« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Robert Reich on Why Obama Should Not Pick HRC
A strong statement from a former member of the Clinton Administration:
I have known and admired the Clintons for decades and I have no doubt that Hillary could do an excellent job as Vice President. But this current spectacle illustrates why he should not choose her. Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters at claiming the public limelight even at the expense of larger public purpose. Media attention puts her unflagging ambition center stage and his unbridled (although sometimes misdirected) charm on full display. Were Obama to make her his Vice President, she would turn the tables and make him her President, just as she has turned the tables this week and transformed his remarkable victory into her audacious dare.
See the full post on Reich's blog, here.
Advertisement
Comments (38)
Spot on.
My favourite's a longshot who hasn't had much attention - I hope he's on the vetting list:
Brian Schweitzer, (MT Governor)
Poblano today has an interesting appraisal of him.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-brian-schweitzer-as-vp.html
June 5, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're still talking about Hillary and will be doing so through the weekend...
it's not like she has any natural charisma about her that would steal the spotlight, it's more calculated scene stealing on her part.
June 5, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary does have plenty of natural charisma. It's one of two things I admire about her (the first being her wonkishness).
Bill used to have natural charisma, and I suppose some people think he still does, but I do believe Hillary was finally able to outshine his, this past month.
It's her timing, Jonze...her timing. She should've outshone her own husband one hell of a long time ago. She should've stolen the spotlight from Bill first, before she tried to steal it from Obama.
June 5, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Lis, I wonder what you're thinking (or drinking). Charisma? Clap, clap, point, point, nod, nod -- I have found Hillary painful to watch, anticipating every action and wincing when I was right.
Charisma? Sorry, as a 60 year old white female who cares about feminism, I have been underwhelmed by Hillary's hanging on to Bill's coat-tails, using his resume to tout her "35 years of experience" and everything else.
Charisma? Repeating it over and over and over doesn't make it true.
Hint: Hillary doesn't have any of that stuff (charisma)
June 6, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it works.
I'm sick and tired of the media picking up her talking points that she owns these 18M voters. It's insulting to the voters, for God's sake. And she has managed to make this week about her instead of the historic win of Obama. She cannot be the VP. She just cannot.
There's a difference between a voter and a supporter. The vast majority of people who voted for her are not diehards that she can manipulate. It's disgusting.
And here we are, still discussing Hillary. God.
June 6, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of stealing the spotlight: I just heard on MSNBC that Obama's plane for Chicago has left without him. Why? Because he offered to meet with Hillary "at a time and place of her choosing" -- and apparently she has chosen tonight (when she had to know Obama was enroute to his family) to decide that this was the time, and her house was the place. And so, according to Chuck Todd, Obama agreed.
Good for Obama for keeping his word. But, Damn, She Who Must Be Considered is really a piece of work.
June 5, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, Robert Reich is not the most politically savvy of people.
His Gubernatorial campaign went down in flames.
June 5, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople: Yours is what we call an ad hominem attack. Rather than address the ideas expressed, you attack the man. This is not an argument.
June 5, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
His comment has everything to do with the OP.
Reich is giving a political evaluation of Hillary. Constantinople is pointing out that Reich may not be the most qualified person to do so, and as evidence he is pointing to his failed campaign.
June 5, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
I should have expressed myself more clearly.
June 6, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Reich is giving a political evaluation of Hillary."
This is incorrect. Reread what Reich wrote. His analysis is not political as much as it is PERSONAL. He is talking about them as people and the effect their "drama queen" nature would have on an Obama administration. For instance, what would happen if two years into this, Hillary thinks she is being "disrespected" because Obama wither won't consult her on important issues, or doesn't follow her advice. Do you think Maggie Williams and Bill are going to keep their mouths shut for the good of the administration . . . one that they think SHOULD BE THEIRS?
"Constantinople is pointing out that Reich may not be the most qualified person to do so, and as evidence he is pointing to his failed campaign."
This is nonsensical. What does not winning a campaign for governor (your FIRST campaign, mind you) have to do with not knowing how to do political analysis . . . especially when you served in Washington for four years? That is like saying that because a man's first shot at opening a restaurant failed, that means he does not know how to cook good food. The one, in many respects, has nothing to do with the other.
June 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You answered the question right there. Reich is very much giving a political evaluation of Hillary. Whether that evaluation is, additionally, personal, doesn't matter. It's still a political evaluation.
You're really stretching the anology here.
June 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he is right. How many people know the Clintons like Reich does? Not getting elected to governor has nothing to do with it. This is insight that few people have, and discounting it using the "governor thing" is ridiculous.
Do you think we should discount Scotty McClelland's inside view of things just because he couldn't keep his job with Bush?
It is rare that we get any input from people who really know the major players. For sure we should take what they say with a grain of salt, judging whether it is falsly affected by subjectivity, but still, why not look at it and try to figure it out? We're grown-ups, right?
June 6, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No stretch... although all analogies fall apart under too much scrutiny. If a successful campaign were evidence of political smarts, then WTF happened to Bill Clinton this year? He won two presidential elections, but really blew it this time. Why didn't he help HRC get to the WH?
Reich knows politics, Reich knows Hillary and the Clintons - certainly better than most of blog hacks do. Like it or not, his analysis has a ring of truth to it.
June 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's insane how ungracious HRC has been through all of this. The media fascination about the whole thing, IMHO, is not about her behavior. It's merely an adjustment: they have moved her, in their minds, from the inevitable presidential candidate to the inevitable VP nominee. One day the media will be retrained such that when they hear the name Clinton, they don't press the inevitable button.
June 5, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I long for the day that all this insincere humbleness of IMHO goes away....
Please, are we gonna have to get Lake Superior State University, http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php , to banish this phrase?
June 6, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case I do have to have the word banished, I have submitted it for next year.
June 6, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO thou doth protest too much.
June 6, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Customer0012: Attacking someone's authority to speak on an issue does not address the points made in the argument. Very good arguments have been made by people who were never elected governor, and very bad ones have been made by people who were. Authority or the lack of it has no bearing on the validity of the argument. Try arguing the issues rather than attacking the man.
June 6, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the original post, but your response is slightly at a tangent here, I think, Stuart. Contantinople is not really making an appeal to authority, or an ad hominem attack. He's questioning "political savvy," which would be a relevant qualification if he were right about it.
The reason his comment isn't very convincing is that winning a campaign correlates more closely to things like charisma, having a strong donor base, etc. than it does to the quality of one's political analysis. You can have lots of "savvy" but be a bad candidate if you're too outspoken, for instance, or too short.
In any case, I think Reich's direct personal experience of the Clintons is more important in this case than generalized "savvy." And it's not like Reich is the only person who thinks this. Ed Rollins was saying the same thing last night. It's not only about the Clintons' personalities; it's about their public profile. No matter how hard they try to play nice, it would be hard to fit a former first family into the VP position. It's just a terrible idea.
June 6, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.
Look how much better Deval Patrick did in his 2006 run than Robert Reich did in his 2002 run. There's a reason why Patrick beat the establishment candidate, and Reich did not, and it's not just charisma.
Of course, David Axelrod ran Patrick's campaign.
June 6, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, Axelrod!
June 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A person's (in this case, Reich's) authority to speak on an issue should stem from their ability to present facts and analyze them. Reich does neither.
Rather, he presents a lot of conjecture ("Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters," "Media attention puts her unflagging ambition," "she would turn the tables") without any examples or evidence.
Authority very much does have a bearing on the validity of an argument when the person making the argument presents no facts.
Who would you be more inclined to belive? A doctor that says you have bronchitis or a day trader that says you have a cold? You believe the doctor on the ground of authority. Should the day trader have compelling evidence to the contrary, then you can make a decision based on that, but not before any evidence has been presented.
If you have some facts to present on behalf of Reich, please reply to this post and do so.
However, that still doesn't change the fact that Reich made a bunch of assertions and failed to back them up, and when Constantinople and I called him on it, you tried to twist the argument into an attack on on our character.
Now, YOU try arguing the issues, and bring some facts next time.
June 6, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I would like to announce right here and now that your analogies are absurd!
Do you know the Clintons personally?
Does Reich?
That is the basis on which he makes his statements.
I am a Nurse Practitioner, and I think you have neither a cold, nor bronchitis, not pneumonia, but --> you have a serious case of allergies!
Hah!
June 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reich is the doctor to our day-trader. He knows way more about politics and the Clintons than we do.
Regarding facts: hard to bring facts into a projection of what might happen in the future. But, Reich needn't bring facts into the point he's making because we all understand the reality that exists. Example: I don't need to be a meteorologist to be able to point at the darkening clouds and proclaim that a storm is coming, nor do I have to prove it with a doppler radar analysis of the cloud's water content. We all know what an incoming storm looks like, and while it is true that it may not end up raining, we'll certainly do the prudent thing and seek shelter or grab our umbrellas, and adjust our plans for the day. Reich is similarly pointing to the obvious. He doesn't have to cite every instance of the Clinton family political history - we already know it.
June 6, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your saying cause that because Hill and Bill are larger than life they would outshine Obama?
June 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's what I'm saying. Whatever they do will be news. Because Bill is an ex-president, and because Hillary is an icon. Having them that close to the Oval Office would invite the media to write all kinds of stories that aren't the stories we want them to be writing. For instance, even if there isn't significant conflict between Barack and Hillary, the media is going want to tell that story. And if they want to tell a story, they can always find a hook to hang it on.
It just invites too many distractions.
June 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know, Robert Reich was once in love with HRC and is or was very close to her and Bubba. I think if anyone outside her family is qualified to voice an opinion of Hil, it is the guy who tried to talk her out of marrying Bill. He has obviously had her interests in his heart and on his mind. We all knew the kicking and screaming scenario would play out to some degree, too. All those who kept saying "she's a pro, she'll do the right thing" were of base. She's only doing the right thing to the degree that she has no supporters with any clout to do otherwise. And don't tell me to stop kicking her in the interest of unity. She needs to be kicked into unifying, as the last couple days have shown us. Look at the headlines abroad Wednesday, all about or first Afro-American nominee and the hopes they have for us, compared to at home, "Will Hillary be VP." It is sad for us, even in victory. Thank God for the young people.
June 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, why does she need to be kicked into unifying? I mean if she is that off base as a politician surely she couldn't carry many democrats with her could she?
Or is it that she and bill are that much a part of the party and all the whining from the Obama camp is just sheer NEED to have them aboard.
June 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point here is that HRC (and WJC) are more interested in their personal aggrandizement than the best interests of the party or nation. many have made this observation, and the fact that it is more frequently coming from close associates and supporters lends some measure of validity. Scheesh.
June 6, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, on the contrary I think he is saying that they are so "larger than life" any effort by Obama get past that would be futile. I don't think Reich would have gone to work for WJC if he thought it was all just about WJC. Obviously.
June 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not think that then. He thinks it now. He has been relieved of his delusions and rethought their behavior.
June 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, your from the GWB school of intellect. "I didn't really mature till I was 40". Sure he came to his senses finally after he was out of the death grips of WJC.....come on.
June 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take your pick. Either way, it means HRC isn't a great choice.
June 6, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, Reich is right on the money.
June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lville, I'm saying what you're saying.
But I do think Reich is actually saying what Liora said. The way he put it is actually pretty cutting. I don't know whether he's right. Maybe he's bitter. People have such strongly diverging opinions about the Clintons that I've kind of given up locating "The Final Truth" about them.
But honestly, I don't think it matters, because the "larger than life" part of it is really all you need to know, in order to know that the VP thing is a bad idea. It might be better for us to leave all the talk about "unprincipled ambition" to one side, because we're unlikely ever to agree about that.
June 6, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would lose all respect if he chooses Hillary.
June 6, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the litigation game, you have to pick a jury. There are obviously people you do not want on your jury, but you never call them out by saying "Your honor, I want to get rid of Juror Number 3 because he keeps looking down Juror number 2's blouse." No, you say "Your honor, we thank and excuse Juror Number 3."
"Hillary, we thank you for your past service, but you are now excused from having to serve in the White House again."
June 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment