Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's VP - Please not Hillary
Why not Hillary for VP?
First, it is said that the main (and often only) good that a running mate can ultimately do is help the ticket win his/her home state. New York has been dependably Democratic for decades (with the exception of Reagan elections and Nixon's 1972 landslide). So Hillary will not help Obama in this regard.
Second, the running mate can hurt the ticket (e.g. the debacle of Dan Quayle's selection by G.H.W. Bush). In this regard, Clinton has very high negative poll numbers: there is a risk that Obama would lose votes because of her. Further, Bill Clinton has proven to be difficult to control, and has been an unpredictable factor in Hillary's campaign. There is a risk that Bill might be a very visible and possibly damaging presence for the Obama-Clinton campaign.
Third, Obama's selection of Clinton would nullify his message of change. We have had Clintons and Bushes on the national political stage for 20 years, or 28 if you count G.H.W.'s years as VP. It seems much of Obama's appeal is based on the promise of sweeping away current political practices in Washington, D.C.; how can that happen if he brings the Clintons back into power?
Finally, there are scores of highly talented leaders in the Democratic party, from about any state in the country, from which Obama can pick a running mate.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign that has apparently defeated an almost equally brilliant political couple, the Clintons. If he chooses Hillary for a running mate, there will evidently be some very good rationale. But as is evident from the posts here at TPM, and blogs elsewhere, many of his supporters will be deeply disappointed with such a choice, and this poster for one can see no upside whatever for Obama to name Clinton as his running mate.
Comments (23)
Some of his supporters would be disappointed and many do post online, but I'm sure the majority of Democrats would be pleased. Also, Hillary's presence on the ticket wouldn't be designed to guarantee New York, but she'd help with women and the party. Think of it, like you'd think of Carter choosing Mondale: he was selected because Carter had no Washington experience and Mondale knew the ropes. Obama has some Washington experience, so Hillary wouldnt be for that purpose, but she would go a long ways to cement other groups.
With that said and because you actually asked, "please not Hillary";
Since I first started posting and commenting about the possible necessity of a unity ticket, I've always said that Jim Webb would be the name that could trump Sen. Clinton without question. His defense credentials could help shore-up what some might consider one of Obama's weaknesses; The fact that his son is fighting in Iraq gives him obvious insight; Combined with the Obama coalition, he'd go a long ways toward getting us Virginia; He was busted for carrying a concealed weapon and he seems to appeal to blue-collar voters, plus he appears blessed with gravitas.
Unfortunately, Webb is in the Senate, so that could present something of a risk, but Virginia currently has a Democratic Governor and there are several good shots at Democratic pick-ups around the country, so Sen. Webb might be a chance worth taking. (Plus, he probably could do the Lieberman thing and not resign his Senate seat while running for VP)
May 11, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here. I'd love to see Webb on the ticket, for the reasons Magister states: he appeals to a part of the populace that Obama has not been attracting so far. An unlike a certain Democratic candidate who recently was targeting such voters, I believe Webb has street cred because he's the real deal. (I highly recommend his book _Born Fighting_, not because it's written particularly well, but because he really does a great job of describing the history and perspective of the Scots-Irish in the US, which are a major component of the heartland populace.)
He also would bring a certain surliness to the ticket, which Obama, to his credit, largely lacks. I've not been a Clinton backer, but I certainly understand why folks are angry and want a fighter on their side.
May 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Webb wouldn't have to resign his Senate seat to run for VP, since he's not up for reelection until 2012. What you can't do is run for VP and Senate at the same time, the way LBJ did in 1960.
I've seen a lot of support for Webb, but I think he's more valuable in the Senate. An appointee in Virginia, would have to run again in 2010 for the last two years of Webb's term, perhaps putting the seat at risk.
I don't think Webb's politics are that close to Obama's, and as a first term senator, he doesn't add that much to the ticket other than the military experience.
May 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
For many reasons, a really good choice would be Richardson of New Mexico. He has a long, LONG list of credentials, AND he is a Latino. And that could help (a little) in that area. What most white people have no clue about is that many Hispanics HATE African Americans. There are reasons given, but hate, they do. Gov. Richardson is a very able politician, and has actual government experience (as opposed to being married to the power). And that would irritate Bill and Hillary to the max, a good thing.
May 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Clinton's ethical agendas couldn't be more diametrically opposed - they could never be on the same ticket. I can hear it now - No Hillary you were wearing a burberry vest not a bullet proof vest.
May 11, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit and the OP hit the nail right on the head. SHE would do more harm than good. He needs to maintain the stark contrast with McBush.
This may not be PC but with all the new voters coming into the party and his appeal to independents (like me! and his liberal message, the true Democrats will either come home or stay home. He will STILL win!
Obama 08
May 11, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this taking the party for granted that a unity ticket would help address.
May 12, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Hillary would help or hurt Obama's electability is debatable. What I don't believe to be debatable is that once Obama and Hillary took office it would become the Hill and Bill show. A non-stop narcissistic PSYCHO-drama.
They would never stop embarrassing a president Obama, likely killing his chances for re-election. Neither of them can be trusted not to put a knife in his back every day for 4 years.
May 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
co-preferences: sebelius, bloomberg.
i understand the support for richardson but the nm governor could prove a liability upon closer examination.
May 11, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Rendell.
May 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former Gov. / Former Sen. Bob Graham (D -FL)
Pros: Southern. Former Chair of the Intelligence Committee. Didn't vote for Iraq War. Member of the United Church of Christ. Beat Charlie Crist in Senate run 65-35. Was considered for Gore and Kerry before consultants screwed the pooch. No scandals in past that I could find on admittedly second-rate research I googled and wiki'd.
Con: He's a few months younger than McCain, so it may nullify age jokes for the campaign. A few months *could* cause someone to lose their bearings, however. ;)
May 11, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Graham would be a low-risk, low-reward choice. He's a serious person, and he might be some help in the swing state of Florida, but he's bo-ring.
Still, not the worst name that's been thrown out there.
May 11, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second Sebelius. She's just like Hillary, except for all the evil conniving political machine parts.
May 12, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is on the ticket with Obama, I won't vote for that ticket. The chance that she will succeed to the Presidency with her warmongering record (obliterate Iran? voting unapologetically to go to war in Iraq?) is unacceptable. It provides no real alternative to the warmongering McCain. Better to vote for Cynthia McKinney at that point, or for Ralph Nader. Might as well send a message to the Democrats that we won't tolerate such candidates. Oh, I know. People will point out that she and Obama wouldn't appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, but that isn't enough. If substantive improvement is to come to Americal politics we need either to reform the Democratic Party so that it isn't Republican lite or we need to abandon it for a new party in the way the Republicans of Lincoln replaced the ineffectual Whigs. No, we shouldn't vote for a ticket that has Hillary at either of the two slots. Obama, please begin to convince me that you are more than the better of the two evils. Choosing Hillary demonstrates the opposite of what you need to do to gain my vote.
May 12, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true. Maureen Dowd wrote yesterday in the NYT that Hillary seems to suck the life out of Obama. He has come alive again since the Indiana/NC primaries. Narcissism is the word - the Clintons would be the center of attention (and probably scandal) for the next 8 years. Ugh!
May 12, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's a non-starter in the VP slot for me.
I don't know much about the others that have been suggested, but would love to know more.
It would be great to see some well-developed profiles in the Readers' Posts section on some of the suggested VP Candidates with arguments for why they'd make great running mates for Obama (how they complement him, what they'd bring to his agenda...).
May 12, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
After realizing that for the past twenty years there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House, I don't think I want to continue the trend even if she has hopes to ride in on Obama’s coattails.
I especially agree with your view of President Clinton, since my favorite ex-President is showing his ass practically every time he speaks in public these days. Doris Kearns Goodwin probably best explained the ex-President phenomena on the Daily Show several months ago. She likened President Clinton current campaign escapades to Teddy Roosevelt after he left the office. I believe the quote was, "He wanted to be the baby, the bride, and the corpse." They are so use to the music playing and people standing and cheering when they enter a room it's difficult to give it up after the sheen of power has left them.
Obviously, I am all for ending the Bush/Clinton regime. Now is not the time to put her on the ticket, or ever, in my opinion.
May 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the sad quip of Princess Di : "there are three in this marriage"?
There are many reasons already stated above why Hillary is not a good choice but I offer one more:
How can you have a happy "marriage" and expect loyalty when a President Obama would have to contend with ex-president Bill hovering just out of sight? He and his politics are Hillary's first love and Obama would end up debating them both--all the time.
Diversity in a cabinet can bring strength, insurgency would be disastrous. Can you see Bill not meddling? Can you see him have to stand at Hillary's side behind Obama the "usurper "as far as Bill is concerned. Good grief. Obama would need a food taster! It would be a set-up worthy of Shakespeare!
May 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an awesome quotable quote. Very nicely done, KatJam.
May 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton appears to be on the verge of winning two states tomorrow by major landslide proportions, and remains only slightly behind Obama overall after all this time. And with a divided Democratic party and a presumptive nominee with some glaring liabilities you would throw Clinton and many of her supporters away. Very foolish. Kerry was in a much better position against Bush, and lost by three million votes.
May 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a long stretch until election day.
Thus far there has not been a critical assessment of McCain. He's getting a free ride, whilst we bicker among ourselves.
Once the stakes of the general election are in the foreground people will have to re-examine their options.
The glaring differences between Obama and McCain should make any Democrat's choice easy. I understand the disappointment of Clinton's supporters, but I don't think that in the long run they will abandon the principles of the party because of it.
May 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sebelius is Hillary minus the scheming and minus the "obliteration" threads and minus the anti-intellectualism. She's good on social issues, a strong campaigner in red states, but won't upstate Obama. Sebelius is presidential material who will send the message to older white women, Hillary's #1 demographic, that the Democratic party values them highly.
May 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep her out of the Executive Branch and in the Senate--until 2012. At that time, leave it to the New York Democrats, who might just, uh, make other arrangements.
May 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment