Thursday 19 Jul 2018 | 01:00 | SYDNEY
Thursday 19 Jul 2018 | 01:00 | SYDNEY

Reader riposte: NY Times misses the mark


Sam Roggeveen


21 July 2008 15:56

Kate Mason, a former Lowy Institute intern, has this response to Michael Fullilove's post:

Perhaps the broader and more offensive undercurrent to Nagourney and Healy's claim that it would be harder to name another woman after Hillary is that they fail to understand this: women, like men, are different!  It is illogical in the extreme to argue that choosing a different female candidate for Veep instead of Hillary would be difficult: it is as sensible as saying, 'it would be hard, after refusing a man, to name another man.' That's obviously silly, as a) it happens all the time, and b) men, like women, are different to each other. Both Clinton and Sebelius represent Democratic principles and indeed, the party, but both do so with very different nuances and policy emphases. 

Picking a woman who represents Old Washington versus someone who doesn't is simply apples and oranges. And this is exactly what Obama should be doing — choosing the right candidate based on their politics, not their gender. To think that this would result in a 'backlash from among women who supported Mrs. Clinton' is underestimating the very group Nagourney and Healy purport to speak for.