Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Suddenly, VP HiIlary doesn't bother me.
I don't know how or why it happened. Not two days ago I was marveling at the Hillary conundrum. That Obama could unite the party with the pick, but in doing so, would compromise his new Washington message and piss supporters like me off royally. Plus there's the whole Bill Clinton as VP thing and a dozen other solid reasons that this is a bad idea.
But there I was last night, making dinner, and suddenly it hit me, and not even that hard, that I didn't care. Me, the biggest Obama shill I know, buying his whole message hook, line and sinker. But it's true. I don't care. I'm not sure why, but I don't. In fact:
Hillary would be a good VP. Now, this is assuming she's totally on board and not aiming to undermine his campaign, then she's got a lot to offer. She'll a mad-dog campaigner. She brings with her a ton of voters, and hell, she has been pretty bi-partisan since becoming a Senator (though often, in bad ways).
More importantly, Hillary as VP doesn't bother me. I mean, I would rather her in the VP than the cabinet. Hands down. That's a no-brainer to me. I know we have this whole new VP idea nowadays, but that's a role that the president orchestrates, and if President Obama doesn't want her out front (and on many issues he wouldn't), then he'll tell her to go home. Easy as that. Happens to VP's all the time.
So then, what about her war vote, her lobbyist ties, her husband? I do worry about the possible October surprise of Bills recent womanizing that could undermine the ticket...but other than that, I don't care. It's VP, and I'm not voting for the VP. I don't expect the President to die and if that awful thing happened, then his legacy will be defined in part by the initiatives he was pushing for. The VP will not come in and just start a wholesale new direction or something. I mean, we don't hold Kennedy responsible for Johnson's failures nearly as much as we honor Kennedy through Johnson's successes.
And, who better to truly introduce Obama to the scared white vote (WV, Kentucky, Penn), than someone who has stoked the fires of those fears? He'd be like her token black friend, and therefore, he'd be "okay." We've all met people who think like this, and Hillary of late has engendered herself to them. She's on the inside. So then, put her in at VP and if a quarter of the bigots out there mustered up the nerve to check an Obama ticket, you gotta think that's an amazing thing.
So there it is. Hillary for VP. Lots of upside, and as of last night, the downside just doesn't bother me. And although I'm fairly (completely) certain Obama could win without her, a landslide victory would do wonders for the sort of big ideas Obama wants to get off the ground. Plus, all my disaffected Republican friends voting for Obama could stomach it I think. We all understand the necessity of political expediency.
(One last thought: I reserve the right to completely change my mind. Anticipating people like Billy Glad's possible response to this post already has me thinking I might.)













Comments (21)
Sorry, but the notion of VP Clinton bothers the hell out of me. I do not want her on the ballot. I believe that team Obama gets it that Clinton dilutes -- no, damages, no, destroys -- Obama's message of change. And that is not something to be taken lightly. With Clintons with too much proximity to the White House, the stalemate between the branches of government continue. Clinton needs to slink back to the Senate, serve out her term and then retire.
I'm standing at the door holding her hat, handbag, briefcase, coat and galoshes. Bye-bye Hillary, please don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
May 14, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get where your coming from. But I wonder if the VP really has the power to stalemate government? It has been, historically at least, a pretty ceremonial position.
May 14, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the first part of Jade's point. It's not really about what she would do as VP. It's about what she does to the message.
May 14, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. She wouldn't accept it.
2. He can't win no matter who the VP is.
Not because he's black, but because he's green.
May 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point. Certainly a majority of Dems want him to pick her. Here's the latest example--Mario Cuomo:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/dream_ticket_update.php
I'm still very ambivalent about the idea. I certainly would rather someone else was on the ticket. But it's getting harder for me to see how he can easily pass over her.
May 14, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are good Democrats and bad Democrats, as there are good Republicans and bad Republicans.
Hillary is, or has been acting as, the GOP elephant in our living room and, therefore, is a bad Democrat who will undercut and undermine Obama.
On the other hand, Chuck Hagel is a good Republican, who voted against the war, etc..
Why not switch Hillary for Hagel?
May 14, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see someone like Hagel as SecDef. But VP? No way. Bottom line: Obama could die. VP has to be a Democrat.
May 14, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Hagel. Got a book signed by him last week.
Would love to see him as Sec of Defense. A much more valuable position than VP.
I'm not arguing that there aren't other good candidates, only that I have changed my mind about this one.
May 14, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
May 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
V.P. Hillary may or may not help the ticket, but its after the election that she and Bill would likely make trouble for Obama. The Clinton's level of ambition and narcissism would likely cause non-stop drama and embarrassment for an Obama White House?
May 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Send them to Africa. To Asia. Wherever. Give them work to do. Keep them busy.
The country will be in love with Obama. No one's gonna be looking at them. And when they try to whine about it, well, they're no longer top dog, no longer striking fear in the party. Obama and crew can tell them to cool it. I would expect Obama to be able to control her. If he cannot that's a bad sign, right? I mean, as bad a Hillary and Bill might be, they're nothing compared to quagmires like the Middle East.
Hell, it'll be good training for him.
May 14, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
She can't be trusted. Too power hungry. She'd have him assassinated to take the Presidency.
May 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. If she were that power hungry, she already would've had him assassinated. Why wait?
May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
My primary objection about Hillary has been that she hurts Obama's electability as she will most definitely invigorate the Republican base (and several Obama-leaning Republicans will lean the other way with Hillary on the ticket). I've always thought this effect would be stronger than the positives she would bring to the campaign (note that this is all about the GE and not about the actual job).
That said, I have also been reconsidering this position somewhat after thinking about the fact that both Obama and Hillary are out-polling McCain. I suppose it's possible that the combo would do worse, but I'm no longer so sure about it.
There are also positives and negatives about her actually being VP (as opposed to just GE concerns), but I'll leave those arguments to others.
May 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to agree with your primary assertion. If Obama had run away with the campaign, I still would. But given that the battle has waged like this, I think most non-Dem Obama backers see her as a hell of a fighter and while they may still hate her, they will recognize that Obama needed to use her to move ahead.
I'm not convinced they expect him to not be a Democrat, after all, and all that comes with that. A different kind of Dem, perhaps, but a Dem nonetheless. And that, being a Dem, he's allowed to make what would be in their mind, a compromised but necessary choice.
Just a theory. I have some Obama Republican friends I'm gonna bounce it off.
May 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the way to approach the electability question is to (hypothetically) break those polls into 4 groups: those who'd prefer Hillary or Obama over McCain (keepers, regardless), those who'd prefer McCain over Hillary or Obama (most likely not going to get these), those who'd prefer Hillary over McCain but McCain over Obama (group A), and those who'd prefer Obama over McCain but McCain over Hillary (group B).
So, the question boils down to how many people from group A would we pick up with Hillary on the ticket vs how many people from group B would we lose. Part of that consideration also requires estimating how big these groups are and what their composition is.
I'd guess that group A is mostly composed of two subgroups—those who really like Hillary and have resentment towards Obama springing from that and racists. We'd pick up most of the former group with Hillary on the ticket and little to none of the latter group. However, I think that latter group is fairly small as we're talking about racists who wouldn't have a problem with a female or a Clinton (two separate concerns) in the White House.
I'd guess that group B is mostly composed of three subgroups—those who really like Obama and have resentment towards Clinton, sexists, and those who just really, really hate Clinton for reasons having nothing to do with Obama. Most of the first subgroup would forgive Obama for picking Clinton, although it might stifle their excitement somewhat. The second group is probably fairly small because we're talking about sexists who have no problem with this black guy who has a funny sounding name. The latter group is the one I'm most concerned about. I don't know how big they might be or how they'd react. I know exactly one person from this group and he's indicated that he wouldn't vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket. Sample size of 1, so by itself it's not very meaningful.
Then there's also people like my dad. He'll be voting for McCain regardless, but he's told me that if Clinton is anywhere on the ticket he's going to be very motivated (fund-raising, canvassing, etc.) to make sure that McCain wins even though he doesn't really care for McCain that much. Although I'm an Obama supporter, I've tried explaining to him repeatedly why Clinton is not this radical liberal that he seems to think she is. It falls on deaf ears.
May 14, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting stuff. My dad haaaates the Clintons but he's really on board with Obama and would forgive the "transgression". So our father's are a push.
I think, given that it's clearly a Democrat's year, that there are more people who will vote for a Hillary VP ticket than would vote against a Hillary VP ticket.
These people who will are old ladies, rural voters, blue collar whites who won't vote for McCain but might sit out the election. They are not going to be convinced by a VP candidate who they don't know, and there are very few candidates these voters know.
We know who the anti-clinton vote is. And surely there will be many Republicans energized to vote against her. But, again, given that it's a strange year, I think there are far more people eager to vote Democrat and looking for any reason to, than there are the opposite.
Now, if there were a slam dunk VP candidate who could bring home these disaffected Hillary voters, fine. But I don't see one. Keeping in mind they'd need to be real famous to compare.
May 14, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya Ben...
The Liberal in me wants to move on, so I have tried to consider it but cant get passed that 1) it's not fair to Obama to force him to make that choice after he has won. 2)Im raising a child. I raise her with notion to be responsible for one's actions. If your not, you find your self in a position to where someone makes you responsible. So basicaly, if you do wrong expect to be held to account. Without rehashing what HRC has done wrong in her drive to fight for herself, I cannot mentally accept her as the VP choice and especially when it's done by force. That would be to stop the Obama (and the peoples) message, and it would excuse her irrational behavior for a Dem Primary! So I have at least tried and thought hard on this.
May 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your grudging support of Hillary for VP. If it is any help, give a closer look to the kind of campaign Obama ran. You will see that he is more of the usual kind of politician than you first thought. And you will surely have more opportunity to observe this in the coming months. I don't share your optimism that he can win without her on the ticket for many reasons. But I'm glad you can put aside your reservations about her and consider the benefits of having her as VP. Her supporters will have a more difficult time since their candidate will be in the number 2 position, but I suspect you will see them rally behind an Obama/Clinton ticket.
May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I hadn't read your full post before commenting. Hillary didn't stoke white fears. That's totally unfair. Jeremiah Wright and Obama did that all themselves. If you really believe she is such a monster, you shouldn't want her on the ticket.
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another afterthought: You view Hillary basically as a snake in the grass, yet you want to see her on the ticket out of "political expediency". At the same time you say you profess to be an admirer of Obama's "new Washington message". That's a contradiction. It makes me wonder which you don't take seriously - Hillary's wickedness or Obama's idealism.
May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment