Hillary feminists' hypocrisy: You're only allowed ONE woman candidate per election cycle!

[sfam]

I posted a poll asking whether Hillary would try to stop Obama from selecting a woman on the ticket. The rationale in my mind would be a political one - that a woman on the ticket now could cause real competition for Hillary for the women's vote in 2012 or 2016. The vast majority of the responses indicated that they thought she had no say in the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6025993&mesg_id=6025993


But the interesting thing to me were the responses from Hillary supporters indicating how horrid it would be for Obama to pick a woman VP other than Hillary. Responses included:

- "It is a slap in the face to Hilary Supporters (for Obama) to even consider another woman. The arrogance amazes me. Alienating the Clinton Voters has been and continues to be the Hallmark of Obama Campaign."

- "Her supporters won't take kindly to the notion that women are interchangeable. Word to the wise. I know some of y'all are new to this feminism thing, so I appreciate that you're trying. :hi:"

- "Hillary may be "irrelevant" in the process to some of you, but her supporters won't be and another woman just won't do!!!!!! Women are NOT interchangeable!!!!!..."


Here's my problem with this. I'm accused of being "new" to feminism, but I should "know" that Hillary's feminist supporters apparently have a new tacit rule that only one woman per election cycle can be considered for VP, especially if she was the one who lost in a close nomination fight. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this assumes that all other women not named Hillary (this time around - who knows who the "correct" woman will be next time) are either unqualified to be VP or cannot even be considered simply because they have a vagina.

Just imagine if a male candidate who lost a close presidential race had said this upon hearing he might not be chosen for the VP, "We are not interchangeable!!! How dare you even think about picking a man other than me!!!"

What happens, say, if Obama decides that Hillary is a bad choice for his VP selection? That she will hurt him with independents and republicans, that her negatives are too high, that her baggage is too deep, and perhaps more importantly, that they just don't get along? Are these Hillary supporters honestly saying that every other woman is off-limits because they had the misfortune of being the same gender as Hillary? That this would somehow be considered a negative, that because the "wrong" woman was selected there would be a feminist backlash? A backlash from the people claiming to want nothing more than seeing a woman president in their lifetime? Who exactly is seeing women as interchangeable?

So for the sake of argument, What if Obama decides he needs someone who would be attractive to independents and republicans (this rules out Hillary), who had solid executive experience (now we're talking governors and generals), who could help him in the west and midwest? If he has any understanding of feminism, he "should" know that Sebelius (who's father was governor of Ohio) would be a lousy choice for him, because women who voted for Hillary would see her as the token "interchangeable" candidate, even though she was on Kerry's short list for VP??? If again, for the sake of argument, Obama has that reasoning in selecting a VP (versus, say, looking for Foreign Policy exp), Selebius seems like the best pick (or at least one of the top few), wouldn't you agree?

That feminists would state that Obama had better pick a man if he doesn't pick Hillary just seems so wrong to me. In my mind, this really does serve to perpetuate a lessor role for women. But again, perhaps I still have a lot to learn about feminism.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. Just proof that it's not about feminism. It's about HILLARY.

[dkf]

3. Yup, she just uses the word sexism to get what she wants

and to bash anyone who doesn't like her over the head.

[Growler]

5. Agreed.

nt

[sfam]

7. Hillary has truly muddied this term. There has been sexism but...

The crying of wolf at every potential occaision, however remote, has led to a huge cloud of misunderstanding over its use now. Yes, there have been many times in this election cycle, primarily within the MSM, where people have said horribly sexist things about Hillary. This is different though than her largely baseless attacks on the Obama campaign (Ferrarro being the latest example). Unfortunately, this muddies the dialogue to the detriment of us all.

[merh]

4. That is exactly what I was going to post.

This whole thing is NOT about women's rights or the fight for equality; it is not about what is best for the democratic party; it is not about what is best for our nation - it is just about Hillary and that isn't enough - that isn't right.

[jaxx]

6. It's about being a sore loser.

I wonder if she realizes how many women think she has become a bad joke. Where is the competent, sorta gracious woman I thought I knew?

[roguevalley]

12. they are idolators.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Of course.

[kdpeters]

41. That much has been obvious from the beginning

[dkf]

2. I agree that females are not interchangable...that is why I wouldn't mind a female nominee just not

Hillary.

[JAbuchan08]

56. +1

= me

[ampad]

8. Great post

with all the evidence you need that this was never, ever about women and the feminist movement. I too have been accused of not understanding the feminist movement because of my age but since I am a minority I know one thing for sure: you can only cry wolf for so long before you start doing great harm to the progress that so many others have worked hard to accomplish. Those that keep crying sexism every time they think of how Hillary is not going to pull this off are not doing her or the movement any favors. I would love to see a woman VP but I don't want to see Hillary get that spot. I don't think she earned it, I don't think she is right for the job. I can say that without thinking about her sex because I have seen enough of her character to not give a damn. Happy to K/R

[jgraz]

9. Nothing to add but K&R.

[Occam Bandage]

10. They're not feminists. They're Hillarists.

[dana_b]

11. those responses are f***in' insane.....

that does remind me of the "other woman" argument. like a wife being given the back seat to another woman. Such crap. This is politics, not a marriage. If another female candidate comes along who is intelligent, has some experience, is honest and is popular... then good!! Wouldn't it be great if there were four or five women who came along next cycle, had those qualities and ran for a high office like Pres. or veep? wow... it WILL happen in my lifetime!

[hokies4ever]

13. Superb post!

I'll be sure to use this argument the next time a Hillary supporter disses on my V.P. favorite, Sebelius. :patriot:

[sfam]

15. That's my choice as well. Interestingly, no Hillary supporters are touching this thread...

I guess they don't really have a leg to stand on regarding their argument that selecting a different woman would be a slap in the face to Hillary supporters.

If they do, I still have not heard an explanation that holds water.

[left is right]

14. no not another woman as VP

not any woman, actually. It will be hard enough to get Obama elected without adding the burden of a woman VP, any woman especially Hillary. After we have the luxury of not being able to say America's first Black President, we can work toward a courageous woman President--Hillary would not qualify there, either. This time we need a charismatic, not overly young white man that will continue Obama's agenda should anything unforeseen happen. (Please, God, protect this man.)

[sfam]

17. This is a fine position, but is tangential to my OP...

The idea that too much overt change - meaning an African American AND a woman - is a very defensible position. I don't agree with it, but this is certainly worthy of discussion and debate (I'm more on the "double-down on change" side of the fence). My concern is with Hillary's supporters using feminism as their shield for why Barack MUST choose Hillary, but then say it would be a slap in the face to Clinton supporters if Barack choose a different woman. This view has a fairly large logical flaw in it.

[TexasObserver]

16. Anyone who thinks naming a female VP other than Hillary will satisfy her fans is wrong.

it's a cult of personality around Miss Hilly

[sfam]

18. Please, challenge my reasoning in the OP. Why would you prefer a man over a different woman if...

Hillary is not selected? What's the rationale for discounting all other qualified women candidates just because they share the same gender as Hillary?

And if you can come up with one, can we agree that this position sets feminism back a decade or so? That only one qualified woman can be on the stage at a time?

[TexasObserver]

22. They're going to hate his VP choice no matter who it is.

Because it is not going to be Hilly.

[sfam]

24. So to clarify: You think it would be no difference if it was a man or woman?

Just to be clear here, 'cause the folks in the other thread seemed rather put off by the notion of Obama selecting a different woman. Based on their comments, they clearly would prefer a man over a different woman.

[TexasObserver]

25. No, to clarify: They're going to hate whoever it is. They'll hate a woman worse, though.

Why?

Imagine a woman wants to get married. Her man says he doesn't want to marry. They break up. He finds another woman he does want to marry and they get engaged immediately.

Now tell me. Are his original girlfriend's female friends happy for him? Do they no longer believe he's afraid of making a commitment!? Do they give him any credit at all? Do they think the problem might have been HER all along? Of course not. They hate him even more, and they despise his new woman more than they despise his best buddies. The new girlfriend has done nothing to them, but they hate her with a passion.

It's not rational, but it is predictable.

[sfam]

26. Not rational is right! This may be true, but it certainly isn't defended by feminist ideals...

This is really the point I'm making above. There is no way you take the position you have just articulated (which may be accurate) and then tell someone, "If you don't understand, then you just don't understand that much about feminism." That stance has nothing to do with feminism. In fact, I would argue that its in direct contraction with feminist ideals.

And yeah, your analogy seems to cover the behavior FAR better than anything I can come up with.

[TexasObserver]

28. You're right. They are not feminist ideals. The opposite.

Hillary is a glorified version of Barbara Bush or Laura Bush. She is who she is because of who she married. She's like Princess Di in that sense. She got a title and just because she's known, some women find her enchanting. It's not feminism. It's infatuation.

[NashVegas]

37. Begging Your Pardon, But

This is a presidential election. It's not nuptials. That some men on DU seem to be comparing an HC presidency to the idea of having a commitment to sleep with her, literally, reveals some interesting attitudes.

[sfam]

40. Interesting comment. Perhaps you could point to a post where someone indicated this...

I haven't seen it, in fact nowhere have I seen even a hint of someone indicating that they were looking for something akin to a sexual relationship or sleep commitment type intimacy between Obama and Clinton. But I've missed more than my fair share of threads.

EDIT: I reread your post. Did you mean people needing to feel close to Hillary - like as in intimate closeness - in order to support her? If so, again, I haven't seen that either.

[NashVegas]

42. I Mean

As in "fuckable."

In here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6025194

[sfam]

43. Wow...OK...so, um, that's pretty strange..

I must say I hadn't seen that "perspective" before. And yeah, I agree, its a bit disturbing and somewhat telling. Dunno that this has anything to do with someone being an Obama or Hillary supporter though. It really looks like more of an individual problem. You sorta have to wonder why they're even on a site like DU.

[NashVegas]

44. So ... Yes

Perhaps this may lend some understanding why female Clinton supporters think the men of the Democratic party are more than a little misguided in their attempts to rotate out one woman for another, as means of placation.

[sfam]

46. Well again, that's a huge stretch. Generalizing all (or most) men from a few loons is...

probably not all that helpful to making the point that men haphazardly rotate out one chick for the next. I see no indication, for instance that Sebelius, who gave the state of the union response, is just a rotating choice. She was on Kerry's short list and seems to be on Obama's. Regardless of her gender, she has lots of goodies going for her as a VP selection. If he chooses her, I think a more than fair case can be made that the choice was made based on his rational decision that she would be the best choice for him to make.

I just don't see that the bizarre dream sequences and the rest in that thread, or the larger sexist comments inherent in the MSM this cycle should be reason enough to discredit woman candidates other than Hillary. More specifically, I don't see this as a valid concern on the part of women that men will simply consider cycling out one female for another.

Bottom line, if the rest of the qualified women candidates are discounted on Obama's shortlist simply because they are women (meaning the Hillary folks successfully get the "he will be pandering by selecting a woman" meme out), this would be a sad day for feminism.

[NashVegas]

57. And Another One, Today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6048964

It's just an interesting trend, at this point.

[seabeyond]

30. fans? this is not a fucking sporting event. it is about the health, healing, mending

of our nation....

what is it with "fans"

[TexasObserver]

32. Yes, FANS. Derived from "FANatics."

Talk to someone who values your opinions. I don't.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sfam]

34. I think the meaning of T.O.'s "fan" use was fairly clear...was not in sporting event usage

Seemed like a pretty reasonable use of the term. Not to get in the middle of a useless pissing match, mind you...

[TexasObserver]

36. I used "fans," instead of "supporters" because the sentence was already long.

Whether I call them fans or supporters, the import of my comment is the same.

The poster in question has some kind of grudge toward me. I have no idea how it derived, and really don't care. The point is that the criticism of the use of the word "fans" seems ludicrous because it is. It's based upon some other incident, which I cannot even recall happening. Hence, my attitude in dealing with what I considered criticism based upon a fit of pique and nothing else.

[seabeyond]

39. your assumptions and interpretations are wrong

i have no grudge. i have never posted on one of your posts as far as i know. you are as irrelevent to me, as i am to you.

clear

i picked up fan from your post.... having spent 24 hours listening to hillary supporters saying the most outrageous things and others starting numerous threads about being "nice" to the hillary supporters. when i saw "fan" i thought it was a person saying play nice cause they are such fans

i find it ridiculous to use our votes in such petty ways, ... cause we are fans, or we "love" our candidate or simply cause she is woman, hear me roar.... to the point, if hillary does not make it, her supporters wont vote obama and we are suppose to be "nice" to get the vote

it feels like the supporters are fans. hence my post about not a sporting event, politics, get over it.

[mudesi]

19. lol (nm)

[anonymous171]

21. They're Hillaryists first, feminists second.

[sfam]

23. If they're feminists, they have some incongruent reasoning going on...

Hopefully they recognize this if Obama selects a woman VP candidate.

[Nedsdag]

27. With all the talk of "sexism" in this race, Nancy Pelosi's silence on the "issue,"

was telling and deafening.

OK, the "Hillary Nutcracker" was ridiculous as was the Roger Stone group whose initials spelled out a female sexual organ; however:

*Her dependence on Mark Penn's bad advice, was that sexism?
*Her prediction that the race would be over by Feb. 5, was that sexism?
*Her ignorance of the caucus states that went towards Obama, was that sexism?

It wasn't "sexism" that killed Hillary's campaign. It was mismanagement and arrogance that hurt her campaign.

[anigbrowl]

29. There are two kinds of feminists

Those that want to advance the role of women in society, and those who want to advance their position within a large group. This is something I've noticed within numerous subcultures, and feminism is just one of the bigger ones. 'Inner circle' types feel that being at the center means you get more control over the outside of the wheel. It wasn't an accident that the Clinton Campaign set up websites like 'Hillary Hub'.

As with a real wheel, attempting to turn at the center takes a lot more effort and results in much slower travel than turning it from the rim. This metaphor will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

[reflection]

45. I wish I could recommend this response.

Well said, sir or madam.

[sfam]

47. Agreed. It's one of those truly deep and interesting posts...

I still haven't thought of a good way of responding to it, but have thought about this response probably more than any other in this thread. It really does discuss an interesting dynamic that's probably applicable to lots of issues.

[reflection]

53. The engineer in me gets it. n/t

[sfam]

54. So what happens when the inner circle collapses?

This is sort of what I see happening with a good segment of the Hillary feminist supporters. They realize their candidate isn't going to win, and are responding by lashing out. Right now, the answer is that the only reason Hillary lost is because the DNC allowed sexism to kill any chances of a woman gaining power.

Florida and Michigan are interpreted completely through a sexist lens even though there are women on the DNC who are also standing by the rules just as Terry McAuliffe did previously. All sexist comments by the MSM are somehow attributed to Obama because he didn't stand up to defend her (as if this was his responsibility). And so on. Little if any current discussion is given to her campaign's mistakes right now.

The current debate point is whether they all leave the democratic party in a huff and vote against their interests in supporting McCain. Whether or not they do this, I can't stop but think about this dynamic in terms of your wheel analogy above. Does this somehow imply a significant change in the feminism movement - that the old guard has lost some of their power in moving the wheel?

[ButterflyBlood]

31. They're Hillaryists, not feminists

The only thing that matters to them is please their Queen.

[hughee99]

35. Interesting...

Are some Clinton supporters arguing that Hillary is the only female qualified to be on a presidential ticket, or that it doesn't matter who the qualified female VP nominee might be, if it's not Hillary, it's not acceptable? I can't really tell which argument is being made from the statements, depending on how you read them, either (or both) could be the case.

[sfam]

38. In the follow-ups, there seems to be the belief that Obama would be seen as pandering...

if he were to choose a woman VP. Again, the idea that Obama would be pandering if he were to choose a qualified woman candidate seems problematic to me. This suggests that its Hillary or no other woman. In fairness, one of the three posters made it clear that it should be Hillary and nobody else. Period.

[highplainsdem]

48. You're ignoring the fact that some Obama supporters here have suggested

that Obama's picking another woman as VP would automatically win a lot of Clinton's supporters, as if women were interchangeable.

That is what women objecting to this suggestion are reacting to. When I pointed out that Obama would be unwise to think he could win Hillary's supporters by picking a token woman as his VP, someone complained that referring to tokenism was disparaging to the women he might consider.

But it wasn't, since tokenism refers to motivation. I was referring to the motivation I'd seen suggested earlier for the choice, rather than any of the very capable women who've been mentioned here.

As I've pointed out, if the situation were reversed, Hillary would be expected to ask Obama if he wanted to be her running mate. Picking someone like Harold Ford would not be an option, unless Obama didn't want to be on the ticket and made that clear.

Quote:

Just imagine if a male candidate who lost a close presidential race had said this upon hearing he might not be chosen for the VP, "We are not interchangeable!!! How dare you even think about picking a man other than me!!!"

Obviously you're talking about white males here. Do you imagine that if the final candidates in this primary race were John Edwards and Obama, with Edwards winning the nomination and the party nearly evenly divided, that Edwards would dare ignore Obama as a possible running mate and instead choose, as I said, someone like Harold Ford? You really think he could get away with that, and Obama supporters wouldn't view it as insulting to them and their candidate? Not a chance that it would be acceptable to them.

[sfam]

50. While it has certainly been suggested that both Sebelius and Napolitano...

could help win back Clinton's women voters, this seems to me quite different from looking at women as interchangeable. Lets face it, in addition to their ability to handle the big chair, there are at least three things a VP choice is made on:

- ability to help shore up an experience shortfall
- ability to help with a region or state
- ability to help with a specific voting block.

I haven't encountered anyone who sees Sebelius as unqualified, for instance. Kerry had her on his short list, and by all indications, Obama does as well. Are you honestly suggesting that people are looking at Sebelius similar to your Harold Ford analogy? Was he on Kerry's short list? I don't think he's anywhere near that level, so yeah, a case could be made that this was a "filler" candidate in a way that it would be hard to with Sebelius or Napolitano. If Edwards were the one with 49% of the vote, would Obama be obligated to choose him? I don't think so.

So yeah, help with a specific voting block or blocks (Hillary's women supporters AND independents and republicans) would be one of the three things say, that Sebelius helps with. Being considered one of the nation's top governors, she also shores up the executive experience gap. With her father being a former Ohio governor, she helps both in the midwest and in the west.

So we agree that nobody can anyone honestly say these qualifications equal tokenism, right? If the fact that Sebelius ALSO helps with Hillary's women supporters is factored into the selection process, how does this equal tokenism?

Incidentally, on my last thread where these comments were posted and you responded, nothing in the OP was in any way related to Obama's selection criteria. It was only related to Hillary's possible reaction to a woman on the ticket and how this would affect her future chances at the presidency. So the tokenism argument wouldn't apply there, even though it might in other DU threads.

[highplainsdem]

49. Btw, re your "only allowed ONE woman candidate per election cycle"...

That's a straw man argument.

No one ever suggested any such thing.

Nothing had stopped your favorite pick for VP, Kathleen Sibelius, from running for president and demostrating how successful a candidate she could be.

Basically, what you're saying here is that you object to Clinton supporters feeling that she deserves to be on the ticket, and believing that it will mean a win in the GE more likely.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary "only one woman candidate per election cycle" rule that you're saying is being dictated by Hillary's supporters.

There is, however, room for only one VP. And with the party so evenly divided, it would be wise for Obama to offer that to Clinton.

It wouldn't matter who it was, which of the candiates had done nearly as well as the one winning the nomination. With both having that many supporters, a coalition is important. And it wouldn't matter if it was Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Or Edwards/Kucinich. Or Biden/Richardson. It's foolish to act as if a narrow win in a primary is a great victory allowing you to ignore your main opponent and that opponent's supporters. And the best way to show recognition and respect is to ask the opponenet to be on the ticket.

[sfam]

52. If Obama decides that Hillary offers him the best chance I'm all for it...but...

In regards to nobody ever suggesting any such thing, lets try the quote above:

"It is a slap in the face to Hilary Supporters (for Obama) to even consider another woman. The arrogance amazes me. Alienating the Clinton Voters has been and continues to be the Hallmark of Obama Campaign."

This seems fairly clear - only one woman can be considered. So yeah, Clinton supporters have said this. Whether this carries over in the future or not is clearly more word play on my end, but it seems to exist right now.

And we are talking about the VP selection, not the race to the nomination, so the argument about whether Sebelius could have or should have ran is not relevant. What is relevant is who would make the best VP selection. I fully admit I don't think the runner-up automatically gets first choice. I would also agree that a strong case can be made for Hillary being the "right" person to be on the ticket. She helps in the Midwest and Florida, she has good foreign policy experience and brings in Hispanics, women and lower income voters.

So yeah, I absolutely agree that her coalition is critical. And I would absolutely agree that the best way to show recognition and respect is to offer the challenger the ticket. But the goal isn't to get recognition and respect, the goal is to get elected. If Obama decides that the best chance to get elected is to choose Hillary for a variety of reasons, both listed above AND to heal the party, I'm all for that. But just as possible a strong case can be made that she negatively affects his change message, has said a number of things that will end up in McCain attack ads, and hurts him with independents and republicans.

So again, I think the choice should be made among qualified candidates only that give him the best chance of getting elected. If based on the decision process, a woman other than Hillary comes out on top, this truly shouldn't be a problem with feminists. To think that someone like Sebelius would be labeled a token candidate by feminists currently supporting Hillary is fairly bizarre. If they were more upset with Sebelius than a man for instance (as the quote above seems to), this would communicate some fairly strange messages.

[Colobo]

51. It looks like they don't wanna touch this.

[hayu_lol]

55. Most of you have a very strange way to discuss women...particularly bright accomplished women.

Women are not interchangeable--they are now, as they have always been--unique and individualistic.

What if: Hillary chooses Cynthia McKinney as her VP choice?