Everyone knows that Barack Obama is not going to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Given the acrimony of the primary contest it was never likely that Obama would tap Hillary, but any hope that he might was wiped out in the days before the last contests in Montana and South Dakota when Clinton said:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
To which, Michelle Obama responded:
“Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It’s not funny. You don’t have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk.”
In other words, Michelle Obama took Clinton’s words very, very personally. And that should really settle the issue of whether or not Hillary Clinton will share a ticket with Sen. Obama. She won’t. But that has not prevented people in the Clinton Camp from keeping the pressure on. This morning it comes via David Paul Kuhn in the Politico. Here we are faced with specific threats.
“If he picked Claire McCaskill or [Janet] Napolitano [or Kathleen] Sebelius, I think it would annoy women,” [Geraldine] Ferraro said.
Ferraro added that “those are women who we spent our lifetime helping run for office” and that “a lot of us are not happy with these women for not supporting Hillary because they came to us for help based in large part on their gender.”
“I would be very concerned about his judgment if he offered the position to another woman before offering it to Hillary Clinton,” [Marcia] Pappas, [who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women] said, “or any person.”
To truly understand this mentality, you have to look at this:
Pamela Sumners, who directs the Missouri chapter of the abortion-rights group NARAL, added that Clinton “is now seen as the reigning dean of the women’s movement. It’s sort of Moses gets all the way to the mountain and doesn’t get to the promised land — and I think there would be people really
angry about that.”
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is keeping the pressure on both by reinjecting race into the conversation at a time that McCain is working the issue hard, and by refusing to say that Obama is qualified to be president.
[Bill Clinton] says Obama ran an excellent campaign and is “smart as a whip.” But asked if he is ready to be president, responds: “You could argue that no one’s ever ready to be president.”
What’s significant is that the Clintons, with full knowledge that Hillary doesn’t have a chance, are setting Obama up. No matter who he picks as his running mate, Clinton’s die hard supporters will not be satisfied and they are supposed to be doubly outraged if Obama picks a woman because that will knock Hillary off her perch as the ‘reigning dean of the women’s movement’.
From a strictly ideological point of view, Evan Bayh represents the Clintons by proxy among members of the known short-list. He’s the only person under serious consideration that endorsed Clinton during the campaign. He’s a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. There’s a very good chance that Bayh would staff up the Naval Observatory with a bunch of also-rans and cast-offs from the Clinton campaign, giving them new life and hope for a role in a future presidency. For Team Clinton, Evan Bayh represents their best hope for jobs and significance in an Obama administration. These attacks on Obama are sending a clear message that they can make trouble for Obama if he shuts them out. As I see it, this is not really a lobbying campaign for Hillary, who they all know is persona non grata in the Obama household. It’s an oblique campaign for Bayh.
And they just might get what they want. Just this morning, Bayh joined with Obama in sending a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to dedicate more money to address brain injuries. Obama will appear with Bayh on Wednesday in Elkhart, Indiana, and people there are buzzing with excitement and speculation that Obama will tap Bayh as The One. One theory is that Obama will want to get some coverage for his pick that doesn’t have to compete with the Olympics, which start on Friday in Beijing.
Needless to say, the selection of Bayh would be met by stony silence at best within the Progressive Movement. Many would be outraged and consider it a betrayal of trust. For my part, I’d be bitterly disappointed. But I wouldn’t read it as anything more or less than a strategic calculation. What I find really offensive are the arguments being made against the several well qualified female candidates for vice-president. Hillary Clinton may well be the ‘reigning dean of the women’s movement’ but she has no right to let her own sour grapes create another glass ceiling for other women that are under consideration. Does the women’s movement want a martyr or a seat at the table in the National Security Council? The question should answer itself.
I am hoping that Kathleen Sebelius gets the nod. If she doesn’t, I am hoping that Jack Reed or Chris Dodd do.
The real Queen of the Women’s Movement, Gloria Steinem
has spoken.
In a rather boring article in the FT is this nugget
But will Steinem actually be angry if Obama picks a woman as his running mate?
If so, she’s lost her mind.
Isn’t the President of the Senate also the Veep?
yes, which makes the quote doubly funny.
I’m a woman and a feminist. Much as I’ve respected Gloria Steinem over the years, I strongly disagree: the Junior Senator from New York is not qualified to be Senate Majority Leader. There are many intelligent, talented Senators (including a few women) who have more seniority than she.
Surely she meant Senate Majority Leader, which is how I read that.
I certainly hope so. Otherwise Gloria Steinem is, um, an idiot.
Steinem worked for the CIA in the fifties and sixties and behaved like she’s worked for them ever since. I trust her as much talking about feminism as when Robert Gates talks about… anything.
bayh is not someone that embraces many, if any, of the changes obama wants to make, and your points about his dlc credentials and staffing up with also-rans and cast-offs…has beens, imo…is a major negative.
however, it wouldn’t surprise me at this juncture to see a blatantly political selection such as him as there are some very strange things emanating from the obama campaign these days. for example this, reported by the BBC:
after the bitter struggle that concluded with a lot of bad feelings, especially among the clintonites, l can understand wanting to make amends, but this strikes me as inappropriate.
wonder what dr. dean has to say about this?
obama’s looking more and more like a standard issue democRAT from where l sit.
Obama was always going to give them full voting rights. Why do you think the Clintonites were so furious?
It isn’t a sell-out on the issue. It’s a smart move. He won the nomination and no further punishment is helpful.
Hmm… I could swear remembering you complaining about lack of party discipline. So now you’re against any enforcement of the rules? Because you think it’s hopeless, or because the coming election is more important than setting a precedent against future flouting of party rules.
Not sayin I care much one way or the other, but having 50+ Dem parties all doing exactly as they please, vs the storm trooper goosestep of the GOP, will at least produce a remarkable spectacle to keep us annoyed and amused over the coming decades.
The point’s been proven – the Party stuck to its guns and neither Michigan nor Florida got to participate in the selection of the candidate. Additionally, neither state got the gobs of money that normally comes from a close primary race.
Clinton isn’t even filing the paperwork to be considered a nominee at the convention (note that Obama’s call to seat all delegates didn’t come until AFTER Clinton announced that she wasn’t filing the paperwork). This is a symbolic move, nothing more and nothing less. Other states will think twice about moving their primary dates around against the will of the national party, which is what the DNC wanted to achieve from this whole thing. They won – there’s no use in rubbing the state parties’ noses in the fact – especially in battleground states like Florida and Michigan where they’re going to need the state parties to be active.
and I hate the Clintons even more now than I did durung the campaign. They don’t want to be VP, they want to be President again. Sooooooooo, they will do anything to make sure Obama loses so she can run again in 2012.
Our country has been taken over by Egomaniacs and Clintons are no better than Bush in that regard. When are we going to take our country back friends? When will we say enough of this bullshit?
Not until the two-party system lies cold and dead in unhallowed ground.
did you just blame clinton if obama picks bayh?
thats wanker territory
not exactly.
The Clintons (and especially their team) are lobbying for Bayh. That’s my point.
If Obama gives in to their pressure the responsibility will be all his.
Can we blame Clinton for lobbying for Bayh?
I can tell you, that just like the older blacks find BO’s let’s forgive and forget routine hard, older women are cursed with long memories and a great many of them are larded with the forced competition between women. If you look at the glass ceiling world and see a few women who have cracked it, you will also see hundreds of women bruised and wounded by that relentless banging on said ceiling. And women were not encouraged to band together, oh no. They wee instead isolated one from another by society, by customs and by the notion, drilled into them from birth, that it is WOMEN they compete against. Very few women really take a good hard look at that belief and what it does to us as a culture. But we are led, like crabs in a barrel, to pull each other down rather than act as ladders for each other. I cannot blame women as this is not something that will be revealed to them in homemaking 101. Nope, instead they are taught that women cannot share a kitchen. Really.
That’s insightful, I think. Of course men are taught the great American worship of rugged individualism even more fiercely than women. What I’m wondering is, I personally don’t give a damn about whether some white guy gets to be CEO of some larcenous power center. Is it really rational or useful for women and minorities to care about the likes of Carly Fiorina or Condie Rice? Could be argued that such a stance both undermines the democratic ideal and turns out to be self-defeating.
BO means “body odor” to older Americans. Let’s stop this nickname now. Try “Barack” or “Barry”.
If our candidate was named Vanessa Dean, would we refer to her as VD?
From a strictly ideological point of view, Evan Bayh represents the Clintons by proxy among members of the known short-list.
The Senator from Wellpoint has a record that is WAY to the right of Clinton. Endorsing Clinton was a pure strategic move, Clinton carried Indiana, albeit narrowly.
Months ago I never would have considered Biden for the job. In fact, Sebelius and Richardson were always my top picks. But seeing how the Republicans are gonna play this game, I think Obama REALLY needs a fighter on his ticket.
Joe Biden, who said Bush’s attacks on Obama were “bullshit”, is just that kinda guy. Yeah, maybe he goes over the top sometimes. But maybe we need that right now.
Plenty of bloggers discount Biden because he is not a “change” agent. But you know what — Obama can use that to his advantage. Just unveil a new slogan — “Change You Can Believe In. Experience You Can Count On”.
It’s the best of both worlds. And I agree that Bayh would really bum me out, more than any other candidate, but I’d eventually get over it. I think strategically and politically, Bayh would not be the strongest pick. I also wouldn’t make a VP pick this week.
bayh is hard enough to contemplate.
l still consider richardson a great choice. his experience as UN ambassador, his role in the stand-off with n.korea, and other diplomatic creds offsets one of obama’s major weaknesses. his stint as sec. of energy gives him a strong background/expertise in that area to compliment and implement the types of programs it’s going to take to resolve this issue. he’s supported renewable energy programs in NM, as well new commuter rail…a rarity in the west…plus his executive experience as a governor.
he fills a lot of voids, and while not the greatest campaigner, he’s known for not taking any shit, and he would lock up the mountain west and west…ala the western strategy…which we haven’t heard too much about lately.
l wouldn’t give up on him just yet.
I still like Edwards. He and Obama can have a little traveling daycare for their Enquirer lovechildren.
The VP pick will be Bayh on Wednesday. I wish he was more progressive but I am focused on winning in November 08 and try not to worry about Bayh running in 2016.
I agree Michelle would never allow Barack to pick Hillary.