On an Obama/Clinton Ticket: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
On Sunday, Andrew Sullivan published a story arguing that when Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should give serious consideration to selecting Hillary Clinton as his running mate. The argument itself is not new, but that it is coming from Sullivan, one of Obama's most eloquent and ardent advocates, is certainly worth exploring.
The past weeks have been difficult for Obama, to be sure. In addition to a number of crises boiling over, from Reverend Wright to comments about small town bitterness, Obama has been the subject of a new media narrative, one that suggests he will be unable to win working class voters in the fall. That has been complicated by the relentless depiction of Obama by the Clinton camp as being unelectable in the fall, and by indications that the length of the primary has begun to permanently divide the Democratic Party. In such an environment, choosing Hillary as his running mate seems like it might be the easiest way for Obama to overcome these obstacles, turning the ticket into what Sullivan describes as "unstoppable almost overnight."
Of course, many, if not most of Obama's supporters recoil at the notion. Throughout the campaign, Hillary has proven herself to be the worst of the kind of politics Obama is seeking to end. She has clearly chosen personal ambition over party, and dishonesty over candor. She has, on numerous occasions, praised John McCain while deriding Obama, and still refuses to apologize for her Iraq war vote. The politician she turned out to be is so divergent from what the core of the Democratic party would expect, that despite starting with the greatest political brand in Democratic politics, a popular former president as her chief surrogate, and a seemingly endless war chest, she has been denied the nomination.
Yet the problem with Hillary as vice president is not so much that she flies in the face of Obama's purpose - he no doubt could eloquently bring her into the fold, as part of a reconciliation that is distinctly Obama. It is rather that Obama would have to give up so much in his presidency in exchange for a choice that seems, at this point, completely unnecessary. The Clinton machine that Obama has so deftly dismantled would find new life with Hillary in the White House. Bill, who views Obama as the chief architect of the undoing of the Clinton legacy, would no doubt wield more influence than he would deserve or Obama would prefer. The opportunity for Bill and Hillary to meddle will be far greater if they are given the formal authority of the vice presidency. That the spotlight would have to be shared with those kind of people - and that kind of politics - is something to which Obama should be understandably averse.
Decisions about a vice president need to be undertaken with an eye toward November and beyond. And though many, including Sullivan, would argue that they are looking to November when suggesting Clinton, it is far more likely that they are being clouded by the events of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There was a time, for example, when Mike Huckabee seemed a necessary choice for John McCain as his running mate, given McCain's problems with the Republican base, especially among evangelicals. Not two months later, McCain's base is clearly in line, and Mike Huckabee seems more suited for a variety show than the vice presidency.
Hillary too, will likely enjoy a similar fate. By June 3rd, Obama will have secured the nomination. The wounds that lay open from his epic war with Clinton can be healed as easily with an eloquent speech praising her as with an eloquent moment appointing her. Once he has honored her for her service, her strength and tenacity, he will have at least two months before he needs to select a running mate. At least sixty news cycles will go by with Hillary well out of the spotlight. And in that period of time, we are likely to see the Democratic Party unify.
For all the talk of Obama's inability to connect to working class voters, it appears that it is white women, more than any other group that have stayed loyal to Clinton, thus preventing Obama from "closing the deal." White women made up 47% of the electorate in Pennsylvania, and as with every other state since Iowa, they stood with Hillary by dramatic margins. Could it be that white women are voting against Obama? Perhaps. But it seems far more likely that they are voting with Hillary, the greatest chance they've ever had for a woman in the White House.
With Hillary out of the race, white women - especially unmarried women - are sure to line up behind Obama. The 54 million unmarried women in America are as big a portion of the Democratic base as evangelicals are to Republicans. That they would choose McCain over Obama is simply unthinkable.
After a long two months of reframing and recalculating, Obama will be able to make a decision about his vice president based on a number of considerations, from the sharing of political philosophy, to possible geographic electoral advantages, to the anchoring of any perceived weaknesses. His decision will be made in July or August, not on the basis of the political calculus of April and May, but with an eye toward November.
By then, Hillary Clinton's place on the short-list will be entirely for show.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dylan Loewe is absolutely right: "Throughout the campaign, Hillary has proven herself to be the worst of the kind of politics Obama is seeking to end. She has clearly chosen personal ambition over party, and dishonesty over candor. She has, on numerous occasions, praised John McCain while deriding Obama, and still refuses to apologize for her Iraq war vote. The politician she turned out to be is so divergent from what the core of the Democratic party would expect, that despite starting with the greatest political brand in Democratic politics, a popular former president as her chief surrogate, and a seemingly endless war chest, she has been denied the nomination." I subscribe every word of this paragraph. A ticket with Clinton is a nightmare ticket. A running mate of Obama must be clean from the Iraq war as an absolute precondition. Otherwise democracy is dead.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Richardson would be his best choice as veep. However, to play the devils advocate, if Obama were somehow forced to put her on as veep, she would the only play as much of a role as he would want her to. The only duties the veep is guaranteed by the constitution is to serve as president of the senate, which is a mostly ceremonial position and doesn't ever matter unless the senate is deadlocked, and to preside over the electoral college (again doesn't matter). Obama wouldn't even have to give her an office in the White House! Clinton knows that which is why she is fighting so hard to get the nomination. It is either the presidency or back to the senate for her since she will be way to old to run in 2016.
You give far to much credit to Obama personally. He has not "deftly" "dismantled" the Clinton machine. It is still alive and well. He likewise is not the "chief architect of the undoing of the Clinton legacy." Perhaps to ardent Obama supporters, the Clinton legacy has been undone, but that is typical Obama camp tunnelvision. He carries barely 50 % of Democratic support in the nation (if that), and just like George W. Bush did, you make it out to be some sort of overwhelming "mandate." Does the word "hyperbole" mean anything to you, or did they not teach that in Freshman Bonehead English when you took it last semester? Moreover, you completely disregard Obama's handlers, most of whom put him up to running in the first place simply because they had an ax to grind against the Clintons. To think that Obama put together and ran his own campaign is infantile, and displays an embarrassingly poor understanding of national politics. Oh but I forgot--Barack went to Harvard Law! He was a "community street organizer!" Shucks! He's a "great orator!" He can do no wrong!
Get a clue: Should Obama be lucky enough to survive the primaries and be nominated, Hillary will want nothing to do with a ticket that would be doomed to lose to McCain. And if he were even luckier enough to be elected President, Hillary will want nothing to do with an administration that will go down in flames after only one term.
Obama and his supporters (of which I am one), may not have a choice in the matter anymore than Ronald Reagan did when George Bush was hoisted on him by the Republicans in the name of party unity.
But again Obama should take his cue from Reagan who loathed Bush and froze him out of the game.
We are used to the crucial role Cheney has played in W's presidency but that is highly unusual.
There is no reason why Hillary can't be relegated to say the Dan Quayle level- mostly a ceremonial figurehead and a tie-breaker in the Senate who we see once a year on the State of the Union.
There are many Republicans that will vote for Obama, but they won't with Hillary on the ticket. Her negatives far out way her positives. It's really that simple.
THIS JUST IN!!!
EVANSVILLE, Ind. — The big, though unconfirmed news coming out of the Obama camp is that Senator Obama has made an offer to former president Bill Clinton to be Senator Obama's Vice-Presidential running mate provided that the former president stop campaigning for his wife after the Indian and North Carolina primaries. Highly placed sources in the Clinton camp say that former president Clinton has indicated that he will accept the second position on the Obama ticket, and that this has triggered extremely heated arguments between he and Senator Clinton. When contacted, James Carville on behalf of the Clinton campaign has so far refused to confirm or deny the rumor.
GO BILL!!! THAT'LL SHOW HER!!!
LMFAO!!! Your NIC is very appropriate, for this jazz is great comedy.
Bill had former Attorney General Gonzales provide a legal memorandum which states that because Clinton was impeached, he could serve as President in a third term in the event Obama has to leave office. "An impeached President has the right to serve a replacement term for the impeached term under the term limits Constitutional Amendment, as an impeached term is not the same as a non-impeached term" stated Gonzales. "The Constitutional term limits amendment for Presidents only contemplates non-impeached terms", Gonzales concluded.
Gonzales stated that he told President Bush that he could run for a third term if he could convince the Democrats to impeach him. But despite authorizing torture, illegal wiretapping, knowingly lying about the war leading to the deaths and maimings of thousands of young Americans, providing signing statements that excluded him from laws that were passed and fiddling while New Orleans drowned, he couldn't get the Democrats to impeach him.
It is my observation that some of those who recoil at the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket are passionate for Senator Obama to win the presidential nomination, but less committed to seeing him win it. After starting with a field of eight well-qualified candidates and ending with two closely separated in delegate count as well as a system (unlike the winner-take-all Republican primaries) of delegate apportionment based on voting, the unassailable strength of such a unity ticket is a forgone conclusion for anyone interested in a Democratic victory. Moreover, under the circumstances, the choice of v.p. should not be the sole province of the presidential nominee. The primary was to identify the presidential nominee; other factors that contribute to electoral viability have historically been used to select running mates. Indeed, in 1956, Adlai Stevenson, the presidential nominee, permitted an open convention so as to play his best hand (Estes Kefauver won the vp spot over John Kennedy). In 1960, Kennedy selected his arch-rival in the primaries, Lyndon Johnson. Without LBJ, Kennedy would not have won Texas, and, hence, would not have been elected. The role of vp , (stand-by equipment, VP Rockefeller once termed it), is what the president wants it to be. However, a president Obama would be well-served by a vp Clinton, both in advice and counsel and assisting him in staying above the fray of Republican thugs. Mrs. Clinton would be good to have at, and on, his side.
She can hardly assist in remaining above Republican thuggery when she employs it, herself.
She would destroy his brand. And vice versa, of course. Obama can't have someone who has displayed such abominable character traits during the campaign because it goes against his brand. She cannot have someone she has insisted is unqualified at best and a terrorist at worst as her second in command.
Putting Clinton on his ticket would be the worst thing Obama could do. After everything she has done to undermine him and her Party she deserves to be left out in the cold. The female vote that seems to favor Hillary will come over to Obama because he played the game by the rules and has done nothing to merit their denial. If the reverse were true Hillary would lose large chunks of the traditional Democratic vote because of the terrible way in which she has conducted herself regarding Obama and her party. There are many excellent candidates that could be V.P. on Obamas ticket. He must choose someone who the electorate will respect and be proud of in the event they must serve. Hillary is done in more ways than one. Although they won't say so for publication there must be many Democratic colleagues that quietly despise her.
DO NOT PUT HILLARY ON THE TICKET...PERIOD...
No need to put Hillary on the ticket. You can shortlist her for the interview but be sure to fail her. She is after all the exact opposite of what an Obama administration would be about. She belongs to the Senate where she can continue to pass earmarks until Obama finally catches up with the Senate as well.
It seems like your position is that if it takes an Obama/Clinton ticket to win, then I would prefer that Senator Obama lose, McCain become president(with a Rick Santorum or some other equally nutty vice president), and both Obama and Clinton return to the senate.
I agree. I have more faith in the Democratic Party than to think that Senator Obama would need to have Clinton(s) as his VP in order to unify it. To win the general, he will need to cast his net a little wider and find a VP who can help him win independent, and yes even some republican votes. Given that Hillary Clinton can't even run as a candidate in her own party without polarizing it, she doesn't even come close to be a good choice as VP
And, FYI I am a white woman who has never supported Hillary Clinton as a candidate in this race.
Dylan, female voters have shown several times that they make smarter choices than male voters. For example, bush did not win the female vote in either election - he was put in office via dirty tricks and the naivete of a good proportion of male voters.
The tone of your comment about women voters is offensive. You seem to be dismissing them as simply supporting Clinton because she's female. No way, dude. They're supporting her because they're smarter.
Hillary Clinton should say Hell No! if Barack Obama gets the nomination, and it looks likely, because of the hate and disrepect his supporters (with his approval) have shown her during this campaign she would be blamed for every loss and bad thing that happened during the campaign.
Obama needs to stand on his own two feet, without leaning on Hillary during tough times. And as far as Jim Webb ... wonderful senator but he wouldn't be told what to do by an Obama ... who lacks the cojones to lead the military - remember these are tough boys and girls.
(continued from previous post)
essentially, go rogue and just become the worst pain in the ass Obama could experience, Bill Clinton notwithstanding.
7. Despite all their baggage, having Bill Clinton's political acumen available to the administration on a regular basis is something of definite value.
8. Here's an odd one for you, but I think it may be relevant: Bill and Barack are the same astrological sign. Somehow I think they both have an instinct for how to handle Hillary.
I hate to say it, but I'm finding it inescapable. Hillary Clinton should be Barack Obama's running mate.
As I was reading the Andrew Sullivan blog, I became more and more convinced that Hillary is the ONLY choice that Obama should make for his Vice President. Please understand that this admission is, for me, one I am truly LOATHE to admit. You can look at my previous posts to see what I mean.
Here are the reasons why he needs to select Hillary:
1. Women voters will not vote for anyone else if she's on the ticket. They are virtually guaranteed to win in November. It's nearly a gaffe-proof ticket.
2. Hillary Clinton brings to the ticket those values that the people who voted for her appreciate: her age, her experiences, and her familiarity.
3. Obama reaching out to Hillary Clinton will only bolster his professed core values as someone who is truly a uniter trying to bring everybody together. It will go a long way towards healing the divisions in the party, and his falling out with Bill Clinton.
4. The problem that would have haunted the ticket relative to Michigan and Florida would evaporate.
5. Anybody who's thinking about assassinating him will have Hillary taking his place--I think it makes it less likely (sorry for the morbidity).
6. Who was it that said "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? Leave Hillary Clinton out of the picture, and she becomes Iago. She wants it too badly not to,
(continued)
Your comparison of Clinton to Huckabee is utterly rediculous.
Did Huckabee garner 49.5% of the vote? No. Hillary has.
Obama NEEDS THOSE VOTERS to win.
Go ahead and keep dissing them though....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
