At first blush, this doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters were women, many of whom were excited by the prospect of having a woman head a major-party presidential ticket for the first time. Clinton, of course, came up just short of her goal.
Now, however, it appears that Barack Obama is considering a different woman, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, as his running mate. Good news for those who want to break down gender barriers? Well, maybe not — Clinton supporters who were energized by the idea having a woman on the Democratic ticket might be livid with Obama if he chooses a woman for the Democratic ticket.
It’s counter-intuitive, I know. Slate’s Christopher Beam explains the four reasons why Clinton backers don’t want a woman on the ticket, they want a specific woman on the ticket.
She’s not Hillary. “Unacceptable” was the word used by Allida Black, a longtime Clinton backer who is now pushing for an Obama/Clinton ticket. “It’s got to be Hillary.” […]
She’s a woman. Picking Sebelius wouldn’t be an olive branch, says Black; it would be an insult: “If Senator Obama has a problem with women, putting a woman on a ticket is not going to get him their votes.” Here it gets paradoxical. It would be OK if Obama picked a man — that’s just business as usual. “Jim Webb is not a slap in the face to Hillary,” Black says. “Sebelius is.” […]
She’s inexperienced (like Obama). Sebelius may have logged 22 years in elected office as a congresswoman, insurance commissioner, and governor. But little of that time was spent on the national stage, several Clinton supporters pointed out…. Her list of accomplishments is, in fact, quite long … but Clinton supporters doubt it trumps Hillary’s. […]
Sebeli-who? If tapped, Kathleen Sebelius would become the face that launched a thousand Wikipedia searches. To most Americans, “Sebelius” probably sounds more like a Harry Potter villain than a prominent politician. For a nominee who long struggled with name recognition, Obama could use a household name as his veep.
Some of these arguments seem more compelling than others.
The reason I’m inclined to disagree with the concerns, though, is that Sebelius really is a compelling choice. Let’s pretend, just for the sake of discussion, that Hillary Clinton was not a presidential candidate this year. Obviously, she was, and she was very successful and had a tremendous impact, but let’s just say she didn’t run this time.
If, under this scenario, Barack Obama won the nomination and considered Sebelius for the ticket, I suspect most Clinton supporters, most notably feminists and those of us concerned with gender equality, would be delighted. In fact, there’d be legitimate questions if he didn’t consider her as a finalist.
She is, after all, a popular and successful governor of a red state in a key region with a very impressive record.
Sebelius has been a strong supporter of children’s rights, expanding unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage, and health care reform. She refused to accept donations from insurance companies when she ran for insurance commissioner. She publicly scolded President Bush for diverting the National Guard to Iraq when it was badly needed for disaster relief at home. She angered conservatives (and at least one archbishop) when she vetoed legislation that would have strengthened the state’s late-term abortion ban. […]
As for experience, Sebelius has accomplished a thing or two in her 60 years. Most famously, she prevented an Indiana-based health insurer from buying out Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Kansas, arguing that the shift would raise premiums. She vetoed legislation for building two big coal plants in western Kansas — four times. She pushed a $500 million education funding package through a deeply divided legislature. And she eliminated a $1.1 billion debt without raising taxes.
Who’s seriously going to argue that Sebelius shouldn’t at least be considered as a running mate? Worse, given Sebelius’ record, why would women who support Clinton argue that Sebelius should be discounted as a possibility because of her gender? (I’m referring to Allida Black’s argument that Obama would insult Clinton supporters by picking a qualified woman, instead of a qualified man.)
Now, Clinton did run, and she brings a lot to the table as a VP candidate. What troubles me, though, is the notion that Clinton’s campaign necessarily disqualifies every other woman as a possibility. Sebelius and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano may be women, but they’re apparently the wrong women.
It seems to me this gets the legacy of Clinton’s campaign backwards. Clinton proved that a woman can compete, succeed, and as she put it a week ago, make it “unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States.” Clinton blazed a trail for the nation to follow.
But it’s madness to think that no other woman but her belongs on that trail.