Not a Good Sunday for Women

In another veepstakes edition of "Meet the Press," a roundtable composed of two men and two women offered no bets by anybody on a woman vice presidential candidate. PBS's Judy Woodruff said Barack Obama's pick would be either Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine or Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. NBC's Andrea Mitchell thought maybe Jack Reed, the senator from Rhode Island, but more likely Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) or Bayh. For John McCain's pick, Mitchell said she thought the GOP nominee apparent was stuck with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Republican strategist Mike Murphy said he thought Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. NBC political director Chuck Todd had the good sense to pick "none of the above," though he suggested through his choice of pronouns that it would be a guy.

As for me, I'll be surprised if McCain doesn't pick a woman. I've long speculated before that such a move would make good sense as McCain seeks to appeal to swing voters -- especially those women who may be disinclined to vote for Obama for reasons of race, age or his defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. And if Obama picks his veep before McCain does, and Obama picks a man, I'd be willing to put money on the prospect of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, or a different woman, being added to the McCain ticket. (The name of the pro-life, pro-ANWAR-drilling Palin had been floated, but since her state legislature this launched a probe into whether or not she tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper, a lot of bets are off.)

McCain may simply be threatening to announce his veep choice this week in order to play with the Obama campaign. Frankly, I find it more likely that McCain will hold off, and see what Obama does. If Obama announces first and his veep pick is a man, then McCain's will almost certainly be a woman. If for no other reason than that (like doing the right thing), Obama should choose a woman as his running mate.

In another bad moment for women, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd today bashed Hillary Clinton supporters for wanting to add to the Democratic platform a plank addressing the "pervasive gender bias in the media" exposed during the Democratic primaries, including a demand that party leaders denounce future examples of such bias. Dowd calls the proposal an attempt to "enshrine a whine."

Then she offers this:

Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan.

Where to begin?

First of all, Michelle Obama certainly has her defenders among feminists, such as Carol Jenkins of the Women's Media Center.

Secondly, Dowd makes the same mistake that some of Hillary Clinton's women supporters make: that to support Clinton is to be a feminist; to support Obama is not to be a feminist. This is patently ridiculous. (In truth, Dowd likely knows better; she just finds the feminists-only-vote-Hillary claims of Clinton's supporters to be a convenient untruth.)

Supporting Hillary Clinton does not make one a feminist. One need only look at the refusal of Jill Iscol, a Clinton fundraiser, to support any woman other than Clinton as a veep candidate to see there's also some anti-feminism at work among a few of Clinton's female supporters. A female veep would do more to put a woman in the pipeline for the presidency than any other move. And Hillary Clinton's husband has made it impossible to name her as vice president. Still, a few holdouts would like to put the kaibosh on the chances for another woman to fill that slot. That's a cult of personality -- not feminism.

ASIDES:

Other "Meet the Press" news: Appearing as a McCain surrogate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) proved to be as thoroughly obnoxious as Obama surrogate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) proved ineffective. Kerry continued to advance the Obama campaign's line that his line about not looking like "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" wasn't about race. This is just silly.

More from the New York Times op-ed page: In a fascinating account of the Olympics and teh politics of gender, Jennifer Finney Boylan writes about China's gender tests to prove the femaleness of female athletes.

Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan

Comments

[Mickey777]

"... McCain is expected by some in the know to announce his pick early this week, and if he picks a woman, Obama will likely do the same."
A cliche my mother used to recite to me, quite often as a teenager came to mind immediately after having read this line.
"Just because 'so-and-so' jumps off the bridge doesn't mean you have to follow. Be a leader, not a follower."
Sometimes, the rhetoric that is espoused by so many popular bloggers and columnists makes me feel sorry for the readers who won't take off their rose-colored glasses long enough to turn the page to research the facts behind the issues. Read the candidates' issues pages on their campaign websites. Look for the actual speech text and read what the candidate actually said - read the whole text, and form your own opinion, instead of relying on someone's else's opinion.

[Destin]

I think it's very dangerous on the one hand for people to be considered as "single issue voters". As if voting for a single issue is gonna bring anything in return. Look at Bush, he was the master of "single issue" talking, and tried to play to everyone. And in alot of ways, it worked. Single issue voters might help determine the outcome of an election, or not, but they also can severely hurt the country in the case of the past 8 years. ;)

If people vote for Obama simply based on the fact that he has a female VP, or not, is pure ignorance. They should be voting on the total package. I mean, what's the point of voting for Candidate Y on a single narrow-minded issue, if they end up causing more harm than good?? I'd like to think that people would vote for Obama because he is the best overall candidate in regards to himself and McCain.

And where were all these women voters in 1984 when they all voted AGAINST the Mondale/Ferrraro ticket?? That was one of the biggest landslide wins for a candidate in the modern voting era. So if by picking a woman, gaurantees a win, then how come Mondale lost by historic margins?? You can't say that "the country wasn't ready for a female VP", as that is totally ignorant. I'm a man and I think we should have had female candidates for President from day 1 in 1788.

[elo]

I like Clinton - although I would prefer to see an Obama-Edwards ticket. I do think that Clinton on the ticket would help Obama's chances at winning the presidency--but I don't think that it would be a good fit for the next 4 years ahead of him/them, if (when) they did win.

Back in May, Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor'), who has a blog on branding ( http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv ) did a post arguing against the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket--positing that from a branding perspective, it makes no sense, and actually wouldn't be a good move for Clinton's brand, either.

"Because of the length of this primary fight, brand identity and loyalty to brand have become central. What this means is that a kind of brand mutual exclusivity has set in."


Link to the full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/05/14/marketing-101joint-ticket-makes-little-branding-sense.asp

[SouthpawSass]

I too would have preferred Edwards on the ticket... At this point, I'll accept anyone that will help Obama win. I don't know who best can do that.

[Chanrazig]

I too would be very disappointed to see another woman chosen as VP. I don't think picking someone like Claire McCaskill will strengthen the ticket. She, or any other woman, will be seen as walking into a spot Hillary earned but didn't get. Even though Hillary supporters need to put this behind them it's still too raw to not be a factor. Why would Obama want to take on that load in addition to the other negatives he's dealing with. From my perspective Obama should do whatever it takes to make an Obama-Clinton ticket work. Hillary strengthens the ticket in exactly the places Obama is weak.
Re Maureen Dowd: What a waste of a bright mind and quick wit. She keeps going for the easy kill and stomping all over her points. She feels like a loose dagger!

[WorldGriot]

How does the opinion of some talking head opinion maker render it a bad day for women? These people have shown time and again that not only do they not influence opinions, but their opinions are largely wrong. So this pontificating about what the presidential candidates will do or might do, is just a bunch of political gamesmanship. That the conversation is about women on the ticket seems to me would make it a great day, not a bad one. I get it that women deserve better than this second tier political posturing and I agree with that. However, the reality is that women have not accumulated enough political clout as a group (feminist or not) to effectuate change on this scale. How can I tell? Because they have not done it yet! Politics is the art of the possible. IT does no good to argue about who is or is not included unless you possess the votes to force change. Feminists have not found a way to include most women in their movement and the non-feminist-females have not see the political advantage of such a coalition. Until these two groups can coalesce and attract the active participation of others to their cause, they will forever be political pawns swimming in shallow ponds yearning to rule the sea.

[WFV]

If the GOP picks a female VP, I will view it as yet another pandering gimmick, rather than a serious choice. All they care about is getting attention, not governing our ailing nation properly.

[tinarm]

I don't agree with some in this posting, but I do believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Maureen Dowd is ridiculous and never has anything of substance to say. Now as far as feminisim goes I believe there is a generational divide at the moment. Let's say some women over 55 see things one way and women under 55 see them differently. I never suffered many of the inequalities that my mother did in the work force. Do I believe there is a glass ceiling oh you bet I do, but I think it exist for anyone who is not a white male in this society. Do women get discriminated against? Yes. Does any other race or sexual oriented person in this society get discriminated agaist? Yes. It is still a white male dominated society, look at the representation in washington if you question it, that should answer everything.

[akjain87]

I'm a strong supporter of Sen. Clinton and I agree with you that this meme that only Clinton supporters are feminists is ridiculous.
I also disagree that having a female veep will be offensive to women, even if its someone other than Clinton. I think its Hillary's legacy that she has not only made it easier for women to run for office, but also made being female a political advantage. I think the reason why, I and others will be disappointed (not turned off) if another woman is chosen, is because Sen. Clinton is my hero in many ways and it will disappointing to see someone else make history as the first female VP (esp. since Sen. Clinton seems to want to be VP). It has nothing to do with feminism, it has to do with the fact that many people have been emotionally attached to Sen. Clinton and her candidacy. I agree with you that those who give feminist reasons for not wanting a female VP are wrong.

Also, Maureen Dowd is as ridiculous as they come.