A New Wave

Blending women's views into today's news, politics & culture

Laura Walker

Laura Walker
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
Birthday
January 21
Title
Editor
Company
WriteLine/A New Wave
Bio
* 20 years in Washington, D.C., working as an advocate for women's rights, civil rights, workers' rights and human rights. * 15 years as a Journalist, writing for such publications as "Washington Woman", "The Eagle", "Kitsap Sun", "Valley Courier", "American Forum" magazine at American University, among others. * English and journalism educator * Partnered, with four cats * Current location: Pacific Northwest * Hobbies/Interests: photographer, blogger, reader, hiker, GPACNW explorer, politics, Seattle Storm basketball.

MY RECENT POSTS

MY RECENT COMMENTS

Laura Walker's Links

Salon.com
AUGUST 24, 2008 1:13AM

The non-vetting of Hillary Clinton

Rate: 2 Flag

I'll have more to say about Obama's VP pick in my blog after I have a chance to review some of the voluminous information on Sen. Biden.

For now I want to tease out the vetting of VP contenders from the actual discussion about the VP pick. 

Setting aside the harsh feelings and attitudes expressed about Hillary Clinton during the primaries, I think it was a mistake for Obama not to have vetted her for VP, which we are now learning he didn't do.

It certainly may be that Hillary Clinton decided early on she did not want to be considered. Her place in the U.S. Senate conceivably offers her many more opportunities for advancing causes and concerns close to her heart (and in line with a Democratic Congress). She has, for example, already taken a lead role in pushing back against HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt's proposed rule that could chill women's access to safe and reliable reproductive health services. And she is the primary Senate voice for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Fair enough.

Still, not vetting her - and now making this information public - leaves me feeling -- how to say this gently -- angry! 

By not vetting Clinton, the Obama campaign looks small and insecure. Obama looks like a sore winner with a serious grudge. It comes across as personal and it looks bad on Obama's part. 

Not vetting her also makes him look a whole lot like the typical white guys women have had to go under, around, over, and through to claw out our successes. Not a good way to sell "change" to second wave feminists. 

That media pundits are now spilling the "non-vetting" story during their convention coverage is bound to pit Clinton supporters against Obama supporters and fuel more animus, so I also think this needs to be added to the mix. The media will do almost anything to create controversy.  

Even so, I know how most of the media talking heads feel about Clinton  (including the Left's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and about the media animus that exists toward both Clintons. Some of the media "crowing" re: the non-vetting is no doubt payback for the way they were frequently frozen-out during Bill Clinton's presidency. 

As Clarence Page once noted during the Clinton impeachment hearings, "Listen to the sound of axes grinding, especially in Washington, D.C." It's a very small world there, prone to both the best and worst in human nature. 

Yet, Obama fueled this, too, giving Clinton loyalists yet one more reason to stay home on Election Day.

In short, not vetting Hillary Clinton looks less like "change we can believe in" and more like politics-as-usual and payback; less like a "post-feminist" world and more like the -- dare I say it -- sexist and dismissive ways powerful women are frequently treated.  

And this makes me angry.

Author tags:

politics, barack obama, hillary clinton, feminism, democrats

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:
Cancel

Comments

Type your comment below:
Cancel
Are you talking about the symbolic value of considering Senator Clinton vice actually considering her? From a pragmatic standpoint, it's not like there was much left under wraps after the primaries and caucuses - even the campaign infighting had been discussed, lacking only the subsequently leaked memoranda etc.
haggismold
August 24, 2008 01:20 AM
No symbolism. I'm talking about actually considering her. In 1960 when Kennedy and Johnson went head-to-head in a long and contentious primary Johnson was given the "courtesy" by virtue of the fact that he ran a strong campaign and came in second. Although a lot of the inside stuff wasn't published and discussed ad-nauseum during this campaign (that's a fairly new concept), it was common knowledge that Kennedy and Johnson shared little in common, at times viscerally disagreed with each other, and weren't terribly comfortable together. And yet...
Laura Walker
August 24, 2008 01:36 AM
That's fair enough. I'm not sure that the Senators Obama and Clinton would have proved to be especially complementary in final vote tally terms, far less as POTUS and VP. But it's unlikely that we will find out...
haggismold
August 24, 2008 01:58 AM
I agree that the two would probably have not been comfortable with each other, but they are also professionals - as were Johnson and Kennedy - and sometimes this kind of "tension" can create some totally unexpected positives: Johnson, for example, was bound and determined to pass civil rights legislation in order to establish his own legacy after JFK was assassinated. So, the possibilities are there. And, no, we will never know what might have been. Still, it's kind of fun to imagine!
Laura Walker
August 24, 2008 02:29 AM
Hillary Clinton as Veep would be kind of like asking a divorced spouse to come back and run your business. It may be done by someone successfully, but that isn't proof enough that it would be a good thing for our country at a time like this.

As I remember, Lyndon Johnson was a famous SOB. That came in handy when he was sworn in and we were already involved in Viet Nam. I think it is that potential for being a SOB that is powerful in a Veep. Sometimes we need such a person who is willing to look bad to keep the Presidency shiny.
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
August 24, 2008 03:22 AM
Ignoring that large group of voters was extraordinarily stupid. I can't say for sure that it was sexist. I don't know Obama personally, but it was very, very stupid. This combined with his strong lean to the right lately, the DNC's ham-handed treatment of Clinton and their apparently sexist leanings, the poor sportsmanship of many of Obama's supporters with their making a sandwich shirts and 'billary' and 'clitnon' comments and this race stands a good chance of being lost. I mean, really, truly lost. Perhaps Obama's relative youth and inexperience is showing in not vetting Clinton; I'm not sure. But I do know that if McCain so chooses to pick a woman, one who is a moderate Republican, that will be all she wrote. Really. As gender-biased as that sounds, the fact is that there are a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans (not all women, but you'll hear that in the days to come--that it's a bunch of old white women--such sexism) to whom gender issues, women's issues, are vitally important. Ignoring those voters isn't a good way to go for the DNC or Obama, but they all seem to think those voters will do their duty come November. And they take those voters for granted at their peril.
odetteroulette
August 24, 2008 05:11 AM
Odetteroulette, it's not my place to tell anyone how to vote. I will observe that the odds of the Republicans being better for women's rights and issues than the Democrats are about the same as my becoming president (hint: my birth certificate was not issued by a US jurisdiction). These voters you mention can achieve, by voting Republican, clearing the path for someone other than Senator Obama to run in 2012 for the Democratic nomination. Expecting anything more than that is a calculated risk.
haggismold
August 24, 2008 09:26 AM
I absolutely agree. But public perception of such issues can be a whole 'nuther ballgame. I'm willing to bet lot of people make their votes based on snap judgments, for example. A female running mate will automatically give that group that has one the look of one supportive of gender issues (ironically very sexist), whatever the truth is to the contrary. I know this means I have little faith in my fellow voters, which may not be a fair judgment.

It doesn't help that the DNC really appears, not really based on snap judgments, but on continued behavior, to be made up of a bunch of hoary old farts who aren't really all that interested in the issues of women. Now, that really could be my perception alone, I suppose. I've tried to dissuade myself from it, but I can't quite seem to get away from it based on some of the recent bad behavior.
odetteroulette
August 24, 2008 09:45 AM
Oh, and I don't intend to vote for, yikes, McCain. But I feel betrayed by my party over all of this unacceptable behavior and by the complicit actions of the media. I'm really far to the left, too (voted for Kucinich) so Obama's pull to the right is really troubling to me.
odetteroulette
August 24, 2008 09:51 AM
@ odetteroulette: I don't think we have heard the last of this from Clinton supporters. There was, for example, an article at CNN.com yesterday in which Clinton strategist Paul Begala provided his thoughts on the "non-vetting." Needless to say, he's pretty direct about how this looks. I agree that the Obama campaign seems to have a huge blind spot when it comes to women; it is reflected in the polls right now, too, in the very large percentage of undecided voters. Time will tell how many Clinton supporters will actually vote for McCain. But even 1/5 of 18 million (ostensibly the undecided) = 3.6 million -- more than enough voters to turn an election. Obama should be concerned.
Laura Walker
August 24, 2008 08:24 PM
@ Stellaa: thanks for your kind words. Believe me I understand how it feels to be so angry that the words to say it are blocked. I think that's why it's great to have other voices who share many of the same concerns and views, because when one is unable to speak, another voice can and will rise to do so.
Laura Walker
August 24, 2008 08:28 PM