Hillary Clinton and the Veepstakes -- a Logical Move for Her
With the last chances of winning the Democratic nomination slipping away, the question increasingly arises whether Hillary Clinton should hope for the number two spot.
The answer is a clear yes.
I am a big fan of Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo and often agree with him, but I disagree with his conclusion that there's nothing in the two spot for her. He makes good points about her stature, but getting the number two nod helps by denying a stature-boost to someone else.
Look at things from the Clinton point of view -- she presumably would like to run for president again, and wants to best position herself for a 2012 or 2016 run.
Say that Obama-Clinton wins, meaning her next opportunity comes in eight years. As vice president she is the near-certain heir apparent and front-runner for the Dem nod in eight years. See: Gore, Al; Bush, George H. W.; Mondale, Walter; Humphrey; Hubert; Nixon, Richard. Sen. Hillary Clinton or Gov. Hillary Clinton would likely still have the stature to challenge a sitting VP, but if she were the vice, the field of Dems on her par would be narrowed.
Say that Obama-Clinton loses, meaning she runs in 2012. She is the presumptive front-runner anyway ("I warned Democrats what would happen and did everything in my power in the primary and general elections to prevent it ..."), but again -- whoever does run with Obama gets a stature-boost. Better for her to be on the ticket and deny a possible rival the spotlight boost.
To be clear: I'm not saying that Obama should select her (I actually have my doubts on that) or that such crass political calculations should be the main basis upon which to seek or accept the VP slot (they shouldn't); or even that the VP slot is inherently worthwhile (in point of fact it should be abolished). But ... crass political considerations remain unavoidable, and there they are.
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
a few things on this:
1) hillary cannot go around saying that "I warned Democrats what would happen and did everything in my power in the primary and general elections to prevent it ..." because the facts are that she would lose against mccain anyway. you can't go into a general with 50% + negatives and think that you can win. just not gonna happen. and frankly it really says how out of touch hillary is that she actually thought that she should run because she could win the general. it cannot be denied that no one will bring out the straight-ticket repub voters like hillary will, and she and her backers are living in some dreamland to even think differently.
2) if obama wants to live for the next 8 years, he will not choose hillary as his running mate. a candidate does not choose a vp running mate who has spent the last 25 years calculating every single move they make, every single vote, every single policy position, every single "friendship," according to how it's going to get them to the presidency. this is not someone who is willing to settle for vp slot. and it's naive of anyone to think she would stay in that position when all it would take is one "accident" to get her the seat she has been working towards for 25 years.
Thank you for bringing up Clinton's 50%+ negatives. She adds nothing to an Obama ticket.
Never mind the fact that even with her negatives she wins against McCain and Obama loses.
Talk about being negative
First big problem. Every Democrat she has discredited, insulted, diminished, and called irrelevant and unworthy has no reason to vote for her. She wants to be a racist, she can run as a Republican. I will not vote for that kind of behavior. Besides, if Obama choses her as his running mate, what possible reason would any of us have to believe that he really wants to change Washington?
If Hillary is ANYWHERE on that ballot, I don't cast a vote for president. It isn't even anti-Clinton necessarily, I just don't vote for racists, period.
How about Bill Richardson? He is from the border state to Arizona, has foreign and domestic experience and brings the Latino bloc into play as well as the western states, and is better known and experienced than Kathleen Sibelius, who I like a lot. The Republican cretins are going to highlight lack of experience and Richardson adds a lot.
Amen.
Told anybody that would listen months ago -- actually, the week after he dropped out of the race himself -- that Richardson should be the #2 guy on the ticket. As Obama pulls ahead, the virtue of this idea grows. On the merits (but not as a matter of practical politics) Richardson was my first choice as presidential nominee.
In addition to experience -- executive (governor); federal (congress, Secy of Energy); foreign policy (Ambassador to UN, Foreign Relations Committee staff, State Dept. w/ Nixon/Kissinger); the list goes on -- he's smart (multilingual) and brings balance, balance, balance.
I also think folks are overlooking just how genuinely tough (Hillary gets points for steel nerve, here, too) people like Obama and Richardson can be. Gotta love that ticket.
PS - The more you hear knuckleheads like W. and Cheney howling at the moon, the more you should realize the manifest weakness of their souls.
I like it, but black + brown might be a tough sell.
Barack Obama with Wesley Clark!!
Clark comes from the Clinton camp and brings Foreign Relations Experience & Military Acumen whose advice and council on Iraq and Afghanistan would be invaluable. He's also a Southerner white man (that will be key, you know)
...just a thought...
clarke is a clintonite and that's all the more reason he shouldn't be chosen.
it's long past time for america to reject the kind of politics that the clinton's stand for. their politics are no different than those they've spend the past few decades criticizing.
Absolutely NOT! Not only does the woman have tons of unvetted baggage, giving her the number two spot on the ticket is antithetical to Obama's message of change.
He would also need to hire a food taster and be vigilant of Rasputin Bill.
She wouldn't make a good VP, and I don't even want her running in 2016, that would be going backwards. I don't want to have 8 years of change and progression only to go back to the 90s.
Here are just a few reasons she shouldn't be VP:
http://www
I'd rather have someone progressive run in 2016 and continue with our great progress. Russ Feingold '16!
Why Clinton is a Mistake as VP
Right now, the Republican voices seem to be more anti-Obama than FOR the lackluster McCain. And even those cries are silly and focused on calling Obama a Socialist. He is so likable it can easily come across as spanking a puppy for peeing on the carpet.
I haven't even heard a murmur by Republicans on the MSM or on blogs or in general conversations that reflect even a sparkle of enthusiasm for McCain. I've only heard supporters talk about his 'experience' (Obama's weak point). That's it.
Give the conservatives Hillary on the ticket and they will be delighted. The campaign will switch in a flash to a frenzy of, probably undeserved, Hillary-bashing. Half the country doesn't trust her and a big chunk of them are Democrats. Hillary bashing, unlike the case with Obama, is easily framed as a duel with the Devil.
Republicans will wake up and come to the polls in paniced droves.
Let's let them continue napping.
In this undecided progressive independent's opinion, Obama would have to be a fool or an idiot to rescue Hillary from (temporary) oblivion by choosing her as Veep.
It would be as wrong and disastrous as Al Gore's unfortunate choice of Holy Joe Lieberman
Obama's appeal is largely based on his claim, however problematic, that he's Not Like the Others. Choosing an ultra-technocrat like Hillary, whose own flawed and moribund campaign was run like a clinic for Old School DLC triangulation and manipulation, would be a red-hot needle in the hydrogen balloon of Obama's image as an unconventional politician.
Oh, the humanity!
The answer is clearly no. Why take on a VP candidate that has the highest negatives of any politician in America today? Why motivate the Republican base ?
He is likely reminded, as many of us are of the "shame on you Barack Obama!". He will likely choose someone more suited to his administration.
For those of you lucky enought to have seen the HBO series or read the book "John Adams" by David McCullough, let this account of the wonderful but troubled beginning of our country, the hard-won United States of America, be a guide.
Clearly, George Washington was the best and most popular choice for our first President. John Adams served under him as vice-president in a very humble manner (unusual for Adams as all of you who have read his biography know!!) and in doing so, he served his country well, not wanting to divide or make waves at such an important point in history.
When Adams was elected our second president, his vice-president Thomas Jefferson (once a great friend) turned out to be often against and seldom for Adams. Which caused the worthy John Adams quite a bit of trouble.
You know, until I had read the book and seen the HBO series, Jefferson was my hero. I still admire him in many ways, being from the South myself. But you know, the VP should really be "there" for the President. And Jefferson was not "there" for Adams as Adams was for George Washington.
I think Obama deserves a VP who is "there" for him in his remarkable quest to set America on the right track again.
Back in those days, the VP was the person who came in second in
Electoral votes, which most agreed was a terrible idea, and thus we
got the 12th Amendment. Before that, P & VP often were not even in
the same party.
She is a terrible candidate for any office. Jim Webb is an intelligent choice.
But we could possibly lose an important Senate seat. I like Kathleen Sebilius (sp?). Get the women vote plus add to the blue collar voters.
I agree. I personally see a short list of Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and Wes Clark for Obama's #2 slot--possibly in that order, though perhaps Clark's stock could rise if he's offered as an olive branch to the Clintons.
Webb will make a great VP candidate in the future. Of course, I was saying the same thing about Obama up till Iowa, so that shows you what I know!
Hillary Clinton as the #2 is a bad idea for any number of reasons, but above all I just don't see any chemistry between them.
Does the VP who's selected bring Electoral votes Obama wouldn't otherwise get?
He wins VA anyway/maybe. Red states that might be converted with a favorite-son
arrangement & substantial Electoral votes: PA (21 votes), FL (27), IN (11), NC (15).
Bob Casey, PA
Bob Graham, FL
Evan Bayh, IN
John Edwards, NC
From the LA Times:
Harold M. Ickes, a top advisor to Clinton, said in an interview that the second spot on the ticket had no allure. He cited her election-night party Tuesday, when Clinton said she was moving "full speed on to the White House."
Ickes: "She meant the Oval Office, not the office down the hall."
David Gergen remarked that if Obama chose Hillary for veep, he would need a food taster. It would be a bad choice for him. She would be a powerful 5th column in his administration. I think he'd do better with Jim Webb or Joe Biden.
A food taster... oh, yes, this would be required! But, it shouldn't come to this. Hillary would be a poor choice for the Veep role and I don't see her creating a solid, supportive partnership with Mr. Obama.... way too many sour grapes. Most certainly he should not be pressured to make this move. There are so many other better choices. Personally I'd love to see Bill Richardson on the short-list.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
