Sunday, August 24, 2008

Did Clinton Really Deserve to be VP?

Well, Hillary Clinton really wasn't the only woman Obama could have chosen if he wanted a female running-mate. There are scores of women who are just as intelligent and politically savvy as Clinton has shown herself to be. So, if he was going to choose a woman, there's no reason why she should have been picked instead of some other woman. Furthermore, if spending time in the White House and being intelligent makes one more qualified than any other potential running-mate, we could just as well choose someone from the White House cooking or janitorial staff who has been working there through both Democratic and Republican presidencies. After all, they are experienced with what goes on there in ways that even Clinton might not be.

At the same time, I don't think that not being picked to be his running-mate will ruin Clinton's ability to run again. She's extremely intelligent and fairly young. Lots of people go on to run again even though they weren't nominated the first time they tried. I refuse to believe that she needs some man (e.g. Obama) to rescue her from failure. The idea that a woman should wait around to be picked by some man is as anti-feminist as I can imagine and it's certainly nothing that I'd hope Clinton would settle for. She has plenty of other things she can devote her talents to.

Furthermore, Clinton chose to put those millions of dollars into her campaign. The woman is a multi-millionaire. You don't get that kind of wealth without being financially savvy enough to know how much you can afford to invest in something where you could potentially lose it all. In other words, she obviously felt like the possibility of losing that money was worth the potential pay-off from her investment (i.e. winning the nomination and, eventually, the presidency). The money that she spent hasn't put a dent in the lifestyle that she enjoys. It hasn't bankrupted her or her family. And guess what? She's going to go on to make even more millions of dollars in the future. So, please people, stop getting all upset that Obama didn't rescue her from her debt, too.

This damsel-in-distress thing just becomes more clich├ęd every single day.


BLESSD1 said...

Brilliant post, Bint. Heck...I think you'd make a better running-mate than she would :-)

Sarah J said...

I love you. that is all. you said it.

Tera said...

I refuse to believe that she needs some man (e.g. Obama) to rescue her from failure.

I hadn't thought about this, but you're right.

Clinton can run a very persuasive campaign. (Her campaign's problems had to do with prejudice and privilege). She doesn't need some man to hold her up (not even her husband, at this point).

Suzanne said...


soopermouse said...

Well, considering that she did win the popular vote and that Obama had to be given uncomitted delegates and some of hers... I don't call that failure. Add to that the kergely doccumented caucus fraud comitted by Obama's supporters and campaign and the picture is significantly different.

I am a Clinton suporter and don't want her to be Obama's VP. Amongst other things because I don't want her to be a part of Obama's failure. The guy is already behind McCain and has nowhere to go but down. I waqnt her to run again in 2012 and win. Hopefully nobody will steal the primaries again.

donna darko said...

Bint, she didn't ask that her own debt be repaid. She said she was happy to put in her own money. The rest is money owed to vendors.

AngiDe- Nana's Box said...

I found your blog by chance, hope that's ok. I noticed that you are a cancer survivor and was hoping that you would check out my blog:

Nana's Box

Lisa Harney said...

I don't think she deserved it, I don't think any of the potential candidates "deserved" it in the sense of being entitled to such consideration. Obama picked the candidate who seemed to be the best choice, and ... well, I think he made a decent choice.

I think this whole narrative that Hillary's losing something she deserved to have is, frankly, dodgy. That Obama stole it? Even worse.

I further don't see the point of complaining about what Hillary supposedly lost when we're looking at the possibility of four more years under a Republican president, who will probably have the opportunity to appoint three supreme court justices and has already made it clear that he wants to make that gay sex stuff and abortion illegal again.

And all this racist BS from the bitter Hillary supporters? Totally. Not. On.

dmarks said...

I am pleased that the Democrats chose a clean candidate. And, despite his gaffes, vice president.

Hillary's record is scandal and crime ridden. Many of her associates ended up convicted of felonies, and she only escaped such conviction herself by destroying evidence and obstructing justice.

Aside from that, what has she done? She has not given her Senate job much serious consideration, seeing it as some place to sit as she launched her Presidential campaign years ago. She really has little experience.

There are many Democratic women, from Barbara Boxer to Sheila Jackson Lee, who have more experience, are more qualified, and aren't corrupt.

(Yes, prejudice did sink her campaign: the racist comments her campaign made about Obama did a lot of damage. I'm not sure if privilege shot down her campaign: Obama came out of nowhere, and did not start the campaign as a privileged person).