It’s not absurd at all. They have mostly similar policies but appeal to different groups within (and outside) the Democratic Party. On paper it’s a natural idea that’s so obvious it’s nearly mandatory. The only reason it doesn’t work is She’s Hillary Clinton.
Well, there are several really good points in this thread alone:
With her behaviour in the campaign i would never be able to trust her as VP if I were Obama.
A few thoughts on the subject from the New York Times.
Jolly Roger, the wisdom or likelihood of asking her to join the ticket is one thing, but the idea that she would actually prevent Obama from doing a good job is a very different claim. I can’t really take mswas’s post very seriously–at least not the first part of it. The other points (like some in the NYT link I posted) are more to do with the question of electability.
I don’t know whether Obama will ask her or not–I sort of think not but I kind of hope that he will because I think that on balance it would be strategically good (though not necessarily the only good strategy).
But I don’t worry in the least that if he were in office that she would prevent him from doing a good job. That claim seems to me be baseless.
From your article:
She’s not going to be chosen by Obama for any office in his administration.
Did you read your link? I’m not meaning to be questioning here, but I just read it and it clearly outlines why she wouldn’t be a good choice.
I don’t think its baseless. What Madmonk28 and Dseid said in their posts isn’t something that can be considered without basis…and I think it would hamper an Obama presidency. YMMV, though.
Well, to be fair, it lays out arguments for both sides. I think it’s very difficult to predict a) what Obama will do and b) what would be best for him to do. The latter question is like trying to take the temperature of millions of people. Primary voters are notoriously more activist than typical voters (even though more average people voted in the primary this time round). A lot of '08 voters haven’t really even checked into the race yet. Many Americans still look back fondly on the Clinton years as good times. Hillary means a lot to her supporters and to many women. Presumably Bill would rein in his hoof-in-mouth on the campaign trail once he and Obama were on the same side.
Like I said, I kind of think Obama won’t go for it but I still think it might be a very good strategy.
I think when thinking strategy we need to think about not the next 5 months. But quite literally the next 9 years. What will Clinton do for Obama in 5 months, as opposed to 9 years [I include the year after his second term].
I don’t see Clinton being effective for an Obama administration for 2 full terms. For the reasons stated in Bennett’s comments.
You guys are acting like it’s an either/or proposition. Hillary, if she doesn’t get the vice presidential nod, is still going to back Obama 100% She’ll get another political cookie, whether it be the Supreme Court seat or some other very high level spot.
My money for veep goes to Wesley Clark or Arlen Specter.
More fundamentally, for Obama to offer Hillary the VP slot now, after the nonstop cavalcade of disrespect, thinly-veiled threats, and general BS to which she’s subjected him and the party generally, would make him look like a saffron-spined weakling.
Well, fair enough, Phlosphr, but one reason to think of the next five months is that Obama won’t necessarily get to the White House. One way of thinking about this question might be to ask if not Hillary then who else? Clearly Obama needs to join up with someone more experienced than he is; so some fresh face without strong name recognition to an average voter is unlikely. John Edwards carries the baggage of having been on a losing ticket and he’s not exactly overloaded with experience either.
As to the nine years, I actually don’t see it as you do. Although Cheney was an obvious exception, Vice Presidents are not generally at the forefront of any administration either substantively or symbolically. If Obama is authoritative he will not need to worry about his vice president in line and if he isn’t authoritative then he can’t/shouldn’t be president. Ideologically, they’re close enough that it shouldn’t make a difference. Hillary is a professional.
To me the real question is electoral strategy.
Try looking here for some ideas!
Yep. I saw it. I think it would be a hijack to cross these threads and turn this one into a discussion of “what if Hillary actually is the best option?”
Suffice to say that I don’t think that Sebelius, say, would be as effective among average voters at beefing up Obama’s experience package (not to mention that he’s from Illinois and she’s from Kansas) and while I like Richardson I’m not sure that he’s what Obama needs (though he could be–I’m not ruling it out–just thinking aloud).
The general public knows Hillary better than either of these folks, especially Sebelius, and I think the public, even those who don’t especially like HRC, might like her a lot in the #2 slot. Nobody thinks she’s stupid, remember.
I think this is quite a big assumption. It would be very difficult for him to keep his mouth shut when he disagreed. I think it would be likely some Clintonites would be running to the media as “anonymous” sources anytime there was a policy decision that went counter to what they wanted, spreading dissension in the ranks. How much that would prevent Obama from accomplishing what he wanted would be questionable but I still think it would be a serious distraction at the least.
I think what you say is entirely plausible. Certainly if I were writing an HBO series based on an Obama-Clinton white house, this is what I’d make happen for the sake of the drama.
OTOH, in real-life it’s entirely possible that Bill would campaign successfully on behalf of the ticket and that, if elected VP, Hillary would use her time to beef up her own credentials for the future; doing lots of suitably vice presidential things. A more Gore-ish VP than a Cheney wannabe.
From today’s First Read by NBC (written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro):
Fixed that for you. I’m not being snarky. But I think the “entirely possilbe” and the “OTOH” were in the wrong places. Because it is entirely possible that Bill would successfully campaign and that Hillary would do good VP things. But considering the stuff they pulled in last few months, it makes what Kolak of Twilo said seem more likely.
She had the second most votes for a presidential primary candidate of all time. She had an EXTREMELY successful campaign if you’re considering raw numbers of votes cast for her, and the only failure I see in that campaign is that her opponent was 0.01% more outrageously and famously successful than she was. Obama is likely the only candidate who could have possibly gotten the nomination over her, out of all the Democrats in the country. She has enormous popular support, only microscopically smaller than Obama’s.
She’s not just married to a famous politician, either. She is a famous politician herself. And slinging the phrase “junior senator” around in a derogatory way is extremely counterproductive considering the circumstances…
Right, grayhairedmomma but the Cheney roll-out was indeed a big geezerish bio to prop up what was then a relatively young candidate–albeit one who was governor of Texas.
Although Obama is clearly a thousand times smarter than W. on the latter’s best day, I’m not sure that brain-smarts actually counts for much with the general public (thus, Al Gore’s dilemma). So Obama, a super-young first-term senator kinda needs a Democratic Cheney, preferably, a Democratic woman Cheney…
You can see where this line of reasoning ends.
Personally, I don’t think Sebelius cuts it but I could be wrong.
As to Lieberman, I think he may actually have hurt Gore but that’s ancient history.