Hillary feminists' hypocrisy: You're only allowed ONE woman candidate per election cycle!

[sfam]

I posted a poll asking whether Hillary would try to stop Obama from selecting a woman on the ticket. The rationale in my mind would be a political one - that a woman on the ticket now could cause real competition for Hillary for the women's vote in 2012 or 2016. The vast majority of the responses indicated that they thought she had no say in the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6025993&mesg_id=6025993


But the interesting thing to me were the responses from Hillary supporters indicating how horrid it would be for Obama to pick a woman VP other than Hillary. Responses included:

- "It is a slap in the face to Hilary Supporters (for Obama) to even consider another woman. The arrogance amazes me. Alienating the Clinton Voters has been and continues to be the Hallmark of Obama Campaign."

- "Her supporters won't take kindly to the notion that women are interchangeable. 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 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!!!!!..."


Here's my problem with this. I'm accused of being "new" to feminism, but I should "know" that Hillary's feminist supporters apparently have a new tacit rule that only one woman per election cycle can be considered for VP, especially if she was the one who lost in a close nomination fight. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this assumes that all other women not named Hillary (this time around - who knows who the "correct" woman will be next time) are either unqualified to be VP or cannot even be considered simply because they have a vagina.

Just imagine if a male candidate who lost a close presidential race had said this upon hearing he might not be chosen for the VP, "We are not interchangeable!!! How dare you even think about picking a man other than me!!!"

What happens, say, if Obama decides that Hillary is a bad choice for his VP selection? That she will hurt him with independents and republicans, that her negatives are too high, that her baggage is too deep, and perhaps more importantly, that they just don't get along? Are these Hillary supporters honestly saying that every other woman is off-limits because they had the misfortune of being the same gender as Hillary? That this would somehow be considered a negative, that because the "wrong" woman was selected there would be a feminist backlash? A backlash from the people claiming to want nothing more than seeing a woman president in their lifetime? Who exactly is seeing women as interchangeable?

So for the sake of argument, What if Obama decides he needs 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? If he has any understanding of feminism, he "should" know that Sebelius (who's father was governor of Ohio) would be a lousy choice for him, because women who voted for Hillary would see her as the token "interchangeable" candidate, even though she was on Kerry's short list for VP??? If again, for the sake of argument, Obama has that reasoning in selecting a VP (versus, say, looking for Foreign Policy exp), Selebius seems like the best pick (or at least one of the top few), wouldn't you agree?

That feminists would state that Obama had better pick a man if he doesn't pick Hillary just seems so wrong to me. In my mind, this really does serve to perpetuate a lessor role for women. But again, perhaps I still have a lot to learn about feminism.