Looks like it.

Looks like it.

Because he EITHER --

1.) Chooses a woman OTHER than Clinton, e.g. the qualified Kathleen Sebelius, and all the Hilary PUMAs go medieval in their identity politics and vote for Nader - or, lord help us all, McCain

2.) Chooses Clinton herself - and faces all the same Hilary-hatred as a ticket that Hilary took from the Right as an individual. The polarization then costs Obama the election...especially since the PUMAs really want Hilary to be Prez, not VP.

---------------

Look, there are still huge swathes of this country that might still be uncomfortable voting for a black, progressive president.

A white guy veep from the South or thereabouts will remove a lot of that discomfort - Jim Webb, anyone?

I would love to see a black president with a female vice president. I just don't think that's very marketable in 2008.

This country has not matured to the point necessary to make a ticket without a white male a successful strategy.

As Kristin Schall says, it's been a two-hundred-year sausage-fest. I can handle a few more, especially since I never really expected a woman on the ticket in the first place.

But mark my word, it WILL be Hillary. There will be all the garbage about "uniting" the party.

Now that the professional politicians know that identity politics doesn't apply to women, why would anybody bother putting a woman on the ticket? While Senator Clinton did have a small edge in the votes of older women, it clearly wasn't enough to give her the nomination. Looking at the voting demographics, there were strong patterns based on other traits, but not gender.

While a number of writers have concluded that Senator Clinton demonstrated that it's possible for a woman to be elected president, the reality is that she demonstrated that women don't support women. Given that, don't expect another serious female candidate on the national ticket from either party for at least 20 years -- probably longer.

and take note of sockpuppet22's hilariously lame-ass attempt to fix his stupid joke?

An ACTUAL Democratic Woman (Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones) is near death (or may even have died...?) and this has yet to warrant a mention on Broadsheet.

How about changing the name of the blog to reflect the fact that it consists mostly of complaining? There may be a lingering illusion that this blog is generally about news items of interest to the female populace when it's actually only about those suitable for griping.

So, how about a word about Ms. Tubbs-Jones?

I found something you guys should write about.

Front page of the WSJ's Personal Journal - "The Mommy M.B.A.: Schools Try to Attract More Women"

Discuss.

Vote for a Woman President.

One is running.

Too bad you don't know about her.

Too bad you don't care.

Are you going to go see "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2"?

It should be awesome!

Why would any moral person vote for her? I guess 1.2 million dead Iraqis for Oil and Israel isn't enough.

I'm not terribly concerned whether Obama chooses a female for the VP slot. However, I will be VERY concerned if his first appointment to the Supreme Court isn't a woman. I consider electing more women to the House and Senate to be a much bigger priority than symbolically filling the vice-presidential position. I personally prefer women, particularly liberal women, to be in more effective positions of power.

I am deeply saddened by the news that we lost Stephanie Tubbs Jones today.

Yes, I've taken a moment and now think that the first post was a Freudian slip. Is it possible the poster really just wishes he had just gotten out of Rebecca?

Even though I think it is extremely unlikely Obama will choose a woman as his VP, if he is elected president, I think you will see lots of women in his cabinet and other key administration positions. Maybe not the kind of women that support your brand of feminism.....

I agree with what Ms. Traister said at the end of the video: the way things are, it's hard for him to know if putting a woman on the ticket will make more people happy than angry or the other way round. In fact, come to think of it, it seems he has no option that couldn't be criticized on some account. Whoever he chooses, some people will hate it.

I also agree with missioncreep--I think it's more important to get liberal women into the Supreme Court than into a symbolic VP position.

HOtRod, I hope you're right and lots of women will get important positions in a possible Obama administration--as long as they're liberals committed to gender equality, I don't care what kind of feminism they have.

d.c.eric, you're probably right--a Freudian slip. Though failing to read what you've just written--a sin of those only to happy to click on the 'post' button--also explains that...

I don't think the cause of feminism is helped by this "chose women for the sake of choosing women" line of thinking. What made Hillary's run important wasn't that she was running as a woman, but that she was running as the best PERSON for the job. It would be backtracking to select a VP merely because of their gender.

I think that Obama is considering which PERSON would be best for the job. Now, there is a valid argument about how sexism fits into WHY there aren't as many good female choices in Washington, but that is a different debate.

Oy vey. I can understand lighthearted but we are talking about professional women who deserve some respect for their positions-a Senator and Governors we’re talking about here. I don’t think their male counterparts should be called dudes or guys in this sort of context either.

Broadsheet is clearly just whoring for hits now. Bully on ya bimbos!

What a fucking major embarrassment and invitation for backsliding culturally.

The majority of the 'feminist blogosophere' is indistinguishable from the right wing in its petty, hateful reactionary posture . Only the orthodoxy on the issues is different.

And the notion that any other woman than Clinton would be a token - is an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere- and people should be ashamed for propagating this meme as if it had any merit.