Will Hillary veto Obama from choosing a woman VP other than her?

[sfam]

Poll question: Will Hillary veto Obama from choosing a woman VP other than her?

Assuming Hillary is not on the ticket, if Hillary still ambitions for the presidency after this year (I think that's a safe bet), does she try to stop Obama from choosing a woman like Sebelius or Napolitano as the VP? The reasoning would be that this would prop up some serious competition for Hillary's strongest supporters.

The competing notion, of course, is that if Hillary is truly interested in women breaking the glass ceiling, she would support a woman on the ticket, because this would be one more step towards a woman president.

[Czolgosz]

1. Hillary will be irrelevant to the process.

[sfam]

3. Added a choice for you. nt

[Czolgosz]

10. Thanks. I predict this added option will reflect the consensus

[sfam]

12. Looks like you're right. I hope this is similar to reality

[Labors of Hercules]

36. I suppose a better question to ask may be...

What will happen to Hillary's Presidential future if someone else becomes the "first Woman in the White House"?

If she wasn't successful running as the first viable Woman contender for the Presidency, I don't think there is any other way for her to reinvent herself to win the office in the future.

[sfam]

38. This is really the jist of my question. If another woman does get on the ticket,

this pretty much dooms her chances next time around. Her built-in base will be splintered. Especially if Obama wins, then the presumptive nominee - the VP - will have all the built-in advantages along with the woman's vote. I just don't see her coming back from that at 68 years old.

Now if Obama loses, perhaps the VP selection won't matter as much, although it still could be problematic.

[sellitman]

2. Since when does she have "veto power"?

And since when is it her decision?

[sfam]

6. This is certainly a major discussion point in the MSM...that there is pressure for Obama to choose..

a Hillary surrogate or else.

[sellitman]

14. Pressure?

There is pressure to beat McSame. He will choose who can best help him accomplish that.

Nothing else will come into play.

Bet on it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. I have to laugh at you guys suggesting a woman other than Clinton for VP

after vilifying her and rejecting her based on things like: she did not leave her husband, she exaggerated the war zone plane landing, she is not "warm" enough, she was a goldwater girl. You dissected her life, her every breath.

You have no idea what the backgrounds of any of these women are.

[saltpoint]

8. O a few of us pick up a newspaper now and then.

For clueless, please see under 'Mark Penn.'

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. Tell me about their backgrounds and why they would be a better

choice than Clinton?

[sfaprog]

25. Less baggage

Period. It's all about "GE electibility", haven't you heard?

[saltpoint]

27. Google it, EE. But here's a primer, for a boost in key wording:

Sebelius. Catholic. Daughter of Ohio Gov. John Gilligan. Presides over shift in demographics in a red state.

There ya go -- key words and phrases to begin your search.

Happy learning.

[sfam]

30. You forgot executive experience, recognized as one of the best governors...nt

[saltpoint]

32. Yep. Sebelius is top-drawer.

Certainly a more politically attractive veep nom than Hillary Clinton.

[cascadiance]

50. Maybe they don't hang around media monopolist Rupert Murdoch!

and that coupled by her husband's signing of that telecomm act is why we have such a messed up media now! NO THANKS! There are MANY better women to choose than Hillary!

I'd take Barbara Boxer in a second over Hillary, but I know she won't be there with Arnold picking her successor in the Senate. Want her to stay there where she can be most valuable to us!

[sfam]

9. Actually, most of us rejected her based on her war vote...

there were other issues, but truly this is the big one. I could care less whether she was a goldwater girl or whether she left her husband or not. My guess is virtually nobody cares about those issues when compared to the IWR.

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. I have seen the posts outlining the reasons why Obama supporters hate Clinton

and many of those reasons ARE things like: goldwater girl, staying with Bill, etc.

[sfam]

29. Be honest. The vast majority have real reasons. The IWR vote IS a real reason...

The rest of this stuff may be icing on the cake after someone has already decided one way or the other. This is not too much unlike rabid Hillary supporters listing the idiotic reasons for not liking Obama. I'm guessing they had real issues for not supporting him prior to deciding he was snide, effete, etc.

[sfaprog]

31. Bullshit with a big-ass capital B

You have NOT heard those listed as the reasons she is not liked, and I'd love to see you come up with a post that lists those things.

I think you're well aware the anger generated when she said McCain was ready to be POTUS, but Obama wasn't. For starters.

[saltpoint]

35. I never thought she was particularly qualifiied in the first place.

Her campaign was idea-thin and celebrity-heavy from the git-go and her stump speeches are dull.

I saw no independent appeal to her candidacy, and we need independents to have the better shot against McCain.

There are scores and scores of other Democrats I like better.

Her campaign team could have been outwitted by halfway astute high schoolers and the real pros -- Obama's and Edwards' teams, placed ahead of her in Iowa.

She had no plan in place post-Feb. 5th, revealing either stupidity and/or arrogance.

No gifted speech writer was ever hired to use language to advance her campaign.

She operates on the Princess notion of entitlement.

[muryan]

58. I think those are trolls

responding to Hillary trolls. Those aren't valid reasons, most of us have valid reasons.

[saltpoint]

5. IMO it is not Mrs. Clinton's decision to make.

[OzarkDem]

7. Hillary will be the nominee

and if she isn't, I doubt she or anyone else will care who he chooses. It would be his election to lose.

We'll just start preparing for 2012.

[sfam]

11. Wow, that sounds ominous. So, no help from Hillary in the GE, then, right? nt

[Deep13]

16. What the fuck do you think.

After the way she has been treated by the official party, the media and by OBama operatives, why the hell should she?

[sfam]

28. She's pure as the driven snow, ey? Actually, I think she's a good democrat, and will care about...

judicial appointments, health care, and all the other things she's been campaigning about. God help us if she's the selfish spoilsport you make her out to be.

[MattBaggins]

65. I am willing to accept Hillary as the VP nominee

but make no bones about it; if she does not get/take the slot she had better work her ass off for Obama. If she does not show full support for him she will stand no chance in 2012. As a New Yorker i would do my best to force her to choose between defending her Senate seat and running for President again. Hillary supporters seem to forget that her seat will be up for grabs in 2012 and she has to choose between that and a potential failed second run for President.

[sellitman]

17. I doubt she is as bitter as you are.

It's time to realize that your candidate has more class than you do. She will support the Democratic ticket no matter who Obama picks. Might be time for you to re-evaluate your priorities.

[sfaprog]

33. News flash: Hillary has burned all bridges that would have let her have a future shot

She will not go into a new primary season as the overwhelming favorite, and she will be severely in the hole because of her divisiveness and the hate from fellow Dems she has garnered.

This was her only shot and she blew it.

[sfam]

34. I'm sure she'll try to play the "Betrayal" card again. This might work with the Supes...

Afterall, they gave many of the Supes their first big start

[backscatter712]

13. Obama shouldn't succumb to the pressure.

He should choose who he feels is best for the job.

[Deep13]

15. What a load of crap! How would she be able to do that?!

Jesus, now you're making shit up that has not happened and really can't happen.

[sfam]

26. She can decide how to use her influence based on her delegates...

Most seem to think she will use it to change the democratic nomination process. But others believe she will use it either to force herself on the ticket or to force one of her surrogates on it.

[DemVet]

18. The last choice is stupid...Hillary has a major voice in the process.

Coming in with almost 50% of the delegates and possibly the lead in the popular vote, people are forgetting that votes will be taken for the VEEP also.

The nominee's choice is NOT a lock for VEEP.

[JeanGrey]

22. No. You're mistaken. She has no power to choose

anyone for anyone.

[DemVet]

78. Your post makes no sense. Try again.

[sfam]

23. I thought so too. I included it after someone asked. That said, its the run away winner...nt

[crankychatter]

19. The only bargaining power she will have is IF he doesn't reach the Nomination Number

Then she might have some edge for negotiation... but you can expect defections... she doesn't have full loyalty and control... the good of the Party will prevail among Democratic Delegates and SDs.

[JeanGrey]

20. Hillary can't stand anyone from doing anything. Her days

of power are finished.

[OHdem10]

37. It is a slap in the face to Hilary Supporters to even consider

another woman.

The arrogance amazes me.

Alienating the Clinton Voters has been and continues to be the
Hallmark of Obama Campaign.

[sfam]

39. Please, explain the slap in the face thing, 'cause I really don't get it.

So we have a large segment of Hillary supporters who never thought they would see a woman president in their lifetime. At this point its clear that Hillary won't win. Its also clear that her negatives with independents make her a bad choice for the VP.

So tell me, why would these women consider it a slap in the face if Obama picked a different very qualified woman for VP? Is it your contention that only one woman is qualified to be president at this point? If not, then what exactly underlies this sentiment, and why would her supporters hate the idea of someone like Sebelius or Napolitano on the ticket?

[sfam]

40. still hoping to hear an answer for the slap in the face thing...nt

[reflection]

71. Can you explain this, please?

Why are other women off limits to the VP slot? That makes zero sense to me.

[sfam]

75. I have a separate thread exploring this question...

And I agree...it makes no sense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6028061&mesg_id=6028061

[Lilith Velkor]

41. No, but her supporters won't take kindly to the notion that women are interchangable

Word to the wise. I know some of y'all are new to this feminism thing, so I appreciate that you're trying. :hi:

Hillary herself cannot veto anything if Barack is the nominee, so this question is nonsensical.

[sfam]

44. I'm new to the feminism thing, but Hillary is the only woman qualified, ey?

So there's no chance Obama could possibly ever consider a woman other than Hillary qualified to be VP, ey? And even if he does happen to find one he thinks is the perfect VP, considering there was already a woman candidate in the race, the rest of them are off limits this time around? Gosh - just imagine if male candidates were subjected to this insane reasoning.

Sounds like you have some strange ideas about feminism. Forgive me if I don't kneel down to learn at your feet as the acolyte you think I am.

[Lilith Velkor]

61. Nice straw woman you got there

I'm duly impressed at your attack upon it. :eyes:

Your question was whether Hillary's supporters would be placated by picking another woman as VP, based on the assumption that any woman will do. My answer is no, because that assumption is false and sexist.

If he picks another woman based on her qualifications, I have no problem with it.

I still appreciate you trying. Better luck next time, eh?

[sfam]

62. Why on earth would you think I was suggesting he pick a token female?

Please, help me understand where you got the idea that I came up with the notion that women are interchangeable - so much so in fact that you felt the need to lecture me on my relative inability to understand feminism.

My question post above was posed in pure political terms. I even listed two very qualified candidates - one of which was on Kerry's short list and by all accounts is on Obama's as well. Nowhere did I suggest Obama was gonna pick the first chick off the street and stick a VP tag on her. This is a nice backpeddle on your part, but nowhere did I suggest what you've implied.

[Lilith Velkor]

66. I got that idea from your reasoning re: competition for Hillary's supporters

The qualified candidates you brought up were selected by gender, were they not?

If so, then it's tokenism. And it won't work.

[sfam]

67. Reread the OP. The question was a very specific one...whether...

Hillary, assuming she had the power to influence things, would object to a woman candidate being nominated for the VP. The jist of the OP talked about this in the context of her potentially wanting to run in either 2012 or 2016, and whether a woman VP choice would negatively impact those ambitions.

It had absolutely nothing to do, nor did I discuss, Obama's decision making criteria for VP (wouldn't you think he'd make his selection based on who he thinks is the best candidate?), so clearly there was no discussion of tokenism. It was purely focussed on Hillary's reaction. While the poll was pretty clearly a failure in that most think Hillary's opinion shouldn't be taken into account, it was interesting to see the whole "women aren't interchangeable" reaction by some who responded. I only point out that this notion didn't come from my post.

[Lilith Velkor]

70. Hillary's reaction is irrelevant, but that of her supporters is very relevant.

They should not be told to fuck off and vote for McCain, unless that's actually what you want.

[sfam]

73. I agree that her supporters are relevant, but this wasn't my question here...

I never indicated anywhere in this thread or otherwise that they should fuck off and vote for McCain. My question again was a very specific one. It was not about whether Obama was interested in taking a token woman candidate instead of Hillary any more than it was about whether her supporters reactions were relevant.

Just saying...

[Turn CO Blue]

47. You have the meaning of feminism exactly backwards.

You would honestly hold other women back based on your misguided assumptions that only one woman is ENTITLED???? That's so fucking sexist!!!

There are TONS of women besides Sen. Clinton qualified to be the VP, and to be the next in line to POTUS

[Lilith Velkor]

57. How exactly am I holding other women back?

Since when is it sexist to give my opinion where it is solicited?

Thank you in advance.

[sfam]

59. Other than saying no women other than Hillary can be VP, you mean?

This seems to be a rather significant sticking point. Many men have lost in close races. I have never heard even one who wasn't selected complain that men are not interchangeable. Paul Tsongas certainly didn't make this claim when Bill Clinton picked Al Gore, for instance.

[Lilith Velkor]

63. Yes, other than that, because I did not say that

All I said was that picking another woman will be seen as a ham-handed attempt at pandering.

Offering it to HRC would be an appropriate conciliatory gesture, even if she refuses. It would show that BHO is willing to risk alienating the "burn Hillary at the stake" crowd in order to achieve the unity we need.

[sfam]

64. Exactly. Why would you have a problem with my response then?

If Obama picks a woman, you are indicating he'll be seen as pandering - regardless of who they are, apparently as I've already stated two solid and qualified choices above. How again is this not completely discounting their qualifications?

So again, if Obama decides that choosing Hillary negatively impacts his chances of getting elected, he WILL choose someone other than Hillary. Meaning that he will "not" offer it as a conciliatory gesture because he thinks it would hurt his chances. What you're telling me is that he better choose a man, 'cause otherwise he'll be pandering. As my other thread title suggests, by this logic, there can only be ONE woman candidate per election cycle. Maybe I just don't get feminism, but this view seems to hold women back more than it helps them.

Again, why wouldn't it be possible to just view all the remaining folks on the short list based on their qualifications? What's truly weird to me - again - is that people identifying themselves as feminists are saying Obama would be pandering if he considered women other than Hillary. This is truly bizarre reasoning.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Your question was about Hillary supporters

You do know that not all feminists are Hillary supporters, right?

Again - I do not give a fuck who Obama picks for VP. It would be smart for him to offer it to Hillary, not because of feminism but because she is popular with Democrats whose votes we need to crush McCain.

[sfam]

74. No, my OP was about Hillary's response. Not her supporters.

And yes, I CLEARLY know that not all feminists are Hillary supporters.

[Beacool]

42. Hillary may be "irrelevant" in the process to some of you,

but her supporters won't be and another woman just won't do!!!!!!

Women are NOT interchangeable!!!!!

How about if it were the other way around and Hillary chose another AA politician instead of Obama? Would that have satisfied his supporters? I doubt it.

Putting another woman as VP to appease her supporters will only infuriate us and cause a backlash.

Unbelievable........

[sfam]

43. So there's only one woman qualified for President? If not Hillary, it must be a man????

Wow, OK, this is a strange position to take. Considering that Sebelius was on Kerry's short list, one would think that others find her qualified. Are you honestly saying, you cannot envision a well thought-out approach to VP selection that does not involve selecting a woman other than Hillary?

So if Obama was looking for someone who would be attractive to independents and republicans (this rules out Hillary), who had solid executive experience (now we're talking governors and generals), who could help him in the west and midwest, that Sebelius would be a lousy choice for him, because women who voted for Hillary would find her to be interchangeable??? If Obama has that reasoning (versus, say, looking for Foreign Policy exp), this seems like the best pick, wouldn't you agree?

So this part about many wishing that one day they would see a woman as president meant what, exactly? Where they all really saying that Hillary was the ONE, and only one who could fulfill this role?

[Beacool]

45. Let me put it this way,

The party is divided in two factions:

Obama has won 51% of the vote.

Hillary has won 49% of the vote.

Whoever ends up on top should at least make the offer of the VP spot to the other one. I would have said the same thing if Hillary were the nominee. IMO they have both earned the right to be on the ticket by the vast support that they have received from their fellow Democrats.

Disenfranchise one or the other and there will be a backlash from that person's supporters.

[sfam]

46. Fair enough. You would pick Hillary for the VP. But if Obama doesn't select her...

This whole notion of us only allowed to have one woman in the selection process is just odd in the extreme. That its coming from people purporting to be feminists just makes it all the sillier.

Can you ever imagine a losing male candidate complaining, "We're not interchangeable!!!"

Some day it seems to me that even feminists will start looking at things like the selection for VP choice based on a person's qualifications. Perhaps one day they will remove the limitation of one woman per nomination process...Until then, I suppose its just a "slap in the face" to consider other women, as single selection for their gender has already been entered.

[Beacool]

48. If Obama doesn't select her,

then I select not to vote for him in November.

It's that simple.......

[cascadiance]

52. Then you are amongst blackmail artists, NOT Democrats!

REAL Democrats would make a case for their candidate by EXPLAINING WHY they are so much better than others for this seat, not that they should be picked just because they are "powerful" amongst people that seem to worship their leader as a deity more than someone who stands up for specific issues that they've felt needed addressing.

If you are wanting someone to stand up for you based on issues you hold dear, then in some cases candidates ARE interchangeable, if they do have similar positions strongly in favor of what you want done, and are decent people to boot. And quite frankly Hillary hasn't done a great job of selling herself as interchangeable with anyone else we might consider who we feel would work strongly on things like ending the war, ending corporate dominance over our political process, stopping the outsourcing of our jobs, fixing the health care mess, etc.

She's NOT shown or explained why she is better equipped and "interchangeable" with many of our perceived better choices on handling these issues. She's just "Hillary"! That may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for the rest of us!

[sfam]

54. Just to be clear, you really aren't a feminist then, right? You're more of a Hillary or nobody...

voter. Just wanted to make that clear, 'cause the idea that the only person you would support is Hillary certainly can't be based in feminism.

[Beacool]

56. You still don't get it.

I would support any woman for the VP post who has won almost half of the Democratic vote in the primary. In other words, Hillary won 49% of the vote and has more than earned the right to be on the ticket. If that woman had been Sebelius, Napolitano or any other woman, I would say then that they should be the ones on the ticket.

I don't know if she's even interested in the job, but it should at least be offered. That's my point.

Understand me now?

[sfam]

60. No, I get it. You want Hillary or your out. You aren't really interested...

in Democrats winning the nomination. This has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with you being wedded to a candidate who came close but lost. It's a sucky place to be in (we've all been there), but such is life. We each decide what to do with it in that case.

And based on your reasoning then, I'm assuming that if Edwards was in the same place as Hillary is now, you would also say Edwards "deserved" it, and wouldn't vote for the ticket if he was denied?

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Okay, then stick Bill Richardson on the ticket.

JUDAS!!!!!!!!!!

[demokatgurrl]

49. WITH.... WHAT..... AUTHORITY??????????????? n't

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Veto? Stomping your foot is not a veto. nt

[hokies4ever]

55. She might try, but it could backfire BIG TIME on her

She better be careful doing this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. how would she do this?

:eyes:

[Bensthename]

72. Hillary is slowly being pushed out the door to never be seen again..

She is a republican that does not need to be put on a dem ticket.

[IndianaGreen]

76. The Clintons want McCain to win in November so that Hillary gets another crack at it

The Clintons owe too much to their financial backers to give up.

[GetTheRightVote]

77. Hillary should have a voice as anyone in the party does and lets remember she is the first

woman to run for President, win or lose, she stands in the shoes of history.
I would have loved to vote for her or a dream ticket, her and Obama.

The members of the Democratic party need to put on their fairness shoes and soon I hope.
Then I would love to see them walk in them for a little while for the pain to end and a healing process for the party to begin. Or women like me will not vote for Obama and not because of the GOP, the Republicans but because of other Democratic members who have made it important enough for me not to vote again until another woman runs for this office before I die.

I as a female, a woman, I am very pride to see that a woman who is capable finally be able to run for the greatest office in this nation. I never thought I would see it in my life time. Men have been able to take it for grated for so long. I would have taken John E. first (yes, a white man) and either Obama or Clinton as second. I like his values and ideals best.

But this is not about color of skin or gender, it is about being able to believe in dreams and being able to identify with the person in the Oval Office. Will they understand our needs, wants or desires. And Finally, I can turn to my daughters and say to them as much as I have my son, yes, you can run to be the President without feeling like hmm ... or being guilty of a little white lie.

2008 marks another big step for this nation, truly anyone can run to be the President, wow, truly I mean it, wow !!!! Remember that it was the Democratic party to make this history happen so be the members that such a great national party desires to have, not the ones that appear to beating up on each other in this forum. I know I too was guilty but I have realized the error of my evil ways, forgive me for my sins against the party and all it's membership.

:D :spank: