I don't think all Clinton supporters are all feminists.
The real feminists maybe disappointed but will still support Sebelius.

I don't buy the story that Clinton is better than Sebelius or it's a slap in her face.

It's like dating, women see Clinton as the political world’s supermodel and they think “perfect match” but she and Obama have No chemistry. Where as Sebelius is the girl next door, unexpected but sparks just fly.

The ones that don't support Sebelius, well there simple angry women that simple want revenge for every women who has been cheated on.

What else could it be?

By this point in her life, Hillary is a died in the wool plutocrat. Her daughter is a hedgefund manager. That's feminist after the fashion to which most of us have been forced to become accustomed. That doesn't mean it's a feminism that needs to find its home in the Democratic Party.

angry women that simple want revenge for every women who has been cheated on

I don't think it's just the cheating, though; it's always seemed to me that the real subtext of the passed-over-for-promotion analogy is that HRC lost ground because of her choice to follow Bill, and his willingness to make it up to her appeals to a lot of women. I'd bet there are a lot more middle-aged women who feel ambivalent about their family-life compromises than have actually been brushed aside by young corporate hotshots (which is not to say that doesn't happen, of course, although work choices are also factors). There's really very little evidence that HRC has been given a raw deal professionally-- her Senate seat and presidential run were both dependent on the operation built originally for Bill-- but there's a very good argument that she could have done much more on her own than was evident in 1992 (or 2000) had she not gone to Arkansas in the first place.

I still have a hard time buying that it's more of a slap in the face to pick Sebelius over Clinton than to pick Kaine or any other man over Clinton.

I suppose the logic is this: Obama came awfully close to picking Clinton (because he picked a woman), but then pulled away and picked another woman instead. It's like holding out your hand, but then when the other person gets close enough to shake it, you pull it back and fix your hair--psych! Mocking the person by approximating a handshake is worse, I suppose, than never extending your hand at all.

But this line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that a Sebelius pick is sufficiently close to a Clinton pick than picking a man would be. And I don't think that's quite right. Sebelius is more similar to Clinton than Bayh or Biden or Kaine is in one, and only one, dimension: her womanhood. And, to Clinton fans, is womanhood really Clinton's, or Sebelius's, defining characteristic, the very basis for her appeal? Because that's the message outrage of Sebelius conveys.

I want to keep Sebelius in the mix, but I worry that I'm thinking wishfully.

In addition, picking Sebelius has the added bonus of pissing off Lanny Davis.

bold, unconventional choice -- very Obama

Are the talking heads paying attention to what's actually going on? Obamaphoria divorced from the reality of what the man is and actually stands for - will not win this election. Dana, your contributions to this on-going conversation are increasingly irrational.

...anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn't deserve the designation "feminist."

Anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton -- and only Hillary Clinton -- deserves to be the first female president or vice president first has to explain to me why.

Obama should "double down" on his message of change with Bill Richardson.

Obama makes a big mistake if he doesn't pick Hillary. He's fallen from 8 ahead to even in Ohio because older women don't support him. They should. That's a Democratic demographic.

If he picks Hillary, he wins the election. It's that simple. Anyone without Clinton Derangement Syndrome should be able to see that.

Obama should "double down" on his message of change with Bill Richardson.

Brian D: "[T]o Clinton fans, is womanhood really Clinton's, or Sebelius's, defining characteristic, the very basis for her appeal? Because that's the message outrage of Sebelius conveys."

I think that the coalition of Clinton holdouts are predisposed to this sort of thinking. After all, we know there is many a Clinton backer who believes that Barack Obama is only the Democratic nominee because he's black, and not, say, because he ran a clearly superior campaign operation.

It pains me to say that a Sebelius pick will draw a lot of flak, but let's be honest: it will. Nonetheless, I think Sebelius would be an excellent choice for Obama. He can win regardless of the vocal displeasure he'll get from some Democrats, and anything that can convince these misguided folks that race and gender aren't the be-all and end-all of American politics is more than okay in my book.

I don't think Biden's "I'm not the guy" referred to the VP choice. He admitted he didn't know anything about that. "The guy" referred to the person to talk to about the decision, which wasn't him.

It will be Sebelius and that will be the nail in the coffin of Obama's tone-deaf and meek campaign. Good riddance. I look forward to Obama pulling a Mondale and carrying exactly one state in fall and then disappearing into the sleaze of Chicago that he emerged from. He has failed the Democratic party and the people of this country with his ineptitude and passivity.

To win the election, although that chance is likely gone now anyway, Obama would have had to choose either Clinton (without whom he will not have unified Democratic support) or a white male military officer (like Webb, Clark, or Zinni) who could have attacked McCain's strength.

Choosing Sebelius is a stupid and fatal move for a candidate who is already seen as not masculine and aggressive enough by a significant number of voters.

I don't agree that the Obama ticket needs to put on the kind of hypermasculinity for which some people will vote McCain, as some also seem to indicate some of these ladies are giving HRC their feminine sympathy vote. (Come on, really? We vote for people because we sympathize with their life compromises?)

But I do sort of think Obama has to make sure the ticket isn't looking a little too Mondale. Or just plain sitting in the middle of the road, waiting to get hit by the Republican mack truck.

I honestly have never been able to figure out what Sebelius actually does for him. I do get that it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy inside (including myself, a little bit), but I'm not convinced it's a winning ticket.

I honestly have never been able to figure out what Sebelius actually does for him.

There are a hundred possible VP's at any given time, and usually none of them stick out that much beyond the others. But I'll give it a shot.

Executive, not legislative, experience. An important Ohio connection, esp. for older OH voters. Not from Official Washington, and definitely not another Senator. A woman -- and the median Democratic voter is a woman.

Can Obama pick different? Yes.
Can he pick better? Probably yes.
Can he pick worse? Definitely yes.

The fascination with ex-military types mystifies me.

People who put 'blowing shit up' at the top of their policy agenda don't vote Democratic anyways. The GOP owns that vote -- they've got an actual, not a potential, war, and hundreds of thousands of dead to point to.

All a Webb or a Zinni or a Clarke represents is a promise.

"A woman -- and the median Democratic voter is a woman."

And the Democratic Party has been doing an awful job with that, in my opinion, because they've been doing an awful job for the typical median income voter-- who is probably not even a woman.

Advancing a woman to candidacy does not make up for that. Does nothing for my life.

OTOH, if the median democratic voter is already a woman, I don't think losing the election by preaching to the converted is really going to make up for it, either.

I don't get the fascination with men making over $120K or the fascination with preaching to the converted.

But, okay, maybe she helps win Ohio. You really need the male vote there, though, right? Does she have it?

I'm a woman and I honestly don't care which way he picks -- man or woman.

I just want to see him pick Biden!!!!

Obama needs an older more experienced guy to balance him out

At least my humble female opinion

Julie Kentwood
CMO, www.groupROAR.com

Well, maybe he can pick Sebelius, but I'd like to hear about something other than her private parts.

And that's from *you* people.

It's a damn good thing you morons aren't talking about me and my career like that.

You have a lot to learn.

You are so misinformed about women voters.

If Obama is stupid enough to choose any woman other than Hillary, he is sealing his fate - loser.

It would be a stab in the back not only to Hillary, but also to her voters, the majority of the 18 Million.

He cannot come up with a substitute for Hillary. There is none.

There is not one person who has been mentioned as a possibility, man or woman, who stacks up to Hillary.

She has it all - experience, knowledge, intelligence, maturity, good judgement, competence, record of accomplishments, worldliness, the winner of the big important states, and the winner of the People's Votes.

Obama would be a total buffoon not to choose her.

If you don't count the caucus delegates he stole with the help of his thugs and their theft, threats, force, and fraud, she won the delegates, too.

She also brings the hope of another 8 years of Peace and Prosperity, and the hope for another Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

Davis X. said "People who put 'blowing shit up' at the top of their policy agenda don't vote Democratic anyways."

That's why the Dems lose. Seriously. We need 10-20% of these voters to win, and thus strength, or at least the perception of strength, matters.

I always thought picking a man over a woman purely on gender was the definition of sexism; yet here we have Clinton supporters demanding that all other women be disqualified.

Doesn't that make them both sexists and hypocrites?

"Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice -- very Obama."

When has Obama ever been bold and unconventional?
He is one the most conventional and hesitant candidates going.
Why do you describe him as such? When has ever been bold and unconventional?

What about Sebelius besides her gender?
Let's see. She was insurance commissioner in KS, a post a Dem wasn't supposed to be able to win. She then reformed the office, something nobody was supposed to be able to do. Then she was elected governor, even though Kansas is supposed to be completely red. With high approval ratings, she won a landslide reelection in a state where registered Rs outnumber Ds 2 to 1. She gets things done. Even in a red state. And I think that's what Obama sees--solid executive experience, a track record of working across party lines to accomplish stuff (e.g. the insurance reform). In addition, she's an early backer of Obama who delivered her state and whom he appears to trust and have a very solid relationship with--something Kerry has stressed about the veep pick. She would, as he has repeatedly stressed, help him govern, because she has that solid executive experience in line with Obama's own goals for the country. Also, she happens to be a woman, but should that disqualify her--either because of the only-Hillary meme (a tiny minority, truly) or because of the "Americans can only ever be comfortable with old white guys" meme?

Like Dana, I can really see where he'd like to challenge that latter idea.

anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn't deserve the designation "feminist."

There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin.

It's based on the completely false assumption that the only reason a feminist would support Clinton is that she's female. That, of course, is nonsense. Her gender isn't what qualifies her to be president.

On the other hand, I'm damned if I can think of another woman who's as qualified as she is; and she out-qualified all the males who ran in the primaries as well.

I'm a strong feminist, but that had zilch to do with why I supported Clinton.

(I'm leaving the VP slot out of this because she's overqualified for that position.)

Loris, I can't believe we're still debating Clinton's qualifications for the office this late in the game, but she's a dreadful executive. In both her execution of health care reform, and the wacked way she ran her presidential bid. (e.g. Keeping on Mark Penn, of all people, even as he assured her and Bill that there really was a vast left and right wing conspiracy against them, per this month's Atlantic memos.) This is not to say that I wholeheartedly oppose Clinton for everything--she's clearly very intelligent and a master of policy minutia. I think she could be the next LBJ of the Senate. But the presidency is an executive office.

Also, Bill. This spring made it clear that the presidency should be awarded once per power couple. And this running for the spouse's office frankly goes a lot better if the spouse has been tragically deceased (see several house seats), rather than preparing to be carried back into office on the nominee's back. The only reason I know what Sebelius or Pelosi's husbands do is that I looked it up.

Loris, I can't believe we're still debating Clinton's qualifications for the office this late in the game

"We" aren't. At least, I'm not. If you had actually read my comment with any attention, you'd know the point I was making was about something else entirely.

Hint: Look at what I quoted from Dana's post.