PUMAs: Acknowledge the sexism in the party, media

posted at 9:30 am on August 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Hillary Clinton supporters have more or less come to terms with the reality that she will not be Barack Obama’s running mate, and they have adjusted their demands for their loyalty accordingly.  Now they want the party platform to reflect Hillary’s policy positions, and they want an explicit acknowledgment of what they deemed sexism from the media as well as the silence about it from the Obama campaign.  However, word of a potential female running mate other than Hillary has them fuming.

The PUMAs want more than just talk, too:

As her chances of becoming vice president recede, some of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s supporters are pushing for the Democratic Party’s new platform to state that the primary elections “exposed pervasive gender bias in the media” and to call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to condemn future perceived instances of bias.

The push for the plank in the party’s statement of principles reflects a lingering unhappiness over Clinton’s treatment during the Democratic primary, and over what her supporters say was an inadequate response from party leaders.

Some Clinton supporters have complained of jibes against the New York senator by TV talk show hosts, off-color novelty items and incidents such as the time when hecklers yelled “Iron my shirt!” at a Clinton rally. … “There were so many examples in the media of sexist comments where we never heard from the party leadership or Barack Obama,” said Stacy Mason, executive director of a political action committee called WomenCount, which claims thousands of members. The group ran newspaper ads in the spring urging Clinton to stay in the contest.

That actually may be more mild than a month ago.  When the primaries ground to a halt in June, Hillary’s supporters complained bitterly not just about sexism from the media, but also from Obama’s campaign.  The Sweetiegate story provided a glimpse of it, but Obama did a lot more damage after Hillary suspended her campaign by suggesting that women needed to “get over it” and that he didn’t have time to pander to them. The dress suggestions for women in his media entourage probably didn’t help much, either.

At this point, Hillary’s supporters probably want to bury those issues and get Obama to issue a statement that doesn’t admit to his own sexism but make some sort of generic commitment to fight sexism elsewhere.  That’s what makes the pushback against another Democratic potential running mate seem so odd.  Jake Tapper reported yesterday that the idea of picking Kathleen Sebelius for VP has angered one important Hillary booster all over again:

“The selection of either one of those instead of Sen. Clinton I would find completely incomprehensible,” said Lanny Davis of rumored Obama vice-presidential contenders Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Davis is a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and a longtime friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s dating back to their time at Yale Law School.

“If anyone thinks that picking a woman will simply placate Hillary Clinton’s female supporters, I think that’s very patronizing to women and i don’t think that that either Gov. Sebelius or Sen. McCaskill would disagree,” said Davis, who penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Thursday titled “Why Obama Should Pick Hillary.”

Davis said he hasn’t met either Sebelius or McCaskill and said he admires them, but Clinton is more qualified.

Senator Claire McCaskill certainly isn’t as qualified as either Clinton or Sibelius. She has as much time in the Senate as Hillary Clinton [see update below], but no other political experience at all. McCaskill has no executive, military, or foreign-affairs experience, which puts her at the same level as the nominee.

However, Sebelius does have executive experience and might make a good pick for Obama.  She could help him in the Midwest, where his comments about “bitter” voters “clinging” to guns and religion will get replayed many times between now and November.  She may not carry her state of Kansas in a general election, but she may help with women across the board — or, if Davis has this correct, perhaps not.

It would be rather ironic if the same people who complain about sexism holding down Hillary wound up pushing Obama to pick a man for his running mate in part not to anger women.  Such are the contradictions inherent in identity politics.  Perhaps the entire Democratic Party should “get over it”.

Update: I confused McCaskill’s election with that of Jean Carnahan.  McCaskill has less time in the Senate than Obama, having been elected in 2006.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama’s big problem is HIS OWN qualifications. What are they again?

1. Wrote an autobiograpy
2. Paid student loans after 20 years.

originalpechanga on August 1, 2008 at 9:35 AM

originalpechanga on August 1, 2008 at 9:35 AM

3. Spearheading legislation to make sure aborted babies that survive are still DOA

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

The case for Palin gets stronger.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM

rumored Obama vice-presidential contenders Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

I’m not expert on Dem strategy. Why isn’t AZ governor Janet Napolitano in the running? She’s positioned herself as a centrist & is pretty popular here.

jgapinoy on August 1, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Now they want the party platform to reflect Hillary’s policy positions …

As if her positions were much different than His. Get over it ladies, your guy girl lost. If Obama wins in Nov., I’m gonna demand that Mac’s policy positions are reflected … wait … oooops!

Tony737 on August 1, 2008 at 9:43 AM

the primary elections “exposed pervasive gender bias in the media” and to call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to condemn future perceived instances of bias.

Perfect strategy for the GOP base too- demand the platform state that the primary elections exposed pervasive anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias in the party that needs to be condemned as not standing for what the party represents. It’s all true would irritate the haters of the McCain wing of the party who want to exterminate all evangelicals and would affirm that John McCain may be the nominee of the party but he by no means represents the values of most Republicans.

highhopes on August 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Sexism, racism, wealth, fraud and lies are all the foundation of the Democratic Party, and only the Dems are allowed to partake ‘liberally’ and with a clean conscious of these forbidden fruits. They own the plantation and the workers will be used accordingly.

There have been millions of carefree abortions provided in order that the party leaders and their minions might enjoy the type of sexism that the same hypocrites have outlawed and denounce.

Hening on August 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM

I’ll take Things Democrats Are Obsessed With for $300 Alex.

carbon_footprint on August 1, 2008 at 9:51 AM

I think this is all too funny, the way that political correctness and identity politics have come around to bite the lib feminists in the boobies. Do they know how ridiculous they look?

BigD on August 1, 2008 at 9:52 AM

this is wishful thinking…..BUT.

IF we got Palin on the National Stage

and IF she can articulate conservatism in an effective way.

What IF she was able to significantly move the female vote in this country from going 60-40 Dem to atleast 50-50 or better? That would change American politics dramatically, and probably has a better shot at happening than appeals to the black vote.

jp on August 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM

3. Spearheading legislation to make sure aborted babies that survive are still DOA

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

4. He protects violent criminals and sexual predators: Obama voted against a bill that would add penalties for crimes committed as a part of gang activity and against a bill that would make it a criminal offense for accused gang members, free on bond or probation, to associate with other gang members. In 1999, he was the only Illinois state senator to oppose a bill that prohibited early prison release for criminal sexual offenders.

AZCoyote on August 1, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Check it out Raisin McCain, Obama isn’t the only one with “artist” too funny, this one the whole family can listen to.

http://www.johnrich.com/

Dr Evil on August 1, 2008 at 9:58 AM

McCain has his own “Rapper”

http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/bernie-pimps-nj-rap-artist/

Dr Evil on August 1, 2008 at 9:59 AM

So… Hellary’s cohort is upset about media bias against women (funniest thing I’ve hear this week), but Hussein had better not pick a woman as VP unless it’s Hellery. So… not picking a woman would make them happy? Or only Hellary would make them happy? Will there be hell to pay if Hellary is not the VP? Who won the most Dem delegates again?

Akzed on August 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Sibelius is more qualified than Obama. Embarrassing.

But I think the reason Hillary’s supporters don’t want a woman VP candidate other than Hillary, is that said candidate would then be competition for Hillary in the future.

LarryD on August 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM

the McCain wing of the party who want to exterminate all evangelicals

highhopes on August 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Uh oh. highhopes is on to us! What gave it away, the hundreds of massive death camp construction projects sporting giant “Evil Hating McCainiacs for McCainy MCainism” banners? The freight trains filled with evangelicals rounded up at gunpoint from their church services and heading, ominously, east?

We McCain supporters are going to have to be a heckuva lot sneakier if we want to get our murderous agenda past the supersmart likes of highhopes!

/sarc
/yep, getting a bit tired of this idiotic hysteria

Gilda on August 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM

It’s not that Hillary’s a woman that’s the problem, it’s that she’s such an old woman.

JiangxiDad on August 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Gilda on August 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Finally some truth from McCain’s moonbats!

Seriously though, that’s exactly how you people come off whenever issues of faith come up. It’s not mere hatred but something far more intolerant that makes it clear that there is no place for the religious right in McCain’s version of the GOP. The day after McCain slithered to the top of the heap, one of your kind was here spewing how the GOP was going to “get back” at evangelicals and make them pay.

If that doesn’t equate to a desire to eradicate evangelcals from the party, it comes pretty close. Why do you all fear Christians anyway?

highhopes on August 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Claire McCaskill does NOT have as much time in the Senate as Hillary Clinton. McCaskill was first elected in 2006, when Hillary was winning her second term. And McCaskill has done nothing of note in her first 2 years in the Senate. She would be a blatant token pick for Obama, and I can’t believe he would be that stupid. McCaskill won her election in 2006 by only a handful of votes and might not even help Obama in Missouri.

rockmom on August 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM

rockmom on August 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Oh, come on! She did get Michael J. Fox to endorse her! Isn’t that part of Barry’s credentials? To get celebrities to endorse you?

/sarc

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Claire McCaskill is the perfect VP candidate for Obama. She’s hasn’t done a thing for MO and she’s got less time than Obama. She’d fit right in with Obama, she’s as clueless as he is.

Torch on August 1, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Such are the contradictions inherent in identity politics. Perhaps the entire Democratic Party should “get over it”.

There’s no way Obama could pick a non-Hillary woman for VP and have it be seen by the PUMAs as anything other than a condescending pander. The Dems have well and truly painted themselves into an identity/victimhood corner.

Obama is practically forced to choose an older white guy. That’s the only “neutral” demographic left in Democrat World and by neutral I mean “judgeable based solely on content of character.”

How sad.

Gilda on August 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM

I predicted this. Hilly’s going to play kingmaker, but with the intent of causing the Dem ticket to lose. She’s got her eye on 2012 and doesn’t want to have a first-term Dem President standing in the way. Count on her folks to insist on planks that will sink Barry’s run without her being directly responsible.

mojo on August 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM

I’m amazed that the political pundits still believe that Hillary! would accept a VP position. She damn well knows that the Obamassiah will fall flat on his face if he’s elected. Why would she want to hitch her star to his failure? Say The Chosen One’s administration is an abject failure. Would the public then be dumb enough to vote His VP into office?

BTW, Hillary! still has not released her delegates to Obama, and still has an outstanding $20 campaign debt. Now that Congress is in recess, do you expect to see her out hustling for Barry?

If Barry is worried about ‘bitter people’….just wait until Denver.

GarandFan on August 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Finaly from the MSM…

John Edwards ‘Love Child’ Accusations Intensify With Release of Birth Certificate. Now if we could only see Obama’s real Birth Certificate!

luckybogey on August 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Obama not feeling the love in Florida they start shouting down Black Protestors.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080801151102.y2q6k892&show_article=1

Dr Evil on August 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Dr. Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Indeed. This is why I think McCain should go first and choose Palin. Obama’s really struggling w/ this gender thing, but all of his best choices are men. Palin on the GOP side just might force Obama into a “token” pick like Sebelius, weakening the Dem ticket and hopefully angering Hillary supporters, too. Putting pressure on Obama is a good thing, because he can’t handle it.

But even if BO plays it safe with Kaine or whoever, pollster Scott Rasmussen has already said that Palin would be McCain’s best choice against a male VP nominee.

Either way, no brainer.

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Not to get too philisophical on a Friday afternoon but should either party be looking at this as “token” nominations? I realize that what a VP nominee can bring to the ticket is an important factor but it seems that purely token nominations (as Palin’s would be) aren’t taken seriously. McCain has a big problem convincing voters he has the health to make it through four years of a very demanding job. Selecting an unknown VP simply because of gender isn’t going to help him convince America that, should something happen, the #2 is up to the task of running the nation.

highhopes on August 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM

QUEEN BEE SYNDROME!!

urbancenturion on August 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM

I’m not expert on Dem strategy. Why isn’t AZ governor Janet Napolitano in the running? She’s positioned herself as a centrist & is pretty popular here.

jgapinoy on August 1, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Correct me if I’m wrong? But I believe J. Napolitano is lesbian!

byteshredder on August 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM

highhopes on August 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Palin wouldn’t be a “token” pick at all. She’s a charismatic Governor whose big issue (domestic energy) happens to be the focus of this election. Palin compares favorably with any of the other VP choices. Her gender is a plus, no doubt.

The “experience” criticism is a valid point, but Palin’s positives outweigh her negatives, which isn’t true of the other guys.

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 2, 2008 at 3:40 AM