The issue of VP choices for the Democratic nominee has been a point of conjecture on many liberal forums. We are now down to two candidates and Barack Obama is the odds-on favorite.
Once Edwards dropped out of the race, the consensus seemed to be that if Hillary won, she would virtually have to offer the VP slot to Obama, whether he chose to accept it or not. I contend now that their political fortunes have reversed, Obama is obligated to extend the same respectful gesture to a worthy adversary. There is no doubt they have made each other better general-election candidates.
Why do I suggest Obama is obligated to extend the VP offer to Mme. Clinton? Because, respectfully, she has earned it.
While not running the best campaign, no one can contest Senator Clinton's appeal to a large segment of Democratic voters who view her, rightfully or wrongly, as having the experience to perform as Commander-in-Chief. Obama has expressed that sentiment himself on multiple occasions.
No one can also contest her command of the issues. When her and Obama go wonk-for-wonk, she holds her own and, on more than one debate exchange, has won outright. There is simply not much daylight between their policy positions, another point both candidates readily acknowledge.
Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, already known around the world, mostly in a positive light among international leaders. Hillary also enjoys a good, bi-partisan reputation in the Senate and would no doubt be a valuable ally in advancing Obama's agenda which, by and large, is also her own.
Senator Clinton as VP heals the electorate from a DNC standpoint, because the choices of Michigan and FL would be reflected on the ticket. She is not just an also-ran, but a survivor; if she were to carry the race out to the end, Obama may win by a few hundred delegates, but her pledged-delegate totals would be nothing to sneeze at.
I submit the most important question a nominee must ask himself when looking at prospective VP choices is not who would most help them get elected -- but rather, who would be the best president in the event the nominee could not serve. To this end, all the above said, if Obama were not in the race, I could argue Ms. Clinton would have long ago been declared the nominee.
However, the conventional wisdom is that Senator Clinton wouldn't accept a VP offer. But that's hardly the point. My argument is that she deserves the offer and the party has to prepare itself for the eventuality of an Obama-Clinton ticket. Before we rush to embrace that conventional wisdom, let's pause to answer why WOULDN'T she accept?
By accepting, she would:
- Be the first female on a ticket favored to win
- Mop the floor in any VP candidate debate with the other side
- Bring her policy knowledge to bear directly in the Oval Office
- Give Obama the worthy foil he suggested he wanted from a VP
- Unify the party behind a "dream ticket"
- Bring Bill Clinton's experience to the table by proxy
- Engage the joint power of the party's premier candidates
Naturally, there is an issue with the negatives a Clinton brings to the ticket. However, given that the offer is warranted, and Clinton was fully-prepared to deal with those negatives should she have won the nomination, why would she not be prepared to deal with them if she were the VP nominee? In this respect, she does come essentially pre-vetted, allowing the ticket to hit the ground running. And the two have remained about as civil as two combatants can be ("I am honored to be here with Barack Obama") -- neither has scorched the earth and need to be applauded for running, essentially, very positive campaigns.
The truth is, that Obama's look to change the style of politics in this nation and eliminating personal attacks provides perfect cover for any personal shortcomings of Mrs. Clinton the Republicans tried to exploit. One can almost see Obama taking on the other side, quoting, "This is exactly the kind of slash-and-burn politics that our ticket is trying to move the nation away from." The "change" Obama is looking to promote provides immediate insulation against the typical slanderous crap likely to be lodged against her.
With respect to Mrs. Clinton's high negatives, they are muted to a degree with her on the undercard. Of course, there are people (some Republicans and Independents) that won't vote for a ticket that has her on it. However, as the nominee, this becomes Obama's job to convince those voters that a vote for this ticket is precisely a vote for the same type of change he has always stood for -- building that new coalition, which is something Hillary would have to accept -- instead of looking to advance the agenda by beating the other side to a bloody pulp.
Personally, I think this could work very well. Hillary would be excellent presiding over the Senate, and one could just see the gleam in her eye as she casts tie-breaking votes. Heading up wonky task-forces with Obama graciously giving her the credit for everything accomplished in those areas. Her and Obama's agendas are nearly identical...advancing his agenda is already advancing her own. And in the political instances where Obama needs that hatchet-person or attack-dog...could there be anyone better?
Of course there will be those that argue a choice such as Clinton is inconsistent with Obama's message of "Change". After all, choosing a running-mate who's entire platform is "let's return to the good old days" hardly seems to play well with Obama's forward-looking political mantra. I would challenge those critics to imagine MORE change, in 2008, than a favored presidential ticket with nary a white man in sight.
And lastly, yet another benefit would be her ability to run in 2016, well outside the shadow of Bill Clinton's legacy. At 68, she would not be too old and enjoy the favor of incumbency as well.
I dunno...I could argue to leave Bill in the doghouse, allow Hillary to run alongside Obama as her own politician with her own personal narrative (and not on Bill's coattails), let Obama serve the sizzle while she serves the steak, and grant the Democratic party license to simultaneously bring it's two most popular personalities to the 2008 campaign stage. Why choose between the Mercedes or Cadillac....when you can have both?
Republicans will unify against Senator Clinton if she is on the ticket. Heck, they would unify against Chelsea. Why? Because, in my estimation, the GOP is battling against the prospect of Bill making his way back into the White House which, after what they put him through, is proverbially pissing in their corn flakes. With Hillary as #2, Bill is not back in the Oval Office, which I believe mitigates some measure of the Republican indignation. In any event, this is the year that Democratic values trounce tired Republican ideas due of the electorate sizes. Obama brings a new generation of voters that hold no grudge against Hillary, but long for the hope in their politics he embodies.
I say record Democratic turnouts absolutely blast McCain and whoever his foxhole-buddy is (since they are effectively running as Bush's 3rd term), with an Obama-Clinton ticket winning by a landslide.
Let's heal the party and get on with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am not impressed with many things about Barack Obama. What I am impressed with most is the fact that he listens. He LISTENS to Americans. He will continue to do so. People follow him. We need some real leadership.
No matter of experience can prepare you for the white house, unless you are already there. What is most important is listening and leadership.
That is why Barack Obama has shown wisdom and clarity in his judegments.
I'm totally not on the same page with you, man. Had Obama not run, I probably would have supported her notwithstanding that I thought her vote for Iraq was motivated by political calculation instead of good judgment, but ever since Iowa my opinion of her has changed. How can we trust her to be truthful with us when she has been so untruthful about a great American like Barack Obama? There are so many other great options for VP, and many are also female like Hillary but, also, possessed of good judgment and integrity.
James -- Unflattering (and often untrue) things are said all the time during primary campaigns. It comes with the territory. But once a nominee is chosen, there is always the requisite kiss-and-make-up period where the nominee's most ardent critics come out in mad support. My premise is certainly not that Hillary Clinton is the best VP choice for Obama -- she most certainly is not. My argument is that however you twist it, she will deserve an offer and the party had better be prepared for her to accept it, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.
I have to agree with James, Chuck.
Yes, you are right that untrue things are said all the times in a campaign; fine. But extending a VP offer seems like an acceptance or reward for employing those tactics. The Clintons' behavior in South Carolina is tantamount to the despicable, race-baiting tacts of Karl Rove.
Further, notwithstanding all this, a Clinton VP would be antithetical to Obama's message--change, looking forward, etc. He would be better served picking someone like Jim Webb, or an anti-war general like Wes Clark, or a red state governor like Kathleen Sebelius.
There is also the matter of whether would accept veep. I submit that she would not.
Also..this whole idea of "deserving an offer" sounds a bit like the Republicans, where they seem to select either by seniority (Dole or McCain) or by entitled birthright (GWB). Perhaps we should decide on vision, integrity, or message.
Post a Comment