Why Obama Should Pick Hillary

Picking a vice president is obviously Barack Obama's decision to make. He must be comfortable with who he picks. Comfort level between a president and vice president may be the most important factor of all.

So I can only offer my argument, based on some facts and subjective impressions, as to why I believe it would be in Sen. Obama's personal and political interest to select Hillary Rodham Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Not just to enhance his chances of winning -- but, more importantly, to help him be a more effective president.

Let's start with one undisputable fact: Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat who gives Sen. Obama a statistically significant boost in any national poll results.

This is not a criticism of other candidates. This is simply a fact -- a product of Sen. Clinton's nearly 18-month national campaign in all 50 states and the 18 million votes she won. The result was a dramatic increase in her favorable ratings across the spectrum, even among some of her most conservative critics.

In late June, polls conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC and Fox/Opinion Dynamics -- using entirely different samples -- both showed Sen. Clinton giving Sen. Obama a +3% bump, pushing him over 51% for the first time, when the two of them were paired against Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.

Most recently, in nationwide polling on July 22-23, a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll showed a more dramatic bump of +8% with Sen. Clinton as Sen. Obama's vice presidential running mate. In a head-on match, it was Sen. Obama 41% to Sen. McCain's 40% (this was before the intense media coverage of his European trip). But with exactly the same sample, when all voters were presented with the choice of an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. McCain-Romney, the results were Obama-Clinton, 48% (+7%), and McCain-Romney 39% (-1%).

Can Sen. Obama win without Sen. Clinton on the ticket? Yes he can. Majorities favor his views on most of the economic issues. And his European trip was virtually flawless, demonstrating that he can walk, talk and act like a president in foreign affairs and with foreign leaders.

However, with Sen. Clinton on the ticket, I do not believe Sen. Obama can lose. She adds important strength to Sen. Obama's in the key constituencies of women, blue-collar workers, and senior citizens. And, thus, she could tip the balance in such key border states as West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas (not apparently in play for Sen. Obama as of now) as well as in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.

So, considering this data, why not pick Sen. Clinton? Here are the three most repeated negatives that seem to concern sincere supporters of Sen. Obama the most:

*Sen. Clinton is polarizing and will rev up the Republican base.

In fact, the data proves the reverse is true: Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

According to the July 22-23 Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, in an Obama-McCain head-on match-up, Sen. Obama gets just 74% of the Democrats and 6% of the Republicans. With Sen. Clinton as his running mate vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, Sen. Obama's Democratic vote goes up to 86%--a significant 12% increase. As for Republican voters, rather than getting "revved up" because of Hillary's presence on the ticket, there was no effect at all: The Obama-Clinton ticket gains 3% (from 6% to 9% among Republicans), whereas McCain-Romney gains the same 3% (from 82% to 85%).

So what about independents? An Obama-Clinton ticket appears to gain some strength in this critical swing-voter group. With an Obama-McCain head-on contest, independents are evenly divided, 32%-30%, with Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. But with an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, the independents favor Obama-Clinton 38%-30%--a statistically significant 6% increase in a crucial voter group.

*Choosing Sen. Clinton would be counter to the Obama message of "new politics" and change.

The simple answer: How can choosing the first woman vice president in the history of the United States be a choice for the status quo? How can choosing someone who can help the future President Obama bring to America its first affordable and effective national health insurance system reinforce the status quo rather than change? The answer is: Older doesn't mean status quo. Hillary Clinton is a change agent and always has been throughout her public career. Barack Obama selecting her as the first female vice president would reinforce his change message, not detract from it.

* She would not be a team player and her husband would be a distraction or worse in an Obama White House.

The answer here comes down to knowing Hillary and Bill Clinton as real people, not as cartoon characters. No one who knows either one of them believes there is a shred of truth to this widely held misperception.

Hillary Clinton is the ultimate team player and I have no doubt she would be an invaluable vice president. She knows from firsthand experience the importance of a supportive and involved vice president.

I am certain of this -- not just because of my personal friendship with her over 39-plus years, in the best of times and in the worst of times. But also I know -- and I believe even her critics would agree -- that she is first and foremost a dedicated public servant. And she would do everything, everything, to help her president succeed because by doing so the nation and the American people would benefit. As long as I've known her, that has always been her life's driving goal: public service to help people.

So what about Bill Clinton? Well, what about him? He loves his wife, he loves his country, and he would be 100% dedicated to helping a President Obama in any way the president wished. If that means being quiet and not distracting from the messages or issues the Obama White House is focusing on, Bill Clinton will do whatever it takes to be helpful.

Of course having a former president as the spouse of the vice president in the White House, much less someone with the intellectual power and star quality of Bill Clinton, will be a challenge to a President Obama and his White House. Few can deny that. But the last time I looked, Sen. Obama does pretty well dealing with challenges, even those his closest friends and confidantes are worried about.

In the final analysis, to repeat, this is Sen. Obama's personal and political decision and he must be comfortable with the choice. I respect that. I honor that. These are my best arguments that it is in his political interest and his future administration's interest to have Hillary Clinton by his side on the ticket as vice president--as a cheerleader and articulate supporter, as a candid adviser, and as a friend inside the White House with eight years of frontline experience of what it's like.

Now it's up to Sen. Obama.

Whatever his decision, I will support it.

This piece also appears in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Davis is a Washington attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton (1996-98). He was an active supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential nominating contest.

Comments

[grhodesreed]

Lanny,

Please leave this issue alone. Please carefully read the first paragraph of your article. You're right. The VP should be someone with whom Obama should be comfortable. The key here is that HE knows better than anyone with whom he is comfortable and whose skills will best compliment his. How, anyway, given some of Hillary's barbs during the primary, could he possibly choose her - comfortably? I know, its politics. But still, she was disingenous and sometimes outright hostile and condescending. You have been a strong advocate for her strengths. You fail, however, to publically acknowlege the baggage she brings. And, yet, you argue that she would be a good choice because she could help him to be a better president. Think about it. That is a patronizing and condescending position. You say, on the one hand, that the choice is Obama's (and it certainly is), but you contradict yourself by essentially repeatedly attempting to entreat him to follow your advice.

Please, let it go, Lanny. The choice is Obama's. Respect that choice. Stop what can only be considered publically as divisive and controlling. Pease stop obsessing about and undermining him. Hillary ran and lost the primary. It is now time to move forward of one accord or Democrats will most assuredly be left in the mire once again as the future of our nation continues to dim.

Gen
Lansing, MI

[mypov123]

So Lanny, let's say Sen. Clinton is picked by Obama as his VP running mate. Sen. Clinton is in her first debate with whoever McCain chooses as his VP. The debate moderator asks Sen. Clinton about her comment during the primary that McCain would make a better President than Obama. What do you think her response will be? Will people believe whatever response she gives?

OR what if they ask her again if she thinks Obama is really a Muslim, what will she say this time?

What do you think she'll say if someone asks her about the SEXIST comments made by Clinton surrogates in the primary that Obama didn't have the "cojones" to run against the Republicans?

OR, what will she say if they ask her about Rev. Wright again? Will she admit that she and Bill Clinton knew Rev. Wright personally when Bill was serving his second term as President?

OR what about her assertion that Obama was "an elitist" who is "out of touch" with the average American? That's code to the White working class voters for "uppity Black person". Well, at least it helped her to win in Pennsylvania, right?

The Clinton campaign instigated much of the resentment that some of her supporters still harbor about the primary. I guess if she's the VP, she'll say she's changed her mind about all of these things.
Conclusion: I DO NOT want to see Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate.

[mypov123]

Her support as a VP for Obama would be disingenuous, to say the least.

[Cathi]

Mr. Davis fails to address the negative of Hillary's gut shots to Obama during the campaign...she lied, she flip flopped and she was not a principled person -- her negativity was devisive. Taking her on would give McCain all the ammo he needs for swift-boating....2 for the price of 1!

[celticjag]

Taking Hillary would include taking Bill, I think it would be a disaster. It is speculated that the right wingnuts are salivating at the thought of Hillary as VP and are ready to launch a very dirty campaign.

[Docbcs]

I couldn't agree with you more. You've really dealt with the "pundit predictions" well. And, if Sen. Obama doesn't have the strength ro deal with a strong (woman) candidate on the ticket, then I wonder whether he has the strength to deal with leading our country.

[mypov123]

He could deal with a strong woman, Kathleen Sebelius.

[standard]

You raise some interesting points. However, "dealing with a strong woman on the ticket" isn't really a qualification for becoming President of the United States, nor a particularly effective way to win that office. Also, assuming that Sen. Clinton is "a strong woman", it's an admission that she would be a distraction, not an asset, to say that if she were on the ticket, Sen. Obama would have to "deal with" her. Bill Clinton put no woman, strong or otherwise, on the ticket when he ran for President. Twice. Why should Sen. Obama? Even if he should, why must that woman be Sen. Clinton, who just ran up $50 Million in campaign debt personally trying to defeat him?

Still, Mr. Davis makes a completely valid point. If what you want (as I take it he does) is for Sen. Clinton to have a clear shot at the nomination in 2012, then placing Sen. Clinton on the ticket now would be extremely helpful. It would put her in the best possible position to undermine the Obama campaign or upstage the Obama presidency, and what could possibly be better--for her?

[Docbcs]

I couldn't agree with all your points more strongly. If Sen. Obama isn't strong enough to have a VP as strong as Senator Clinton beside him (who also has a strong spouse), then he ain't strong enough to lead our country. All the answers that you gave to the "pundit problems" are thoughtful and relevant.

[KillTheMessenger]

I have not seen Mr. Clinton for weeks. So how is someone who is not even visible going to bring votes?

[gvidal]

Have you read the article folks?????????

*Sen. Clinton is polarizing and will rev up the Republican base. ? NOT

In fact, the data proves the reverse is true: Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

hey lanny nothing will bring out the straight-ticket republican voters like a clinton on the dem ticket. why do y'all ignore this? the republicans have NOTHING right now. they are not motivated. none of their factions are motivated. and you really want to get them motivated to come to the polls by putting clinton on the dem ticket? do you really want to see mccain win?

[gvidal]

what a joke your logic is...... nothing will bring out more WORKING CLASS WHITES than Hillary -
You obviously want BO to go down to defeat!

[BigMike75]

Lanny, Lanny, Lanny, your still singing this sad song. During the primaries you were one of Hillary's easiest surrogates to dislike, as you often treated Obama's candidacy as an afterthought, so to see you craft this piece is not surprising. No one can quote polling numbers quite like Lanny Davis, but we could all cite polling data to fit just about any argument we want to make. In theory, the Obama/Clinton ticket would be formidable, in reality I just don't see it working. I think Hillary is a fine public servant, although her actions during the primaries were at times despicable, I think her best work can be don in the Senate. I think she brings way too much baggage to the picture, along with the highest negatives, and will overshadow much of Obama's candidacy, something he does not need. That ship has sailed Lanny, so prepare yourself for the alternative.

[gvidal]

You should prepare your self for Barry's defeat - and Hillary's election in 2012!!

[Roshi98]

Lanny is both correct and not. Hillary would certainly strengthen the ticket, both because of her significant credentials, particularly in the most pressing issues most Americans can agree on (struggling homeownership, health care costs, and foreign policy) and as the lead attack dog against a Republican slime machine that she is well-familiar with and can effectively rebuff.

However, she should not at this point seek this role precisely because her acumen is better served as Senate Majority Leader than as veep. The main complaint about Hillary from the more reactionary members of the progressive movement (like Arianna, Greenwald, and Kos) was that she was TOO political and polarizing. As veep, these two perceived weaknesses would be undermined (because we DON'T want another Dick Cheney, the role would have to be denuded), but as majority leader this is PRECISELY the temperament needed to muscle through a progressive agenda. Hillary wouldn't be a rubber stamp for ANY president, but her priorities are almost exactly that of the majority of citizens, so her selection as majority leader could well set the tone for Democratic­/Progressi­ve control of the Congress for years to come.

Hillary for Majority Leader, that should be the real strategy.

[JimR]

I'd prefer Chris Dodd as Majority Leader.

[JohnKC]

"So what about Bill Clinton? Well, what about him? He loves his wife, he loves his country, and he would be 100% dedicated to helping a President Obama in any way the president wished. If that means being quiet and not distracting from the messages or issues the Obama White House is focusing on, Bill Clinton will do whatever it takes to be helpful."

What parallel universe are you living in? Bill would be 100% dedicated? Then why isn't he campaigning for the presumptive Democratic candidate right now?

RE: Hillary
I wouldn't even vote for Hillary if she was running for dog catcher. Why? In the primaries she stated that both she AND MCCAIN would make better commanders in chief than Obama. INEXCUSABLE!!! I could see it now. Obama picks her as is VP nominee - the first ad the RNC runs quotes her comment about McCain.

[AuntSally]

The fact that Obama might win with Clinton is not an argument that he can't win with someone else.

If you're going to be about change, I don't think you can put Clinton on the ticket. And personally, after what I witnessed in the primary, I don't want HRC anywhere near the Oval Office.

More to the point: It just doesn't matter who the VP pick is -- I'll vote for an Obama / Snoopy ticket. Obama is the headliner, that's who I'm voting for...

[BaltimoreSteve]

Lanny,

1. You forgot to mention that her husband was impeached for lying. He stained the Democratic Party. Did you ever think that our loss in the past two presidential elections might have been a factor?
I also find it a stretch to think that Hillary was unaware of his numerous dalliances.

2. Hillary stayed in the primary too long. We can argue whether it hurt Barack or not, but one thing is clear, it hurt her. Had she not been opposed by another viable candidate like Barack, I would have voted for her. Many of us Dems would have voted for any Dem for president. Many of us just don't like her, and were glad to see an alternative.

3. Her lying is a problem. You might respect her, but we've had enough of that.

4. Hillary can do more from the Senate than she can as V.P. We all want a structural change in our government, and that will require leadership in Congress that she can provide. That's what a team player does.

5. We don't need West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas to win. We will win the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida without her, and our chances of winning other states in the west, are more likely with another V.P. selection.

Lanny, nice argument, but let's move on.

[max08]

Completely agree.

[SeriousBlack]

Nicely summarized. All of the rabid huffers-and-puffers on this thread (on either side) should use this post as an example of calm, rational discussion.

[shela88]

Applause! Applause!

[Boadicea]

I'd love to see Hillary on the ticket, as long as she puts a long distance between herself and that whole out-to-lunch set of male advisors and schills she had during the primary.

One thing is certain. Hillary would have won the nomination if she hadn't chosen to associate herself with people like this author, who, as a schill for Hill during the primary, told some of the most aggregious and offensive lies about Obama that have been told.

Alas, the problem for Democrats would not be Hillary, it would be Bill. Obama can't choose Hillary without getting Bill - along with his upcoming fraud trial and his 8 years post WH of shady deals for very good causes. It would all be a gold mine for Republicans.

[OtayPanky]

Boadicea: I'd love to see Hillary on the ticket, as long as she puts a long distance between herself and that whole out-to-lunch set of male advisors and schills she had during the primary.

===

Now, now.

There was a whole gang of eight (or was it 13) wymmyn surrounding Hillary. Until she started gettingn clobbered in the actual primaries, they were the subject of all kinds of admiring (If not admirable) media attention.

Granted, the numbskull who actually ran her campaign into the ground was a man. Actually, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn are BOTH men, come to think of it. But she had plenty of wymmyn stirring the cauldron, too.

The bottom line is that SHE - not some lackey - ran a bad campaign...actually a TERRIBLE campaign. She revealed, not for the first time, that she simply doesn't have the EXECUTUVE skills needed for that job.

No need to blame that on her daddy - or anyone else's daddy either.

[max08]

Double that for me.

[profmsf]

I am totally "in the tank" for Obama and I agree with your argument completely. It is easily the strongest ticket he could create.

[JimR]

It would be the greatest gift he could give... to Republicans.