Obama should select a woman for his running mate but NOT Hillary

Several months ago, I was at a party with several politically active friends. Often, we disagree on candidates, both locally and nationally, but it never gets personal. However, there was something odd in the air that night as one person in the room—a woman who I have a world of respect for—said she wouldn't support Obama if he were the nominee.

Of course, I told her that she'd get behind any Democratic candidate, and she answered no, she was behind Hillary and that it was a woman's turn to sit in the Oval Office. She's since changed her mind, but she's not what I'd call very enthusiastic about this election.

Being a male, I really don't understand this. I only want the best candidate to be in the Oval Office, but perhaps there's something I'm missing, something that I wasn't aware about. I've since been educated about the phenomena of feminists giving their all for Hillary Clinton, and now I think I'm beginning to understand their disappointment.

My wife, who is the smarter one in this marriage (I'm the good looking one), informed me that the White House represented the last glass ceiling, the last hurdle to jump for women in their struggle for equality. And as much as we talk about racism in the United States, misogyny and sexism are just as big of a problem and perhaps more accepted by society.

She put it to me this way: "You hear women called bitches every day and not just from the Neanderthal on the next barstool. It's in movies, TV shows, on the radio, in newspapers—everywhere!"

She went on,"and slut and whore (or as people like to say these day, 'ho') come up in conversation all the time and many times the speaker isn't joking. And how many times have you heard men call Hillary Clinton an 'old hag,' 'piano legs,' or even that C-word?"

My wife is right. Women as a group are plagued with derogatory terms thrown their way. Powerful and assertive women are automatically "ball busters" or "bitches." Powerful and assertive men are called "go getters" and "leaders."

But what does name calling have to do with anything? This type of language, hate language if you will, underscores a greater sentiment in society. Women are second class citizens in this country. So, for that reason, I am sad that the Democratic Party did not select a woman as its nominee. However, I maintain that Hillary Clinton is not the candidate that the party needed right now, Barack Obama was.

And what do you say to women on this issue. Do you tell them that they'll get their chance again? Presidential elections only come once every four years. So I say this not to appease women, but because I think it is very important: We must have a woman on the ticket with Senator Obama this summer.

Senator Clinton has made herself available, but there is a lot of bad blood between the two campaigns at this point. Clinton would have to backpedal on many of the terrible things said about Senator Obama during the campaign. And Bill Clinton, somebody has got to muffle that man. He was a drag on his wife's campaign and he would drag down a Obama-Clinton ticket as well, I fear.

Then there is also Clinton's sense of entitlement to the White House. This video, below, from the Daily Show really says it all. In fact, how can Senator Clinton be number two when it's always been all about her.



I also agree with former President Jimmy Carter:

The former president, who publicly endorsed Barack Obama shortly before polls closed Tuesday in the final two primary states, told a London newspaper that a joint ticket between the two former rivals would be "the worst mistake that could be made."

"That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates," Carter told the Guardian, saying that both candidates' vulnerabilities could overshadow that the ticket if the two team up together.

"If you take that 50 percent who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds," he said.

I'm sorry, but it's true. Hillary has a lot of negatives that have nothing to do with her gender and I feel that, along with Obama's perceived shortcomings, they'll just be another burden for the campaign carry (not to mention Bill). I don't think she cancels out his problems and he cancels out hers.

Still, I'm hoping that Senator Obama's Vice Presidential search committee select another admirable woman politician.

There are many names of women being talked about in blogs and by the media. They include Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be able to help carry their own states. John McCain is from Arizona and McCaskill, who is still wet behind the ears as a Senator, narrowly won her seat, beating Republican Jim Talent, right on the heels of losing a bid for the Governor's Mansion.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is very intriguing to me. Unfortunately, Sebelius doesn't have the national profile that Clinton does, but she's a true progressive that is very popular in a very red state. She's also the daughter of a former Ohio congressman and governor, John J. Gilligan. There should be a few votes in Ohio that would go to the hometown girl, perhaps even enough to help swing it back to blue.

It's my belief that the Democrat's road to victory in November is to put together a ticket that looks more like America. We've already broken the mold by selecting a black male, and if Sebelius is as or more qualified than the men also in the running for the Vice Presidential nomination, Obama's committee should pick her.

We need a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2008. This is not about appeasement, it's about time.