Obama should pick Hillary

As a teen, I marched for the Equal Rights Amendment on Constitution Avenue with 10,000 women wearing white.  Its failure to pass was a blow to me and to the women of America: we wouldn’t get our rights included and enshrined in the Constitution.  We still don’t have that.

Last night, it was finally clear—even to the most hysterically unrealistic optimists--that Hillary Clinton failed to win the democratic nomination.  Her failure was another deep blow to me—and to women’s political well-being in America.  Not only would we not have the symbolic thrill of having a woman nominee and perhaps president, we would lose Clinton’s deep commitment to addressing concerns of women. Obama does address those concerns, but not as many, and not in such great detail.

         Millions of American women—probably even those like me who feel that Obama would be a very good president--feel the same disappointment. This morning, one political correspondent described Clinton supporters citing the passions of “women of a certain age” and remarking on their “ferocity”. Their anger about Clinton not getting the nomination is appearing to be ferocious as well.

If Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, as Congreve said—think of millions of women, and multiply the fury by a factor of 2 or 3. There’s a group saying they will boycott the Democratic party if Clinton is not nominated.  Come November, many of those who feel Hillary was scorned may not vote, or may decide to cast their vote for McCain.  

That fury might not be so hellish, if the Democratic party (the nominee is not totally in charge) chooses Hillary Clinton as Obama’s running mate.

         Doing so would help appease women.  The women who were so energized to see her run.  The women who wouldn’t call themselves feminists, who didn’t go to women’s colleges or law school, those ordinary working (mostly white) women who held their Hillary placards high and cheered during her speeches. Or the longtime feminists who felt Clinton's nominee was their due.

Many commentators have lamented this season of identity politics.  Certainly, people really shouldn’t vote for someone merely because of gender—or merely because of race.

While both candidates held similar positions, there were differences. Hillary made many campaign promises relating to the well being of women.

She talked about helping unions organize, where 2/3 of new members are women.  She proposed helping caregivers—70% of whom are women and helping regulate nursing homes whose residents are female.  She promised loan forgiveness for helping professions like teachers—some 70% women.  She wanted to eliminate Medicare co-payments for mammogram guarantee breast and cervical cancer treatment to every low income American, expand access to Family planning and sex ed. She hoped to improve childcare, expand the school feeding programs and make the federal government give paid family leave—like every other wealthy country. She talked up the US Service Academy—an alternative to West Point.  Women liked what they heard.

         Both candidates talk about healing the bipartisanship in Washington. How about healing the Democraticparty first?

After all, the two candidates are ideologically compatible--with ideas about education, health care, social security, credit reform that most Democrats seemed to like. 

         It would be good for these two identities to join together again. Originally, in the 19thcentury, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglas worked together, but then sadly the early feminists and civil rights activists sparred over issues of universal suffrage.  It’s time for the two groups to come together again. After all, adding 50% to 12%, produces a very healthy majority.