Does Obama need to pick a female VP?

IMHO, Hillary should not be the VP because of several factors. Firstly, she and Obama do not seem to get along. Secondly, it undercuts Obama's message of change. Thirdly, she is a jack-of-all-trades master of none because her so-called strengths with working-class whites, the experience factor, and women are all matched or superceded by, say, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Kathleen Sibelius, respectively. And none of these potential VPs have race-baited Obama, praised John McCain at Obama's expense, or discussed Obama's possible violent demise as a potential campaign contingency plan.

A talk of the town is how Obama is going to welcome the die-hard Hillarist hold-outs. If these Hillarists are the feminists they claim to be, then they should be reasonably placated by the VP selection of a fellow strong woman, like Kathleen Sibelius or Janet Napolitano, no? If all goes well with the Obama presidency, then it would be a perfect setup for the first female president in 2016 (though Sibelius might be a bit old). Even if it doesn't pan out that way, having a female VP would be a huge step forward in gender equality.

Though I'd prefer someone with foreign policy credentials like Clark or Richardson to be Obama's VP, I still think making amends with some women voters is just as important. I think that the selection of a female VP will separate the true feminists from the Hillary cultists that would rather elect an anti-choice and old-fashioned septuagenarian who likes to call his brainless trophy wife a c*nt rather than a ticket that features a woman. Then these Hillary cultists would have absolutely no false moral high ground to stand on and would lose what appeal they had when they pretended to be fighting for women's progress.

to be against him, so pandering to them boots nothing.

Note that I didn't say that he should be encouraged *not* to run with a a female VP candidate, just that it's not necessary.

IMO, Obama needs an older person with strong national security experience, preferably a governor or former governor. I don't believe that he needs that person to be a very effective president, but I do believe that such a person will be helpful in the election.

I'd say either Richardson or Bob Graham. I don't know of a woman who fits the bill, although there might be some.

I've said this elsewhere, people harping on the national security thing are worrying about nothing. He needs someone with domestic/economic creds, not national security. He already has the primary national security concerns staked out in his favor. People just go into a frenzied panic about McCain being a war hero... it doesn't matter.

The central national security issue in this election is Iraq. What are the competing positions?

Obama: Get out.
McCain: Stay in, indefinitely... maybe it'll turn around... somehow...

American people: Get the hell out, right now.

Obama wins. The longer that very clear and stark choice is thrown in their face the more clear the decision becomes.

The economy however gives Iraq a run for its money as the issue most on the minds of voters. And that is a FAR more difficult subject to address convincingly. It's a lot easier to communicate to the average voter that you're going to begin bringing troops home and make them believe you can do it. It's extremely difficult to make them believe you can fix the national economy because to most people the nuts and bolts of national economics are incomprehensible. THAT is where it all comes down to who has the credentials to be taken seriously because most people will NOT make their judgment on the merits of the fine details of any policy plans presented. Most people won't even understand them, assuming they read them which is a pretty big stretch.

He needs a governor with a solid economic track record.

John McCain is on video saying that he doesn't understand the economy. People readily believe that Democrats are better on domestic issues. I don't believe that Obama will have any trouble on that issue, regarless of how "hard working white people" vote.

Actually, I don't think that this "lack of experience" argument that the republicans will run on will work, in regard to foreign policy or on the economy. It didn't work when Clinton tried it and I don't think it will work when McCain tries it. But if I have to pick which issue people will be more concerned with experience on, I'd guess foreign policy. We'll see.

Regardless, the two people I mentioned work for both issues.

McCain is on video saying things on both subjects.

On Iraq he's on video with a clear commitment to a specific policy that the clear majority of the voting population simply does not want to happen. That is not something he fixes easily.

On the economy he's on video saying he doesn't really understand the issue. He can fix that. His handlers wake the hell up and coach him on some solid economic policy and he grabs himself a VP with good economic credentials and a lot of that goes away. It's the more dangerous ground.

I personally think Obama is going to stomp him on both issues, but the economy is going to be the more serious fight.

Richardson is a pretty decent choice either way. I still think Sebelius has potential pull that he doesn't among female voters that could make a lot of difference in a lot of states, but we'll see which way Obama goes.

Isn't what this campaign is about, anyway?

:eyes:

Why not go for the gusto here?

Look at LeBron James! He's so rich and admired!

Not nastiness.

My bad.

Is not superficial.

It is the last frontier.

but i do think it would be nice...
being VP usually means ull be in the running for president too.. n thatd be a good thing.

just so its a qualified person,thats all the matters, regardless of gender.

He needs to pick someone that will help us get out of the quagmire in Iraq.

That'd be the smart thing to do. I don't know if Axlerod would let him, though.

Um, you're talking about Oprah, right?

And it's not as if every single one of the 18 million voters who cast their lot with Hillary aren't going to support Obama.

why you think you can try to pacify women. This is insulting.
Hillary Voters Women are as tough as she is. Some will vote
McCain, Some will stay home and some will vote Obama. Hillary
Hatred by Obamites cannot be "whitewashed" by trying to put
up someone just because she is a woman. The die has been casr
and they will not change.

Spend your time trying to find a ticket that looks strong and
Presidential.

The internet's a cesspool of ill manners. Your wounded ego is not a good enough reason to play Russian roulette with regards to the Supreme Court and the entire welfare of the American nation.

Joe Lieberman - couldn't even get Florida's Jewish seniors to pick him and Gore over Pat Buchanan and lost the state he was picked to lock.
Geraldine Ferraro - Assuming Mondale was the reason that they won Minnesota, she could not have added anything less to the ticket than she did.

The way to break barriers is with the right person who can win, not with someone who can't win.

Someone intelligent with foreign relation experience who is comfortable in attack mode against the repubs.

A qualified person that he can trust. If that's a woman, then great!

Personally, I think that Webb is a good choice, but that's just me.

n/t

care for Obama and choosing some arbitrary female wouldn't look to me like anything except pandering. Obama needs to choose the person who best complements him, whether male or female.

And btw, my disgust with the sexism in this campaign does not come from Obama but from some of his supporters on DU and elsewhere in the blogosphere and media. I don't believe it is the primary reason Hillary is in the position she is currently in. The sexism doesn't make me question Obama - it makes me question the Democratic Party.

As a Hillary supporter, you're seeing where the sexism is really coming from, which is hard for many of her supporters to do these days. There's so much anger here on DU ...and the name calling is freaking me out....The MSM, as always, has been doing 'it's thing.' You've got the wisdom and objectivity to see what's happening and to speak out! Thank you....Although I support Obama, you've said it all in a concise and objective post. I agree that it would look like pandering....
:yourock:

Also, I've admired Hillary for years...
Sadly, her campaign just didn't work for her... for many reasons.


peace~

but thanks. I think the majority of Hillary supporters that are upset by the sexism realize exactly where it's coming from. :hi:

:hi:
A Hillary supporter and defender are not one and the same...
Sorry, I didn't mean to characterize...
From what you wrote, I think you have a bit more insight into the minds of the Hillary supporters than I do as far as where the sexism is really coming from...
Thank you for taking the time to clarify ...greatly appreciated!

peace~

I want Richardson, but its just not going to work.

Having a black guy on the ticket is risky enough, but a woman as well is potential suicide.

I just want Obama in office, period. I want the VP to be someone who isn't going to make us lose any votes, and obviously there are sexist people.

Many of Hillary's supporters are racists who will NOT vote for him.

of it, as the mythology (seen on this thread galore) of meritocracy is too strong. After all, the choice of running mate in 84 was clearly talked about, without embarrassment, as a woman (with the slogan I remember of "a feminist not a Feinstein"). Johnson was the pick of party bosses, hardly meritocracy, Mondale to placate liberals, Ferraro was SPECIFICALLY selected as a woman -- she wasn't especially qualified as a mere Congressional Rep -- and Lieberman was picked as (Bill Maher had a great shtick about it) someone to allay all the Lewinsky jitters. And Edwards -- his whole campaign was about being a southerner, yet on the other hand he never even carried North Carolina. Edwards, a FIRST TERM senator, could hardly be described as selected meritocratically and not politically. And Truman? What was his track record before being VP?

Will women feel insulted that a woman is on the ticket? This is too snooty by half. The important thing is that the woman on the ticket be highly competent (as the saying goes among "female chauvinists", a woman has to be twice as competent as a man to get the same job, which it is said, fortunately isn't too difficult ...)

CLEARLY if Hillary isn't the nominee (WHICH I STRONGLY FEEL SHE SHOULD NOT BE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN HOW SHE HANDLED THIS CAMPAIGN WITH A SCORCHED EARTH POLICY), then Obama would be denying the best shot at getting a woman on a WINNING ticket in living memory. THAT would alienate many women.

It is possible that HRC will have the MUSCLE to force acceptance on the ticket, with Obama of course graciously insisting that she was his absolutely favorite choice. That would explain her staying in as long as possible.

If not Hillary then it should be a woman, and in any case someone who NEVER (as she did) supported the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) and who does NOT have the kind of high negatives and baggage that she does. It should also be someone who has as strong a foreign policy background as any male candidate, at least to shut the punditocracy up from yapping, as they would not with a male with similar foreign policy expertise (eg Edwards w/relatively little). Among women, I think that the BEST candidate meeting these criteria is CA SEN BARBARA BOXER -- with years and years of foreign policy resume up the wazoo, VOTED NO on IWR (as did Sen Stabenow of MI, another possible base-widening choice), and Boxer is popular, charismatic, and with no serious baggage AFAIK. Boxer is extremely knowledgeable and capable, and NO ONE will plausibly question her qualification for the office in terms of merit and ability. In particular, she might very well help push FL from being solid McCain country into being a tossup. She would help with certain demographics like suburban women, who are considered a swing vote in states like PA, WI, and MO.

Stabenow might also be a choice with broad working class appeal other than gender. She might really give the GOP reason to CRAP IN THEIR PROVERBIAL PANTS. But her qualifications are not as strong as Boxer's, something this thread and its comments shows will be subject to EXTRA scrutiny.

Sebelius ALSO never supported IWR, which would make her better for the ticket than HRC. I don't know where Napolitano stood on IWR back when, but the press will have a field day with anyone who did NOT support IWR, perhaps less so if it's Hillary, something I think would be politically a bad idea, but may indeed be inevitable.

If it were to be a male (which I think is not a good idea) I do NOT like the idea how there are so many people pushing for the furthest right Democratic candidates imaginable -- from Clark to Webb to Strickland (a non-prochoice male? are you kidding -- in THIS election year?) to Rendell etc.

Of the candidates who ran against Obama in the primaries, neither Clinton nor Edwards, the most talked about, seem like good choices to me; the best one is Richardson, who has strong background as BOTH a governor and in foreign policy, and could be politically helpful on the ticket in many ways including regional. I think that Graham of FL who also has foreign policy background AND as a governor would be helpful,especially if carrying FL is considered essential. He's the only running mate that I can think of who would boost Obama in FL as much or more than Boxer.

Feingold is a possibility, but I think he's considered too strongly liberal, while Boxer is less well-known in that way (though not particularly less liberal). Frankly, I think the choice, if not a woman who ALSO never supported IWR could be putting Obama's election chances at risk unnecessarily

So tired of this gender smender thing.