At The White House Project EPIC Awards gala held Thursday at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, ten years of advancing women to leadership was celebrated. But it was also a time to reflect on why the U.S. ranks 67th in the world in terms of women's political representation -- a statistic contradictory of the common wisdom holding that we, as a country and culture, have evolved to a point where women need no help to keep pace with men.
This was not a room full of the all too frequently disparaged "old feminists" to whom we owe a debt, but rather a mix. Some honorees were famous, some not. Their stories were compelling and admirable. It was indeed moving. And I was pleased to have my daughter beside me.
Absent from the praise deservedly lavished on many women was Hillary Clinton's name. This night was focused on others. That didn't stop those at my table after obligatory, courteous greeting rituals and discussions of noncontroversial topics from bravely - as is required now - moving to the topic of the Democratic Party primary race. Within seconds lines were drawn. Two women were emphatically opposed to Clinton. A lawyer whose father revered the Senator shared that she will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination. Another offered that the hatred between Clinton and Obama is so great the two could not possibly run on the same ticket.
For every reason given why Clinton must not win the nomination, one was provided indicative of Obama's failings. Yet, the premise remained intact that these two candidates had demeaned each other beyond redemption - beyond ever working together let alone running on the same ticket.
A former debater and student of persuasion and propaganda for decades, I mentioned the disdain and unmitigated political machinations perpetrated by our famous forefathers on each other in their efforts to be win the highest office. Yet we've erected monuments to some of them.
Besides, are we forgetting that John McCain is more likely to extend the war in Iraq - possibly into Iran?
We need to put this country back on a strong footing. And if that requires the two of them running together, they should do it.
It's been said before but it bears repeating -- we're being suckered into hatred and division. And why not, when televised debates devolve into "gotchas" and revisiting previously patched campaign potholes? Each time this happens, America suffers. Besides, McCain's party is divided too. More than we hear about. Why? And this business about McCain having too much of a head start -- what's that about? He's quite capable at any point of saying the wrong thing. Whose race are the Democrats running anyway- their own or someone else's? The latter never works.
When instead of much needed information about healthcare, national security, social security, the economy, international responsibility, education, and the betterment of life, we get more on the latest supposed insult, it would help to remind ourselves not to be twisted and turned, hushed for fear of being labeled, rushed into premature decisions, pressed into hatred, blindfolded, as in a silly game -- one jackass pinning a tale on the other -- when the objective is to save the country and possibly the world.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mrs. Reardon...just give it up.
If you must have Hillary on a ticket, don't you think she would fit better with McCain and the neocons?
Obama pick Clinton for VP? Only if he was a fool.
From today's NY Times, a salient point:
===
"It"s one thing to keep your running mate on message " it"d be much more difficult for Obama to keep a former president of the United States on his message, as well, for four or eight years, especially one with the skills and disposition of President Clinton," said Joel K. Goldstein, an expert on the vice presidency and a professor at St. Louis University School of Law.
===
I mean, REALLY. Even for his wife, Bubba is an enfant terrible, a puer eternis - a guy who just can't stop jamming his foot in his mouth and gumming up the works.
I mean, REALLY. In the last 24 hours, Bubba accused Barack of playing the race card ON HIM in South Carolina. REALLY!
Can you imagine the damage he would do to the new dem POTUS if he had a role after this primary season is done? What a disaster he would be!
Kathleen Reardon - get over it. I too want a woman to get a chance at the brass ring - but not this woman, for the love of all things sacred and beautiful.
Even the "framers" came to see that a President and VP had to be in sync on policies. That's why the 12th amendment was passed. With hillary already exhibiting so may cheney traits as secret meetings (healthcare), blatant lying(Bosnia) and willing to do ANYTHING to become prez it would be a flipping disaster.
No way in this world would I vote for a ticket with both of them on it. A spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down!
Give me a break! Not after Hillary messes with the primary!
Pa. people started voting a few hours ago and there are already reports of machines broken, forcing voters to leave.
And they then used paper ballots withOUT Obama's name on them!
"Besides, are we forgetting that John McCain is more likely to extend the war in Iraq - possibly into Iran?"
Dr. Reardon- you seem to have conveniently forgotton that Hillary Clinton helped get us INTO the war with Iraq and you are perhaps unaware that she is now threatening (on television last night and today) the OBLITERATION of Iran.
Apparently, she did not feel she'd done enough to "man up" with the duck hunting, the whisky shots, the beer swilling and the sniper fire - now she has to toss a few thermonuclear weapons into the mix. Is there ANY point at which you admit she damages women's prospects??
She did not threaten Iran with obliteration, but she did make clear that Iran would take that risk were it to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. The nature of our relationship with Israel notwithstanding, from a purely diplomatic and political view this position is perfectly in line with other alliances we've made AND the rhetoric delivered by presidents and candidates alike to aggressively defend our allies sovereignty against enemy threats. Such a notion is as old as history.
To attack Hillary on that count is cynical, naive, and absurd.
Even is Hillary had voted against the resolution, we STILL would have gone to war in Iraq. Lest you forget, a total of 77 senators voted in the affirmative. The line of reasoning that posits Hillary is "responsible" for the war is patently ridiculous.
So what about "obliterate" suggests anything else? Granted, it is not nearly as clever as "shock and awe", and in that there is no real room for any other interpretation. At any rate, he word is binding. There are some in the world who will not sit idly by while we go about obliterating Iran. The rest of the world is already on notice. Do you imagine that they are going to misinterpret "obliterate"?
Here's hypocritical Hillary on presidential candidates' engaging in hypotheticals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X3H-otEMuU
And no, Hillary is not solely responsible for the Iraq war - she is responsible for HER VOTE in favor of the Iraq war. She is responsible for FAILING to read the NIE reports. And apparently, when it comes to Iran, she is AGAIN responsible for FAILING to read the NIE reports. And there is no way I'm buying the "everybody did it" defense of her Iraq vote. Defending with "everybody did it" is cynical, naive and absurd.
What does the number of women in the legislature have to do with the rights of women? If women have the right to their own reproductive freedom, the right to marry and divorce at will, the right to own property, and the right to travel freely, then what does it matter if one state has a few more female MPs than we do Reps?
There is more to life, culture and politics than gender Kathleen. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. You have led yourself to a false conclusion. The "dream ticket" is an absurdity.
The two of them on one ticket would satisfy no one. It is like proposing to cut a baby in half. Are you trying to be Solomon?
A voice in the wilderness...........Ms. Reardon, I would love to see the two candidates unite to ensure a Democratic victory. After so many years of Bush, four more of McBush is really too distasteful to imagine. At least four more years of war, the probability of a wider war with Iran, the likelihood of a woman's right to choose being overturned by the supreme court, the widening of the economic gap between the super-rich and everyone else, the continued deterioration of our nation's infrastructure, to name a few things that will likely occur during a McCain presidency.
It is true that Hillary and Barack have been fighting like cats and dogs up to this point, but they have both already stated that they would support the other if that is what it comes down to. It would not be a giant leap to the next step, of making up and joining each other on the same ticket. Both of these candidates are EXTRAORDINARY people, and I fully believe that they are capable of making up and working together to save our country. Now the question is, are their supporters capable of making-up and working together?
How can that happen?? Hillary is a neoconservative passing herself off as a Democrat! How rovian is that? That INGENIOUS! Talk about hedging your bet! She's the good cop, McCain's the bad cop. Either way, YOU'RE BUSTED. Slick Willie hangs with Bush Sr., and Hillary and Mc100years are the best of buddies! Watch em when they're not behind a microphone, lying, of course! Bill even slept on the floor of a jet for Daddy Bush. You don't think this is all a coincidence do you? Are you really listening? Do you still have a spine? America's getting the shell game, and it's loaded.
wasn't this whole "dream ticket" nonsense put to bed months ago?
Just because Charlie Gibson brought it up again last week doesn't mean it actually matters.
Once again, someone who is given a prominent writing spot on HuffPost, argues senselessly for
a joint ticket. Kathleen, by her own admission, is someone with tremendous debate experience and the art of persuasion. But do her views reflect any experience with management and leadership? Doubt it.
If so, she would know that neither Barack or Hillary is very good at playing second fiddle. And organizations need a clear division of labor. Why would Barack want to run with Bill Clinton as carry-on baggage? Would Bill and Hillary be happy with going to Head-of-State funerals and throwing tea parties?
And I know Kathleen wouldn't be silly enough to recommend Barack, the front runner, run as Vice President, would she? Funny post, Kathleen. Humorous.
There is a kind of willful naivete at the heart of this post. What Ms. Reardon proposes is that Clinton and Obama run together for the good of the Democratic party. But if Clinton gave a whit about the Dem party, she would drop out of a race that she has already lost. Perhaps you think that Clinton cares about the Democratic party. All the evidence suggests otherwise.
Kathleen, you just don't seem to be able to acknowledge the oldest, most powerful force there is - human nature.
In one direction, Hillary Clinton has nothing but contempt for Obama. After all, he derailed her once-thought-to-be-inevitable coronation and place in history as the first woman president.
In the other direction, Hillary Clinton has conducted such a nasty, dishonest campaign (complete with having played the race card) that there is no way Obama is going to have ANYthing to do with Clinton if he wins the nomination.
Nor would Obama even need to; your fundamental premise that they both have to be on a ticket for the Democrats to win is bogus anyway.
Agreed! I am beyond tired of another posting by a member of the "Shrew Brigade" that wants to play nice after trying to deliver groin kicks and cheap shots to their opponent. If the good of the party was what Clinton was concerned with, she might have run her campaign with more integrity and class.
Ms. Reardon, You don't mean that the two of them should "run together". If that were the case the logical ticket would be Obama for president. Obama will have more delegates and more of the popular vote. Yet that's not what you mean. You want Obama to step to the back of the bus and let Clinton take her anointed role as president. Why?
For the sake of argument lets look at the other possibility. Why should Obama offer Clinton a VP role? Clinton has demonstrated that she is an incredibly inept campaigner. She has all kinds of baggage that the right has been ignoring since she is no longer the front runner that they would gleefully pounce on if she were on the ticket. Monica, trooper gate, travel gate, Vince Foster, President Clinton's pardons, President Clinton's unpredictable behavior with the press the last few months, Bosnian sniper fire. pimping Chelsea, oh my hands are getting tired. Don't get me wrong I think all these issues are nonsense but if you think the MSM jackals have made a fuss over flag pins just wait to see what they would do with all this and more with Clinton on the ticket. Obama doesn't need her. He will eventually get the needed delegates without her. Its up to her how much she wants to drag it out and further destroy her political future and the Clinton legacy before he is able to get on with the business of defeating McCain.
Kathleen Reardon,
Are you out of your screaming mind!
One week she said she and MCain, a republican, have 35 or more years of experience and Obama has a speech; the next week she said Obama would make a good VP in 'her' "dream team", while running behind him in delegates and popular vote.
Would you ask your son to marry a younger woman with Clinton's
mendacity, manipulation and selfishness for the greater good of your family?
On a national level, Clinton, on any ticket is a drag on that ticket with her 54% negative rating.
Actually - I think she'd turn down the offer even if the Dems begged her to run as Obama's VP.
I'm also starting to suspect McCain is going to announce he'll vow to be be a one-term transitional president.
There have been many articles floating this idea. If McCain does make such an announcement, it will get him the win for a number of subtle reasons.
Hillary should just sit it out till 2012.
so she can get beat again, good idea!
Senator Clinton should have consider the "dream ticket" possibility before she *repeatedly* endorsed McCain over Obama. Here is just one example:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scorched Earth = Burned Bridges
There are too many who would be turned off by a sell o0ut to Clinton after her dirty campaign.
I realize that in the p;rimary the media has p[layed her up. So mujch so that "Bittergate" is equated withy "Bosniagate" as though they were the same kind of thing.
The one began with a true statement with which there was nothing wrong; it was twisted by some spin artists and played out off tune by our fine media.
The other was a stupid lie that almost had to be exposed, but it tells us something very important about the speaker. EDither she is delusional or she is a sociopath. Since she thought it a joking matter when she was caught, I tend towards the latter.
But in the general election, look for Fox, et al, to revert to form and play the Republican way.
Hillary is a loser. (But she will win PA by ten. Scaife iks such a good new found Liberal friend!)
That just about sizes it up.
Neither one of your candidates, either together or separately, has a prayer against McCain. And you leftists can thank yourselves for him. Your pals in the MSM blasted every other republican candidate last year and earlier this year. They picked McCain thinking the far right conservatives would reject him and they would either stay home in November or cause a third-party candidate, a-la Perot, to emerge and split the republican vote. Sorry, aint happenin'. What's has happened is their scheme to manipulate the election has backfired completely. Conservatives aren"t in love with McCain, but the thought of the Clintons back in the white house, or the most liberal Senator in Washington moving to Pennsylvania Avenue, has unified every republican voter. I feel most Americans will decide who to vote for in November with the following brilliant logic from the great Thomas Sowell: "Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."
You sound so insightful. But it's the same tripe we get during every Republican primary. Seriously. The same thing--every cycle. That's how it works: at some point, the Republicans create an enemy. And if it can't be based on truth, truth is manufactured (swiftboaters). Then the hate begins, and the Republican rally. The problem is, the Clinton supporters have organized in the same way.
And the democratic candidate innocently takes the lies and is so pure and full of righteous character he turns the other cheek to accept the accusing hatred in order to turn it into complete love for all Americans. RIIIIIIGHT! You're as gullible as you are brainwashed. The only thing discovered to be manufactured in 2004 was phony John Kerry's Vietnam War record. And the American public wasn't buying it, either. How about the National Guard crap that was literally manufactured with a bogus 30+ year old letter proven to have been typed in MS Word with super-script characters. And Bush hating Dan Rather was so obsessed he still to this day believes the letter is authentic. You liberals are both sad and transparent.
Well, you right wing nutty buddies would know about sad and transparent, since that is what you are going to run on this year. Sad and transparent that a flip flopper with no economic plan, a prolonged war strategy (draft, anyone?) but who gives a rat's a$$ about the troops health and safety, and whose associations are hardly "Straight Talk" express worthy would be your only choice. It is sad that once again, flag pin obssessed morons in your party will vote against their economic interests for some guy that fits into a hyper masculine fantasy role.
This is 2008, pal...I think you yabbos on the right better wake up to reality. It don't look too good for you.But good for America.
If it is just an issue of a having a woman on the ticket, Governor Sebelius is a much more sane option, and ten times the leader or woman Hillary will ever be. Beside do you really want to put the one person who substantially gains from seeing you die in a position where they can find a way to kill you?
And I say 'NO' to that. If Obama wins the nomination and puts her on the ticket, that will be a big mistake ... and he better watch his back 24/7 because Hillary and Bill will stab it any chance they get.
He might need a food taster....
What planet are you from? There's no way after all the vile things Clinton has said that Obama will offer her the ticket. She isn't fit to be VP.
If Obama gets the nomination, the biggest problem with having Hillary as a VP is the elephant in the closet, Bill Clinton. No way.
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
Loading comments…
Posted April 21, 2008 | 01:52 PM (EST)