Female Activists Quiet on Woman Vice President

Women's rights activists have the best opportunity in a generation to get a woman on the vice presidential ballot -- and perhaps in the vice president's office -- this fall.

Yet, as I reported in Women's eNews yesterday, women's rights activists have largely ignored this opportunity -- even at a time when a record number of women are considered serious contenders for the job.

Why the collective silence? Lingering pain over the protracted presidential primary, which left Hillary Clinton without what her ardent backers see as her rightful place at the top of the ticket. Clinton, they say, would have won were it not for unfavorable treatment in the media in the Democratic Party establishment.

Obama could salve the wounds by giving Clinton a considerable consolation prize -- her name on the vice presidential ballot -- but political oddsmakers say Clinton is an unlikely choice, partly because of political baggage carried by her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton.

But instead of backing one of the many other women who could take Clinton's place as Obama's right-hand woman, these activists prefer to continue licking their wounds.

"It's not enough to say, 'Oh, whoop-de-do, we'll get somebody else with a vagina,'" Marj Signer, president of the Virginia chapter of the National Organization for Women, said in the Women's eNews story. "We were not doing this because she was a woman. We were doing this because she was fantastic on our issues."

She and other activists are not happy with female alternatives to Clinton such as Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Janet Napolitano of Arizona -- two Democratic governors in conservative-tilting states who have expertise managing state budgets, a key experience at a time when voters rate the flagging economy as their top concern. And there's also Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat elected in the battleground state of Missouri.

Female names are also floating around GOP circles, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Hewlett-Packard chief exec Carly Fiorina, former eBay head Meg Whitman and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

But despite the record number women being taken seriously this year, activists are not giving these women the same push they gave former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

That year, women's rights activists made a forceful push for a female vice president at the annual conference of the National Organization for Women in Miami Beach, Fla.

Former NOW President Ellie Smeal authored a resolution that threatened to fight the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on the floor of the national party convention in San Francisco if Democrats didn't pick a woman to run alongside the party's presidential nominee, Walter Mondale.

Conference attendees adopted the resolution, and shortly afterward Mondale tapped Ferraro as his runningmate. The pair lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, but the campaign served as an inspiration to female political candidates who ran for office in subsequent years -- and a lesson about how to achieve greater political parity in the future.

But activists are ignoring the lesson this year.

Smeal, now head of the Feminist Majority Foundation in Arlington, Va., attended last weekend's annual NOW conference in Bethesda, Md., but offered no such resolution to get a woman on the ticket. Indeed, there was little discussion at all over the possibility of a female vice president during the entire three-day conference, Signer said.

For these women, even a consolation prize as sweet as the vice president's office is not enough to help them get over Clinton's second-place finish.

Allison Stevens is Washington Bureau Chief of Women's eNews.

Comments

[RGray]

Hillary Clinton ran a losing campaign ridden with crushing debt and message ineptitude. Sadly, the only thing that did work for her was race-baiting shrouded in plausible deniabity. There is no reason to believe that she would be any better as Commander-in-Chief. Any of her supporters who cannot line up behind Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee are being vindictive and childish since there is little difference in their positions on the issues important to the Democratic party.

Senator Clinton's failure to accept personal responsiblity for the failures of her campaign and all of the poor choices that she made demonstrate the larger problem in society, and with her supporters who cannot let go. Yes, there are always outside factors to be considered, but at the end of the day, she did not capture the nomination because her campaign strategy was flawed and she must accept that charge. If John McCain is elected in November because Clinton's supporters failed to support our Democratic nominee, the continued suffering in this country will rightly be laid at their feet.

[Anne530]

I want the most qualified person in America -- regardless of gender -- to be in the #2 spot. Hillary might be otherwise qualified, but her antics this campaign and concern over he hubby, make her a bad choice. Sebalius has no foreign policy credentials so she is out (can't have two newbies in control). On the GOP side, like Palin, but thats about it. For better or for worse, 2008 is not the year of the woman. Maybe next time?

[LillianB]

I don't quite see the logic of the people claiming Bill will be a problem as spouse for Vice Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton - not as long as these are the same people having no problem with Bill as the spouse of Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton...

That said, the angle is correct - positions & issues should matter more than gender. And that's why BO can choose whoever he wants as running mate. Be it Hillary, great! Be it Sebelius, great! If anyone else, all right. The important is that he chooses a running mate who will be an asset, and not a liability.

[mom2sons]

Clarke, Sebelius, and Biden could all work for me.

[colbertnation]

While we've all read articles about the women's movement and 08, this is the first one I've seen in which the author actually decided to do actual research, and not just theorize about what their "friends in DC" say. I'm sick of diarists that just spout off opinions, having one that is an actual journalist, who actually practices journalism vice op-edism, is exactly what we need more of here.

[benne]

Most insulting about this story is the assumption that all women's rights advocates are women. Of course, equally insulting is the assumption that Obama is considering a historic amount of women. He can be surrounded by guys (as photos on Huffpost repeatedly show), call women sweetie, disrespect Hillary, use sexist language, and be selected by the good-ol' boys of the part, but as long as we leak that he's considering a person with a vagina, we accept him as a feminist. Sorry, such sweet talk doesn't cut it.

[BCubedReg]

Disrespect Hillary, No! Sexest "sweetie" sure. I'll grant you that, though I really think no harm was intended. I have given Hillary alot of slack for some of the comments she made during the primaries, and McCain tremendous latitude for some of the gaffes he's made recently (however, now I think he is directly lieing or the onset of alzheimer's has gotten him).

But for the Hillarites, it has never been about the advancement of women's issues or Hillary's policies. It's always been about Hillary. Sebelius, McCaskill or Nepalitano are all successful, viable, and competent female VP candidates that support Hillary's policies and would push forward her agenda.

Maybe Barack will pick Hillary to be VP, maybe not, but we must never forget "it's not about the messenger, it's about the message." Hillary isn't the only person on the planet capable of being President or Vice President (neither is Obama or McCain). Support the person that supports your interests. This isn't a personality contest.

[SeanGardner]

"disrespect Hillary, use sexist language"

Care to share some concrete examples, or do you want to make statements that have no merit?

[SeanGardner]

"her rightful place at the top of the ticket"

That sounds an awful lot like "entitlement" to me. Indeed, legendary Watergate writer Carl Bernstein did some commentary on CNN early this year where he confirmed the "sense of entitlement" that pervaded Hillary"s closest friends. And why did they feel Hillary was "entitled" to the nomination? Because she was so "experienced"? No. Because she had the best ideas? No. Carl Bernstein confirmed that Hillary"s closet political confidantes felt that Hillary was "entitled to the nomination"¦because of the way Bill had treated her.

Yes, you read that right.

So it is no surprise that Hillary"s biggest fans have reacted harshly:

(1) Bonnie Erbe of the PBS show "To the Contrary" said that Barack was "cutting to the front of the line"

(2) Cokie Roberts, on "THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos" this year, claimed that Obama was undeserving of the nomination.

(3) After it became clear in March that Hillary Clinton was not going to get the nomination, tennis great Billie Jean King was quoted as saying "I feel that everything I have fought for is slipping away."

[SeanGardner]

All of these "middle-aged WHITE WOMEN" who wanted Hillary to win need to face an overarching reality: either vote for Obama to defend reproductive rights and the strides that women have made in society, or vote for John McCain and every significant advance women have made in the last 50 years, including affirmative action (of which white women are the major beneficiaries) will be undermined and/or eradicated.

And I say "middle-aged" white women because that is the group that feels "aggreived" over Hillary's loss. This is fact. Bloggers like to dress it up in generalities like "women", but no one sees black women, latino women, asian-american women, native-american women, arab-american women or other American women from racial minorities trashing Obama's character and literally stabbing his soul.

Young white women are solidly behind Obama in eye-popping numbers. He crushed Hillary with young white women (18-45) during the primaries. How can he appeal to this tiny, tiny minority of middle-aged white women - who aren't comfortable with a black man getting presidency before a white woman? Answer: I would pick Kathleen Sebelius because unlike Hillary, she works well with Obama, is popular with African-Americans, and IS NOT A DIVISIVE & POLARIZING WOMAN. Sebelius just might do the trick.

Obama/Sebelius is the best choice!!!

[BCubedReg]

I agree with your choice and have said it for some time now.

[SeanGardner]

"We were not doing this because she was a woman. We were doing this because she was fantastic on our issues." - Marj Singer

BULLS**T!!! Marj Signer knows that Obama is also "fantastic" on women's issues. In fact, on May 15th, http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/ posted this:

"...this is a common assertion, that Obama has an empty record...of supporting women's rights and reproductive rights. This is very much false, and is a direct result of Hillary's lies and false attacks against Obama throughout this campaign (and the attacks by allied pro-women groups who chose identity politics over policies and honesty)... Obama has a strong and consistent record on these issues, every bit as strong and consistent, as Hillary. Obama and Hillary BOTH have 100% ratings from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and Obama has a 100% rating from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, but wait, Hillary only has a 93% rating for 2005-2006, that's actually LESS than Obama's rating. But I thought Hillary was the Rambo of reproductive rights and all things women! I thought Hillary was a perfect crusader, and so much better than that no-record woman-hating Obama!... It turns out when you look at the facts, Obama is at least as committed as Hillary to reproductive rights (and thus every bit as deserving of NARAL's endorsement, if it is based on policy, not simply who has a vagina), if not MORE committed."

WOW!!! So true!!! So true!!!

[SifSkade]

I agree -- you have to wonder how committed NOW really is to women's issues if they are so fixated on the white female packaging of the losing candidate that they can't rally round and support the winning pro-woman candidate because he happens to be in a black male body.

As for these wackos who continue to foam at the mouth and plot about how to give the "stolen" Dem nomination back to Hillary Clinton at the convention (i.e., PUMA members), it's clear that they don't give a rat's ass about women's issues at all; too many of them are threatening to vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic presidential candidate, and you might as well just get a T-shirt that says "I HATE WOMEN AND EVERYTHING THEY CARE ABOUT."

[tel8034]

It was never about women's rights.................... Why dance around the facts?

These racists just don't want to see a black man (even though he is bi-racial) in the oval office.

There is no need to give these whining racists anymore attention ................. they're not worth it.

Obama is our candidate and we are quite happy with our selection between the remaing 2 Democratic candidates

[avicenna]

"pain over the protracted presidential primary" - nice alliteration but the feeling that ensued after Hillary's relinquishing her death grip on the DNC was more akin to relief. In the long run, it would do much more for women's status in American political society when the right woman who commands support entirely on her own merit - not because she had the privelege of being first lady or because she happened to be a lady - propped and climbed her own ladder. Obama is an example of the right person as leader of a new nation that wants to move to a better place - not because he fulfills a minority quota but because he inspires people to put faith in his judgement and ability. Anything less would be condescending to the woman who fulfills the post - and I speak as a female who has had success in a field that used to be ruled by full beard men waving down from their ivory towers.

[egal]

Obviously, there are still socially created obstacles or boosts to those bearing any of several characteristics such as skin color, educational facility, and sex. But today's women are as strong as those who came before, and thanks to them, capable of taking for granted their own innate value and capacity to earn jobs and excel in them without special consideration.

That's why the more rational sorts aren't focusing on a "female VP candidate" but rather on a "best-suited VP candidate", regardless of gender. Those upon whose shoulders we stand have gifted us with the ability to come closer to transcending gender as an issue, but unfortunately, many of them are so caught-up in combative hyper-pro-female-advancement mode or helpless-victim-in-man's-world mode that they don't even see this opportunity to treat women as equally qualified.

Capable potential VPs neither need to be set apart as a subcategory of "FEMALE potential VP" candidates in need of pity votes nor does the fact that a female lost to a male in the Democratic candidacy race signify a regression toward more sexism.

The simple truth is that, to the vast majority of our nation, Clinton's Big Brother, Big Government, dictatorial style of leadership simply isn't appropriate following Bush, and to most of us, her policy, judgment, and other history as a Senator simply isn't what we need under any circumstances.

[GoldCanyonGal]

We weren't looking for runner up...still aren't.

[OverIt]

Then your candidate should have run a better campaign.

[abigail1]

Is a woman being VP, a position that holds no real power so much better than a woman being Speaker of the House?

[Freesia2]

As a woman, it never occurred to me to worship another woman. Especially if it were at the expense of another woman who might be just as deserving of opportunity. Kind of puzzling.

[johnwinner]

"For these women, even a consolation prize as sweet as the vice president's office is not enough to help them get over Clinton's second-place finish."
- proving they are not interested in advancing the cause of women's rights, they are merely a personality cult. Irrelevant, let's move on.