« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A role for Hillary
There’s been
much speculation about whether or not Obama will offer her the VEEP slot if he
does as expected wrap up the nomination. She’s certainly
guaranteed that he has to do something that she’ll find acceptable if he’s to achieve
the unity he’ll need. There’s a strong
argument, whether his supporters like it or not, that he’ll have to give her the
VEEP slot if she wants it.
Here’s Obama himself on the topic only last Thursday from Sunday’s Meet the Press.
<blockquote>MR. RUSSERT: Doris, in Boca Raton on Thursday, Barack Obama was asked
about vice president, specifically about Hillary Clinton, and here's his
answer, which talks about you
(videoclip)
Unidentified man: would you be willing to consider everybody who is a possible help to you as a running mate, even if his or her spouse is an occasional pain in the butt?
(crowd laughs – so does Obama)
SEN. OBAMA: I, I--well, look. Well, look, look, look. The--we've got a little more work to do. So I don't want to jump the gun. I will tell you, though, that my goal is to have the best possible government. And that means me winning. And so I am very practical-minded. I'm a practical-minded guy. And, you know, one of my, one of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln. And a while back there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called "Team of Rivals," in which she talked about how Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever, you know, personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis? And I think that has to be the approach that one takes.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Who did Lincoln take into his Cabinet?
MS. KEARNS GOODWIN: Lincoln took all of his chief rivals into his Cabinet--Seward, Chase and Bates. He also took Stanton in, who had called him an ape, who had said terrible things about him, much worse than Clinton has ever said about Obama. But what it showed--and I think that's what Obama is suggesting--is that he was big-hearted enough, he was confident enough not to have to have just people who would be his personal supporters and not question his authority. And I think what Obama is saying is if this person can help me win this election, fit the jigsaw puzzle pieces together, she has one part of the map, I have another, I can rise above those personal feelings. But I suppose--and Lincoln put it in noble fashion, he said, "Look, people are wondering why have I done this? First of all, the country's in peril. These are the strongest and most able men in the country. I need them by my side." But perhaps my old buddy Lyndon Johnson might have put it in less noble fashion, "better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
MR. RUSSERT: I just heard the beep. Like keep your enemies closer?
MS. KEARNS GOODWIN: Keep your enemies closer.
MS. DOWD: Both of them?
MR. MEACHAM: I like the way Doris says it.
MR. RUSSERT: Yeah. blockquote>
But what this ignores is that, if he gives the VEEP, he’s stuck with her. He wouldn't be able to fire her if there are scandals etc or if she and Bill started working against him.
Scrutinizing what he actually said, he stressed cabinet.
How can he mollify her? Offer to help with paying off her debts and give her a senior cabinet spot that will keep her incredibly busy, give her a huge platform, without being too damaging? I punt for Secretary for Energy & Climate Change. It’s going to be important, it’ll involve a great deal of overseas interaction as well as domestic, without being quite so key and open to disaster (obliterate Iran) as Sec for State. It doesn’t involve possible outrageous porkbarrelling as Sec for Defense (as she's done in the past with NY). And it doesn’t, as A-G would, call for an integrity that the GOP could argue she doesn’t have. I don’t believe he can offer her Health given her prejudices and history in that portfolio.
Any thoughts?













Comments (6)
Sorry I stuffed up the formatting.
I clearly don't understand how to do the blockquoting and didn't intend the bold style.
May 27, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the forum software that's stuffed. It was expressly designed to confuse people.
Honestly, I don't think Hillary is mollifiable at this point. For her, it's presidency or bust. I see no sign that she is ready to admit to herself that she lost. There is no telling what she'll do out of spite when she finds out that she did, in fact, lose.
Giving her a cabinet position would be probably a good move, but will she accept? Hell hath no fury and all that...
May 27, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) He needs her in the Senate.
2) His main campaign theme is about "Change" and leaving the Clinton and Bush administrations in the past.
3) He's trying to build a 50 State organization that appeals to a broad cross-section of society.
4) She has argued too many times and too many ways that he's not ready, he can't win the important demographics, etc., etc.
She's not going to be his VP choice, IMO. I don't think she would be a good fit in any cabinet post either - recall her history with her Health Care Task Force. Her campaign shows that she still has issues managing a reasonably-large organization. Her confirmation hearings in the Senate would be a circus....
I agree with you that his reward for her will be attending fundraisers for her, and continuing to talk about how she's changed the political landscape.
My $0.02.
(Don't sweat the formatting. All of us have had various troubles with the software now and then. ;-)
May 27, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Can you tell me what I did wrong?
I typed
May 27, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In original new "blog" articles, you can't use HTML. You have to highlight the text and then use the buttons above the editor box to apply styles (bold, italic, etc.).
In Comments, you can use (some) HTML.
In addition to those differences, there are some common problems that jump up now and then.
1) If you have too many links (or too many links for the amount of text you have), you will get a message: "Thank you. Your post is being held for approval." It's an anti-"comment spam" protection mechanism. Unfortunately, approval seems to never come.
To protect your post in cases like that, try to remember to always save it in the Clipboard before posting.
2) Sometimes original posts are partially truncated for some unknown reason. See #1 on the importance of saving your writing before submitting it.
3) If you cut and paste text from a different program into the editor box, sometimes paragraph breaks are doubled, sometimes they're removed. I haven't found a pattern for that yet.
4) If opening and closing HTML tags don't match, you can end up with fonts changing, bold, excessive quoting, and the like. I suspect that something like that may have happened in your case.
5) If you get logged out, you'll lose the "In reply to ..." checkbox on logging in again. If that happens, click on the Reply link at the point you want to reply again before entering your text. Otherwise, your reply will end up as the last comment.
I believe that we'll get some new re-editing functionality reasonably soon that will let us fix formatting errors, etc. With luck, those changes will let us fix some of these problems in our writing.
Hope this helps!
May 27, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much.
It all looks horrendously complicated! I'll read, read again, mark and inwardly try to digest...
:-)
May 27, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment