[QUOTE=astro]
Unless Obama utterly loses his mind it’s an absurd notion.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
And your reasoning for why a VP Hillary would prevent a President Obama from doing his job properly is what?
[/QUOTE]
Well, there are several really good points in this thread alone:
[QUOTE=mswas]
I really honeslty believe that if Hillary were VP, the Clintons would have what it takes to have Obama assassinated. I really do. I really believe that Hillary is that psychotically enamoured and entitled. But, even short of that, I think she’d stick her nose in every bit of business she possibly could, mucking it up every step of the way.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=madmonk28]
I think she would be a terrible choice as a VP. 1) how can he maintain being a candidate of change when his running mate is an entrenched political hack who voted for making the most catastrophic mistake in the history of American foreign policy? 2) Bill Clinton as the husband of the VP will be running his mouth and making bad headlines every week; 3) she would be completely unwilling to stay on message and play for the team, the president would be overshadowed by his VP; 4) she has almost as many people who hate her as who like her in the general public; 5) every primary people say they won’t vote for the party if their person doesn’t get the nomination, but they fall into line, her support is among hard-core Democrats and they aren’t going over to the Republicans in large enough numbers to matter.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The problem is, if the possibility of Hillary voters refusing to vote for Obama is such a worry, what makes you think that adding Hillary to the ticket won’t drive Obama voters away from Obama ? There’s an awful lot of hatred for Hillary, and a lot of it is from Obama supporters. When I hear people talk about how they think Hillary would murder Obama or how they’d vote for anyone other than Hillary, with or without Obama, that’s not the kind of attitude that makes Hillary a good VP choice.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dseid]
Asking Hilllary now that it has been demanded of him would be perceived by the electorate as a sign of weakness. How could we believe that he has the character to stand up to any other of the world’s petty dictators if he blinks when threatened by the Clintons?
Ceding significant concessions to the Clinton wing would hamstring him during his administration as it would signal their open season to make demands throughout his tenure lest they remove their support. All the more likely given the likely Obama Bonanza to be had in Congress: without the need to rally as much against “them” intrafamily squabbles are fair game.
She does not fit his narrative of change nor of reaching across the partisan divide. Her antics would only distract.
I can understand the desire to pick someone who can help with Ohio and/or Pennsylvania. I can see why a VP that reaches that way could help heal some wounds. But her being on the ticket would not help him.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
A few thoughts on the subject from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04assess.html?fta=y
[/QUOTE]
From your article:
She’s not going to be chosen by Obama for any office in his administration.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
Like I said, I kind of think Obama won’t go for it but I still think it might be a very good strategy.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
I don’t think Obama is even going to offer (she might accept :eek: ). He’s a smart cookie, and people have almost 6 months to come out and vote for Obama, many will. I dare say a lot more people can stomach Obama, than can think about another 4 years of Bush[sup]2[/sup].
Mosier - There are many better candidates than she. Just because she was in the spotlight for 16 months as a prez candidate doesn’t make her the best choice for an Obama presidencial vp candidate. Sorry but no.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The problem is, if the possibility of Hillary voters refusing to vote for Obama is such a worry, what makes you think that adding Hillary to the ticket won’t drive Obama voters away from Obama ? There’s an awful lot of hatred for Hillary, and a lot of it is from Obama supporters. When I hear people talk about how they think Hillary would murder Obama or how they’d vote for anyone other than Hillary, with or without Obama, that’s not the kind of attitude that makes Hillary a good VP choice.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
One way of thinking about this question might be to ask if not Hillary then who else? …
[/QUOTE]
Try looking here for some ideas!
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Try looking here for some ideas!
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
Presumably Bill would rein in his hoof-in-mouth on the campaign trail once he and Obama were on the same side.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kolak of Twilo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
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.
[/QUOTE]
From today’s First Read by NBC (written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro):
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
I think what you say is entirely plausible. Certainly if I were writing an HBO series based on an Obama-Clinton white house, 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. this is what I’d make happen for the sake of the drama.
OTOH, in real-life it’s entirely possible that 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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
Which part makes her the best candidate? Being a junior senator or being married to a famous politician? Is it the running a presidential campaign into the ground?
[/QUOTE]
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…
[QUOTE=grayhairedmomma]
From today’s First Read by NBC (written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro):
[/QUOTE]
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.