First. To MeganLocke and others who read this diary:
Hope you had a great weekend and Happy Monday!
Yes, I know, I'm supposed to be fishing. I should be on the beach but I made the mistake of listening to the Sunday "spin cycle". Then I read comments to my post here at myDD.
One pissed me off and the other got me thinking and well...
I was reading another diary about picking the Vice Presidential candidates. You may see the first part of this diary in the comment section elsewhere in myDD. I'm greatful to MeganLocke for reminding me of the subjective part of picking a VP. Her reminder caused me to reexamine my own thoughts of the process. This diary, that started out as a comment, is a result. This is a comparison between two women for the office of VP. They are Gov. Sebeliius of Kansas and Sen. Clinton of New York.
On the point of choosing a VP, I like the fact that reasonable people can peacefully disagree. Nice.
With Sen. Obama's recent shift to a campaign that looks more and more like a Sen. Clinton primary? To skip over Sen. Clinton for a 2nd tier option? He'd have to hate the woman's guts to skip her now. How do you explain it?
Before you read my opinion after the bump, there's something I'd like for you to consider.
You see something troubles me. There's this undercurrent arguement that I find troubling for the Gov of Kansas or any woman running for political office. This is the argument that Sen.Clinton is too qualified for the office of Vice President but Gov.Sebelius in not. But, hey no worries, they're both women aren't they; they must be interchangeable. The reasoning is that the office of VP is nothing more than a do nothing job. The thought is that any idiot can do it. It seems that this is the reason why it would be okay to nominate the unknown Gov. of Kansas. She wouldn't be doing anything anyway. Doesn't matter what her qualifications are because, again, any idiot can do it. It doesn't seem to be important what skills she brings to an administration. As long as she knows her "place" and is not someone who'd out shine Sen. Obama? She is considered highly qualified. Oh and if she can bring in Ohio all the better.
(Sounds like how they used to arrange marriages for Old World kings and queens. Give me your dowry(votes) and then go back to exile in that cold castle(vp office) far, far away. You've served your function. Well unless the VP was required to birth an heir. There would be one obligatory night of sex and a beheading if you don't produce a future king. Lucky VP.)
What does this say about the VP selection process? What does that say about the Gov.? What does that say about Sen. Obama and his views on women in governent? What does that say about the future of women in general in the White House?
Doesn't do anything for either Sen.Clinton or Gov. Sebelius does it. This arguement doesn't do anything for Sen. Obama either. There is a danger of him looking petty and yes weak. Don't get me wrong folks. I'd love the idea of having more than one highly qualified woman to chose from. The more qualified women candidates the better the future for women in general. But saying that Sen. Clinton is too qualified and Gov. Sebelius doesn't have to be because the VP job is a do nothing job? To me, it looks less like picking a qualified candidate. Looks more like trying to get around picking the qualified person who is a woman to pick anyone else as long as they know "their place" and don't out shine the man.
There has to be a compelling reason to skip the highly qualified candidate other than, "Well I just don't like her." or "Well let's pick another woman, any woman, as long as she's not as strong as the guy. After all any idiot can do that job. Not a problem if she's less qualified." You can't do that in the "real world" folks. It wouldn't pass Human Resources. I believe it is considered an unfair hiring practice. As a matter of fact, it would probably trigger a lawsuit. It has in my state. In that case, it was a matter of race not gender. My understanding though is that race and gender would have been equal in status. In this case it was an issue of passing over the qualified candidate because they did or did not want to hire someone because of their race NOT their qualifications. Insert gender for race? Looks like the same arguement to me.
I'd be interested in your opinion.
For me? I'm looking at the folks who ran in the presidential primary first. These people would be the first tier candidates. They have national support and actual dollars spent in the primary to promote their name and issues. Democrats then put confidence in these people by voting for them. The governor of Kansas doesn't have these qualifications. The Senator from New York does.
Regardless of their gender.
I kind of thought that was the point of equality.
Again I'd really love to have your opinion.
Regards from an old feminist RedNeck from the Deep South,
12 dogs
Oh and there's more after the bump.
Hey. Welcome back!
As I said above, I'm looking at the folks who ran in the presidential primary as first tier VP candidates. They have national support and actual dollars spent in the primary to promote their name and issues. The Governor of Kansas doesn't. Does it mean I wouldn't look at a Governor or Senator for a ticket? Nope. But folks, after this weekend, with Sen. Obama's percieved shift on abortion, FISA, and Iraq? Especially the in the area of the war in Iraq. After months of telling the other half of the Dem. Party that Sen. Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq was one of THE reasons why folks shouldn't vote for Sen.Clinton. After months of telling Sen. Clinton' supporters that any other option, other than immediately beginning the removal of troops from Iraq, was unacceptable? After months of saying that Sen. Clinton had been politically calculating for her comments on the war in Iraq and international policy. Remember folks these were the views she held throughout the primary and still holds for the General Election. To use this as a reason to call Sen. Clinton calculating but when Sen. Obama, who first was quite clear on his views on Iraq in the primaries but now has to consult folks first, is just being political astute? I'm really having problems with passing over Sen. Clinton now. He's now doing what she said she'd do from the very beginning. How can he say that he disagrees with Sen. Clinton now? That was the issue that we were asked to consider to distinguish between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. That war vote and getting the heck out of Iraq.
I dunno about you but the word "arbitrary" is starting to rear it's ugly head.
But what about Gov Sebelius?
Well see that's the thing. I hear that there is a vetting process for VP for the Dem ticket going on. That we have to vet both Sen. Clinton and Gov. Sebelius for the position.
When I compare it to the primary? I see that 1/2 the Dem party already vetted Sen. Clinton. They did so by saying she wasn't just qualified to be Vice President Clinton. They did so by saying she was qualified to be President Clinton. I can't think of a more stringent vetting process to go through than this Dem primary. It's the reason we all got a chance to see the candidates and their positions on issues such as Iraq. And then folks, we got to voice our opinions by voting. That is why I am looking at the folks who were actually on the ballot during the Dem primary. They spoke to the nation. They did or did not get the votes based on what they said. When the dust cleared there were two finalists that were head and shoulders about the rest.
And guess what? Nowhere in that entire process did any of get us a chance to vote for Gov. Sebelius.
Other than saying "I support Sen. Obama", nowhere did we get a chance to hear her in debate. Nowhere did we get to ask her questions. She didn't have to expend her resources to get the job. Maybe in future whe would like to put her money where her mouth is and run like the rest of the folks. She didn't. Sen. Obama and Sen.Clinton did. So did Sen. Edwards, Gov. Richardson, Sen, Biden, Gen. Clark, Rep. Kucinich, we know the list folks. These are the first tier candidates. The ones that we the people got a chance to vet. Again. Gov. Sebelius is nowhere to be found in this list.
If this was a potential hire in the real world? We wouldn't be able to look over a highly qualified candidate for a lesser qualified 2nd tier candidate. To me, Gov of Kansas is a 2nd tier candidate. This consideration maybe good for the Gov.'s future aspirations. It's a good opportunity for national exposure and future national bids. But it's not, in my opinion, helping get a woman in the WhiteHouse by jumping over a woman who more than proved herself in the primaries for a person with no national experience in this election. It just doesn't seem right to jump over a candidate who brought in votes from the other half of the Dems. If we are talking subjective? It doesn't feel right to jump over the candidate who in the primary brought in so many votes(no one else came close) and who's primary campaign message Sen. Obama is now shifting to inorder to win the General Election. If the end of the primary race hadn't been so close, if there had been a bevey of folks whose primary vote totals had been similar, or if the Gov.of Kansas had just run in the primary, I might think differently. She didn't.
Subjective? Well "a fundamental sense of fairness" does have an emotional component. Fairness has an objective component as well. That would be all those primary votes cast, by we the people, during the Dem. primary. All those voters who gave and still give Sen. Clinton their support.
That's about it for this cranky old RedNeckNation feminist.
Now gotta go outside and clean the dog pens.
Woof!
12 dogs
|
|
|
Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
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.
