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.

Just wanted to wish everyone a happy weekend.

At the end of the day, no matter what our differences, there is one thing we all have in common. We are all Americans.

Happy and safe holiday.

What a good day to celebrate.

12 dogs and a blog

This is more of a discussion thread than a full on diary, because I want to hear from both Clinton and Obama supporters (as well as Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel, and anyone else's supporters- hell, our new Republican members are welcome to chime in).

But I'm curious- now that the furor from the primary is dying down, what does everything think?  Did it help?  Did it hurt?  Did the attacks get so nasty as to hurt our chances, or were we just vetting our candidate?

I was looking through old Kos diaries today, and found something that sent me dumbstruck that I wanted to share from June 27, 2007- nearly one year ago:

People have pointed out the value in vetting our own and I don't have a problem with honst questions.

What I do have a problem with are the diaries that get posted that are nothing more than hit-pieces full of hearsay, innuendo and outright lies.

The purpose of this diary is to urge people to post information about their candidate without attacking the others.  

Take a look at my diaries from last week (linked above).  Not once do I mention the other candidates.

Not once.

And here's some food for thought...

Geekesque notes below that it was one of our own who hung the pair of flip-flops around Kerry's neck in the primaries.  I hope people remember that lurking goopers read these diaries and if we keep this shit up, we're only giving them ammo to use against our nominee (whoever s/he may turn out to be) in the general election.

Wise words- but what surprised me is that they came from none other than Alegre, who quickly changed her tune as most know.  What do you think- was she right?

"This isn't the party I planned but I sure like the company," Hillary said as she opened her concession speech at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.

Speaking to the "18 million...all walks of life," who voted for her, Hillary congratulated and endorsed Barack Obama, stating:

"The way, the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passions, our strengths and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5K jo

This is a quick and short diary. I just would like to say to everyone here to just relax a little bit and stop swaying left and right and in this direction and the other with every statement and news flash.

This has been a 14-month process. We, Obama and Clinton supporters, have all been waiting for an end to this process. It seems that the end is near and we just need to show a bit of patience. People are still voting in South Dakota and Montana. The polls are open and will be open for 4 or 5 hours. Let us all wait until they close and both candidates make their statement and we all will have our answer.

I recognize that, for some of you, this has been your first rodeo and the excitement of ending this campaign is barely bearable for you folks. But believe me (as someone who has been involved in two presidential campaigns in the 1980s) when i say that this is only the beginning, the very beginning of a very rocking, head-turning, breathtaking, and eye-dazzling ride. Punches and counter-punches are going to be flying at such a speed that you won't be able to keep up. So, my advice to you folks is to relax a bit. This has always been a marathon, not a sprint, and you need all your energy in the next 5 months to finish strong.

One more word before i wrap up this short diary: Whatever happens to night be magnanimous and respectful, and keep your emotions in check. We will not be able to win in November if we act and behave like a bunch of assholes and remember that this election has been extremely close and no candidate KOed the other. This has been a victory by points and the scorecards look awfully close, which means that there will be no victory in the fall if one half pisses off the other.

There seems to be some interesting things that took place on a conference call of major Clinton donors.

On a conference call late this afternoon with about 30 top donors, senior advisor Harold Ickes conceded that the likelihood of Clinton securing the nomination was growing more remote. But he emphatically argued to donors that the end was not here yet and that they should continue to support the Senator until she says to do otherwise.

Ok, fair enough.  The amount of debt her campaign has racked up is in dispute- at minimum $20 million, but figures as high as $40 million have been reported. Telling the donors to stop ensures she's completely on the hook for it, and that's no good.

But for of Sunday's kerfluffle, what this?

Ickes said Clinton most likely would not appeal a ruling by the Democratic Party rules committee seating the delegation from a disputed primary in Michigan, according to a participant who described the call on condition of anonymity.

Peniel Conin, President & CEO of Global Basic and eNameWiz.com, has written a detailed 13-page statistical report and analysis of caucus vs. primary results from the 2008 Democratic nominating campaign.  (This has been reported at Talkleft here and here and here.)

Conin suffers from a disability resulting from a car accident 40 years ago, which left her wheelchair bound at  a time when there were no curb cuts or ramps and many places were inaccessible.  That is what fueled her passion about caucus information.

Among the information available in the report: