« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Together...Maybe
When Tim Kaine, Bill Richardson, Bob Casey and now John Edwards all
endorsed Barack Obama for president, and stood together shoulder to
shoulder with Barack smiling and waving to the crowds, each pairing
looked good! And they all gave enthusiastic endorsement speeches. If
Richardson had been as energetic during his own campaign as he was for
Barack, his candidacy may have lasted longer. Now the spotlight turns
to Hillary Clinton.
As a former Hillary Clinton supporter. I moved away from her when she began to accentuate her negative qualifies instead of her positive attributes. As someone who tries to look for the positive traits that people possess regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, I was deeply defended. In a nutshell, I felt like a jilted voter. Some of you know the feeling. When someone you love does you wrong, in spite of your hurt feelings, you still try to hold on to the relationship. But as much as you try, the person you once loved, slowly but surely becomes an object of contempt. That's especially true when that person continues to engage in the conduct that created the disappointment. If you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, listen to one of my favorite songs, "By the Time I Get to Phoenix." Both and Glen Campbell and Isaac Hayes sing excellent versions.
To continue the saga, usually after getting out of a bad relationship, you often fall in love again. That's what happened when I listened to Barack Obama with an opened mind clear of thoughts of Hillary. It was an amazing moment. When I listened to Obama after one of his primary victories, I really bought into his vision for America. Who wouldn't fall in love with the idea of no more Washington gridlock, no more red state/blue state nonsense, no more antagonistic divisiveness, but a United States of America. That was the relationship that Obama offered. Some people called them just words, but say what you want, great leaders inspire with their words. I am inspired with hope by the words of Obama and there is no turning back.
Now that brings us back to Hillary. Would Hillary be good on the ticket with Barack Obama? Well some of her supporters and her surrogates sure seem to think so. As a matter of fact, I think she realized quite some time ago that she can't win the nomination and really started with much vigor, jocking for the VP slot. Well, in a way Hillary is the Obama opposite. Like it or not, Hillary represents much of what we despise about the politics of old that we need to move away from in order to collectively elevate this country. Obama represents the future.
Before Obama puts Clinton on the ticket he would certainly argue with the notion of whether he could trust her. Alex Castellanos, a GOP pundit on CNN, joked that ["Obama would have to have a food taster"] if he did put Hillary on the ticket. I would like to think that he is wrong. So I will withhold my final judgment until the eventful moment comes when Hillary endorses Obama for the presidency and they stand together on the podium together, embraced and waving to the crowd with the promise of wholeheartedly working together to restore America to its greatness.
Obama said it wouldn't be easy to bring about real change. No
kidding. But there would be this caveat to picking Hillary for Veep.
Without compromise, I would insist that there be no reference to "this
is the way we used to do things" and Hillary must come without her
chief political strategists and talking heads, specifically Howard
Wolfson and Lanny Davis. The jury is still out on Terry McAuliffe and
Paul Begala and of course on the biggest wild card of all, former
President Bill Clinton.
Comments (7)
Any animosity I felt toward Hillary has been slowly disappearing and I was really proud of her yesterday when she stood up with other Democrats and blasted Bush for his stupid comments at the Knesset. She definitely brings her own baggage but she'd be an effective VP and she's definitely qualified and she has a loyal base that'll be important in the fall.
May 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary for VP had better be a non-starter. She and her consort and her courtiers may have a role to play in the Obama administration, but "those who sit down with the devil better sup with a long spoon"!
She's not a devil, but her entourage is toxic, for a wide variety of reasons. She is the Old Politics. Her entire mature experience in D.C. was in years tainted by the Era of Gingrich-Rove Hyper-Partisanship. The D.C. experience of her consort and courtiers has also been served in that Era of Hyper-Partisanship. She and her consort have been savaged by unscrupulous hypocrites ever since 1993. She bears too many scars and too many bone-deep adrenaline triggers to arouse her fighting instincts for her to serve effectively in any position that is close to Obama.
Hillary would actually be highly qualified, I think, to serve as Attorney General, if she wanted that post. She is much better qualified than John Edwards for that post; Edwards would be better suited for Secretary of Labor. But if Obama appointed an AG with a history of strong partisanship like Hillary's, he would either have to give up from the outset any thought of holding Bush and other war criminals accountable, or he would have to decide in advance that a special prosecutor should be appointed to inquire into the myriad abuses of power of Bush and Cheney.
The Department of Justice traditionally is a department that should operate largely independently from the administration, so that Hillary would not be situated to interfere with Obama's legislative and foreign policy agendas.
My own recommendation for Obama's VP is Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. My thoughts on the merits were summarized in a recent Cafe
comment (eighth comment at the hyperlink):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/jim-webb-for-not-vp-the-veepst.php
Many of my points parallel those mentioned by observers with much more impressive credentials than mine, such a Gerald Pomper, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers who has written about presidential campaigns for the last thirty years:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_gerald_m_pomper/obama_s_vice_president
[Note: I'm aware that Rasmussen is identified with the Republicans, but Pomper's analysis does not have any of the indicia of the "Operation Chaos" that neocons like Bill Kristol, idiots like Rush Limbaugh, and princes of Darkness like Richard Mellon Scaife have been trying to run on the Democrats for the last three months.]
The February archives at the TAPPED Blog (The American Prospect) also include many observations of the strengths that Webb would bring to the ticket.
I personally think that Webb would help put Virginia in play for the Democrats in the Electoral College. If Obama held NH and picked up Iowa (where he has led McCain all year) and added Virginia, he would be the next President. Or if he picked up Iowa and Virginia, and won either NM or Colorado, Obama would be the next President.
Some critics of Webb do not think that he is that well liked in rural Virginia. I do not know. But he has the potential to bring in enough rural white votes (or to help enojugh rural whites feel comfortable staying home, rather than voting against "that black man," Obama) to win Virginia. Some of these Webb critics are primarily unhappy because they think he is too conservative.
Whether Webb is the right VP candidate or not, Hillary as VP would create disastrous dynamics in the Obama administration.
May 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, your comments are as long as or longer than my entire post. You may want to consider them as a separate post. You already have the title, "Hillary for VP had better be a non-starter". Are there any rules against that? :-)
May 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your thoughts especially in that would be like mixing oil and water. However, you know it will be considered, so what would be the pluses other than the obvious negatives. Also, I think I like Kaine better than Webb.
May 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it would be a good pick - because she has very hig distrust levels - but I would understand the choice in that a little under half of Democrats voted for her and it would heal the party.
But I would put the chances at around 20:1 that she's the pick.
May 16, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think that it's a hugely high risk strategy? If Obama's the nominee, we lose the entire Appalachian trail: no, I don't believe any VP can outweigh the opposition there to Obama. (eg John Edwards couldn't carry NC for Kerry.)
If you add Hillary to the ticket, you risk galvanizing the entire Republican base and triggering the huge unfavourability ratings that attach to her.
Adding Hillary might shore up some of the alienated women, but enough to outweigh the `compounding the negatives` factor? I doubt it.
But I suspect it's all academic. Given Obama's track record of compromise and propensity to conciliation, I suspect that if there's huge pressure on him to have her, he'll comply, regardless of what his wife and campaign want.
Over and above that, check out Bob Beckel's article at Real Clear Politics. (In essence that the VP is a separate ticket and that the superdelegates at the convention could well make supporting his nomination for President contingent on supporting hers for VP.) It makes sense unfortunately. The interesting question is, if the presumptive nominee is Obama and he publicly announces someone else for VP prior to the convention, would those SD's overturn that?
May 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate this discussion, thanks for the post.
Michelle could do a lot to "clarify" her position and reach out. It would be very effective and well received if it was sincerely delivered. Her rejection was most stinging.
May 16, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment