. But I certainly hope David Plouffe isn't going to be Secretary of State.
This 'management' stuff is hidden sexism. It's reaching for a reason not to vote for her because you don't want to and can't figure out why or how.
And seriously, if you think feminism will solve "gender bias" or that it has, think again. There is some serious gender bias in the political, corporate, and other worlds.
One other thing about this comment: "I consider myself a strong feminist and I really don't understand the support of Hillary just because she is a woman. I thought feminism was supposed to free us from gender bias."
How is it 'gender bias' for women to be excited to support a female candidate for president? It's called pride, not bias.
"This 'management' stuff is hidden sexism. It's reaching for a reason not to vote for her because you don't want to and can't figure out why or how."
I'm sorry, but I believe that management style and lack of ability to effectively manage is a very good reason not to vote for someone. What is the President but the ultimate manager of the federal government? Like any good CEO, the President sets the tone of the administration, sets policy and leads the way for his staff, the employees of the federal government and, hopefully, the citizens. If someone cannot set a tone that tells their staff what will and will not be tolerated that shows me a lack of control and I don't want that person in a role as important as the Presidency. Anyone paying close attention didn't need to read the Atlantic article after the primary to know how badly the Clinton campaign was managed. That article just confirmed for me how much Hillary herself was involved in that poor management, but the leaks and infighting amongst her staff were public and loud. What does that say about how policy disagreements might be handled in her administration? I'm sorry, but I think someone's lack of management ability in their campaign shows a lack of ability to lead. And a VERY legitimate reason not to vote for someone. And that's not sexist. That's a skill set. Period. And I will not, especially as a woman, give another woman leeway on this. There are many, many effective managers that are women. I'm sorry, but I just do not see that skill as one of Hillary's strongest.