BIll Richardson for VP (Not that anyone's going to listen)
Nominating Hillary is a mistake. This has nothing to do with the last couple of months, as she ran a hell of a campaign and demonstrated ferocious determination. (If only the Clintons had been fighting the recount in 2000). She would have made a fine president, but she's not the nominee.
My own "stealth" pick--Bill Richardson. Here's why:
1. He's Hispanic, but with a vanilla name. Those who know him or care about such things will be ecstatic; those who think Obama is a Muslim won't be the wiser and think they're electing their lily-white neighbor. It potentially binds a significant voting bloc to the Dems for the forseeable future. Moreover, he's a western governor--something key to Obama's electoral strategy, and has real foreign policy experience vis a vis the UN.
2. Putting Hillary on the ticket would bring all of her negatives into the campaign--whitewater, Bill in the Naval Observatory observing navels, etc. The reality doesn't matter; the perception does. That narrative is simply too ingrained into the media and they won't let go of it.
3. The two of them could (and probably will) still win the election, but it will be harder for a lot of people to pull the lever because of her. Over the long term (2012) the ticket might be vulnerable in a way that another candidate may not be. And I know (based on nothing else other than my gut and a poll or two) that a whole lot of voters are ready to vote for a black man. I'm not sure they're ready to vote for a woman and a black man when one of those women is HRC. I'd like to believe the opposite, but I am simply not sure.
4. Aside from her gender, she ran an "old politics" style of campaign by and large: the spinning, the arguments that defied reality ("snipers!") and insulted the intelligence, etc. Obama speaks to his audience as adults. Her style simply will not change DC's culture. His has a shot.
That said, both of their candidacies are historic. People marched and died for suffrage rights so that both women and African-americans could enjoy equality. Selma was not that long ago. I hope the D's are proud of them (as an independent, I sure as hell am).
My own "stealth" pick--Bill Richardson. Here's why:
1. He's Hispanic, but with a vanilla name. Those who know him or care about such things will be ecstatic; those who think Obama is a Muslim won't be the wiser and think they're electing their lily-white neighbor. It potentially binds a significant voting bloc to the Dems for the forseeable future. Moreover, he's a western governor--something key to Obama's electoral strategy, and has real foreign policy experience vis a vis the UN.
2. Putting Hillary on the ticket would bring all of her negatives into the campaign--whitewater, Bill in the Naval Observatory observing navels, etc. The reality doesn't matter; the perception does. That narrative is simply too ingrained into the media and they won't let go of it.
3. The two of them could (and probably will) still win the election, but it will be harder for a lot of people to pull the lever because of her. Over the long term (2012) the ticket might be vulnerable in a way that another candidate may not be. And I know (based on nothing else other than my gut and a poll or two) that a whole lot of voters are ready to vote for a black man. I'm not sure they're ready to vote for a woman and a black man when one of those women is HRC. I'd like to believe the opposite, but I am simply not sure.
4. Aside from her gender, she ran an "old politics" style of campaign by and large: the spinning, the arguments that defied reality ("snipers!") and insulted the intelligence, etc. Obama speaks to his audience as adults. Her style simply will not change DC's culture. His has a shot.
That said, both of their candidacies are historic. People marched and died for suffrage rights so that both women and African-americans could enjoy equality. Selma was not that long ago. I hope the D's are proud of them (as an independent, I sure as hell am).
