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,
Oh and there's more after the bump.