Maybe It Should Be Obama-Clinton After All
I know we are supposed to ignore the polls -- especially when we don't like what they tell us -- but I can't. And they don't look especially good. Despite a disastrous month of July, John McCain is still only a few points behind Obama.
That isn't good. In fact, I think it means that Obama is behind. After all, Mc Cain is an utterly flat candidate, the economy is tanking, gas is at $4 a gallon and the best we can do is lead by a few points. I don't like it.
In 1992 and 2000, the Democratic Presidential nominee looked surprisingly weak until he chose a Vice President. The Gore and (I hate to say it) Lieberman choices produced an immediate bump in the polls that held right through election day.
In 1992 Gore was an exciting choice because the ticket was young, cool, good-looking and substantive. With Lieberman in 2000, the choice of the first Jew to run on a national ticket felt historic. Both choices were exciting. That was the main thing. Democrats left the conventions feeling that victory was assured.
Obama needs to make a similar choice -- one that will excite the party and the media.
My own personal favorite is Joe Biden. I think he is terrific. Smart and charismatic, he would make a great President and he'd kill in the debate.
But can he excite the party? Will Democrats be galvanized at the sight of Obama and Biden with arms lifted together on that platform in Denver. I just don't know.
I do think, however, that the choice of Hillary Clinton would have that effect. The ticket would be historic. It would bring together the two candidates who were strongest in the primaries. It would ensure that the Clinton machine (and the money it can deliver) backed Obama to the hilt.
It might cost us some independents and Clinton haters. But they would be far outweighed by the people Clinton might bring to Obama who might otherwise remain unenthusiastic.
I don't know. As I said, my first choice is Biden. But beyond that is my determination that we win. And that may, I said may, require the excitement -- the big bump -- that would be produced by the picture of these two fighters joining hands and joining forces. They looked amazing in Unity, New Hampshire. Maybe that show needs to go national.
You know the polling data better than I do but didn't Gore pick Lieberman in order to distance himself from Clinton? At the time, Lieberman was the Democratic scold in the Senate. If that''s the case, Lieberman probably cost Gore the election since Gore's mistake was to run against Clinton's record.
As for Biden... MJ, how can you say such things? Biden is not a progressive. We used to call him Joe Biden (D - Bank of America). He voted for the bankruptcy "reforms" that have caused so many problems for struggling Americans.
He also can't control his mouth. Putting Biden on the stump is like hiring John Kerry to perform stand up comedy at your wedding -- it's a bad idea.
July 25, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, Destor, Joe Biden was "D-MBNA"! Get it right! :-)
I heard a talk show discussion yesterday, speculating on what it is Obama would need in a candidate for Veep. Much was mentioned: military background, sexual diversity, etc.
Personally, I think that if you're a Democratic president, and your Vice-President is not going to be his own Fourth Branch like Dick Cheney is, then something else needs to be taken into consideration.
The Constitution, as we all know, has been tampered-with, bigtime. There is talk of Movement Conservative "landmines" that will take forever to surgically extract from the American government. Unless this is addressed and fixed, starting in January of '09, no Democratic President or Congress will ever again be able to function as our government once did... by the far right's design.
I think Chris Dodd has shown his mettle in standing up to this Administration's attempts to gut the Constitution and the government.
He can be the watchdog and the point man for undoing the many cancerous facets of Bush/Cheney, while Obama (who hasn't shown much of an appetite for the preservation of liberty, thanks to moves like his despicable FISA vote!) can dig in and actually do the job of President.
July 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sorry, just want to add one thing:
I fully realize that the jist of this post is that the ELECTION needs to be won, and the Veep pick ought to be calculated to achieve that. But perhaps I'm not as pessimistic as Mr. Rosenberg that Obama hasn't got the impetus; I think he definitely does, and the only thing that can stop it is not McCain's popularity (?) per se.
Voter theft/suppression/shenanigans can lose it for Obama. It might well happen. In which case, it doesn't matter how many votes the Veep pick brings in. In the digital age, you can steal 400 votes; you can steal 25 million. And don't say that a large margin can prevent this from happening, because they wouldn't dare steal 25 million votes! It would "look bad". Yeah? To whom? To the LOSERS? Yeah, the GOP will stay awake nights, worried about what we may think, as they assume power, yet again!
I realize that many of my fellow Dems are not on the page YET, where they accept that widespread voter theft cost us 2000 AND 2004. But at least have faith that Obama's trend will continue upward.
In which case, the Democratic Veep candidate should be selected for effectiveness after an Obama victory. My opinion is that apart from "electability" concerns, a Vice-President Dodd would have a real job to do, in that office, and he's exactly the leader to get it done.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Dodd shill. By gum, I didn't even realize how much I wanted to see this happen, until I read my own words!
July 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that there's been much voter "theft". That leaves to obvious a trail and it's a dangerous gambit. Vote supression has been raised to a high art form by the GOP. Such shenanigans in Florida cost the Dems the 2000 election. Florida isp robably OK this year: it seem to have a governor who is honest (at least for a politician). He's gotten rid of computerized voting machines and restored felon's voting rights in most cases. But that still leaves 49 other states. The latest gambit is voter id: it soudns reasonable, and might even be reasonable in the right hands, but the bar can be set very high for such things, and set hig hslectively to filter out certain voters.
July 26, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction! I like the Dodd idea but would prefer we not take another body from the senate.
July 25, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, I don't think the loss of Dodd in the Senate would be a problem. CT has been duly smacked-silly in the last coupla years, over its stupid decision to send Lieberman back as an Indy. They'd be properly chastised, at this point; enough to elect a true progressive, as penance for their sheer cluelessness and irresponsibility. For which they owe us all an apology, I might add. Tools.
Problem with that is, I'm not sure when Dodd's regular term expires. Jodi Rell (a "popular" Republican governor... sheesh!) would likely replace him with an R.
So, there's that. Okay, you win.
July 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Destor (as always).
To use your metaphor, I'm not "wedded" to Biden. I'm for whoever will add heft to the ticket. Your point about the bankruptcy bill is well-taken.
July 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton is on the ticket, he wins. It's that simple. Someone else? I dunno.
Clinton pissed a lot of us Obama fans off during the primaries, but they're adults. We're adults. We'll all get over it because we want to win soooo badly.
And yeah, the 1st comment by Destor is, unfortunately spot on. Unfortunate, because I personally like Biden. He's like fire in a debate, especially one-on-one. But, as you said, and as seen from our own primaries, he still manages to inspire very few.
July 25, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MJ! Whoever the veep is, let's just win this thing...
July 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be Hillary. There's no point in
almost winning.As we were reminded in 2000.
She demonstrated during the primaries that she has become a formindable campaigner
As regards her "fit" as VP ,she'll have only those duties which O decides to assign her. Which ,if necessary, could be None.More likely they'll each learn to make their relationship work so that she'll be "good enough VP)(in the sense of the British psychologist who coined the phrase "the good enough mother" as a corrective to the then-prevailing Freudian view of mothers).
July 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
no need to panick now....Obama will surge, but it will be a close race to the finish line...no, Clinton, please........................Evan Bayh is my pick and favorite.
July 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Bayh is not exactly Mr. Exciting.
July 25, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No indeed, and he is a long time DLC leader and staunch Clinton ally. I have been dreading the selection of Bayh since I first heard that rumor.
July 25, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary deliberately lied repeatedly about her Bosnia experience. She did so in order to mislead, deceive and to pad her resume. That is just one issue. The "two for the price of one" that Hillary Clinton as the VP candidate would inject into the Democratic campaign, bringing all of the baggage that the former president and Hillary carry, is entirely unsatisfactory for Barack Obama as the presidential candidate. Barack Obama is going to win in a landslide. (I recommend Senator Chris Dodd as his VP.)
July 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton seems to have avery different view of Americas role in the world, she was arguing that she was the best person to maintain the US as an imperial power. McCain is making the same argument, where Obama is arguing that the US is better off not trying to be an imperial power, and Obama is right about this.
Putting a neo-imperialist like Hillary Clinton on the ticket would completely undermine Obamas' message.
July 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am surprised that more talk has not been about Bill Richardson, the Latino vote will be the most important voting group the party can consolidate, the number of unregistered Latinos that would be inspired to join the Democratic party, would make a lasting power base far into the future.
July 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think Richardson makes a lot of sense on many levels.
July 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson won't vet - he has a lot of issues back home. The only reason why this hasn't become an issue is because no one thought he would go far, and he didn't.
July 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson would be a great VP, but he is not a particularly good campaigner. (There is a very real difference.)
He never polled very high in the primary season. He's not a great speaker, and not terribly telegenic.
All that said, I'd pick him over Biden for State in a heartbeat. Biden's been in the Senate, in Foreign Relations, for a near-eternity. Richardson's been at the UN and negotiating with overseas heads of state, and has a very solid record of accomplishment, including reaching agreements with the North Koreans that Bush, etc. worked very hard to screw up immediately on taking office.
For VP, I've gone back & forth, and except for it being definitely not Richardson or Clinton, for very different reasons, I'm currently open.
July 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Edwards out because of the NI story?
July 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards was my pick until that story cropped up. Whether or not it has merits, it would be a CONSTANT distraction.
July 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. still my first choice.
July 25, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
July 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary? No, thanks. She is the one VP pick who would have the effect of invigorating the listless Republican Party. They could fundraise like gangbusters with her as the target. And I'm not optimistic enough to think that this country is ready to accept a black guy AND a woman in the White House at the same time. Besides, her behavior during the primaries was atrocious, and revealed her many character flaws. She is regarded as an old-school DLC type, which is exactly what we don't need at this moment.
Michael, have another cup of coffee and try again, please....
July 25, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it not true that the VP pick if from the Senate needs to be from a state with a Dem Govenor in order to assure the seat?
July 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton would accept it, I think it is evident that Obama should ask her to be vp. She nearly won the primaries, which shows that she has tons of support in the Democratic party. Her appeal in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio is to people who are, for one reason or another, opposed to Obama but not opposed to the liberal politics Obama would bring; she's become an excellent fighter. Any domestic program Obama tries to put through congress as president is going to depend on Clinton as a Senator - she's become a key Senator. Why not, then, as Vice President? Downside for her would be the question of any future potential run as president. Frankly, she might think her best chance would be if Obama lost this year. But I don't really think that would give H.C. a clear path to the presidency, or even nomination, in 2012.
Let's face it - this would be the A team. Even the baggage of Hillary Clinton would be to the good - as the economy sinks further, and we can be pretty sure that autumn is going to be worse than spring, the nostalgia for the prosperous 90s is going to be palpable, and if the GOP really wants to evoke the issues of the 90s, I think they will evoke the reason people generally liked the nineties: $$$$.
July 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Richardson won't vet" I have no reason to doubt you, but could you please provide more information. One of my concerns with some of the proposed candidates is their age, it will take at least sixteen years to cleanup after the GOP this time.
July 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like it's always hard to determine how a VP will help (LBJ & TX in 1960 vs. Edwards & NC in 2004). My suspicion is that Gore would have won if he'd picked Bob Graham or someone like that for Veep, as Lieberman probably did hurt with some haters and his corporate conservatism definitely stoked the anger of the Naderites.
Thus, my gut instinct is that the Veep choice should be picked so as not to hurt, rather than to help in some unpredictable way. I think Hillary Clinton could both help and hurt, but it's the potential damage of the ultimate right-wing freakout of a Muslim-Feminist tag-team that worries me more.
Guys like Biden, Kaine, Schweitzer all seem able to help without hurting too much. The more innocuous the better, so long as the choice doesn't contradict the overall themes of his campaign (e.g. Bayh).
July 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
Let's stop with the fearful thinking already. I just don't see how McCain could possibly win the coming election, no matter what the polls say at the moment. Start with the fact that Republicans are discouraged in general, and many of them are not thrilled with McCain as their nominee in particular. Eight years of Bush have severely damaged the GOP brand. Then let's consider that the Democrats are unusually fired up and organized. Obama's team is running a massive voter registration drive. Youth will vote in record-breaking numbers. African-Americans will vote in historic numbers. Independents (and some Republicans) like Obama. The economy is down, and gas prices are through the roof, creating an appetite for change. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, we're going to win in November.
July 25, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem we face in November is that there is something about Obama that turns off too many voters, but that something isn't something that can be discussed in polite society, so those for whom it is a big deal just keep it to themselves. Don't ever forget that it does no good for Obama to win California with 80% of the vote, if he loses enough states to keep him from winning the Electoral College vote. My crystal ball says Obama wins big in the popular vote, but the EC vote goes the other way. I just hope my crystal ball is as much in error this time as it was when I was celebrating Kerry's inevitable victory.
July 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden would be a fantastic choice, but probably would be better suited for Secretary of State.
Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee -- gives Obama one of the top experts on foreign policy.
Former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- Lest we forget his performance when vetting Robert Bork.
Authored the Violence Against Women Act
Authored the Biden Crime Bill which became the Clinton Crime Bill.
Youngest Senator ever elected to Senate 30 some years ago and he's taken the train to work ever since. Can't hurt in a year of talking about changing our energy consumption habits.
Performed fantastically in the debates.
His biggest weakness during the primaries was fundraising. I'm pretty sure Obama can handle that.
July 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it happening. For one reason alone: Bill Clinton. Not because of anything he has said or done during the primaries, but because he is a former POTUS. Plus, I don't think it is wise to pick a VP that honestly believes that they are better qualified for the job than you. That's just fraught with danger.
Frankly, I think it is going to be Kaine or Sebeilus--though I would have loved Edwards in the VP slot (that Enquirer thing is going to dog him endlessly).
July 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep going back and forth. I voted for Clinton in our pretend primary here in Michigan, and I thought she'd be a great VP.
then I started wishing for Jim Webb, but that's not going to happen.
personally I love Joe Biden, but you're right that he's not going to bring any excitement.
so now I'm back to Hillary. sure, she's going to inspire some GOP nastiness, but there isn't anything about her background that hasn't been vetted a thousand times.
after reading about The One's world tour, I'm really starting to worry about his electability. and unlike Hillary, we're only starting to learn about his background.
re Richardson: um, no. the 17million of us who voted for Hillary will NEVER support that Judas.
July 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The One, as you called Barack Obama, has had an amazingly successful overseas tour, despite the neoconservative propaganda you've fallen prey to.
When it comes to detecting rightwing propaganda in the mainstream outlets, it helps to grow a spine and not be swayed by B.S. arguments or to worry about the things you're told to worry about.
July 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have found the ideal running mate. One who can deliver all those Hillary backers. It is Gretz. He speaks for "seventeen million" voters. How he pulled off that trick, I do not know, but he says he does, so that should be good enough for all of us. Obama/Gretz2008
July 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine or Bayh put a red state into play
Clinton reinvigorates the Repubes
Edwards was out anyway
Personally, I prefer Kevorkian and task him with putting the Republicans out of their misery
July 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I don't think there is a problem exciting Democrats. Second, the concern I have about Clinton is that she may hurt us in CO and NM which may be the Ob firewall. She also energizes the Repubs across the board.
July 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Hillary, please! First off, even forgiving the Clintons' arrogance, insiderness and habit of putting themselves before party and country, she's just not right for the No. 2 slot on the ticket. She's an alpha personality among alpha personalities and a world-class pol in her own right. She'd suck up too much of Obama's oxygen even if she laid low.
Second, I really disagree with the notion that Obama needs someone experienced to balance the ticket. That would be the case if he was an ignoramus like Bush, but he's just demonstrated on the global stage his sound grasp of complex foreign policy issues and his huge gravitas. Better to get someone young and ideally female who doesn't offset him. Then you have a youthful, energetic ticket contrasted with... grandpa Sidney, he of golf carts and lime Jello salad.
Biden's too old. Ditto Dodd. Where are the brilliant, charismatic young Democratic women governors at?
July 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with Clinton for VP. Obama would lose the Republicans and Independents. His campaign would no longer be all-inclusive. That would also motivate the uninspired Republican voters.
I also don't agree with the meme that Obama isn't doing as well as the polls reflect. I think he is doing better because the polls typically target previous registered voters and the turnout in the primaries was unprecedented. Voter turnout and new voters is the big story here.
As far as VP goes, I don't think he should pick a woman because that would be a slam to Hillary and her supporters and I agree with the poster above that thinks that's too much for the country at once. I liked the idea of Clark before but not so sure now...