Those who say Hillary Clinton won't accept the Democratic Party vice presidential nomination are assuming that she wants all or nothing. The same can be said of those believing Obama would turn down VP.
What if we look at both of them as politicians and leaders who care more about this country than about their own egos? From that vantage point, here is why each, once convinced the presidential nomination is out of reach, would say "yes" to being the vice presidential candidate:
1) The Democrats would win the election. It's difficult to envision John McCain remaining level-headed and focused when going up against Clinton and Obama together and he wouldn't generate the enthusiasm of which they're capable;
2) One would become the first woman vice president, the other the first black vice president. Either would be making history;
3) While it's unlikely that we'll see another vice president with Cheney's power, the potential power of that position is now clear. Moreover, it's difficult to imagine either Obama or Clinton being dismissive to the other as VP, knowing it would be widely considered a rebuff not just to an individual but to a wide swath of American society;
4) Despite how disparaging some of their followers have been of the opposing candidate, Obama and Clinton have sufficient regard for each other to work effectively together and they both earnestly believe this country can't afford even one more year of Bush-like dominion;
5) They are very close on most major issues, and both candidates care about improving the lives of Americans who are now suffering under worsening economic conditions;
6) If either were to turn down the vice presidency and later run for the party's presidential nomination, they'd be open to charges of having let the country down -- especially if the Democrats lose the 2008 election.
For these reasons and more, whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is asked to be the Democratic Party vice presidential running mate, neither is likely to reject the offer. If we really want change, we need to win. And that means starting to think smart.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at bardscove
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
#6 is the most important
Ms Reardon, thank you for your convincingly non-partisan point of view. Your ideals are admirable however, as you can see and read in many of these posts - it is just more of the SAME - a continuation of absolute and irrational abuse of Hillary Rodham Clinton AND her supporters. Divisive and destructive - not the so called ideals of their candidate! So it's naive to think that it will somehow all be ok dokie by the elections in November! I mean this as a reality check for SOMEONE in leadership - listen up cause you'd better come up with something much more creative than getting behind this kind of ticket for "this country!" Many people are profoundly fed up with what this country seems to even represent anymore.......and ALL OF US "We the People" have had our votes, our lives, our voice treated pretty shabbily over the last 8 years! So these naive Democratic party leaders better come up with a much better guiding principle if they expect ANY voter to fall into line for this kind of ticket!
The media, Barack Obama, certainly his fans/supporters and these highly disappointing Democratic party leaders will end up VERY surprised about how they underestimated the thoughts and the feelings of a WHOLE LOT of "We the People,." voters! ....alot of damage has been done.......and it continues as reflected in these hate filled posts. And the damage has been to many, MANY more people than the obvious - Hillary Rodham Clinton!
I can not understand why Clinton supporters are not insulted by her opinion that they will never vote for a black American. Is she right? Is that why there is no comment from her supporters about "hardworking white people"? They are just mum on the subject of her race baiting. Makes me think they most of them agree with her.
Barack Obama's campaign manager was the FIRST PERSON to bring up race when he accused BC (of all people) of being a "racist." BC in context spoke of a previous President who along with MLK had made more decisions to improve the plight of Black Americans than any President to date. AS BILL CLINTON DID!
Barack Obama admitted wanting to avoid the discussion of "race" from the start - hurt his chances - so this outrageous accusation seemed like an intentional strategy to generate feelings of guilt and sympathy of voters regarding the PAST! The PRESS, the candidates, EVERYONE had before been walking on eggshells - how to talk about this election - about the statistics of race and gender witout being accused of racism! We all know that race has been a very sensitivity issue to discuss without being accused of racism! And a must dialog for a healthy, transcendant change! But we're past (SOME) of that now...BUT many are still using this argument to plunder Hillary Rodham Clinton's important need to analyse her political base! A double standard - devisive and dishonest! Now the intentional damage is done! She's had the confidence to KNOW she's not racist and she'll KEEP talking about her base much like Obama or pundits talk about Obama's black voter base! FEW people defend her or women in general for thedaily abuses regarding GENDER! It's everywhere - just as women have been rendered invisible for so long - SO apparently is this insidious and
Actually, objective observers and historians are already calling Hillary's campaign dirty; it contained no demonstration of her abilities but rather denigration of her opponents'; and her history in everything from education to healthcare consists of making things worse for the little guys and better for her funding companies, although she promised the opposite in the beginning.
It's a very well-reasoned and well-deserved attack against Hillary. As for the scorn for her fans, it's not hatred, it's disbelief that anybody could look at Hillary and her tactics and feel as if SHE is the victim and everything is Obama's fault. She spends most of her time denigrating Obama--which is an example that has obviously impacted her supporters--and little showing why she would be better.
All the Hillary supporters I know are incapable of seeing and/or accepting reality; if they could do that, I would gladly be polite, but there's not much point in having a discussion with people who are so rabidly, aggressively defensive that they can't accept the evidence that they're wrong and get angry none exists to prove them right.
They refuse to learn anything about Obama that doesn't come out of Hillary's mouth or those of her supporters and surrogates and choose to ignore and excuse Hillary's faults, and call the rest of us divisive when she has used methods throughout her campaign that have made her supporters determined not to learn about or vote for Obama. Hence, disparaging is the default mode.
A lot of Obama supporters would cease to be supporters if he chose Mrs. Bill Clinton. We don't support her for a reason.
.....just so you know.......the feeling is quite MUTUAL dear Bettysdad!
And whatever are WE ALL going to do? Quite a conundrum isn't it? Obama supporters don't seem to get it - you need HRC AND her supporters IF you want to assure Obama of winning an election. You'd think you'd be courting us, trying to heal all this intentional damage just to win! But NOPE - and you're making a very BIG mistake! It certainly explains all this irrational fear and hatred of HRC however - it's never had much at all to do with her......it's about WOMEN - it's about nailing BILL Clinton - like the right wing zealots did.....Well, November is around the corner - it takes ANY human being awhile to get over this kind of blatant bigotry and abuse!
Very soon Obama and ALL his power driven pundits will FINALLY be talking "nice, nice" about Hillary Clinton so they can WIN over her staunch supporters! But you supporters won't care if he says nice things then.........You'll have ruthlessly gotten what you want.......But that may be way too late then - wouldn't it? Should have been respectful from the start for REAL CHANGE! Have confidence - talk only about the important things - like HRC has done but it BORES most people to hear such talk........ we'd rather hear Hollywood fantasies - no wonder - we're ALL stressed out after 8 years of GWB! But NOPE - so many of you - all over the board -
A more important question to answer: after the way the campaign's gone, would either offer the other the post?
One thing you left out, Ms. Reardon. Hillary Clinton has the HIGHEST negative rating of any of the candidates.
But she wins key big states - Obama needs that. He's not stupid - he knows he needs her voters.
I agree with everything you've written, Ms Reardon.
The same should go if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency.......The DEMOCRATS would have a two-pillar attack against the GOPpers! THINK OF IT....REALLY think of it!
Oh, and how is Hillary going to explain that comment about her and McCain's experience in national security experience and Obama gave a speech? The Republicans will have a field day YouTubing that nasty, catty remark.
There is a good reason why we Obama supporters despise her, and that comment was one example.
Well shucks. She'd say that he'd got a whole passel of experience just in the last three months...what with dodging bullets in Bosnia and all.
Well...what else is there to be said....HRC did this to herself and I supported her up until she got ugly. You can't imagine how disappointing it feels when your candidate starts acting like a pit bull rather than a candidate for the POTUS. It feels horrible. But everyone here has said it far better than I could.
Going forward....change we can believe in....Webb, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, so many more to choose from that would appeal to the American public better. If you want a woman in a position of power in the white house, maybe you should write about how NOT to demonstrate their "testicular fortitude" and illustrate more of their intelligence, integrity, compassion and willingness to bring all voters into the fold. When did a candidate in the last 40 years behave in the way she did? I don't know of any.
2008 Vice Presidential Candidates' Debate. Question #1: "Mrs. Clinton, obviously as the VP candidate on Obama's ticket, you now believe he has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold," so my question is, when did he pass that threshold, before or after you said he had not in March 2008?" Question #2: "Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that Obama has amassed a sufficient amount of life experience since March of 2008 so that he now offers America more than just a speech?"
Campaign commercial: various clips of Hillary Clinton in press conferences directly suggesting that McCain has passed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn't, and that McCain can put forward a lifetime of experience and Obama can only put forward a speech from 2002. Still of Clinton's face with Obama's smaller image sliding into the bottom corner of the screen, narrator: "If his own choice for Vice President thinks this about him, what should we think?" Fade in, shot of McCain in Iraq, or in uniform, or with military commanders, "McCain for President."
It didn't have to be this way. This is the result of choices the Clinton campaign made, apparently after Wisconsin, about the style of campaign they were going to run.
I couldn't have said it any better. This is the exact reason why she cannot be on the ticket, and also why we despise her so much. It was a mean spirited comment.
HuffPost's Pick
Kathleen, how great is it to see somebody actually write something that makes sense instead of starting from a partisan point of view and hammering a partisan point into oblivion.
Sometimes the way forward just presents itself in the full light of day and nobody sees it because they only see what they want to see.
Obama and Hillary should have had a sit down after Ohio and Penna and they should have said hey, let's win this thing and figure out how we can both win in the process. Too rational? There is a good chance that the present process may be losing the dems the white house without anybody realizing it before it is too late. What is the rationale in the present process? New party registrations? Naw.
McCain is going to present himself as Mr. Middle of the road and promise peace with honor (yes, the Nixon lie, it worked before) and the public may well decide on divided government
A Barack/Hillary ticket might already by talking about three or four broad themes they would promise to deliver on when elected with a democratic congress and in this atmosphere the public would ignore all the negative republican static because we do need peace in Iraq, alternative energy sources, improvements in the trade deals, reversal of the Bush income redistribution to the rich, reform of health care. The Rev Wright would disappear quickly in this environment but we aren't getting there because dems are blowing it.
Obama will choose the best candidate, however, I would not be against Hillary as VP. Barack would have to draw up legal documents, which spell out what she and her husband's role would be. If they usurp their job description, they will be reprimanded. I am not sure if the Clinton's would be too impressed with any type of reprimand. I have confidence that this will resolve itself. I must admit, I am in awe of Hillary's stamina. Out on the trail every day, must be so tiring, but there she is, plugging along. I admire her, but do not enjoy her other less admirable traits.
"Obama and Clinton have sufficient regard for each other to work effectively together" . . . .
That's the most naive and ill-judged statement I've ever heard. If you know anything about Hillary's history as First Lady, you would know that even without official standing, she overreached constantly and outrageously (think health care reform, Travel Office, FBI files, Vince Foster papers, law billing reports, vetoing settlement of various scandals) with disastrous results. With the title of VP, imagine how much more entitled and controlling she will be. And since she will never relinquish her goal for the top spot, which she will feel was rightly hers, we can expect a constant barrage of undermining and sabotaging antics out of her. What kind of idiot would wish such a calamity on our nation?
And I don't want to even think what Bill would be up to meanwhile.
Hillary won't relinquish her "goal" - which BTW - is the same as Obama's - - - TO GET THE GOPpers OUT OF POWER. Just let the voters play out their part. That's why she's in it - she's tough and challenging and would make an excellent Madame President or VP. But BOTH together is only what the Republicans don't want to see!
. . . . . . .DON'T PLAY INTO THE GOP's HANDS. . . . .
RE: One Reason Senator Clinton Will Not Be Offered The Vice Presidency
1. Bill Clinton
Why can't I post here???
Relax, that happens to evryone here...............Im not complaining though !
Ms. Reardon
You have apparently missed the point of the Obama campaign. I don't pretend to speak for Senator Obama, but it's CHANGE. Change, as in something new - not an old retread. Get it?
Putting Hillary on the ticket is like putting on yesterday's underwear. It does not represent a change no matter how many ribbons and bows you wrap around it.
Further, why would Hillary want to be on a ticket with someone that she considers to be such an abject flunky - as per this quote that Hillary repeated many times:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
I wish that the media and the clintonistas would stop trying to shove hillary down our throats.
I think that Sebelius, Webb, Richardson and several others would add much more to the ticket than Hillary could ever hope.
YESTERDAYS UNDERWEAR???? Insidious!!!
It's funny, the comment you quoted is the ONE egregious one that makes it impossible for Obama supporters to embrace Hillary. The Republicans will play that ad nauseum. And don't think Obama has forgotten that, too. It was not only mean spirited, but stupid and she didn't think of the reverberating effect it would have.
thank you.
But if they win, one of them would have to spend the next four years as VICE PRESIDENT! (See John Gardner's comments on this.) Certainy not what Bll (or Michelle for that matter) had in mind.
Part of what Obama talks about is coming together and if Obama supporters cant work with Clinton how are you going to work with Republicans. I am not saying she is a definite VP, but we are foolish to write her off and it makes us sound arrogant. I mean I get it Hillary ran a rough race, she name called, probably played the race card and suggested in a backwards way he may be a muslim (that was low) but even through all that I like the Clintons, i remember the clinton years fondly and her as VP isnt the worse thing in the world. Having said that my choice would be Mark Warner from Virginia.
You have apparently missed the point of the Obama campaign. I don't pretend to speak for Senator Obama, but it's CHANGE. Change, as in something new - not an old retread. Get it?
Putting Hillary on the ticket is like putting on yesterday's underwear. It does not represent a change no matter how many ribbons and bows you wrap around it.
Further, why would Hillary want to be on a ticket with someone that she considers to be such an abject flunky - as per this quote that Hillary repeated many times:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
I wish that the media and the clintonistas would stop trying to shove hillary down our throats.
I think that Sebelius, Webb, Richardson and several others would add much more to the ticket than Hillary could ever hope.
Personally I think that would be disasterous ! I think Richardson with all his work negociating with foreign leaders would make an excellent VP plus he is also Latino so now you have that aspect of the equasion ,,he would understand minorities and the poor.
Best choice I think !
Posted May 13, 2008 | 08:51 PM (EST)