I think a Clinton/Obama VP would be an excellent way for Obama to prove he’s the man to take over in '12 or '16.
12-16 years of Democratic presidents. Oooh, someone pinch me.
Wouldn’t be '12. Either Hillary would have to decline to run for another term (yeah, right) or else fuck things up so badly as to be inelectable, in which case her Vice-President sure isn’t going to get elected to the job.
The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the top spot. If you exlude Presidents who died - and Gerald Ford - the following Veeps were elected on their own: Adams and Jefferson (and that was when the runner-up became VP), Van Buren, Nixon (who lost when he ran as the sitting VP), and George H. W. Bush.
If he wants to be President later, Obama would be better off staying in the Senate and being his own man.
I’m afraid I don’t understand. Didn’t Gore win the popular vote, and come pretty close to becoming president?
Yes he did. Notice how many Vice Presidents actually made the jump, though? You need a President who gets re-elected and is still popular after eight years, you need people to think the country is in good shape and should keep going the way it’s going, and you need the VP to somehow identify himself as an individual while claiming credit for things that were mostly done by someone else, and while defending any unpopular things the President did.
And in the case of a President Hillary Clinton, any VP would be competing with Bill for the second most powerful voice in the administration. Which is why I think they’ll pick someone who’s been loyal to them instead of a rival like Obama.
Historically, the VP isn’t an effective stepping stone, but more recent trends suggest that at worst, the effect is neutral. Nixon was VP for Eisenhower. Mondale was VP for Carter. GHW Bush was VP for Reagan. Gore was VP for WJ Clinton. Being VP is a mixed bag, with VPOTUSs attempting to succeed two-term POTUSs at a possible disadvantage.
And, per CONUS, the Electoral College decides the race for POTUS, with a deadlocked EC possibly yielding to the House of Representatives.
Recent trends reflect a poor record in getting Senators elected as POTUS - Governors are a better bet.
If the top nominee is a Senator, then it might be wise to go with a governor. Richardson has a number of things going for him, and he could balance a ticket.
.
Obama/Richardson might work, since it might allegedly coalesce the alleged Black and Hispanic voting blocks, to the extent that they actually exist into an effective superblock of votes. Political race commentators have suggested that Hispanic voters, given a choice between white and black candidates, tend to choose the white candidate more often. And you get a senator and a governor, with attention paid to the southwest US population. And Richardson arguably has practical experience in terms of foreign policy that Obama lacks.
Obama is not experienced enough as an elected executive official - if Obama had, say, a term or two as Governor of Illinois, he’d be more solid. HRC has been in bed with, and part of the Democratic Party establishment for decades - HRC is not a “change agent” - she’s a US Senator “from” New York ( whose residency minimally precedes her Senate candidacy). And she’s on her second term. And she has no, zero, experience as an elected executive official. She was married to a two-term governor of Arkansas, and to a two-term POTUS. One can argue that she has experience as a Senator, but her “experience” elsewhere is in serving as WJC’s political consultant and one can view her access to WJC as a unique profile as a lobbyist.
Obama’s an equally (in)experienced) legislator, with a similar lack of experience as an elected executive. But Obama and HRC are both idea/agenda people, which makes it even more imperative to have an experienced executive as VPOTUS. And it’s nice to have former governors in the White House, in that they might be able to related to the governors with whom they’ll work, and have an understanding of state governmental priorities.
We’ll have viable female candidates for POTUS when we routinely see them as high-level (O-9,O-10) general/flag officers and as governors of US states. The first actually viable female POTUS candidate should have the same sort of profile as past POTUSs: generals like Eisenhower, governors like Carter or Reagan or WJC, VPOTUSs like Nixon or GHW Bush or Truman. If you can find a person with balanced experience as a governor with experience as a US Representative or Senator, even better. If that person has some judicial experience, great. But the value of successful experience as a state governor is that you get experience as the chief executive officer of a state government, as well as experience juggling the judicial and legislative aspects of state government. You might even gain some experience in terms of being CinC of your state’s National Guard.
Having said all that, the incumbent POTUS and his party are in the position of facing lots of fatigue/blow-back from two terms of an agenda that, at best, is volatile and inconsistent in terms of voter support, and that has seen the implosion of the vaunted tech bubble, and that is seeing the beginnings of a real estate/loan bubble correction.
People are pissed of and sick of things, and they are, at best somewhat less pissed off at the current crop of DP leadership than they are at the corresponding GoP leadership.
A Senator is going to get elected President this year. Unless you’re a believer that Romney can pull off a comeback, which I am not. I agree that the Democratic nominee will probably balance the ticket with a Governor or ex-Governor, though.
Clinton is clearly a viable candidate. How is she not viable? She’s got about a 50-50 chance of getting the Democratic nomination.
There are eight female governors right now. Although they’re not elected positions, in recent years there have been female Attorneys General and Secretaries of State. I’d say that’s becoming fairly routine.
I want Obama.
If he joins with Hillary he will not get my vote.