Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama for President. Hillary for "Prime Minister"
Two amazing and gifted individuals are energizing the Democratic Party
this year. I think both have their gifts. And both need to be
recognized and elevated to high office. Without splitting the party in
the process.
Why not find a novel solution? And make use of both candidates in terms of their abilities and strengths?
I think Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton need each other. For each to
reach their greatest potential, they would do well to combine talents.
I do not mean as a "ticket." Because honestly I do not see either of
these fine individuals doing well as Vice President. No, that would be
demeaning to either of them. And somehow I do not think the chemistry
would work... not because they would be unable to work together, but
because each of them really does need and deserve a unique role and
vantage point. Where each can excel. And where each can benefit the
other.
In my view Hillary Clinton's mastery of knowledge, her legislative
expertise and ability to speak the language of policy would equip her
to be a superlative "Prime Minister." What if we elevate her to Senate
Majority Leader and have her lead the fight for all the good
legislation that will be needed for change to come? Why not recognize
what half the Dems have already agreed by casting a vote for her? Yes,
I understand they voted for her as a presidential candidate. But her
debating skills have surely equipped her best for the Senate. Her
rhetoric is surely the type that is works well in the Senate. And her long
experience in government will surely help her pass the legislation we
all want so much.
While Hillary Clinton would make the better "Prime Minister," I believe
Barak Obama would make the better President. Less polarizing than
Hillary and by far the more gifted and inspiring speaker, Obama would,
in my view, be better able to unify the country and mobilize popular
support for the legislation tha Hillary could ably shepherd through
the Congress. I'm viewing the Presidency as a means of gaining
power/influence and making use of that. The president has the bully
pulpit. But needs a legislative ally. The bully pulpit works to reach
and inspire the citizens. Obama can do that. But as Hillary herself
has made clear, inspiration is one thing and translation into
legislation is another. Let him inspire. Let her legislate. To me it
would make a perfect combination.
So I propose this solution to the train wreck we all do not want to see
happen ... for our country... or for our party: I propose Hillary for
"Prime Minister." And Obama for President.
A novel solution. For perilous times.







Comments (16)
Had I seen this Time poll before writing the post, I would have included the link:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation
The poll tells us that in a match-up with McCain, Obama wins 48% to 41% and Hillary ties 46% to 46$.
That's too close for comfort. And bolsters my thesis above.
Let's find a way to reward both candidates and do the best for our country.
♪♪♪
February 8, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that match-up. (percent to dollars! sorry) ♪
February 8, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Thera,
That is a wonderful well thought out idea. It is chalk full of common sense. I only wish that Hillary could see it that way.
Unfortunately, I believe Hillary's thirst for the highest office in the land, will not allow her to realize what is best for our party and country.
Sad really, for she would make an awesome legislative force. Their combined talents would be unstoppable. I only wish she could see it that way.
Alas, I think it is too much to hope for.
February 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely worth considering.
Were I Hillary's most trusted advisor, I might suggest she go off to a very private retreat, with no electronic communications, and send the next several days reading biographies of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
LBJ was magnificently qualified for the Senate, but as Majority Leader, not Vice-President. While I recognize almost anyone is a better orator than the Decider, LBJ faced unfortunate comparison to JFK as an inspirational leader. He could hammer out amazing compromises in the back offices of the Senate, but that's a different skill set than needed in a great President.
Aside from splitting the Democratic and Independent vote, I see a floor fight between Obama and Clinton becoming a classic example of rising to the level of incompetence. Obama, in his turn, is probably not the ideal Senate leader.
February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had to go out for a while and thought I would return to a deluge of nay-sayers. So I'm surprised and pleased... for now.
Good to see, Howard. ♪
Pleased to meet you mageduley. ♪
Your points are all excellent. Yes, if only we could do what is best for the country. And avoid floor fights.
February 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I be the first nay-sayer here. Although I understand your analogy here I dont think it is quite right. Note the use of quotes for Prime Minister. Why not ask Obama to step aside? Ask him to become a leader in the Senate, craft some wonderful legislation and then run again in 2012 or 16. Perhaps be Secretary of State or Ambassador to the UN. Not a bad choice for someone with 2 years of Senatorial experience.
February 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Less a nay-say than a sneer.
I tried searching for a winning presidential candidate that was formerly the Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader. One does find, during the search, that Lincoln had two years less in the Senate than Obama, and less time overall in government.
But I found no Senate Leaders since the Civil War that were winning presidential candidates.
February 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the same thing, Tom. But it looks like this year we'll make history that way too!
Cheers. ♪♪
February 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Use of quotes for "Prime Minister." I sure didn't want it to look like I was calling to change the Constitution. ♬
But we have a problem to solve. It won't help to tear the party apart. It won't help to put forth the candidate that may be least able to defeat McCain. And after analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, I propose this as a suggestion.
A serious suggestion. Not a joke.
♪♪♪
February 8, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a reasonable solution, and it uses good reasoning, but there's a flaw: the Senate is a fairly rigid body based largely off seniority and rules. There's no way the "junior senator from New York" could become the Senate Majority Leader. She could, of course, become President of the Senate (the title held by the VP), but I agree with you that she's not really VP material. Obama is better VP material, but I also think he's better presidential material.
Of course, no matter how much you might mention his other strengths and point out that he has, in fact, laid out his policy statements quite clearly, as soon as you mention his charisma, people are going to argue that you don't want to vote for someone just because you think you'd like to have a beer with them.
These same people seem to forget that Bill's charisma is one of the things that improved the caliber of his presidency. Hillary has charisma, too, but it doesn't match Obama's or Bill's. That said, if I really thought her policy positions were better than Obama's, and that the result of those policy positions would be better, I'd probably vote for her. (I say probably, because I do think electability matters.) Anyways, I'm preaching to the choir, so I'll stop now… ♪
February 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had such interesting visual pictures as I read your fine post. People keep saying that an Obama comes along once in a generation. If that is so, he needs to be president at some point.
My criteria will be who has the requisite skill to be the president to follow Bush. I am feeling important as a Texas voter now, and I am still deciding. And the two will have a debate here in Texas. Fun,fun. BTW, I love your singing comments.
February 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ta Da!♬
Thanks, Carol. I like your pencil. I really do.
February 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accidentally posted to soon. Good luck making a decision, Carol.
My criteria: Character; Constitution; Against the War; Health Care.
I think it's now or never for Obama. Ask yourself... when has someone tried over and over and actually made it to the White House?
"It's now or never..." ♪♫♬!
February 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My criteria: character, Constitution, pro-environment, electability, ability to get the job done
The last two of these are at least partly related to charisma, so I'm tired of people dismissing it as a trivial trait. (It's not everything, but it's something.)
On these issues, I think Obama clearly leads on electability and ability to get the job done, he breaks even on the environment (both of them have good records there), and he has a slight lead on character and, recently, the Constitution.
February 13, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those criteria are not bad at all. One thing I might want to find out -- can Barack keep his room/desk/briefcase relatively clean? The task of the next president will be to clean up eight years' worth of mess, and the president will not be able to call up the Merry Maids firm to do it for him. It will take a lot of ability to prioritize where to start, too.
By the way, what do you make of this? Both Clinton and Obama like chili peppers. Interesting.
February 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think character is what you're looking for to "clean up." That and hiring people who are good at that. Clean desks don't necessarily mean honest or responsible people. Indeed busy people often have messy work spaces.
Think of bush; the guy clear brush. But can he govern?
Each person has certain things that really matter to them. Criteria for judging people. A sense of what makes "change" happen. I think people really do need to be inspired to change. So we need an electorate that is "fired up" as Obama says. Such an electorate will light fires under Congressional leaders. And such an electorate will be willing to tighten belts, care about each other's needs, things like that.
Again. Good luck, Carol. I understand you're torn. For me the choice was easy. Easy. But maybe being older helped. Strange as that may sound. I also think being a psychologist and thinking about how to help someone change also helped.
♪♪♪♪
February 8, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment