home

Why Obama Won't Pick Hillary for VP

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:41:28 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Unlike Big Tent Democrat, I don't care about a joint ticket with Obama and Hillary. As I said this morning, if Hillary wants it, I think he should offer it to her. If she doesn't, she certainly should not feel obligated to take it just so she brings him more votes.

That said, here are three reasons I think Obama will not offer it to her regardless of what she wants. I don't agree with a single one but I'lll raise them for your reactions:

1. Both racism and sexism are very much alive in this country. He fears there are too many voters who who would never vote for a woman and another set who wouldn't vote for an African-American candidate. He wants time to conduct polling and if the polling shows his campaign would suffer by giving both groups a reason to leave the Democratic party, he won't choose Hillary. [More...]

2. He will give strong consideration to whether he might benefit more from choosing someone who is
more conservative than he is with strong national security credentials, to help insulate him from some of McCain's attacks. Who might fit this bill? From his vantage point, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel, Wes Clark or Joe Biden, but not Hillary.

3. He has concerns about being overshadowed by Hillary and Bill and maintaining control over his own Administration, if elected.

Now, if he doesn't choose Hillary, how will he sell it to her supporters?

Will her supporters agree it is not out of disrespect for her or her supporters and accept that he is just making a cold political calculation that choosing someone else is the best way to win and govern afterwards?

Now, assuming he doesn't choose Hillary, and I am pretty confident he won't, how will his campaign try to sell it? They will ask her supporters to ask themselves:

  • Will the goals that Hillary so eloquently and vigorously supports be better advanced with Barack Obama or John McCain in the White House?
  • Who will better achieve national health care?
  • Who will better protect women's rights?
  • Who will be a champion for labor and who for capital?
  • Who will protect the environment and who will despoil it?
  • Who will be beholden to the radical right?

What's missing from these questions?

  • Does he have the necessary experience to lead?
  • Is there substance behind his message of hope and change? Will people get so tired of those words they start to roll their eyes when they hear it?
  • Will concerns about his past associations and questions about his judgment grow as the race progresses?
  • Can he win the swing states like Ohio, PA and Florida?
  • Can he win older voters, women voters, rural voters and Hispanic/Latino voters? Can he beat McCain without them?

Now, for some of my views:

  • The worst thing he could do is put another woman on the ticket. That will appear to her supporters as the most traiterous act yet.
  • Second worst: Pick a conservative. What's the difference between that and McCain?
  • Third worst thing: Don't try and sell that his not choosing Hillary is not a diss. It is and Hillary supporters are not stupid.

What's his way out of this mess?

He needs to work like crazy to have Hillary say she doesn't want to be on the ticket so she can make the case on the other issues to her supporters.

If her supporters believe she wants to be on the ticket and he declines to offer her the spot, his reasons won't matter. A diss is a diss and this would be too big a diss for them to get past.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary Event to Be Held Saturday in D.C. | Weds. Night Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Obama Won't Pick Hillary for VP | 235 comments (235 topical)
    Another missing question. (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:01 PM EST
    What about all those Hillary supporters who are angry about how she was treated by the party and by the media, and want to know that their views and their candidate are respected?

    In other words, don't act like you won in a landslide. Act as if you finished in a tie and happened to prevail because of some rules.

    This diary is right on (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    I posted on another thread that the winning candidate will need between 60-70 million votes. Historic turnout as it was in the primaries. A lot will turnout just to vote against him based on race. I believe McCain will get at least 20% of the vote out of the gate. I don't know if he can reach 60-70 million but maybe he can.

    [ Parent ]
    The fricken mandate... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:03 PM EST
    In other words, don't act like you won in a landslide. Act as if you finished in a tie and happened to prevail because of some rules.

    I thought only Republicans won by narrow margins (or not at all, see 2000) and then claimed mandates.

    That's got to be the thing that's ticking me off the most about all this.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary as VP (4.00 / 1) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    Lanny Davis has started a web site campaign to encourage the Clinton VP decision.

    Included on the site is a way to write to the superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]

    No thanks (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand (1.52 / 17) (#105)
    by fireback on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:23 PM EST
    the comment that Hillary wants her supporters respected.  What do you want?  You want national health care?  Ok, Obama's plan is similar.  You want to end the war?  Ok.  It's not like Hillary and Obama are much different in their policies.  So, what is it.  Why can't you just face the fact that disrespect is the natural outcome of a bitter campaign.  How do you think I feel when Hillary supporters say I'm just a koolaid-drinker.  Do yo realize how insulting that is to hear from Hillary supporters?  Not very respectful either don't you think?  Let's just face reality.  Both fought hard.  Things got little personal.  Water under the bridge - let's move on.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, but (4.50 / 8) (#124)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:00 PM EST
    your suffering is great. how have you borne it with such grace?

    Disrespect is the outcome of a bitter campaign?

    I think you are confusing cause and effect here. Not saying that it was all one-sided, but you are not making any valid points.

    There are reasons to support Obama. "His plan is almost like Hillary's" isn't one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    I would hope (1.00 / 5) (#227)
    by fireback on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    that I'd have the same grace if I were on the other side (assuming you're not be sarcastic)  It's impossible to tell - but that would be my desired side.  

    My point is that with any hard-fought campaign, it's not unusual for it be become bitter.  I'm not going to get into the ridiculous argument over who hit  first.  I personally think that Hillary was much more negative, first and often, but in fairness, I'll step back and just recognize that it goes both ways.  That's not confusion, that was acknowledgment and respect that Clinton supporters might feel otherwise.  

    Of course their are better reasons to support Obama, but him not being as experienced as her, not speaking specifically enough, not knowing the issues as well as Hillary, being too wishy washy, or feeling disrespected by some of his idiot supporters, are not good ones considering how similar on the issues they are.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand (4.37 / 8) (#114)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    That Clinton supporters have dished it out towards some of us Obama supporters (I became neutral later on), but you gotta understand that we indeed did start it. And calling us kool-aid drinkers is nothing compared to some of the misogynistic crap that Obama supporters spewed out. Sexist-charged insults hurt a lot worse than just plain old insults--insults which we deserved.

    [ Parent ]
    As a fellow Obama supporter, (1.00 / 2) (#121)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:03 PM EST
    I think you'll get the best results by being the first to move on rather than trying to push others to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM EST
    Obama should make a point of bringing Clinton and her supporters into his coalition.  I'm not sure Hillary herself needs or wants to be on the ticket to accomplish that.

    If they decide that the best place for Clinton is as a leader in the Senate, one scenario I can envision is Hillary offering one of her close associates for the VP pick.  I can imagine a joint  rally where Hillary introduces Wes Clark as the next VP of the United States, the General says a few appropriate words and Obama closes by explaining how he and Clark are going to make mincemeat of the GOP in November and lead America at home and abroad.

    Clark has been a favorite of mine for a long time and I think might complement Obama better than HRC does as a running mate....not to say he's "better" than Clinton but maybe more complementary for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I have my own opinion, of course, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    (I think he should put Hillary on the ticket), but I also have to say this: if Sam Nunn is chosen, I will have serious reservations about voting for him in November.

    Thankfully, I think he will not.

    That would make me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    angry and I'm an Obama supporter!

    [ Parent ]
    Sam Nunn is who (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:05:36 AM EST
    Ii'm speaking of, as making me angry not Hillary, just want to make that clear.

    [ Parent ]
    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:45 PM EST
    Deal breaker.  So are Chuck Hagel and any other Republican or DINO.

    Not that I've reached a deal.  If the election were held tomorrow, I'd vote 3rd party, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.  Sam Nunn, et al, closes that door because it's confirmation that an Obama Administration is going to be the Republican-Lite Unity horror show that I already suspect it's going to be.  At that point I would even consider working for McCain against Obama.  Even I'd rather a real Republican than a fake one.  At least then we keep the opposition party from moving even further to the right.  Otherwise, we'd basically be agreeing to an ideological merger with the GOP.   Which is even worse in the long run than McCain.


    [ Parent ]

    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#15)
    by phat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:04 PM EST
    Sam Nunn?

    I'd vote for them. But Sam Nunn?

    [ Parent ]

    Sam Nunn (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    is a troglodyte!  He interfered with Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays in the military and has been nothing but a DINO as far as I can tell.

    Furthermore, he has been virtually absent from the public stage in recent years.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, Nunn is a weird mention for BP (none / 0) (#38)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    I'm mean he's been kinda out of the loop, for what a decade or more.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    It would be a HUGE mistake to ask Hagel, and I think Nunn too.  A conservative sends the wrong message.  Wes Clark would be okay.

    I would be very happy with Clinton on the ticket. But I am willing to admit that might be more out of emotion right now. I have not been able to absorb the rationale against putting her on the ticket yet.

    I don't know if Wesley is interested... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    again, a far more qualified person behind a novice to boost him up.

    If Obama is all that, let him make it on his own.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd bet he would (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    turn it down flat.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    ...he was an ineffective campaigner in 2004, but he has improved quite a bit since then.  He is already doing much of what would required during the campaign.  

     He is charming, attractive, well-respected by the Clintons.  He adds a hell of a lot more military experience than McCain.  The real problem, from a political standpoint, would be that he is not someone that can be easily nurtured, like Gore, for the presidency, largely because of age.

     I think he might be interested...and I think he could be persuaded.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree.....but he would say yes to Sec of Def. (none / 0) (#233)
    by BestinShow on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:32:05 AM EST
    That's where his heart is. He was part of re-building the army after VN and now after Bush & Co. the military needs to be re-tooled.

    Gert Clark mentioned in small talk with supporters in 2003 that prior to even thinking of running for Pres., Sec of Def was a "dream" job for Wes

    he has one year left on the 10 year rule, but an exception can be made by congress -- been done before

    [ Parent ]

    But Clark is a novice (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST
    as a pol.  

    And before you can govern, you need to politic.

    I like the guy and respect his nat'l security creds.  

    But he doesn't strike me as a great fit for the VP slot.

    [ Parent ]

    Wes Clark (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    has spent almost his whole life serving his country.  I'm guessing he could set pride aside to serve as Vice President and help beat the GOP.  Especially if both Barack and Hillary asked him to.

    If Hillary doesn't want the VP job, I think it'd be an appropriate gesture by Obama to her supporters to nominate one of her close associates, with her public blessing.

    [ Parent ]

    During Obama's BitterCling speech (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    he spoke about how he didn't need a VP with FP/Military creds as his were fine.

    That's what got me about the speech, bitter/cling wasn't great, but his VP comments told me more.

    [ Parent ]

    His credentials (1.00 / 2) (#184)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    are fine!  Obama has as much military experience as either of the Clintons.  Why would he say he "needed" someone to bolster his military cred?

    That Obama doesn't need doesn't mean that someone with military experience couldn't help, both in the election and in protecting the country.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama won't pick Hillary because... (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    he doesn't like Hillary and Michelle hates her.

    No need to analyze it too much.  

    Well, yeh, there's that............. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    No love lost.  

    [ Parent ]
    Some questions (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:57 PM EST
    You say you do not care. That raises the following questions for me.

    Do you think having Hillary on the ticket improves Obama's chances of winning?

    If the answer is yes, should you not care about that?

    If the answer is no, then no further questions.

    I have no idea (5.00 / 22) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    if she would help his chances.  If he can't win without her, then why is he the nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    Which is the 64 million dollar question! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Or at least... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:13:55 PM EST
    the 17 million voter question.

    [ Parent ]
    He is the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    because the system in place selected him.

    What matters now is winning in November.

    I am in agreement with you that Hillary has earned the right to be asked but honestly, that is a very down on my list consideration.

    We desperately need to win this election.

    It is why I was for Obama - the only reason as I believed them to be equal in almost every other way with differing strengths and weaknesses.

    I admit I was wrong about that.

    But all I have cared about is winning in November always in terms of who wins and loses.

    Of course, I also care about the issues, fairness and the hypocrisy, sexism and ugliness we have seen in this campaign.

    But in terms of who is the nominee? I do not care at all who was going to be President. I have no idea who would have been better. I suspect you can make a good argument that Hillary would be better. Perhaps you would be right. I can never know.

    Heck, I thought Bill Clinton stunk in 92. I cast a protest vote for Jerry Brown in the NY primary that year - because of Ricky Ray Rector.

    I was wrong.


    [ Parent ]

    But you never talked about and never do talk (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:41 PM EST
    about who would do a better job.

    [ Parent ]
    I have no idea who do a better job (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    I go by what they say they are going to try and do and in terms of their chances for getting it done. both had weaknesses. Maybe, if I had to do it all over again, I would have been for Clinton. I doubt it. At the time, Iraq was sticking in my craw.

    Plus I hate Mark Penn and I did not like Hillary's campaign.

    What she has become is the type of pol we Dems need. But it came too late, for all of us.

    [ Parent ]

    You Must Have Missed (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    This

    In terms of VP choices based solely on electoral math, If Ohio gov. Strickland can deliver Ohio to Obama, then he should pick him. In addition, Strickland was a strong Clinton supporter and this a unifying choice. The question is can Strickland really deliver Ohio? I have no idea. Polling needs to be done in Ohio to determine that.

    In terms of other VP potentials....




    [ Parent ]
    Well... (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    The Ricky Ray Rector stunt was atrocious. I can't think of anything a Democratic candidate has done that was anywhere near as awful as that.

    [ Parent ]
    I can think of at least half a dozen (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:30 AM EST
    as bad or worse than RRR in my book.

    How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    How about Vietnam?  Johnson staying in for political reasons?  (59,000+ dead Americans and 300,000 maimed and wounded Americans...add in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam itself....thousands and thousands...Mei Lai....

    [ Parent ]

    I would be very disappointed (5.00 / 14) (#62)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:57 PM EST
    in Hillary if she took the VP job. Too many of us have seen the more qualified woman passed over for the lesser qualified man. I would hate to see her in this position where she would have to support and work for someone I doubt that she respects and who has not respected her through the primaries. I really hope she wouldn't take it if offered. It is like a slap in the face for the person who won the popular vote to always be in the second slot.
    And why would she ask for a job on the Titanic? I really don't think Obama will win it. Kerry didn't and Gore didn't - and they were up aqgainst BUSH. McCain, for all his obvious defects, is a lot more moderate....IMHO.

    [ Parent ]
    Unlike their supporters (2.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Lesser Dane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:18 PM EST
    I would assume that the candidates have a lot of mutual respect. That is, I do not think Clinton views Obama as unqualified, and I do not believe that Obama disrespects Clinton (nor have I heard him express the disrespect you ascribe to him).

    I am in two minds about the Clinton-as-VP option. I am not overly concerned about November - I believe Obama can win with most VP choices, and am more interested in which candidate

    • Will positively influence the day-to-day politics
    • Would be a good candidate in 2016


    [ Parent ]
    He's more malleable by those who want (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM EST
    to retain power (Pelosi, The Woman in power; Kennedy; Kerry, Daschle et al).  The Clintons probably 'rule' in a way that doesn't make them feel important enough.  Or, they just want the reins, the first two having run hard themselves to get into the WH but failing.  It always amazes me that Kennedy did challenge a sitting Democrat president all the way to the convention while Kennedy was 750 delegates behind.

      I don't imagine there was the daily call for him to get out and speculation about any insanity or narcissism to stay in, from The Powers That Be.

      But we do admire his guts, and currently too.  Amazing guy.  A woman doing that though just won't play the same way, as a woman should know her place.

      I agree with you, by the way, that it would be an insult of the highest order to run another WOMAN as they keep suggesting because that supposedly would get her voters back.  It's not because she is a woman!  It's because of her particular deep knowledge, experience with how all the disparate parts of DC work, intense interest, enthusiasm, energy, and immersion in the tedious details of how we can fix some serious problems.  She's not in it for the glamour.  She doesn't tell us to go to her website to see what her solutions are.

      It is, though, that she was dismissed on a daily basis, in words that convey a lot of contempt for the female state.  A lot of ridicule was involved, and it continues.  That doesn't mean another woman would nearly qualify.  But another female would probably weaken the ticket because she isn't Clinton.

      They are so clueless.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Another woman? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    Other than Hillary?  if Obama does that, it would be PROOF that he just does not get it.  What a friggin insult that would be to Hillary supporters.  

    It looks like his VP will be whoever the Kennedys decide it will be.  Who is Ted's choice?  Since he's so ill, Caroline will let him choose.    

    [ Parent ]

    Could you explain (none / 0) (#191)
    by Lesser Dane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    how another woman is more of an insult than a man? I do not undertsand it, unless you assume that women are always chosen based on their gender, rather than other qualities.

    [ Parent ]
    not the right question (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    The right question is: "Do you think having Hillary on the ticket improves Obama's chances of winning more than anyone else does?"

    I don't see any grounds for confidence that she does vs. several other candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, she does. (4.33 / 6) (#26)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    Millions of people like me will probably sit on our hands if we don't have a reason to drag ouselves to the polls.  We'll vote VP, which is highly unusual. But, also, she has the support of tons of activist who will sit on their hands, but they'll work for that ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes she does. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by magnetics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    Case in point: I am strongly considering sitting out November, if she is not somewhere on the ticket.

    I don't say that lightly.  I am a loyal yellow dog who has pulled the Dem lever in every presidential contest since McGovern (my first vote.)

    I wouldn't vote for McCain dogcatcher, but I will not support a candidate who I feel is unqualified, which is the case the with Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    I honestly don't get this... (4.62 / 8) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:12 PM EST
    the VP is a nothing office, and its pretty obvious that Obama isn't going to want to give Clitnon any power as VP.

    I just don't understand why people would say "well, its really important to have a strong competent leader in a position where her hands are tied, and she'll be force to act like the President isn't an idiot".

    [ Parent ]

    Gore and especially Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST
    have really broken the mold of VP as funeral specialist.

    I think Hillary wants to lead, and would only take the role if as part of the deal Obama promised her a leadership role on a particular issue she cares about - like healthcare.

    That might be a very interesting administration.  The more I think about it the more I warm up to this ticket (thought I'm still a big Wes Clark fan too).

    [ Parent ]

    Gore and Cheney had willing presidents (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    ...willing to give them more serious things to do -- and in Bush's case he needed Cheney, who accompanied him to the Iraq hearings and spoke for Bush when questioned.

      A recent poll pitted Obama with various vp candidates against McCain.  He did not do well with any of them, except for Clinton where there was a large gain.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    I think Edwards helped Obama the most in that poll (if it's the one I'm thinking of).  But whatever.

    I think Obama would want to avoid the appearance of a "co-Presidency."  And I don't think HRC would want to accept a traditional (pre-Gore) ceremonial role as VP.

    But they might work out a middle ground where she were granted considerable latitude and leadership on a particular issue.  Healthcare is the first that jumps to mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Co-presidency (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Palomino on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    I think Obama would want to avoid the appearance of a "co-Presidency."

    Agreed.

    OTOH, I can't think of anyone other than George W. Bush who is in such dire need of a co-presidency. Bush's has been disastrous, of course, given the individual who was chosen to lend him "gravitas."

    IMO, the best we could hope for from Obama would be a co-presidency with a well-grounded, competent VP who would not mind being a force in the background so that Obama could "avoid the appearance"--that is, disguise the reality--of being propped up yet again. That doesn't sound like Hillary Clinton, and I don't know what would be in it for her apart from loyalty to the party that has shown her such disrespect.

    In truth, though, I think a hypothetical Obama co-presidency is a nonissue. I do not think Obama will defeat John McCain in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#210)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:01:40 AM EST
    to the polls you refer to?  I tried the Google.

    I have only seen the SUSA ones, which did not include Clinton (and had Edwards as the stand-out choice)

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM EST
    It will not advance her political agenda in the least.

    The only, only reason I can see to be for a Unity ticket is to help him win the WH.  I agree with BTD that a joint ticket is the only way to beat McCain.

    I can't see him being a good President.  I'm afraid even being a competent President might be a reach.  I don't trust him in the least to advance any of the issues he mentioned during the campaign.  Maybe it's just my particular life experience, but the idea of a Reagan Redux after a failed Democratic presidency terrifies me.  I'd rather let McCain fail to overcome the problems presented by the war and the economy and then let the Democrats pick up the WH in 2012.  

    [ Parent ]

    Gore and Cheney beg to differ n/t (4.75 / 4) (#42)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't see it (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    I don't deny that the phenomenon you describe exists but we really have no idea how deep or broad it is.

    The four demographicgroups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites. I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than one of those groups, and I can think of a few people who would be considerably better than she is among several of them.

    There's a fifth group to consider too, of course, namely partisans of Hillary Clinton. But it's way too early to tell (she hasn't even done the formal endorsement yet) how stable and potentially recalcitrant that bloc is.

    So Obama should take his time, but any authoritative statement about his best choice right now is really premature.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Name those people (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    "The four demographic groups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites. I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than one of those groups, and I can think of a few people who would be considerably better than she is among several of them."

    Those ARE the Hillary Democrats.  Heh.  I can not fathom who better could appeal to those groups.

    [ Parent ]

    That made no sense (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    Did you even read what you wrote?

    The four demographic groups Obama was weak with in the primaries were women, Latinos, older voters, and working-class whites.  Then who was the stronger?

    I don't see how Hillary Clinton is the ideal VP choice to appeal to more than ONE. Really?  When she was the stronger in all of those areas....

    Obama supporters really need to learn to stop smacking Clinton supporters around.  You know that 5th group you condescendingly refer to as 'recalcitrant'?  That's the 5th group she brings to the ticket by your metric.

    [ Parent ]

    Check your reading (1.50 / 2) (#100)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:25:19 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton outperformed Barack Obama among those groups. That implies nothing, one way or the other, about her ability to bring them in vs. another VP nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    check your logic (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:35 PM EST
    and give us some names.

    [ Parent ]
    One (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    You do realize he gets to pick only one VP right?

    [ Parent ]
    I think... (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    ...he is probably a riskier candidate, but a lot of the fears about her strengths in these areas arose as it became clear Senator McCain was emerging as the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (4.40 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    Who would be a better candidate to appeal to Latinos?  Oscar de la Hoya?

    [ Parent ]
    The Champion Campaigner (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
    Bill Richardson. <snark>

    [ Parent ]
    waits for the mention of .... (none / 0) (#81)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    Bill Richardson in ... 3....2...1....

    [ Parent ]
    Again... (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    Yeah, Richardson probably would do more for Obama among Latinos than Hillary Clinton would. Also, lots of Hillary Clinton partisans hate Richardson, which would cost votes.

    But that's beside the point. The question isn't, who would be the best VP choice to bring in Hillary Clinton partisans --- that's only one consideration. The question is who brings in the most total voters. Apart from the New York-Puerto Rico connection, was Hillary Clinton known as the choice of Latinos before, say, February?

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:56 PM EST
    Hillary has always been very strong with Latinos.

    During her years on the national stage, she's worked very, very hard to build bridges with virtually all of the minority constituencies within the Democratic Party.

    Bill Richardson means nothing whatsoever to most Latinos.  From where I sit, they're not even in the same galaxy.

    [ Parent ]

    No he wouldn't. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST
    He could not even get traction among latinos in the primaries vs. Hillary.  More latinos came out to support Hill in these primaries than they ever have before.  They are a very really voting block for her.

    Yes, she was the latino choice well before February.  She started her outreach, seperate from Bill(who was beloved by latinos), early in her Senate career.  Her domestic agenda was written with an eye towrd latinos.  Yes, there were several mentions that latinos were more enamoured with Hillary than Bill Richardson very early on.  There was a CA poll that showed Hillary woas recieving very high support among latinos as early as last summer.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson is still viewed as a Turncoat (none / 0) (#231)
    by janedw420 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:15:43 AM EST
    with way too many Clinton supporters. He was jeered tonight on LKL. He was ineffective in PR. MCCain would likely scoop loads of latinos

    [ Parent ]
    in a word: (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    Yes.

    You are really revealing how little you know about HRC here.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes and no. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    Lots of people will be really pissed if she doesn't get the VP nod.  That's an advantage to Clinton over various others that has to be taken into account.  It's not a very satisfying answer, since you'd hope liberals would vote for Obama over McCain regardless of whether his VP is Clinton or some other decent Democrat.

    But I think you can read a lot of comments even on this site that suggest that isn't really the case.  Maybe emotions will cool down as Clinton bows out, but if they don't Clinton might actually be the most politically effective choice.

    Again, this is not the ideal way to be choosing a VP, since it amounts to trying to convince Democrats that the Democratic candidate is better than the Republican, but that might very well be where we are at the moment.

    [ Parent ]

    One other point (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:24 PM EST
    This is just a hunch, but...

    How many voters definitely would vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket but definitely wouldn't otherwise? Very few, I think. Which militates against choosing her provided there are better prospects for the other voters Obama wants to target.

    (Webb, Clark, Schweitzer, Strickland, Sherrod Brown, possibly Biden IMO, and I really like Janet Napolitano.)

    [ Parent ]

    We know 59% want her on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    Per BTD in another thread. We do not know how many will not vote for him if she is not. But I personally can count 9. If everyone else can count one more than themselves, Houston we have a problem.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for the names (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by dws3665 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    but you really don't know much about these folks, do you?

    Webb is anathema to most feminists and a lot of women.

    Schweitzer is an interesting choice but has only been in a gov's office for 2 years. He certainly does nothing with Hillary's constituency of voters.

    Sherrod Brown? Is that a joke?

    Biden has some cred on FP, but hardly has any traction and certainly not with the groups you are describing as reflecting Obama's weaknesses.

    And choosing a woman other than Hillary is a suicidal move if the object is to appeal to Hillary's voters.

    Strickland is the only one of your names that is interesting or realistic (to achieve the goals you are hoping to achieve), because he is popular in a battleground state and is a Clinton ally/supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    Strickland (none / 0) (#197)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    is anti-abortion, isn't he?

    [ Parent ]
    he gets a 30% from NARAL (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by dws3665 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
    So it's not a strong issue for him, no. I don't think he's "anti-abortion," like, say Casey, but it is a knock. Thanks for pointing that out.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't want Clinton on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
     because I don't want her to go down with the titanic, but you are being ridiculous.  Please post everywhere and do it often.  Sen McCain will thank you later.  

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed, but.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    Blog comments obviously aren't anything more than a collection of anecdotes, and you know what the plural of "anecdotes" isn't....

    The one bloc for which Hillary Clinton has a decisive advantage vs. any other potential candidate is Hillary Clinton partisans. But again, we really don't know how deep or broad a bloc they are. We won't be able to gauge it at least until a few weeks after she endorses Obama and the emotional pique subsides.

    (This points out another disanalogy btw. this race and Ford/Reagan in 76: there were clear ideological contrasts between Ford and Reagan, and picking Reagan could have done a lot to drive up conservative enthusiasm for Ford (though I actually think the Watergate and Nixon pardon stench were insuperable obstacles and putting Reagan on the ticket in 76 would have just wound up squashing his national career.))

    [ Parent ]

    The emotion pique (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    Man, you guys want to lose, don't you?

    [ Parent ]
    Um (1.00 / 2) (#148)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:14 PM EST
    I really don't see why you have to read anything sinister into the (obviously true) observation that the emotional complexion of this thing will change as the party, including Hillary Clinton, rallies around Obama (just how much we don't know yet, which is why she might turn out to be the best choice). But anyway, the marginal effect of anything I write here ≈ 0, so I'm not too worried.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you ever (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    heard the word 'pique' used of a man?  It's always used of women who indulge in a fit of pique over something trivial.  Trivial, like, I don't know, seeing the first serious female contender for the Presidency mobbed by a bunch of misogynists in the media and on the Left itself.  That sort of trivial.  But I'm sure we'll all get over our little fit and fall in line in a month or so.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (1.00 / 1) (#214)
    by dmk47 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    I'm not using it w/r/t Hillary Clinton, who will shortly be campaigning for Barack enthusiastically; I'm using it w/r/t to her millions of supporters who include millions of men.

    [ Parent ]
    Aw, but each of our voices represents (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    Blog comments obviously aren't anything more than a collection of anecdotes
    I have to add; I am one voice here and have never met any of the people on this blog that I am aware. I have a lot of friends and family and even though I am in Penna, that group extends to Fla, Calif, Vermont, New Hamp, Mass, and Texas. These are the people I am in contact with on a weekly basis and these people all vote. None of them Blog. So my one voice now represents another 25 voices. 4 of them were for Obama. If each of us are averaging this same amount, then I would have to conclude that our little bloc represents a lot of the Hillary people. I know half who are in limbo about voting and the other half have said no vote but would if Hillary is on the ticket. Only if she is on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#108)
    by befuddled on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    This has been discussed frequently and while I have made no tallies, the arguments boil down to how attractive the VP choice will be to the presumably disaffected constituents. But, they are a diverse lot with diverse grievances. It looks very amenable to a lot of analytical methods but there is hardly time now to do that accurately, have to cobble up a guesstimate from polls. And then try to find the best match in the available pool.

    Also, those whose attitudes are negative are a lot harder to turn than those whose attitudes are positive.  

    [ Parent ]

    I want a DEM in the WH; Obama's not a Dem to me (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    He's a panderer to right wing interests and I regard him as little more than the kind of mascot Sody Pop companies use to sell more product in black neighborhoods. (Oh yeah, Sprite's the Hip Hop drink.)

    At least Bush was up front about his agenda. Obama's a stealth right wing tool and his list of bigotries, with sexism at the top of the list, is too long for me.

    [ Parent ]

    Why not someone from within his own camp? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:12 PM EST
    What's wrong with his movement that he can't pull someone from one of the many vastly superior people from his movement to be his VP???

    It would show strength, and it would reward his own base for their support!

    That is a better idea (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST
    Edgar.  

    However, I honestly think he's afraid of not choosing Clinton.  In fact, when she concedes/suspends, or whatever, all heck is going to break lose unless he does so.

    I'm well-stocked on popcorn.  It'll be fun to watch.

    [ Parent ]

    Party unity is too important, that's why. (2.00 / 0) (#229)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:43:05 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is not like just any other potential VP candidate. She finished the primary campaign in a virtual popular-vote tie with the presumptive nominee.

    I don't know whether she really wants the VP slot. All VP candidates are routinely hounded by the media for any sign of independent thought -- especially any disagreement with the presidential nominee on any matter of substance. This time-honored ritual humiliation of the VP nominee would quite understandably be viewed by her supporters as irredeemably sexist, and they would, I suspect, get angry at Obama for his ungallantry in not stepping to her defense.

    If she does want the VP spot, she is certainly going about getting it in totally the wrong way.

    Anyway, I think Obama should offer the spot to a Clinton loyalist -- Ed Rendell is my first choice,  with Wesley Clark a distant second.

    [ Parent ]

    Caroline Kennedy (none / 0) (#163)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:47 PM EST
    is the head of his selection committee. I suspect that is to represent Uncle Ted.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton should make it clear what she wants... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:36 PM EST
    and do so publicly and openly.

    If she wants it, she should endorse Obama for President, and announce that she is running for Vice President.  

    Or she should just say that she's not interested in the job, and that if she is not the nominee of the party she plans to continue to represent the people of New York as a Senator.

    But she should make it clear that SHE is not a supplicant here, while putting an end to the ridiculous media speculation.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    For the same reason that it's ridiculous for Obama supporters to demand that Hillary abase herself, I think it's misguided to insist on some kind of heightened stature for her.

    This is supposed to be about the country and winning in November, not about egos.  In fact, dare I say it, that's a somewhat masculine way of looking at it!

    [ Parent ]

    The vice presidency is a constittuional office... (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    and she should treat it that way.

    Screw Obama and his feelings.  If he doesn't want a strong, independent, competent woman with millions of supporters he should say so.

    She has just as much right to run for VP as she does for president -- and as President of the Senate can have a GREAT deal of influence on what happens with legislation....

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Palomino on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    This is supposed to be about the country and winning in November, not about egos.

    Somebody tell Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama spent much of the primary demonizing Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    ..as untruthful, beholden to special interests, and that she doesn't represent change. Many of his supporters and campaign staff actually believe that, so if he picked Hillary as VP they would be confused and disillusioned.

    So? (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    They are not the voters he needs to be concerned with.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not saying that it would be smart (none / 0) (#116)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    not to put Hillary on the ticket. I'm just saying that most the people around him think that she isn't change and they are going to be shocked if he does pick her.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if they really believe she isn't (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    change, but a machine pol from Chicago is, they are in for some shock anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    That's true (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    Who knows what Clinton's pastor has been saying about Obama.

    He has a right to know that.

    sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    i <3 you

    but not when you make me laugh when i have abdominal problems :(

    [ Parent ]

    Either way, he is screwed (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:37 PM EST
    As BTD pointed out, his margin of "victory" was painfully slim.
    He can't live with her and he can't live without her.

    But that's not her problem anymore, nor is it mine. Obama and his campaign will have the sole responsibility of figuring out what to do.

    Stay tuned.

    what margin of victory? (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    I don't agree there was one among voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Disproportional Representation (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
    There wasn't.  He just got more pledged delegates for fewer voters - as all voters were not created equal.  Some really did count more than others.

    [ Parent ]
    Unless you're NBC (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:08 PM EST
    and don't count Puerto Rico, I think she has won the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    i really don't think he'll pick her (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by doberman pinche on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    & i'm not sure it's that good an idea for her to be too involved with him. for her sake, i mean.

    overshadowed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by margph on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:10 PM EST
    "3. He has concerns about being overshadowed by Hillary and Bill and maintaining control over his own Administration, if elected."

    Yes and no.  That is the primary reason.  BO couldn't debate with her anymore because she showed a better grasp of the issues.  He couldn't afford to lose face on a regular basis with her anywhere around.  Bill is a non-starter in my opinion.  To repeatedly bring him into the picture is insulting to Hillary's credibility.

    IF BO and HRC agree on a 'more important' role (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    ... for Hillary, that gets them both off the VP snag.

    Maybe Bo can yield on his non-universal version of UHC, and leave Hillary in the Senate (which solves his Bill-in-the-Administration problem) to shepherd it through (which probably fails, taking Hillary down another peg).

    and the good sen's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:01:38 PM EST
    bears some responsibility for fostering this. i have no sympathy for him.

    Both racism and sexism are very much alive in this country. He fears there are too many voters who who would never vote for a woman and another set who wouldn't vote for an African-American candidate.

    it really doesn't matter what he does, the die is already cast, by his own hand. by running a sleazy campaign, he crossed the rubicon, burning bridges behind him as he went.

    frankly, he could have jesus christ as his running mate (though why jesus would want to ruin his reputation escapes me.), and most of those same people still wouldn't vote for him.

    of course, this all assumes (and you know what they say about assuming!) that sen. obama is actually nominated at the convention, or that sen. clinton concedes before then. neither event has occurred as yet.

    Asked and Answered (5.00 / 14) (#37)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM EST