Obama Caint Choose Kaine

In Texas where I come from, "caint" is a perfectly good word. If it's not already in the dictionary, it should be.

Definition: what someone must not do, as in "Barack Obama caint choose Virginia's anti-choice Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate."

Think about it. If Obama had won vastly more popular votes than Clinton, he might have more leeway in his vice presidential choice while still hoping to keep progressive women who form the core of Clinton supporters. But he didn't. Clinton and Obama were nearly even in the aggregate primary votes.

If August 26, the first full day of the Democratic National Convention, were not the anniversary of women's suffrage, and if August 28--the night Obama will accept the nomination--not the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the symbolic significance of women's right to reproductive self-determination within the larger struggle for gender equality and civil rights for all Americans, might not be quite so sharply highlighted.

And were women--especially pro-choice women--not around 60% of the Democratic voter base, had Hillary not won the majority of those women, and were women voters not so likely to be the pivotal voters who can turn the race in swing states, then perhaps Obama could consider the slap-in-the-face choice of Kaine, an early Obama endorser, as his running mate with less risk to his political future.

But it is astonishing, if not downright insulting, that Kaine's name is even floated for the vice presidential slot, let alone being seriously considered. While the relative importance of the vice presidency has been called "not worth a bucket of warm spit", or perhaps some other bodily fluid, still, whoever is wearing those shoes is significant. He or she is still the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency. Recent presidents have utilized the skills of their second-in-commands increasingly--Dick Cheney and Al Gore being examples. And the vice presidential choice delivers a strong message about the president's own priorities.

Will the Democrats make the devastating strategic mistake of believing they must put the bulk of their efforts into wooing more conservative white men while taking women for granted, as they did in 2000 and 2004? If that's what they are thinking, then Hillary Clinton is the best vice presidential candidate hands down, based on her vote-getting performance from both of those groups during the primaries.

Do the Democrats want a popular Democratic governor of a "red" state, someone who's successfully moved a progressive agenda despite a conservative Republican legislature? Then they'd be better off choosing Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius or Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.

But mostly, Obama should not choose Kaine because Kaine opposes a woman's most fundamental human right to decide her own destiny by making her own childbearing decisions. Kaine opposes a long-standing central tenet of the Democratic party platform; in fact, the platform committee just adopted its strongest pro-choice language yet. I mean, how do the Democrats think they attracted all those women they are now taking for granted in the first place?

Kaine's statement that abortion shouldn't be criminalized, as in this Meet the Press interview is a step in the right direction, but not nearly sufficient. Women are too close to losing reproductive justice overall, as illustrated by the Bush administration's move to redefine contraception as abortion. We're not talking a minor policy issue over which there can be legitimate disputes. As Linda Hirshman wrote so compellingly in Slate, we need to first consider the value of a woman's life.

No, Obama caint choose Kaine. A woman's right to her own life stands too close to the abyss. Obama must choose a running mate with a full-hearted belief that women are equal citizens with moral and legal autonomy over their own bodies. Someone who, like Obama, supports the Freedom of Choice Act guaranteeing women the right to make childbearing decisions without fearing government discrimination or criminalization would be just the ticket.

Visit My Blog.

Comments

[auntiecairo]

Kaine is a Catholic and his idealogy reflects that - much as Kerry did. Kaine was very impressive on Meet the Press and is probably being considered because he could possibly deliver Virginia - which the Democrats desperately need. Whomever the Vice President is isn't going to affect Roe v. Wade - he was giving his personal opinion. And considering how many Clinton supporters have said they will support McCain out of spite - when McCain is clearly going to work to overturn Roe v. Wade -then I think you'd be better off appealing to them rather than worring about Kaine.

[loper2008]

I'm pro-choice but I don't have a problem with Obama picking a VP like Kaine. That said, women should be fighting for Sebelius but they are not. This article even spells her name wrong. Too many women said, Hillary or No Woman and know y'all might get a Kaine.

[GloriaFeldt]

Thanks for pointing out the misspelling. I always make one mistake no matter how much I proofread, and I really do appreciate people who point them out.

However, it is no mistake to argue that the vice president should be in agreement with the party platform on an important civil rights matter. Further, both pro-choice and anti-choice people know this debate is not just about abortion; it's about whether women will have simple justice or continue to have our bodies used as political pawns in an ideological battle between, to quote Pastor Warren, two world views. And that includes access to birth control, medically accurate sex education, and other reproductive heath care without government intrusion.

[thegaygardener]

I just don't know. I think these "native son" arguments are specious. Often even a Presidential Candidate cannot deliver his home state. I like BIDEN the best but don't really think he'll get it. And Sibelius is terrific, but Clinton supporters are already on record as "telling" Obama he can't pick any other woman but Hillary as it would be "insulting"
If I really believed it would guarantee us a win, I would swallow very hard, & support Clinton as V.P.
Even if it does dampen the "Change" narrative a bit. But I still do not trust "The Clintons" it will always be all about them, & Obama would be a supporting player in his own Administration. Plus what the hell do we do with BILL? Can we just keep him trotting around the globe on Ron Burkle's plane & hope the "bimbo eruptions" will be kept to a minimum? Can he (they) be properly financially "vetted" to explain all their new found immense wealth? Would he (they) release the names of the donors to his library? It does rather stink that her husband should be the main reason to not consider Hillary, but that IS how she got to the party in the first place.
I don't like any of the options.

[speeddeeps]

The idea of B!ll Clint0n back in the Wh!te H0use with nothing to do is something I can't imagine." -M!tt R0mney

[nurseattorney]

According to your argument, we can never have a Democratic candidate who's a practicing Catholic, right? Or an orthodox Jew? Or an evangelical Christian? All those faiths believe that abortion is a sin, equivalent to murder. But not every member of those faiths believe that legislatures should enact laws that make abortion a crime or unduly restrict it.

Tim Kaine would be a perfectly fine VP nominee as long as he agrees that he would only support pro-choice judges for SCOTUS. And for that matter, I'd appreciate it if every candidate for public office would make a voluntary statement to the effect that whatever their religious affiliation and belief, they will never allow any particular religious organizational heirarchy to dictate to them what their positions should be with regard to abortion,declaring war, the death penalty, or any other law. I do not want to elect any person to public office who can be blackmailed or coerced by a religious organization into enacting a particular religious, moral code into law. When and if a religious leader threatens any candidate or holder of public office with excommunication or censure, that religious group should lose its tax exempt status, and be identified as a political, not a religious, organization.

[GloriaFeldt]

There are many individuals within the religious groups you cite, nurseattorney (my what an awesome combination!), who are strongly pro-choice: Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy come immediately to mind, as does the compassionate Catholic priest who said to me many years ago, "The people in my parish are poor. I can't feed or clothe their children for them. So how can I tell them they have to have a baby every year?" Thus, there is no possibility that any religious group would ever be blanketly ruled out for anything.

We wouldn't accept as a vice presidential candidate anyone who opposed civil rights for African Americans. Why should we accept anyone whose views, even personal faith based ones, would relegate women to second class citizenship? If he were to become president for any reason, he would be the person making the decisions about the president's policy agenda, court nominees, etc. And we should assume that his point of view would be sought by President Obama in any case.

I do agree with your closing suggestion as a way to temper the intrusion of religious groups into political action.

[nurseattorney]

I have never heard Tim Kaine suggest that women should be second class citizens, WRT controlling their own reproductive issues. In fact, I believe he said on MTP that while he is personally opposed to abortion ( of course, being male, it will likely never be a personal choice he needs to concern himself about), he would aways support a women's right to have an abortion, and that that right should be protected and not criminalized.

I have no worry about a candidate suggesting that, while they would not wish to have THEIR child enter a gay marriage or are not themselves black, they will uphold the Constitutional principles that protect minority groups and their civil rights, even tho they may not ever need those protections personally.

I am much more interested in the Constitutional issues involved, than in these silly discussions of "morals" and which church enforces the "correct" ones. People who want to oppose abortion should do it among those people that they can privately influence, NOT thru laws that force their beliefs on others.

No one religion should be embodied in our law. Bill Bradley, during his brief run for president was asked what religion he was...he refused to answer, stating that his religion was irrelevant to his ability to be president. I wish all candidates would answer that question the way Bill Bradley did.

[PumaAnn]

I personally don't see much benefit to this guy because he's so weak, but I also don't see where a VP's position on abortion is relevant, either.

[Coinyer101]

i dont agree with the author at all.probably a hillary supporter who ,like her,thinks they can dictate to the nominee who he can and cant choose.go away!

[mattheweste]

This is a bit hysterical isn't it? A woman's "most fundamental human right"? That's abortion is it?

Not the right to life for example?

If it is such a fundamental human right this stuff about choosing if you are ready to become a parent or whether the government can make that decision for you --- then how come feminists insist that men should not have this sort of right? Are men not counted as human by feminists?

What it comes down to is that feminists peddle the abortion issue as a way to pretend that women are somehow discriminated victims of a "male" society. Even though that "male" society treats women far better than men on reproductive and family rights.

I support genuine choice for both sexes not the sexist manipulation of this issue to further feminists hype. it's not a woman's issue. Women already have rights. It's mostly a men's issue as the sex that currently lacks the ability to tell the government "This is MY life". However it is not the "most fundamental human right" even then.

[Latwanda]

What is you all bein so negative. OBAMA is gonna win He be the President amd we need to Honer Him and He loves kids and He will take care of mine

[ramper]

"Conservative white men?" Kind of a stereotypical racist term don't you think Ms. Feldt?

[bluehorizon]

Here we go with another Clinton backer telling the WINNER who he must pick for a VP. Clinton backers are one of a kind.

[robynuva]

I live in VA, and near Richmond, where the Gov was mayor. Those of us in this part of the South know him well. He has, and will, defend Roe v Wade, and has said it is the law of the land, and he will enforce the law. He feels the same about the death penalty, which he personally opposes. This diatribe has more to do with HRC than Tim K, or for that matter, Sen. O.

Now, having said that, I would rather have a Sherrod Brown or Schweitzer as VP, but not because of the reason so blown out of proportion above.

[SCVADem]

Well said, Robyn.

Kaine holds the same position as I do and that is I might not like the idea of abortion, but I'm certainly not going to tell someone else they can't have one.

I don't think that Kaine has been our best governor (I give Mark Warner that spot) but as Warner's Lt., he was great in that support role and he's been a decent succeeding governor. I'd be comfortable with him as VP, though he's not my favorite for the job.

[Jeffersonian1]

Rather than seeing this as a positive accomplishment which will benefit all Virginians, present and future, the right wing leadership of the House responded with a fit of petulance that would embarrass most 3 years olds, punitively removing moderate Republicans from appropriations and revenue committees and even from state boards which have nothing to do with the budgetary process. Apparently some "political genius" has convinced them that by the legislature actually accomplishing something they negatively affected their political fortunes, presumably because Governor Warner"s poll numbers soared because he and a majority of the legislature accomplished something. The logic gets a bit tricky, for me at least, because the House leadership has now decided that as long as there is a Democratic Governor they will not work with him or her to address problems of any significant magnitude whether it is seriously strained transportation infrastructure, the threat to economic competitiveness and prosperity posed by allowing our kids to fall behind at the very start of their educations or even the one term limit on governors that every other state in the nation has abandoned.

Anyway, when you couple this four year long fit of pique with the retirements and primary losses of a number of leading Republican moderates, you have Governor Kaine facing a much more difficult legislative environment than Governor Warner did, which is basically a long way to say that I think they"re both great.

[Jeffersonian1]

SCVA, I agree with you that Mark Warner was probably the best governor in Virginia history; but it should be mentioned that the reaction of the ultra-rightwing leadership of the Virginia House to some of Mark's success has unfortunately hindered Tim's ability to address two big challenges facing Virginia, a transportation crisis and the provision of pre-K education for all children.

As you probably know, Governor Warner was left a horrendous fiscal mess by his predecessor and faced an antiquated system of taxation. Together with a coalition of other Democrats and moderate Republicans, Warner shepherded a revenue reform package through the legislature that addressed the structural budgetary imbalance, cut some regressive taxes and resulted in Virginia being named the best managed state in the nation by Governing magazine and the best state in which to do business by Forbes magazine. continued . . . .

[JJK]

Obama is in Virginia on Wednesday and Thursday (but planes can be redirected and schedules can be changed and Delaware IS nearby). Those are prime days this week for announcing his VP. So, we might have to get ready to accept a Kaine nomination.

I agree with the author that it is a slap at Progressives (I won't call it a slap as women, since as a male progressive who has voted for every Dem since McGovern and who didn't wash his hand the night he shook Justice Blackmun's hand, I resent the implication that these issues belong just to women). For me, it would signal that the Obama camp has decided that it's not "good news" that their candidate can't pull ahead by more than an average of three points (3.2 last night in RCP) in the polls and that they need to shake up the Electoral math by edging Virginia towards their side of the line.

I think it's unlikely he'd do it today, Monday, when he's in NM,since Monday is a tough news day anyway that will already be dominated by Musharraf's resignation and the impending hurricane hit to Florida. Tuesday's news will be completely dominated by the hurricane story and, if it causes fatalaties and/or extensive damage, naming his VP on that day will come across as insensitive.

[GloriaFeldt]

JJK, Looking at the demographics and political inclinations, it seems to me that while Virginia looks like a possible plum for Obama to pick for its symbolism (i.e., near Washington D.C.'s beltway buzz, source of many presidents and much Revolutionary history), the Western swing or Republican states of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and possibly Montana are much more fertile territory for some electoral votes that could bring a Democratic victory. Even in Arizona, McCain's home state, he's not even pulling a double-digit lead over Obama. The West is much more open to the message of change. So I have never thought a Virginia strategy to be nearly as viable as a Western strategy.

[Jeffersonian1]

Ms. Feldt, I don't know what "demographics and political inclinations" you are referring to.

You are aware, I hope, that since the 2004 election 250,000 new voters have registered in Virginia (a percentage increase exceeded by only a few high growth rate states and one that dwarfs increases in the mountain west). You should also be aware that an unusually high proportion of these voters are under the age of 35, an age cohort that Senator Obama has done quite well with to date. Thirdly, you should be aware that the most significant numbers of newly registered voters are either in localities which have extraordinarily high Democratic performance numbers in past elections or are in the so-called exurban localities where new Democratic majorities are credited with providing the margins of victory for Governor Kaine in 2005, for Senator Webb in 2006 (thereby making Harry Reid the Majority Leader) and for the Democratic state senate candidates whose victories in 2007 gave Democrats control of the Virginia Senate for the first time since 1996. In contrast, several rural areas in which Republican presidential candidates tend to do extremely well have seen either a much lower rate of increase or an actual loss in the number of voters.

I am unaware of any demographic shifts of comparable magnitude in the western states that you mention. continued . . . .

[Jeffersonian1]

As for political inclinations, you should note the electoral shifts mentioned above and also consider the fact that two or perhaps three incumbent Virginia Republican members of the House of Representatives are facing well-funded, well-organized Democratic challengers and are thought to be in at least some jeopardy for the first time in decades. Finally, you should be aware that, while few things are as certain as the election of Mark Warner to be Virginia"s second Democratic U.S. Senator, Warner is not a candidate who takes a single vote for granted, will conduct a statewide GOTV effort of unprecedented scale and will likely have coattails that extend both up ticket and down ticket.

Now, as for plums, it is not my impression that individuals who got their start in Chicago politics target based on presidential birthplaces, Revolutionary War history or buzz. More logical would be their knowledge of the facts mentioned above and the 13 electoral votes which, by the way, is the same number Montana, Nevada and New Mexico have . . . combined.

[Sumocat]

I know we've suffered eight years under a President for whom personal belief equals public policy, but as others have pointed out, Tim Kaine does not govern that way. A VP who can do his job without letting his personal agenda drive him would be a much welcomed change.

[Peddler]

I don't think you are going to have to worry about Kaine being the running VP........it want happen

[lou33]

It is so overwhelmingly obvious to me that no one else brings as much to the ticket as Hilary. Kaine, Bayh, Biden or god forbid a Republican ofter nothing to the ticket but Hilary brings literally all of what they claim to need. So you Huffpost haters of Hilary need to get over this crapola and go forward. The winning ticket here has Hilary as #2 all the way.

[JimR]

Yeah, she brings a lot to the ticket alright - a lot of negatives. She'll drive away some Obama supporters who will suddenly realize her selection means his "new politics" line is just crap. She comes with built-in negatives among moderates and independents, whose support will be crucial. And she will energize Republicans like no one else can... including McCain!

Your short-sightedness is stunning.