Speculation that Barack Obama will choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate has peaked now that Obama has clinched the nomination. Common wisdom is that he must do this for the women who supported Clinton and have been bitterly disappointed by her defeat. But bringing her onto the ticket has significant problems, and Obama would be well served to use other means to heal the wounds of a brutal primary season.
That’s why he should pledge to appoint women to at least fifty percent of the cabinet seats in his administration. This may not be enough for many in the Clinton camp to bring them on board, but it would go a long way toward it. Beyond that, it’s time that women got their fair share of the real power in the executive government. A fully balanced cabinet is in the best interests of the country and certainly in keeping with the mission of the Obama campaign.
A commitment to balance the cabinet is exactly right at this time for many reasons. Here are three compelling ones.
It gives real power to women.
Unlike the vice presidential spot, which has no portfolio, a cabinet position carries with it real power to make decisions. These are not token positions. In the Bush cabinet, they’ve been weakened and cheapened, but one of the important first goals of the Obama administration must be to restore professionalism and competence to government.
The party and the country are blessed to have highly qualified women who have every bit of experience and talent necessary to do these jobs. There is no need to appoint anyone who isn’t qualified to fill a quota. The only thing preventing the cabinet from being gender balanced is prejudice, and that can be eliminated by someone who makes a serious effort to do so.
In the natural course of things I would expect Obama to ensure that any gender barriers are removed throughout the executive branch. So, to make this pledge now is not that much to ask. The women’s movement can get one of its biggest wins out of an Obama presidency. That win is real power at the top levels of government.
I might note here that a commitment to put more women in the cabinet will not hurt Obama with Republicans. While there might be a higher percentage of Democrats who favor treating women equally, I think most Republicans are on board, too. A pledge to balance the cabinet should not lose Obama any votes, and may bring in votes from some Republicans and independents who respect this kind of forthright stand.
It sets a precedent.
Unlike the presidency or the vice presidency, which are singular jobs, the cabinet positions are a group that can reflect the makeup of the country (not just in terms of gender, but in other fundamental ways). The President is either going to be a man or a woman (genderally speaking), and the fact that a man fills the position is not, in and of itself, a sign of gender discrimination. But to have a cabinet that is mostly men, when every cabinet position has multiple competent and acceptable candidates, is a sign of prejudice.
We should set the expectation that the cabinet will have about a 50/50 representation of men and women. By announcing that he will place women in at least fifty percent of the jobs and then following through in his initial appointments, Obama would be setting a precedent that future cabinets will be balanced. A real commitment to this, backed up by actions throughout his administration, would make this a very compelling precedent for future presidents to honor.
It provides openings for other women to move up.
By putting women in the highest positions in government, Obama can open up possibilities for others to move into the positions they vacate. In California (where I live, and therefore where I have the most experience), both senators are women. Either of them could be appointed to the cabinet. This would open up a Senate seat, one that is almost certain to go to a Democrat and could be filled by another woman.
The current Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, is an excellent candidate for Senate. She ran on a platform of integrity, which we are seeing borne out in her handling of the elections here. She’s not the only good candidate for this office, but if one of our senators were appointed to the cabinet, we don’t have to lose a woman in the Senate as a result. There are others waiting in the wings.
There are fifteen cabinet posts and five other cabinet-rank offices (not counting the vice president). If ten of these positions are filled with women of stature, it will open up their previous ten positions to others. Of the current twenty positions, five are held by women. This is 25%. (That’s the sum total of two hundred nineteen years of progress in our government.)
The VP Nomination
Obama shouldn’t choose Clinton as his running mate. To do so will continue the split in the Democratic Party for years to come. The VP must be a loyal supporter of the President, and must not have an obvious and divergent agenda. Plus, to put Hillary in the office means having Bill in the office. That will not only cause enormous problems in the fall campaign but real problems in the administration.
My preference would be to see her as Secretary of State. This is good for Obama, good for Hillary and good for Bill. It’s also hugely good for the country. Imagine the Clintons going around the world promoting the United States. If little towns in North Carolina who’ve never seen a President before are thrilled with having one of these stars come to town, imagine what it would be like for forgotten places all over the world. The U.S. must repair years of damage to our reputation done by the Bush administration(s), and this is a task that requires the very best person(s) for the job. We can get two for the price of one. Put them to work.
Obama has another choice for VP that would help bring the Clinton camp back into the fold. That choice is Wesley Clark. (Not that I have a bias, of course.) Clark on the ticket would bring in military votes across the country and reassure people that there was sufficient military experience in the Obama administration. That would be a very big selling point, given the ongoing wars.
But, I have another, more practical reason for suggesting Clark. We have to rein in the military-industrial complex. Clark knows and understands the military as good as anyone I know. I think he can be trusted to make good decisions on it, and I would suggest that if he is the VP then Obama give him the task of reforming both the military and the businesses that support it. (I modestly hope he’ll implement some form of my 5X plan, which would limit military spending to the combined totals of the next five largest military budgets in the world.) We simply can’t afford the out-of-control situation we have today. It’s bankrupting us. This is the most important practical task of the next administration, so having someone to take it on is of critical strategic importance.
Obama should not be railroaded into taking Clinton onto the ticket. He has many other good choices. For example, I’ve heard Sen. Joseph Biden mentioned for VP. He would bring a very solid, practical sense to the administration, a great complement to Obama’s imaginative practicality. Consider the bumper stick. Obama/Biden: Leadership and Experience. Take that, old guy!
Who should be on the short list?
Other than Clinton, which women should be on the short list for cabinet positions? I have some names, but this is just to get the discussion started. There are probably so many qualified women in this country that I’ve never heard of that I’m sure it is no problem to find them. So, let me mention just three.
At the risk of destroying California’s representation in the Senate, I think that both of our Senators are good candidates. I can’t do justice to their resumes, but the purpose is to open the discussion, not to close it.
I would nominate Sen. Diane Feinstein to head Department of Commerce. My feeling is that she would make a good ambassador to the business community. We need someone who is a strong Democrat in that position, but one who won’t spook business leaders. Whether she would consider leaving the Senate for the cabinet, I can’t say, but I think she’s an example of someone eminently qualified to fill a cabinet post.
I would nominate Sen. Barbara Boxer to head Department of Homeland Security. As a Senator from California, I’m sure Boxer is sensitive to natural disasters and would have a huge stake in making sure Homeland Security functions properly. Boxer deserves to be offered a position like this just for standing up in the Senate so that Bush’s last election could be challenged.
Finally, I’m going to suggest Congresswoman Nancy Boyda for the Department of Agriculture. She’s new to Congress, but she serves on the House Agriculture Committee and she’s from, of all places, Kansas. I don’t know how easy it would be to get a Democrat (or a woman) elected to replace her in Congress, but I think it would be worth it to see someone as competent as Boyda in the cabinet.
I’m glossing over many other good candidates. For example, the state of Washington might be another good place to poach Senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell) or even a governor (Christine Gregoire), but I don’t have any knowledge of their records to hazard a guess. I suspect that he could even find one or two qualified Republican women to serve in the cabinet, if he wanted to balance it that way, too. Nor do these positions have to go to white women. Someone like Donna Brazile may well be a good candidate even if they don’t currently hold office.
I cite these examples mainly to show that there is no shortage of talent. It’s time to make sure that the next cabinet reflects the diversity of the country. A commitment to balance the cabinet could go a long way toward bringing the Clinton supports back into the Democratic fold. But more importantly, it’s the right thing to do.
Think outside the box, folks. The VP slot is not the only game left in town.