Two questions for people who like the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket
I have two questions for people who want Hillary as the VP, assuming Obama is the nominee. I've posted these a number of times in various comment threads, but have yet to see a response. (Apologies if I missed a reply.)
First, can we agree that Obama should choose, and should be entirely free to choose, the veep he believes will best help him win against McCain, whether that's Hillary or not?
The reason I ask is that many of the arguments for Obama picking Hillary as a running mate (in sharp contrast to the arguments being made for Sebelius, Webb, etc.) aren't about making a case that she's the best choice. Instead, those arguments are bout the need to appease her supporters (most of whom would vote for Obama anyway, although more reluctantly), or the claim that she's earned the "right of first refusal" by running such a close second, etc. Or worse, scenarios suggesting ways that Hillary might get superdelegates to twist Obama's arm and get him to choose her even if she's not his first choice.
I'm not asking for arguments over whether or not she's the best choice. Just asking whether, as a starting point, we can all agree on how that decision should be made, namely that Obama should pick the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain.
And my second question is this: If Hillary is the veep we'll see McCain ads with video of Obama's own running mate saying that McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, and Obama isn't. Normally Democratic candidates don't endorse the GOP opponent, so this sort of thing may not have come up before, but having that endorsement from Obama's own running mate being played over and over and over in TV ads has got to hurt Obama.
What could she say to minimize the damage from this? That he hadn't "crossed that threshold" a few months ago (all he had to show, she said, was a "speech he made in 2002"), but giving a bunch more speeches on the campaign trail has made him ready to be commander-in-chief?
First, can we agree that Obama should choose, and should be entirely free to choose, the veep he believes will best help him win against McCain, whether that's Hillary or not?
The reason I ask is that many of the arguments for Obama picking Hillary as a running mate (in sharp contrast to the arguments being made for Sebelius, Webb, etc.) aren't about making a case that she's the best choice. Instead, those arguments are bout the need to appease her supporters (most of whom would vote for Obama anyway, although more reluctantly), or the claim that she's earned the "right of first refusal" by running such a close second, etc. Or worse, scenarios suggesting ways that Hillary might get superdelegates to twist Obama's arm and get him to choose her even if she's not his first choice.
I'm not asking for arguments over whether or not she's the best choice. Just asking whether, as a starting point, we can all agree on how that decision should be made, namely that Obama should pick the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain.
And my second question is this: If Hillary is the veep we'll see McCain ads with video of Obama's own running mate saying that McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, and Obama isn't. Normally Democratic candidates don't endorse the GOP opponent, so this sort of thing may not have come up before, but having that endorsement from Obama's own running mate being played over and over and over in TV ads has got to hurt Obama.
What could she say to minimize the damage from this? That he hadn't "crossed that threshold" a few months ago (all he had to show, she said, was a "speech he made in 2002"), but giving a bunch more speeches on the campaign trail has made him ready to be commander-in-chief?
Advertisement
I think they appeal to different sides of the electorate and together, they'd make a good team. But it's definitely up to Obama. O/T but Senator Byrd from W.VA just endorsed Obama. http://wvgazette.com/latest/200805190255
May 19, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, think about it this way. With Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the same ticket, we'd have the Latino/a vote and the African American vote locked up. McCain would have trouble in Western states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. There would be some challenge in the deep south. We could edge McCain out on blue-collar voters and we wouldn't bleed very many disgruntled Clinton supporters.
May 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen had Obama beating McCain among Latinos 58-33 last week. They're not going for McCain or any other Republican this year just because Hillary lost the nomination. Same goes for any other demographic
with brains.
McCain offers four more years of rising prices, the falling dollar, tax cuts for the super rich, more debt for the grandchildren, massive social insecurity on healthcare, edcuation, and jobs and an ever changing story on the war in Iraq.
Obama needs Clinton like a fish needs a bicycle to beat McCain.
May 19, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concerns about having Hillary on the ticket don't have to do with whether she helps or hurts Obama's electability, as much as with the side show that she and Bill are likely to put on. Those two will keep pulling attention to themselves every day Obama is president. The distraction, drama, and embarrassment would just be too much.
May 19, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got a point, that video clip of Senator Clinton endorsing McCain, could be a bad thing anyway, but especially devastating if she was on the ticket.
May 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's free to apply whatever pressure to get the best bargain for her 17 million backers. Obama's free to do whatever he wants and pay the consequences or enjoy the fruits. Hillary's backers are free to choose whatever candidate they want. If Hillary is knocked out, it's up to Obama to persuade her followers to join him rather than sit it out or vote for the opposition. If Obama had blown her out, he would have much more leeway in practical terms. But he didn't and he doesn't. You still haven't closed the deal and you're acting like it's a mandate. Didn't we go through this in 2000?
May 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point #2: "Why do you think I pushed so hard to be VP? I wanted to make sure defense and security were covered, and now between the two of us we can be damn sure they are."
May 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. She implicitly reaffirms her earlier statement that Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief, and says that voters shouldn't be worried because she, as Vice President, will be there to answer the phone at 3am when Obama realizes he's in over his head.
I hope you were joking!
May 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero is not known for her sense of humor.
May 19, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, I think Desidero is one of the most intelligent and witty Hillary supporters posting here. Often in a very bad mood, and best avoided at the worst of those times, but otherwise one of the posters I always make a point of reading.
May 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Molto molto grazie.
There may be a more effective way of her saying what I just said - "the will of the voters has spoken, and Barack is a damn sight better than McCain who pushed for the Surge and thinks leaving our lads in a suicidal quagmire in Iraq for 100 years serves America's foreign interests. You would think John would have learned something from Gallipoli and Charge of the Light Brigade and other historic blunders."
May 19, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's free to apply whatever pressure to get the best bargain for her 17 million backers. Obama's free to do whatever he wants and pay the consequences or enjoy the fruits.
And you agree that what Obama should do with this freedom to choose is choose the running mate who will best help him win the election, whether that's Hillary or not?
Hillary's backers are free to choose whatever candidate they want. If Hillary is knocked out, it's up to Obama to persuade her followers to join him rather than sit it out or vote for the opposition. If Obama had blown her out, he would have much more leeway in practical terms.
How so? It's up to Obama to persuade Edwards' followers to join him, too, and it was a blowout against Edwards.
But he didn't and he doesn't. You still haven't closed the deal and you're acting like it's a mandate.
The only mandate is to beat McCain. Some Hillary supporters talk as if there's an overriding mandate to give Hillary the veep position, whether she's the best running mate for beating McCain or not.
May 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's pretty well made her case for mandaté as Veep if she wants it, and I think Obama has done it if the situation reverses.
If Obama thinks choosing another Veep candidate gives him a better chance in November, God speed, but this decision isn't academic, made in a vacuum. Some voters will be loyal to the party (which with all the rants about the DLC is a bit laughable), some voters will be turned off, others more excited. If Obama decides on someone other than Hillary, he better be very very careful how he does this. Choosing any ol' woman is likely to be more offensive than helpful, and dismissing her half of the voters as having lost so just shut up isn't a motivating strategy either.
May 19, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that Hillary embodies so much that Obama has been promising to change. How could he stomach campaigning with her? Governing with her? Even today, she's running him down.
The end (getting elected with an Obama/Clinton ticket) does not justify the means (O. approving of that woman by choosing her for VP).
And yes, the Clinton messes will require Obama's time and energy that would otherwise be spent meeting our goals. Any reason to believe Hillary and Bill will stop lying, scheming, and plotting if she's VP? Lying down with pigs, Obama would get muddy, and we'd all lose.
Nightmare - Obama does something Hillary doesn't like - such as win the presidency, for starters. If Hillary's VP, and O. starts acting on his words, what will Bill say during his high-priced speeches? Might he imply - or state outright - that Obama is wrong, that he should do it Hillary's way?
Might Bill continue the campaign, sneak in "innocent" statements about race? His objectivity and political reason vaporized during the campaign. There's no reason to believe he'll behave any better for the next four years.
Who's to say VP Hillary & Bill won't keep trying to prove her positions are justified? She didn't become VP to let down her 17M voters. Therefore, she'll stick to her old ways because that's the Hillary they wanted as President.
Better to select a VP running mate who has integrity, dignity, honesty, ethics, morals, and stability in their behavior. There's no telling what the Clintons would do once she's "robbed" of the presidency she and Bill believe is hers by right. After all, the wrong person would be in the White House.
May 19, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if this boat is to sail into harbor, some of the Obama people have to drop their spin and misconceptions and take a more reality-invested view of who Hillary Clinton is.
Is there any good reason half of Democrats need to sound like the Scaife Arkansas Report, at least if you've won the nomination?
May 19, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two referenced responses to your first question:
1) I read a column over the weekend -- maybe by David Ignatius in the WP -- that talked about true gender and race equality. He pointed out that real equality is achieved, not only by breaking the ceiling, through merit, to get the job in question, but also by being fired from a job for cause, unprotected by gender or race card considerations. With that definition of equality in mind, having run an incompetently-managed campaign, Hillary deserves to be "fired" from consideration in the presidential race. And, having been fired for cause, she should not then be promoted to VP, or Supreme Court justice, simply as a gender-driven golden parachute. Let her return to the Senate, where she is competent and may thrive.
2) George Will (not usually my favorite columnist) wrote an excellent column on this subject in the WP today. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially he pointed out that over 300 million Americans will never be able to say that they were either the former first lady or, currently, a senator -- achievements that are not, as he put it, "chopped liver." We owe Hillary nothing; she was not "entitled" to the presidency.
In answer to question #2:
Dick Morris (certainly not my favorite columnist) wrote a piece for The Hill last week in which he listed all the reasons HRC would not only not add value to an Obama ticket, but rather, would also detract from it: need help with the Latino vote? Bill Richardson is the real deal, without pandering. Need help with the rural or white working class conservative vote? Edwards, Webb, Casey, Bayhe or Strickland can help on their own creds, without pandering. Looking for that cross-over vote from independents and Republicans? Chuck Hagel, Chuck Hagel.
So what would Hillary bring to the ticket that is positive that cannot be had, from another source, with less hassle?
You are absolutely right when you suggest that what she can bring is negative references, caught on tape, about Obama. And, of course, she brings BillALongForTheRide. What a nightmare.
Someone recently suggested that if the Clintons were part of the administration, looking hungrily at 2012, Obama would need a food taster. I agree.
May 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't owe Hillary anything, and her voters don't owe you anything.
So now we're at a standoff. Go ahead, blink.
May 19, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's pretty well made her case for mandaté as Veep if she wants it, and I think Obama has done it if the situation reverses
Nobody is going to see this now, but for the record I disagree, and if the situation were reversed, would still disagree.
If Obama were the one coming in a close second, that wouldn't give him any "mandate" to be veep, not even a little bit. In that case he should only be picked as veep if he's the best choice.
Imagine a very close race between, say, two senators from the same state. Two candidates who are very, very similar. A close race would be expected. (This one is surprisingly close, given how very different their respective strengths and weaknesses are.) But in this hypothetical situation, having both on a ticket would make little sense, especially if they're both from a blue state.
May 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink