Support women = Support Sebelius = Snub Clinton = Snub Clinton supporters = Snub women? I think something slipped there.
NYT:
Democrats said they thought it was less likely now than it was a month ago that Mr. Obama would choose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York as his running mate, though they said she remained in consideration and that she was being vetted.
If he does not choose Mrs. Clinton, several Democrats said, it would be difficult for him to name any woman — like Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, someone for whom he has had warm words. Both Clinton and Obama advisers said such a move could create a backlash among women who supported Mrs. Clinton.
Help me understand this theory. Women, and let's be clear that they are not talking about "Clinton loyalists" they said "women", who voted for Clinton would be upset if Obama was NOT a sexist?
When Chris Cillizza tried to explain it to us back in June, I thought Ezra Klein did a pretty good job of explaining that if people saw Hillary's candidacy as a way to break the ceiling and prepare the way for women who followed - then having more women go that path would be the perfect illustration that it was worth it. Cliz does they same sort of twist that makes "women" and "Clinton supporters" synonyms.
Cliz:
The support of women sustained Clinton -- both practically and symbolically -- throughout the campaign, and as the race went on (and on) there was an increasingly vivid sense among that bloc of voters that Obama was mistreating Clinton in ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
With Clinton now formally gone from the race, her most fervent female supporters have taken up the cause of putting her on the ticket as the vice president. To snub Clinton in favor of another woman -- Sebelius -- would be a slight that many women might not be able to reconcile themselves to.
Klein:
When Clinton endorsed Obama, she said that, "from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States." It was a powerful line, and a tremendous sentiment. And it's being undercut by some of her supporters.
I want more info before I jump to the conclusion that it is the media itself that fears having to face a woman VP without recourse to saying that it is other people's sexism that hobbles the idea. I want to know that it is not just that the reporters themselves were the sexists.
The NYT said that both Democrats and advisors were making the argument, though so there must be one of them that can give me the alternate expectation. Who is the person that is saying, "I would be upset if..."
It isn't Jerry in Corpus Cristi who commented on a thread at MSNBC:
I don't think the Clinton supporters will accept another woman other then Hillary on the ticket. Still some hot headed broads out there.
Jerry might not be a Democrat or an advisor to the campaign anyhow, so I kept looking.
Jane Hamshire suggested that Harriet Christian (the ranter who lost it completely at the DNC meeting on Michigan and Florida) might fit the bill.
HuffPo:
Would they be satisfied with another woman on the ticket, not Hillary? Would Kathleen Sibelius or Patty Murray fit the bill? If Harriet Christian is typical, it would be somewhat akin to abusing your wife then trying to make it up to her by giving a ring to your new girlfriend. As Harriet herself indicated on Fox News -- not bloody likely.
But how typical is she? When Hillary Clinton signaled yesterday that she'd like the VP position, and chose not to concede last night, the only way for Obama to keep her off the ticket is to openly reject her. It will be a clear statement to many of her female supporters -- culled from one of the largest voting blocks in the Democratic party -- that she is unwanted.
Hamshire links to this interview with Christian on FOX, but in that interview Christian rejected even a Clinton nomination. (As an aside; she also questions how blacks can call whites racists when 99% of black voters don't know why they are voting for Obama. Crap like that makes my head swimmy.)
So I kept looking. Finally I was pointed at this by a writer at the New Republic:
Allida Black, a major Hillary supporter who's angry at the idea of putting Sebelius on the ticket, put it to me this way yesterday:
It's unacceptable and condescending ... that the woman [Hillary] who fought for them [other powerful women], the woman who stood up and took all this abuse, the woman who stayed in the race after everyone said it was over, would be discounted. And to put on a safe, acceptable woman from a swing state is an affront to the woman they voted for. [Sebelius] is sweet! She’s nice! She’s effective in Kansas. But Washington is not Kansas.
But I am slow to rely on the New Republic, and Allida, a board member of VoteBoth.com which advocates for a Obama/Clinton ticket, has been quoted in other places on other things:
Then Allida Black came on, to talk about delegates to the DNC. She's a co-founder of Women Count PAC. She was described by MSNBC as a professor of history at George Mason University.
She started off by saying "Since Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1801..." Whoa! This is a history professor?
Nevertheless, I think I have a "Who" to attach to the argument, but I still don't have their own personal "Why?"
So if anyone from VoteBoth, or any other Democrat or advisor holds the view that an Obama pick of a woman would be a snub of women. Please explain it to me. And try to be clear as you can. I am a little dim.