Hillary Clinton isn't macho enough to be VP
by Morra Aarons Mele

That is a really anti-feminist title. I'm sorry. But I do believe it's true for today's Democratic circumstance. When I worked for John Kerry in 2004, I watched in horror as the Republicans won because Americans felt decorated veteran Kerry wasn't macho enough to take on tough foreign policy challenges and Iraq. In front of our eyes, the Democratic ticket was painted as sissy, manipulative, more French than American, obssessed with their hair. This cannot happen again. So here goes....Imagine this classified ad:

Wanted, Democratic VP Candidate: Requires an experienced, competent, politically savvy politician with a keen commitment to policy reform, proven ability to win votes, and high public name recognition.

Know someone who sounds like a great candidate for that job? Senator Hillary Clinton could play policy reformer to Obama's charismatic leader, be a champion of the masses to complement his comfort zones of African Americans and latte liberals. Hillary (with Bill in the Tipper Gore role) would be a huge asset on a whistle stop campaign tour post-Convention, and a tenacious wonk when hammering out policy with the new Cabinet. In terms of competency, Hillary is ideal. In terms of fitting the zeitgeist, she's a bad idea in my opinion. Surveys show the majority of hiring managers hire based on issues of personality, likeability and cultural fit, not based on competency. Clinton for VP is a case in point.

There's been a lot of talk about how Clinton deserves the VP nod, whether or not she wants to take it. She did, after all, win almost as many votes as Obama (more, depending on who you ask in Michigan or Florida). She's the most famous woman in the world and beloved by some, respected by most. She's tough talking on foreign affairs, empathetic on the economy. The problem is, while she may be more alpha male than Obama himself, Hillary will never be a veteran. Even though she's hawkish on foreign policy, she never succeeded in convincing me she cared more about Middle East policy than she did about SCHIP or health care. That's a good thing, but it leaves a giant gaping hole in the middle of the Dem ticket, because Obama is no Dwight Eisenhower, and that's what we need when going up against McCain.

Media Matters sent out a note highlighting Conservative talk show pundit Joel Babbin's comment that Democrats "don't want to have both a black man and a woman on the same ticket for one reason: They are so racist and so sexist. They'll take a risk on one; they won't take a risk on two."

I know I'm supposed to argue this point, but I can't. I think there's truth to it but not because we're so racist and sexist. It's because we have a long history of associating black and female Democrats with everything but miitary might. If Obama had the military chops of a Colin Powell, for example, a woman on the ticket would be no problem, even a bonus. But running a militarily inexperienced "new man" candidate who happens to be African American requires a macho no. 2.

Faced against John McCain, the Democrats (already gendered as the "Mommy" Party in American politics, challenged by the GOP's mystifying ownership of guns, soldiers, and warfare in the minds of most Americans), need a soldier. Or at least someone who could convincingly play one. So while many may couch the Obama-Clinton ticket in minority overtones, that's only half the point. It's not the minority status that hampers Obama-Clinton, it's the amilitary, unmacho image that ticket conveys. Even Clinton-Gore had Al Gore, a Vietnam Veteran. The Democrats will never win over the majority of Americans who seek an executive team that knows its way around a tank in this era of war and foreign instability. While our country makes this transition to a candidate like Barack Obama, no. 2, at least, needs to be built in the model of traditional presidential executive: alpha male, experience with the military, far away from the Mommy Party. I already dread having to read five more months of "Obambi" barbs from Maureen Dowd. I don't want equal emasculation from the VP candidate.

What do you think? Assuming she wanted it, would Clinton be a good strategic choice for VP? Are the many millions of women who voted for her in the Primary owed this?

More thoughts:
Joanne Bamberger

Jimmy Carter says no

MahaBlog : "pathologically selfish."

Submitted by Morra Aarons Mele (view blog) on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 15:16

Comments

 

Hilary

A few things bothered me about Hillary. The major issuse she took too long to let go. It didn't do her any favors to see the writing on the wall and continue campaigning. She made it more dificult for Obama to select her as a VP.

 

In addition, she didn't have her goals set in stone. She floundered on important issues. I'm having a hard time deciding. And in speaking with other women they agree. Thanks for the post..good questions.

 

Dorothy from grammology

remember to call your gram

www.grammology.com

Submitted by Dorotheaa on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 13:13
 

I'm inspired by Hillary.

In particular, her seeing the race through to the end, and her choosing to take a few days to let the dust settle and really consider her best next move.

All this pressure to do the most ridiculous things - drop out before the end, concede immediately. This complete lack of respect for her most admirable leadership qualities. And yet, she continues to stand tall.

She *is* the strength that Democrats need on the ticket with Obama.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Submitted by Liz Rizzo on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 15:53
 

The Unity Ticket

I've actually been hoping for a unity ticket. After a great deal of ambivelence (and reading voting records, damn that Morra Aarons!)  I wanted Hilary in the driver's seat, Obama as the VP. I'd take the reverse and it would NOT be settling for less than I want, I would feel very good about that.  

I don't happen to think the voters are "owed" Hilary's placement on the ticket, though. Obama and his people "owe" it to ALL Dems and potential Dems to pick a runnign mate that they can feel proud to vote for. If they decide that's Hilary, well, so much the better. 

Hilary has proven that she can get in it and fight long and hard to the finish, how much more macho does she have to be?  

 

Nerd's Eye View

Submitted by Pam on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 16:42
 

Hillary would do anything to be the top dawg

Hillary would do anything to be the top dawg.Being from NY I have seen crazy things in the political world.If I was Obama I would not put Hillary in there shes a self serving person and is out for herself.

I would be afraid she would have him killed so she could take over..nothing would surprise me with her and her sidekick..biily bob

Submitted by real deal on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 09:20
 

Totally disrespectful!

This comment is totally disrespectful. Hillary Clinton took so much heat for just mentioning RFK, yet Obama supporters think this type of rhetoric is acceptable. I'm voting democrat, but I can certainly understand how many Clinton supporters might have a very difficult time getting on the Obama bandwagon.

News Flash: Your Guy Won. You can stop being so mean now.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan at catherine-morgan.com, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Submitted by Catherine Morgan on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 16:41
 

Just gotta keep separating...

...the candidates from their most vitriolic supporters.

BO and HRC have never behaved like the worst of their supporters, and that's worth remembering...and using to get over any disappointment.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 16:52
 

Former Aide to Obama and Rev. Jackson
Supports Clinton As VP

 Former Aide to Barack Obama and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr Supports Clinton As VPWhy Obama MUST Choose Clinton As VP !!!"I was one of the first community organizers who Barack Obama met in Chicago over 20 years ago, and I have worked directly with him throughout his political career.  In 1986, I was a city wide coordinator while  Barack was the Project Director for Project Vote, a city-wide voter registration campaign that put over 100, 000 new voters on the books, which set the stage for the historic election of Illinois U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, the re-election of Chicago's 1st Black Mayor Harold Washington in 1987, and a new Chicago City Council.  As a former national staff member on Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr's 1988 Presidential staff, and the youngest member of Jackson's Illinois Delegate slate, I watched how many of our key national field staff and supporters did not support the Democratic nominee Dukakis after Rev. Jackson as the number two vote getter was not on the ticket. In 2008, The Democratic Party cannot afford for the excitement and new generation of voters that Obama and Clinton have brought to the process to turn off by the non inclusion of the other candidate on the ticket.  A lot of new voters may not understand or will accept why the two top vote getters are not automatically the ticket. Based upon my direct experience of 1988, let me be one of the first to say that I would surely support the Obama/Clinton Dream Ticket, for anything less may be a nightmare."Mark S. AllenAssociate EditorThe South Street Journal Newspaper*Veteran Political activist with over 30 "straight years in public service on local, state and national levels, including 7 years as a national staff member to the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr*Former talk show host on the legendary Black/News Talk Station WVON*Who's Who Among African Americans*Who's Who In Black Chicago
449 East 35th Street, 1st Floor773-373-7000 or cell 773-392-0165

Submitted by marksallen on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 11:07
 

resume

Is that a resume?

Submitted by real deal on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 16:03
 

Who wants macho? Not me

I'd call it not just a sexist title, but a misogynist article. Why would we want a macho politician in office?   I can't believe I'm reading an article by women, in theory for women, that defines masculine qualities as positive necessary traits in a VP or President and  anaylzes Clinton's performance or electabilty in terms of being macho or not. Why not just go all out and start talking about sissies?

Seriously isn't it just more "business as usual" to frame the elections as if Democrats have to pander to... I don't even know what... soldiers? People who think "macho" means effective?  

There is something really wrong with this approach to political discourse and I call it misogyny.  Coming up with negative qualities and attributing them to "feminine" and then positive qualities associating with masculine. 

And even going into further territory, you say 

"Surveys show the majority of hiring managers hire based on issues of personality, likeability and cultural fit, not based on competency"

So, what is your conclusion here? Roll over and go Oh, okay, all us women better butch up, though we'll never be MACHO enough ? Or if we are, then we're not soft and likeable enough and we'll be shrill untrustable ball busting bitches?  Hello... it's called the double bind.  So because this survey says this about hiring managers we should vote for someone or hire someone not based on competence?  Instead I think it should firm us up in our fight against this kind of thinking.

I  have plenty of criticisms of Senator Clinton, her policies, and how she ran her campaign.

I completely disagree with thinking that says "Oh no... our opponents are gendering politics to make democrats sissified and feminized... and Republicans macho" and responds to that by playing their game and trying to out-macho them. Instead, point it out for the misogynist and by the way also homophobic BS that it is.

 

 

-----------------

Liz Henry

lizzard@bookmaniac.net

Badgermama - personal & mommyblog

h

Submitted by Liz Henry on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 08:02
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service