« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Vice Presidential Profile: Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY)
This
is the twelfth and final entry in our series of profiles regarding
Barack Obama's most likely candidates for the vice presidential
nomination. You can view our previous entires here.
Come back next week as we take a detailed look at the possible
candidates for an Obama cabinet. Your favorite candidates that did not
appear in our two week long series here, may very well show up in our
cabinet profiles. Tomorrow I will boil down all that we have learned
and make my predictions. Don't forget to vote in our poll.
Hillary Clinton: former first lady and current senator from New York. Is she on Obama's short list? Frankly, none of us know, but given how close she managed to keep this primary season, and the fervency of her supporters, no list of possible vice presidential candidates is complete without her. George Stephanopoulos described an Obama/Clinton pairing as "a dream ticket." But many Obama supporters consider it a nightmare. Before we render judgment, let's look at the strengths she brings to an Obama campaign, as well as those qualities which cause us deep concern.
Sen. Clinton came into office in 2000, besting her opponent Rick Lazio by twelve points (55-43). She gained support between her first election and her re-election in 2006, which she won by more than thirty points. In her time in office, Clinton has built solid constituencies, gaining the approval of 68% of Hispanic voters according to an April SUSA poll. She also polls strongly among women of whom better than 60% support her. Her standings among various political ideologies underscores Hillarys negatives: she recieves only 33% support among conservatives, while splitting independents (50 percent approval vs. 48 percent disapporval), and receiving 59% of moderates. She has the highest negatives of any candidate in the race with 40% of voters disapproving of her.
The argument most commonly made against her negatives is that after eight years as First Lady and eight years as senator, Hillary Clinton's negatives are as high as they will ever be. Given just how high they are, I'm not going to dispute this. Moving forward, she polls better than Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Obama is statically tied with McCain. She leads by roughly ten ponts in both Pennsylvania and Ohio, though she loses by about the same margin in Virginia. In Virginia, Obama performs better than Clinton while still losing to McCain.
Needless to say, Clinton is strong on nearly every issue a progressive might care about. She supports lifting the ban on stem cell research in order to allow scientists to find new cures for devestating diseases. She supports programs which encourage adoption over abortion. She voted no on an amendment to ban flag burning. Regarding crime, she believes mandatory sentence laws have been used too often and are detrimental to the pursuit of true justice. She believes in a cap-and-trade system to control pollution. I personally favor a simple tax system on emissions, which the CBO has demonstrated are far more effective at reducing pollution, but Clinton's proposal for a $5 billion investment in alternative energy is nothing to scoff at.
So, what are the negatives of a Clinton vice presidency? First, it's difficult to imagine her taking a back seat to an Obama adminstration, especialy considering that there would be a former president by her side. She does gain the support of women and Hispanics, but there may be another candidate who can perform just as well in these demographics (see Janet Napolitano, Brian Schweitzer, and Bill Richardson). At times, she has even suggested that Obama has yet to reach the threshold for the presidency.
Given the closeness of this primary, Clinton offers an Obama ticket enormous advantages. She's popular among working class whites, especially those living in the Appalachian mountains. She has the advantages of putting Ohio and Pennsylvania well within Obama's grasp. While nearly a third of her supporters claim they will vote for McCain should Clinton not appear on the ticket, it's likely that the current primary race is causing Clinton supporters to voice support for McCain. History suggests that they will not follow through on their threats in November. A substantial number of McCain voters claimed they wouldn't vote for Bush in the 2000 election, but their threats did not come to pass.
While Hillary Clinton looks good to those who wish to see a "unity ticket," Obama also must select a vice president who can be counted on to support his campaign and his message. Despite Clinton's strengths on most progressive issues, it is difficult to imagine she has the discipline to fall in line behind an Obama campaign. Moreover, her refusal to admit any mistake regarding her votes on the Iraq war cuts against Obama's theme of judgment. It is difficult for me to imagine Obama selecting a candidate who not only voted to authorize the use of military force against, but has since refused to admit the failings of their decision. I believe Clinton will make a concerted effort on Obama's behalf this fall, but it will be as a surrogate, not as a vice president.
Comments (33)
Tip Jar...
If you've appreciated this series, we'd love a recommendation.
Thanks,
Big Blue
May 29, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep doin' what you're doin. Great series. Did you give your preference of who you would like to see as the VP candidate?
May 29, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, did you give any thought to profiling Mark Warner? I know he's running for the Senate, but it would be interesting to hear you views on him as well. I would think he would jump at the chance to be VP if offered.
May 29, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll probably look at Warner this weekend in our dark horse series. I only consider him a dark horse due to his current Senate campaign. I'll have a post up tomorrow distilling the last twelve entries and offering my final thoughts.
May 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now let's not get ahead of ourselves. This thing is far from over, and it would be premature to suggest ANYone for a V.P. spot, other than Barack Obama. So, let's not rule out anything yet with me on top of the ticket. Yes, Obama is on my "short list", but so is Clinton (Bill).
Much Love,
Hillary/Clinton(B.) 08!
May 29, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny stuff.
May 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not Clinton (Chelsea)? She has a lifetime of experience and was at the table when a lot of presidential decisions were made.
A tri-presidency!
May 29, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great series. Your profile on Schweitzer really grabbed my attention. At first, I laughed off the idea of a governor from a sparsely populated, red state like Montana getting the nod. His background, however, suggests a worldliness even in the absence of foreign policy credentials. I'm also fascinated by his advocacy of coal as an alternative energy source (Fischer-Tropsch Process...worth a look at wikipedia).
May 29, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, my response to this is "maybe." It is not obvious to me that the fact that voter X will choose candidate Y over candidate W means that voter X will choose Candidate W over Candidate Z if W chooses Y as a running mate. Indeed, if (as has been hypothesized) some percentage of Appalachian voters were against Obama because he is black, it is hard for me to imagine that these same voters will choose a black man and white woman over a ticket consisting of two white men. Among those of Clinton's supporters who dislike Obama, it is just not clear to me what percentage would be willing to support Obama with Clinton as his VP vs what percentage would never support Obama even if Clinton were his running mate.
May 29, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I would like Clinton to run in the general, I would not like her to run as VEEP. It would sideline an effective senator for 8 years - at least we all hope he would have 8 years if he wins the nomination.
Actually, I dislike the VEEP promotion. For one, it reveals the serious lack of principles on the part of many Obama supporters (particularly those pushing Chuck Hagel). Most of the conversation is pure political calculation without a moment to consider competence, readiness or ideology.
People promote anti-choice, anti-gay candidates. They promote economic and social conservatives. they promote Republicans. They promote neophytes who have no more experience than Obama.
Hopefully Obama will pay no attention to any of it and make up his own mind - when and if he wins the nomination.
May 29, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your voice here. Could you clarify who are the "people" you're referring to in your post? I'm confused.
IMO, I'm sure the summary pages of Dem VP analyses look a lot like Big Blue's, and the endnotes look a lot like our commentaries. The people in charge aren't all that smart (Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, etc.) I prefer both a political and pragmatic look, and you gotta admit, it's hard to find a slam dunk VP.
I like that we have the most attentive populace in 3 generations paying such close attention and pretending like we matter.
May 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not pushing Hagel but I'd trust Hagel over Hillary on war. The neocons don't pull the wool over his eyes and he has a visceral reaction against sending any kid off to war so some politician can win political points.
May 29, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are stuck in the trap that has kept the democrats from winning. This isn't the time to hunker down and keep ideas and people out of the party. I'm currently an independant and am looking for a party as the last 8 years has aptly demonstrated just how horrible the republican party can be. If the democrats embrace needed change (education reform, immigration reform, energy reform, the list goes on) and some fiscal discipline I'll be happy to be a democrat. I'm already spending a lot of time and money on Obama and the local democrats running for congress.
On the other hand if the democrats continue the failed fiscal policy of the last 8 years and use the next 4 years to enrich themselves and not get anything done, I'll be happy to support Ron Paul in 2012. I'm not alone, and in this day and age we should be promoting the best ideas and having discussions about them. There is no reason to keep people out of the party. If people are willing to join a discussion and work toward a common goal that's ultimately what we need. Just having an "us and them" mentality is how we got into the disaster we are in.
May 29, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The race and gender ticket is as controversial (if not moreso) than an ethnic ticket, for the likes of a state such as West Virginia. The rest of the country is changing, but as the Primary attention showed, the Appalachian vote may be out of reach for a progressive slate.
Primaries don't translate so easily to generals, obviously – there's that whole other side.
What worries me about Obama-Clinton '08, apart from what you have laid out (very eloquently and I loved that you did the series):
A. The general election would involve all her dirt, that the GOP has primed, waiting in the wings. Do two controversial candidates mean double the negative attacks? I'd love to avoid a doubling down of Obama's mystery and Hillary's history. If she's not on the ticket, that diffuses a major GOP strategy they've been planning for 5 years.
B. The closest analog to Obama-Clinton '08 is Kennedy-Johnson '60, and I don't like how that turned out. Again we'd have an inspiring, rousing challenger of a president, backed by a pragmatic, realpolitik wonk, and they would probably win in November. But the story doesn't end there, as Hillary likes to point out to editorial boards.
Dick Cheney was a great bulletproof vest for Bush. A Cheney presidency would have been much worse than a Bush presidency. You gotta think from the mind of the enemy, and look for the scenario that says, "you think Obama is bad, well what if VP ___ was suddenly president?" and I'm thinking President Hillary is a much more appealing punching bag for the GOP, and a much more defeatable incumbent in 2012. I would hate to see hope and civic involvement shattered again in 2011 or even sooner.
Early on, I thought Obama-Edwards was the ultimate "bulletprooof" ticket, sending chills down the spines of corporate powers. I still think that's a great ticket, and thanks to Blue's reports here, I can see there are other combinations now that are more appealing than Obama-Clinton.
Though you swayed me a little back from the abyss with your analysis... thanks again!
May 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're arguments are SO simplistic.
May 29, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're opening yourself to criticism, Otto.
May 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That might be just a bit too subtle.
May 29, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word.
No.
May 29, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, that would be a really comfortable position. The lady wants you dead and YOU want her to be his VP?
She is an ethical black hole. She is the worst loser in the history of mankind, she has sent Bill Clinton out to invalidate all our votes, she has used the race card, and when ALL of that didn't work, she said we were sexist because we didn't vote for her.
This 50-year-old white woman is PISSED that she called sexism, that she embarrassed us with her sniveling campaign, and instead of being a beacon for women for years to come, she is the example of exactly what NOT to do when you lose a campaign. She is EXACTLY what is wrong with politics. Say anything, do anything to win, and to hell with ethics. NO NO NO NO NO, a thousand times no.
May 29, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not trust a woman who does not know the difference between a good roll of string and a mouse toy.
May 29, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
NEVA! NEVA!
NEVA WILL WE SURRENDA!
WE'LL FIGHT THE CRANKS
AND WANK THEIR PLANKS!
'CAUSE BOY DOES WENCH HILL HAVE A GENDA!
THE ONLY VEEP WENCH HILLARY WILL ACCEPT IS MINE!
SHE WILL BRING BACK THE CORPORATE RAIDER 1990S!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 30, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you read the front page at TPM but they've have the headline:
50% of New York wants Hillary to drop out.
and links to rasmussen page
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_york/election_2008_new_york_presidential_election
It is pretty sad when even your own state says they've had enough. I doubt she'll even win relection to her own senate seat. Why on earth would anyone want her as VP?
May 30, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't think she'd lose her Senate seat. She still beats McCain handily in NY in the latest poll – let's give her some credit for what she can accomplish.
I think , though, the idea of her as VP is appealing to people who think the party needs to "mend" and this is the way a "mend" would happen. But politically, realistically, for a successful General election, it doesn't make sense - it's an inside baseball appeasement move that only makes sense to people who think that other people want it.
I seriously doubt Hillary wants it. She wants to mean something, and VP means very little.
May 30, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
She might easily lose a Dem primary though. Call it the Liebermanization of Hillary.
May 30, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) She is popular among whites in a lot of other places besides Appalachia. For example, her advantage in Massachusetts was overwhelming despite Kerry and Kennedy campaigning for her opponent, and in Indiana it was 65-35. Consider Michigan and Florida in the same boat.
2) You don't specify the extra importance on the Hispanic vote, where both Hillary and McCain are strong - expecially #1 California and #4 Florida. Combine whites and Hispanics in these states, and Obama will have to campaign long and hard without her for a general election, taking away energy from other states. Go to electora l maps to make this stand out more:
Clinton is 327 to 197 for McCain, while Obama is 266 to 248 to McCain - a rather uncomfortably tight margin. She swings Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, puts Texas into play and secures New Mexico. What other VP possibility has the change to even really influence a state turnout?
3) You perhaps miss the relevance of Hillary on Fox with O'Reilly. She charmed conservatives - I've had a few prior Hillary haters tell me so. This is partly because of:
4) She's comfortable with money, business and security. A lot of swing voters favor Democrats on social issues but hate the anti-corporate bias of the party (Gore ruined himself in 2000 on that issue). Hillary has a strong hand on security, and contrary to your opinion, it's one area where Obama really needs bolstering, especially as Republicans mount their attacks. Obama can say, "Yes, I understand a lot of you were rightfully concerned, and this is a way I can acknowledge that, even while emphasizing that we will stress diplomacy and negotiations over any military action in this administration". After all, Obama has voted with Hillary on almost all Iraq legislation in his career.
5) Religion. Yep, Hillary's a softener here too. She's a church woman and known for it, more than any other potential candidate except for you-know-who, and that can be very important in those traditional regions. You can hate her pressure on cleaning up video games all you want, but in a general election it will help the Democratic ticket.
6) Balance. Obama represents the unknown. Hillary represents the devil/angel you know. Almost any other candidate will be unknown in that aspect. Hillary being thought of as controlling and pushy becomes a strength at that point - no one will be expecting her to just go along for the ride. However,
7) "it is difficult to imagine she has the discipline to fall in line behind an Obama campaign" - what is this nonsense? She has campaigned for national Presidential candidate campaigns since 1968. She is well known for reaching across the aisle in the Senate, even being part of this criticized prayer group where Republicans and Democrats get together, as well as forging stronger relationships with Byrd, Gingrich and Scaife, all fierce critics. She has maintained her message control in the Senate, not jumping in too quickly on issues that will distract from her position as moderate and sensible on security, defense and other important issues. She is not a hot head or a demagogue. She was very supportive of her husband even after it became clear he'd betrayed her - she could have been much more bitter. So why this attitude from everyone?
May 30, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make some good points. I'll let those stand as is, so I'm just going to take issue with where I think your off-base:
1. Sure she's popular among whites. But so is he. Massachusettes isn't a good example because that's guaranteed Democratic. In Michigan Obama - as "Uncommitted" - secured 40% of the vote without even being on the ballot. I'm not convinced that he's weak with whites here. I'd need to see some numbers.
2. I did mention the Hispanic vote, though I should've gone into detail. I guess I stopped short because there were immediately other candidates who would do better among that Demographic.
3. I don't think I mentioned Hillary going on Fox in my profile. At least, I didn't see it as I just scanned over it. I'm sure did charm some conservatives. I'm also sure that those conservatives are going to vote for McCain. There was a really good piece in the LA Times on what I'll call "partisan reclamation" - by which each party, regardless of mixed emotions and ill feelings during the primary -- gravitates back to their candidate after the nomination.
4. I know the conventional wisdom is he should bolster his cred here, but her cred really isn't that good to begin with. And moreover, I stick with my original point that a VP candidate should play to a candidate's strengths. Especially in Obama's case where he's going to go in a different direction with foreign policy. No sense in picking someone who plays well among the conventional brokers when you're about to defy convention.
5. Plenty of alternatives are strong on religion. She's not especially strong in this demographic from what I've seen, despite her work on video games.
6. & 7. Your points here contradict each other. If she's not going to "go along for the ride," then she's going to contradict the nominee. They don't agree on everything. The VPs job is to back up the President. It is, pretty much by definition to "go along for the ride." Disagreements need to be kept out of the public sphere. Even if Hillary could keep quiet, Bill's demonstrated time and again that he can't. Their disagreements will get out.
May 31, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's on the campaign trail, so his job's to speak out. He was pretty quiet since he left office besides this.
Yes, 6 & 7 kind of contradict each other, but the reality is Hillary works well with others, so 6 is actually wrong, though with 65% thinking Hillary has more experience than Obama, it doesn't hurt to have her as backup helping make intelligent choices. Of course if he's too stubborn to listen to advice, nothing will save us.
Hillary will get quite a few Republican votes, especially women if they're reasonably comfortable with her positions. What I heard back in February was crossover voting for convenience/conniving. What I heard in May was actually being charmed.
May 31, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with your point is: doesn't Obama gain these same advantages if Hillary campaigns as a surrogate in the fall? Why is it necessary for him to nominate her for VP for her to campaign on his behalf?
May 31, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us don't give a damn about endorsements. But someone on the ticket or a cabinet member makes a real difference.
May 31, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it's not just that Bill is outspoken now, it's that -- from what I've read -- he's spoken out on issues even when Hillary has told him to shut it. I just don't think she'll be able to keep in muzzled in the fall, and he'll continue to say the kind of counter-productive things he's said during this campaign.
May 31, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
She may have told him to shut it *WHILE* campaigning for her. Once November's over, the campaigning's over. Then it'll just be Bill in a bar somewhere talking back to the TV.
May 31, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anything has been shown these last 8 years is keep an eye on the VP choice. Many were lulled by Cheney's avuncular ways. He then went on to usurp or be handed over enormous power. The legal changes he and Addington put on the books (VP power to declassify document, etc) are still there.
Hillary for all her good qualities is nothing if not ambitious and self-interested as this primary season has well shown. She wants the presidency--something Cheney at least did not. She will wield power as the VP to insure her getting the job in 2012. Her agenda will not first and foremost be Obama's it will be what is best for Hillary. This alone is reason for Obama not to not choose her. Add that to the fact that voting groups like Latinos may find Obama an easy choice even WITHOUT her on the ticket and a large majority of conservative white Democrats may still refuse to vote for Obama even with her ON the ticket.
And as for women over fifty, her key demographic, I am part of that group. It is clear we have divided into two camps. Of those who are still strongly with Hillary I hope fear of a Republican president appointing new members to the Supreme Court will get them to override their disappointment and vote for Obama this fall. As for the rest of us I believe we grew disappointed in Hillary starting in February. She brought so much to the table but she squandered it with an arrogant and poorly run campaign. To make up for this she resorted to the tried and true tactics----of the Republicans. I want the Democrat who takes the White House in 2008 to be better than that and I most certainly wanted the first woman to take that job to be better than that.
May 30, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wield facts and supposition like a spatula. "voting groups like Latinos may find Obama an easy choice even WITHOUT her on the ticket" - what makes you think that? A lot of Latinos supported Bush in 2000/2004, and McCain has a lot of Latino support, something Obama doesn't have. Your whole tirade about what you think you know about Hillary and your comparison with Cheney is simply obnoxious and insulting - especially when you infer that Cheney is less power craven than Hillary. My God, what are you? Why don't you compare her to Attila the Hun while you're at it? Beelzebub? Hey, I hear she's hiding an urge to skin, broil and eat babies.
May 30, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment