Nothing Says Home Like a Woman VP
I have gone back and forth for the last few weeks over the best choice Obama can make for VP. I have gone from Richardson to Clark to Webb to Clinton and back to Webb. After spending two days on the ground in South Dakota I have concluded that none of those is right. We need a woman on the ticket and not one whom half the country despises. First, why not one of the others and then why a woman.
John McCain has made it clear that his campaign will be about the primary importance of maintaining our unilateral military approach to all issues connected in any way Moslems who do not like us. He would like nothing better than to see Obama select a candidate with strong military credentials. That would allow him to set the agenda for the campaign. We will not win on a Republican-lite platform. So skip Webb, Clark, Biden, etc.
Richardson alone will not solve the Hispanic problem. The GOP position on immigration should be enough to do that anyway.
So why a woman. Woman vote Democratic by better than 55-45. WOMEN ARE THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Americans want to solve our problems at home. A competent woman serves two purposes. Ascending to the Vice Presidency does break a major glass ceiling, albeit not the ultimate one. She also reminds everyone that our priorities are the ones that improve life for all Americans. McCaskill, Sebelius, Napolitano, Feinstein, Murray, Gregoire, Klobuchar could all work. He should choose whichever one shows best.
John McCain has made it clear that his campaign will be about the primary importance of maintaining our unilateral military approach to all issues connected in any way Moslems who do not like us. He would like nothing better than to see Obama select a candidate with strong military credentials. That would allow him to set the agenda for the campaign. We will not win on a Republican-lite platform. So skip Webb, Clark, Biden, etc.
Richardson alone will not solve the Hispanic problem. The GOP position on immigration should be enough to do that anyway.
So why a woman. Woman vote Democratic by better than 55-45. WOMEN ARE THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Americans want to solve our problems at home. A competent woman serves two purposes. Ascending to the Vice Presidency does break a major glass ceiling, albeit not the ultimate one. She also reminds everyone that our priorities are the ones that improve life for all Americans. McCaskill, Sebelius, Napolitano, Feinstein, Murray, Gregoire, Klobuchar could all work. He should choose whichever one shows best.
Advertisement
Sorry, I disagree. If Obama gets the nomination and does not choose Hillary, then for him to choose another woman is the ultimate slap in the face to all her supporters.
(If you can't see the logic to that, maybe it's a guy thing and it takes a woman to see it... It's sort of analogous to a friend of mine whose wife left him for another woman. He said it didn't bug him nearly as much as it would have if she'd left for another man. If you can relate to that, then perhaps you can take this as a `girl` thing: believe me it would be an outrageous red rag to a bullette! )
May 25, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you and think you have a good point. I spent last week convinced she was the right choice. I changed my mind after hearing the strong feelings she aroused in so many voters with whom I have spoken in the past two days. Some are young, but several were in her (and my) age cohort. My primary concern with her being on the ticket is simply the extent to which she undermines Obama's message of the need to change the tone in DC. That is a hard story for her to sell. The pluses for her are obvious: competence as a policy maker (as opposed to as a candidate), a deep pool of committed supporters, and an ability to get tough on the campaign trail (something he has not really demonstrated). It's a close call. She could be the right one, or an Obama-Clinton ticket could end up being a pretty dysfunctional couple.
May 25, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope you didn't think my disagreeing with your suggestion of another woman meant that I support the idea of Clinton herself on the ticket. I don't.
I think Obama now has enough negatives himself (Appalachia) without adding all hers. I basically think the people who voted for her, as opposed to against Obama, will vote for him in the general & that the people who voted against him will never vote for him. Take that together with the people who voted against her more than for him, and I think you have a disaster waiting to happen if you put them both on the ticket.
Its bad enough as it is anticipating the sort of right wing attack ads that are going to be coming his way when it's just him. Can you imagine if you've got the ads against her as well?
In the debates, they'd be constantly throwing up at him all the vicious things she's said about him.
It doesn't bear thinking about.
Crucially too, I think it important that Obama has someone he genuinely looks forward to working with.
And she, so quintessentially `Washingtonian`, is the antithesis of his change mantra.
May 25, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fran,
It is OK to just speak for oneself.
Please don't try to convince me that this is "a girl thing," I know who I am.
This "the only acceptable woman would be Hillary" argument is not "a girl thing" it is "your thing."
I would love to see the right woman as the VP; Hillary is not the one and she doesn't have the power to negate other women's accomplishments and capabilities to break any glass ceiling.
May 25, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto on that. No girl thing from this girl. I want the right person, and HRC is not the one. There are plenty of fish in the sea, and many don't have fangs.
May 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a guy and I can completely follow your friend's logic. I'd feel the same. It's quite easy actually - if my wife (not that I have one) left me for another man, I'd be sitting there analyzing my inadequacy. If she left me for another woman, I'd figure there was absolutely nothing I could have done.
But I would respectfully submit that relationships and politics aren't quite the same thing.
May 25, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying. If I were for Hilary, simply putting another woman on the ticket would not suffice.
On the other hand, if I were only voting for her because she's a women then another women would probably do.
May 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, but I disagree too. We're Democrats, and our identities are a complete mish-mash, and our "base" can be sliced in lots of ways - working class, women, highly-educated, African-Americans, (Hopefully) Hispanic in the years to come.
This election is not about identity politics. It's about fixing George W. Bush's mess, and bringing our women and men home from Iraq.
I'm strongly in favor of a military leader for Democratic VP. If one reads Webb's "Purple Heartbreakers" in the NYT's from 2003(?) (pls google - my internet is too slow to grab the link), then one will also see the opportunity to accept into our proud (if sometimes disparate) Democratic base a huge cohort of veterans that are dismayed by their treatment at the hands of the Republicans.
As Webb's work in the Senate last week shows, Democrats are the only ones with enough guts (and integrity to honor our commitment to their service) to give Veterans the increased GI BILL and increased VA medical care (i.e. - PTSD, family counseling) after this Iraq fiasco.
Bring 'em Home!
May 25, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Purple Heartbreakers" by James Webb: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/18webb.html ["The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats."]
www.iava.org
www.paulrieckhoff.com - Contributor to TPM Cafe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Fick - Capt. Fick says he's a political agnostic, but he worked for John Kerry for a bit. He's also one of the clearest voices out there.
May 25, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Webb article. I missed it. There is no doubt that we need to devote a certain amount of effort to rebut the Limbaughs and 527 Swift Boaters but we should not be obsessed with them. Calling them out as lying pompous asses is as effective as any attempt to get them to change their minds. They are liars with an agenda. They will never stop, and we will never get votes from people who believe them. Fortunately most don't. On Friday night our waitress in Sioux Falls saw our Obama buttons and began to discuss her feelings about the election. She supports Obama because knows that only the Democrats will help her get health care for her family. She is about 30 years old and has three kids. Her husband listens to Rush and is really into the "Chaos" plan. He also has diabetes and recently had to pass up taking a new job because he would have lost his health insurance because of his pre-existing diabetic condition. The waitress said his affinity to Rush was a guy thing - all his friends are into it too - but that the reality of his family's situation was softening him up. I cannot say if this guy would ever connect with Jim Webb, but he does worry about his three kids and his wife. That's why I believe that we can make more headway with these tough male voters with a woman on the ticket.
May 25, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink