Dear Barack: The Veep Choice That Could Shock the World
Dear Barack,
If you truly want to electrify the country with your Vice Presidential choice, I've got two words for you: Choose Hillary.
I realize you're never going to do this, because it runs contrary to your play-it-safe nature, overdetermined nature, but let me offer my rationale.
1. It's a Display of Strength
As a political gesture, it's essentially Lincolnian in nature. You're saying to the world: I'm secure enough to make my central rival into my partner -- my junior partner. It's a way of co-opting her, rather than allowing her (and her husband) to be perceived as waiting in the wings for your failure. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, capiche?
It also shows that you have the courage to take a chance, to ignore the droning pundits. Oddly enough, it would be so surprising as to make you look like a maverick.
2. It Makes Sense Strategically
On a practical level, nominating her will insure the fierce loyalty of the 18 million folks who voted for her. It's the surest way to harness the massive potential energy of her partisans. And to appeal to the millions of "undecideds" who remember the Clinton era as one of peace and prosperity.
3. She (and Bill) Will Make Incredible Attack Dogs
None of this John Edwards French poodle stuff. They'll tear the stuffing out of McCain and his second-ran. And give you the space to set out your positive agenda.
4. She Is Ready to Lead
In announcing her as your choice, you should stress one point: she is the most qualified candidate you could find. Not only will this make you look upright and gallant, but it addresses the underlying concern about your inexperience. Whatever might be said about Hillary, it's accepted that she's a pro.
5. Catharsis
Hillary may have gotten hammered for saying so out loud, but she's right. Her true believers want catharsis. They want a sense that her historic candidacy has been validated. And that the two of you have made up, and joined forces. The pundits will mutter complaints, but because this option has been virtually eliminated in people's minds, the overall reaction will be ecstatic. Hillary's presence at the convention will be triumphant, rather than aggrieved.
My advice would to withhold naming a VP selection until the convention itself, and to nominate her on live TV, during primetime. Can you imagine how insane the energy will be if you show the guts to do this? To stand on-stage and tell the nation, "I have thought long and hard about who the most qualified candidate for Vice President is, and there is no question in my mind that her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton." As a piece of theater - and the political conventions are nothing but, at this point - it can't be topped.
Hoping you'll ditch the script & write your own ticket,
Steve
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
I think the best move is to counter McCain's military backround with the VP all the way !!
Clark is my 1st choice and Biden a close second....
I completely disagree with the reasons to pick Hillary. Instead of displaying strength, it would show weakness ("he couldn't win on his own, without the Clintons"). The Clintons have proven that they are attack dogs but especially on Obama. Especially Bill can't bring himself to support Barack and they'd be ready to blame him for their own failings during the rest of the campaign and potential administration. Finally I don' think it would be catharsis, I think it would make things worse by serving as a reminder of how close she was and that she should be in his seat, not the other way around.
The reason it won't happen is that it makes too much sense--something in short supply in Washington.
I disagree completely. It makes no sense at all. Hillary (and Bill) bring nothing but more drama and reason for attack from conservatives. The "positives" are imaginary and only seem viable because Obama has been so responsible in his respect of the Clintons. If she were on the ticket,the rethugs would have no such respect and we'd spend the rest of the campaign refuting the Clintons' past and present rather than focusing on the issues that matter. Just look at the dem convention now. The Clintons have no interest in the whole. It is all about them.
I agree. HRC would have been the logical choice had she not taken the low road in her attacks of O during the primary.
As a result the republicans are already using HRC's statements in attack adds against O. By bringing HRC on now, it only shows weakness by O in that he must reconcile with the one person in the dem party who publically stated, on the national stage, that she does not feel he is ready or qualified to be President.
Had she won, she could have taken him as a VP because he never took this tactic with her. But since he won and she publicly minimized him and his candidacy, he cannot take her.
It would be a display of kowtowing, not strength, and he doesn't need to.
I agree with Almond all the way! Hill has supported Obama since the moment she conceded and has probably done more for his campaign than any candidate on the short list.. I'm not going to go off on the deep end and say Obama can't win without her, but why not go with what most believe is the sure thing? Why take that chance? We need to hear from all HuffPost supporters for Hill as VP. Bring it on!
*except she never conceded.
I think Hill giving 500k to his campaign is conceding.
Ok, CSNS. I'm bringing it on (LOL).
I would agree with your reasoning, except for the fact that Hillary never really conceded. First, she gave a denigrating, non-concession speech; then, days later, she belatedly "suspended" her campaign, but only under extreme duress. A true concession would have entailed her RELEASING all of her delegates to vote for Obama, to demonstrate uncontested party unity. She never did that.
HRC's post-primary support has always been contingent on Obama meeting her continued demands/threats: name her as VP--or else; pay off her debts--or else; give her and Bill prominent roles at the convention--or else; allow her a roll call vote--or else. It would have been so much easier for Obama to select her as his VP choice had it not been for her crude assassination remarks, and her and her supporters' blackmail threats.
Now, it's a no-win situation. If Obama picks her as VP, he'll be labeled a weak panderer who couldn't win without the Clintons. If he doesn't pick her, Clinton deadenders and Repubs will paint him as an elite, sexist upstart-- who can't win without the Clintons. He may as well pick a VP candidate who he truly feels confident in and who he's comfortable with, because he's already damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I dunno. A couple of months ago I would have said this is a stupid decision.
Now, looking at the other people being promoted as VP choices - I can't see how it hurts him to go with Hillary.
One of my reasons, previously, for going against Hillary as VP, was that the Clintons carry too much baggage. By now I'm convinced that the people who will reflexively vote against Obama on racist motives are pretty much the same people who'd vote against Hillary as VP.
It's not about the 28%ers - they'd vote for Herman Goering if they could... It's not really about the so-called independents - most of them are people who are reluctant to state their political leanings. It's about GOTV: if Obama has that, he wins the election. And I can't see how Hillary would do anything but help the GOTV on his side.
It most definitely IS about moderates and independents. If you don't get their support, you don't win the election.
I just got back from my weekly Drinking Liberally meeting, one of our speakers was from a non-profit non-partisan voting organization. A member got him on the subject of who the Dem VP should be. His analysis was adding a woman to this ticket would be insane. And it goes to the very basic...a black guy and a woman on the ticket vs two white guys. Americans are not ready for that kind of 'change'..
All this man does is analyze polling data from every demographic in every county of this state, tracks voting registration, opinion polls, voting patterns and percentages etc. I was actually softening on the HRC for VP idea but after listening to an expert on the subject of voting I agree. Putting her on the ticket with Obama would be electoral suicide.
This is not about hating Hillary or adding 'excitement' to the ticket, this is about winning the damn election. You're not gaining any demographic by adding Hillary to the ticket. Sure 18 million folks voted for her and many of them are women; but the number of those who won't vote for Obama in that group is in reality quite small. So there is no demographic to be gained by adding her to the ticket.
The VP will be a white guy because Obama needs more of the white guy vote to beat McCain.
The X factor, however, is enthusiasm. McCain's whole campaign can be reduced to 3 or 4 things: He's Captain America; Obama=taxes; Drill, Drill, Drill; and let's damp down the Obama enthusiasm as much as possible.
Having Hillary on the ballot would add a fairly well and nationally organized get out the vote constituency, so polling such as you cite might not hold water in this case. That extra oomph that Hillary might bring could in closely contended states help Obama.
I'm pretty much an agnostic when it comes to the Veep, with the exception of a few of those white guys you mention, for whom I don't care. And the one white guy having a shot that I like, Joe Biden, is a bit talky for a lot of folks (though one could imagine him saying--John McCain: he has one sentence on foreign policy--subject, linking verb, and Prisoner of War). Bayh? Kaine? you catch my drift
Finally, the most aggravating thing about Obama's campaign is his tendency to play not to lose; the Vice Presidential pick should excite people with Obama's sagacity, judgment, whatever he does. It should be daring, even a little surprising, get people to nod their heads and say, Obama's the Man.
Yet another of these rose-tinted apologies for Hillary at HuffPo. And another five points that are weak when you take the --whole-- picture into account:
1. It can be viewed as much a sign of strength as a sign of insecurity and acquiesence, since many will assume (like the Hillraisers) that he too doesn't think he can win it without her.
2. This number '18 million' keeps getting thrown around like it is now a solid bloc of the electorate, when in fact there are probably less than 50,000 of these 'fierce loyalists' who would refuse to vote for Obama without Hillary. As for the undecideds, I will counter your unsubstantiated claim with the claim that there are probably --millions-- of people who don't want to see any more news headlines about Bill and his shenanigans. I for one would like to move on past the Clinton/Bush trash talking to a more nonpartisan America.
3. Some attack dogs. They've done next to nothing so far in support of Obama. And should they take the VP slot, nothing they say will have any credibility, given that the things they said of Obama during the primaries will be replayed endlessly.
4. Admit it, this is a pretty thin claim; a slogan, yes. And I quote, "You could argue that nobody's ready to be president.
5. Catharsis for some; disgust and despair for others.
I think you need to do some research on #3.
People like like think this about winning the election. It's not. This selection process is about governing. Obama needs to find someone with whom he feels comfortable talking to everyday in addition to someone with whom he is working with him and not trying to steal his job. This most definitely does not describe the Clintons.
Besides, some of the points made no sense. Didn't Mr. Clinton say no one is really ready to lead? Plus, didn't the disclosures about her management of her political race show she did not have any such leadership ability, etc. I think it all comes down to fundamentally the Clintons do not really support BHO.
It's unfair to group the Clintons together, which is what a lot of people tend to unfairly do in order to enhance their paranoid argument of conflict between Obama and Hillary. Clinton is just angry that he was portrayed as a racist, which is truly the last thing he is. I think that, above everything, hurts him the most and is the undertone of his anger. But still, Hillary has not shown any indication that she doesn't fully support Obama.
He can't choose Hillary.
Not because she wouldn't make a great choice as VP. She's competent as hell, and likeable and bright, but she made a mistake running against Barack when she endorsed Senator McCain over him.
All the GOP has to do is play the clip over and over of that endorsement to make the Democratic cause look foolish.
Words do matter. Especially when they're recorded in front of the press.
OCD.
Words do matter--the right ones, spoken correctly, can produce to effect. The insignificant are heard, disregarded, and ignored. Keep playing the clip--I've tuned it out.
PS. The Republican ads this campaign are the worst I have ever seen.
There are worse choices than Hillary for VP, but I still am not sure about some of your points. Hillary and Bill could be attack dogs NOW, but I haven't really seen much evidence that they can be attack dogs for other people (this isn't a slight against their commitment, but what evidence to you see that suggests that they would be effective attack dogs? Will they ONLY do it if Hillary is VP?)
Hard to argue with #3. You may be right.
They don't attack for other people. They only attack on behalf of themselves.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
