Hillary Clinton's Push for VP

by: tremayne

Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08


Premise 1: Hillary Clinton continues to fight hard for the nomination. She worked hard to not just win in Kentucky and West Virginia but to gain as many total votes and as many delegates as possible. She continues to push the popular vote argument. She continues to push for resolving the MI/FL situation, preferably in a way that seats those delegations "as is" or as close to that as possible.

Premise 2: Hillary Clinton knows she cannot win. Clinton and her team, mistakes notwithstanding, are astute political observers. Clinton sees the superdelegate trend going strongly for Obama. In just the last two weeks he has gained 50 to her 10. His lead in pledged delegates is now insurmountable, even if she sweeps the remaining 3 contests 100% each.

If these two premises are right (some say she is delusional and thinks she will win but I don't buy it) then how can they co-exist? For now I am dismissing out of hand that she is trying to damage Obama to set herself up for 2012 run. That leaves two possiblities. One is that she wants to be the only logical alternative if "shit happens" and Obama suddenly becomes very unattractive as the nominee. The other is.... She is trying to force his hand on the VP selection. This view is starting to gain traction. From Marc Ambinder:

She has concluded that, the longer she stays in (until June 4), the more options she has. Though she has banned her staff from speculating about the vice presidency, people close to her -- people who know her -- believe that she would want to be asked to serve and would want to serve, if the situation presented itself. Does Clinton believe that she's going to force Obama's negatives up so high that he loses the election in November and Clinton comes back in 2012? No -- if that was her intention, she'd have gotten out when the getting out was good -- when Rev. Wright was hurting Obama and Obama needed a victory, like North Carolina, to regain some footing. (The depth of worry in the Obama campaign during the Rev. Wright affair can not be overestimated -- they were very afraid.) The Obama campaign is much less dismissive of Clinton than they were two weeks ago.

The idea that she wants the offer is echoed in this diary which quotes a recent Time magazine article:

Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President.

My conclusion is that she wants the offer, and not so she can turn it down or hand it off to one of her surrogates. She wants to be on the ticket. Clinton didn't run for Senate, in my opinion, with that end in mind. Now, what would an Obama-Clinton ticket look like? Chris Bowers showed the possible upside in his post yesterday. But I agree with Dansac on this:

But let me throw just this one:  Obama will be placed into an incredibly weak position if he is unable to make the VP selection for himself.   By being "forced" into taking Clinton (and no amount of eloquent speech-making on his part would convince anyone that he was anything other than forced), he will instantly seem smaller, less presidential, and a less powerful figure.

I agree with one caveat. Obama's eloquent speech-making should not be underestimated; he could make it seem like a strength (not scared of big personalities, unity and all that) to some. Others, though, would always portray it as weakness.
tremayne :: Hillary Clinton's Push for VP

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hillary Clinton's Push for VP | 95 comments
the message? (4.00 / 1)
How will Obama's "Change" message line up with having a Clinton on the ticket? It strikes me that there are far better ways to appeal to the demographics that Obama is not doing well with.  
Regardless, (0.00 / 0)
the possibility that she could force this shouldn't be ignored.  And there are significant advantages to this, namely, having Clinton go and endorse Obama in the most public way possible, making it really hard for her supports to stay bitter.  
[ Parent ]
I can't think of a single state Hillary would help win! (4.00 / 1)
Hillary is getting a lot of votes in Appalachia from out-and-out racists -- the 30% who say that "race is a significant factor" in their decision. Thus, her wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.

But, does anybody for one instant think her "supporters" wouldn't flip instantly to McCain in the general election?

Obama will still be on the ballot! He's still "blaaack!"

Hillary alienates as many people as she attracts. Plus it makes Obama look like his administration would be "another Clinton administration." Well, if that's the case, why not elect Hillary herself? Then you KNOW Bill will be back in the oval office!

Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents DON'T want another Clinton administration. If they did, Hillary would be the nominee!  

[ Parent ]
I know feminists (0.00 / 0)
that are very leery of Obama, given the really sexist bullshit that has gone her way during the primary, and a few lapses on Obama's part, starting with the McClurkin thing, but also including his sweetie moment (he apologized, but shit like this pisses women off).  

There are a lot of things that are involved here that aren't Obama's fault, and this isn't meant to be an admonition of Obama and an elevation of Clinton, she has as many, if not more problems than he does.  

But to pretend that ALL democrats LOVE Obama and HATE Clinton is crazy, considering that they essentially split the party down the middle, and in doing so, split the essential demographics that the Democrats will need to win.  A (pretty trivial) concession to these demographics might not be the worst thing in the world.

Also, it might not be Obama's choice.

[ Parent ]
Real femninists are going to get over it (4.00 / 1)
John McCain and the Supreme Court
John McCain and women's issues generally
John McCain calling his own wife a c**t in front of other people vs the sweetie remark (read Cliff Schechter)
John McCain and the war.

Think about it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing against this at all (0.00 / 0)
But y'know, Obama's message is about reconciliation and bringing groups together.  If he could do something to help assuage a major democratic group and make them much closer to being on board with his candidacy, then perhaps it wouldn't be a horrible thing.  She's probably not his best choice, but I'm just trying to say that she might not be awful.

And it very well might not be Obama's choice.

[ Parent ]
and really, the fact that people will 'get over it' (0.00 / 0)
isn't really that great of a reason.  If Gore had shown half of the fire as a candidate that he has as a private citizen, people wouldn't have had to 'get over him' and grudginly vote for him, like they did in 2000.  They would have been enthusiastically campaiging for him.
[ Parent ]
I'm just saying they will by November (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't directed at you.  I remember how inflammed passions were in the summer of 1968 and nearly all of us ended up voting for Humphrey.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
feminists are not monolithic (4.00 / 1)
I know women who consider themselves feminists who support Obama.  I even know some who actually don't like HRC.  And some who do.

It's not so black and white in the real world.  

And Clinton has made many of those errors where allegedly one voter group will be insulted and permanently turned off.

All candidates do that in the course of any race.   But partisans of one candidate always love to hit their silver bullet gaffe....

"When __ said ____, it ruined his/her chances to win!"

[ Parent ]
When the hell did I say it was black or white (4.00 / 1)
I was responding to a poster that said that Clinton wouldn't deliver a single vote to Obama.  That's clearly bullocks.

And obviously Obama has a lot of feminist supporters.  And obviously Clinton has turned off a lot of voters.  The two have split two major constituencies of the Democratic party, however.  On this, exit polling is extremely clear.  Having a concession prize go to the losers in this battle might make them feel a bit better about all of this.  That's really all I'm saying.  And having a base that's as non-pissed off as possible would be, to say the least... good?

[ Parent ]
it will happen regardless (0.00 / 0)
sure.  but some people (blog junkie partisans) who will never not be "pissed."  Most people just don't get that pissed.  

Not sure what the best way to unify the party...I think it will happen regardless...I'm not sure having HRC on the ticket will add anything on top of what will already happen.   And I don't hate HRC, either.  I just think she's a candidate who lost to a better candidate this cycle, who ran a better campaign.  

[ Parent ]
It's Obama's choice. (0.00 / 0)
Whose choice would it be?
[ Parent ]
The Democratic National Convention (0.00 / 0)
where Hillary Clinton controls 48% of the pledged delegates, and has significant sway over most of the superdelegates.  Not enough to convince them to vote for her for president.  but perhaps enough to override Obama for vice president
[ Parent ]
It is a rare event when the convention (0.00 / 0)
would over-ride the convention' nominee's choice of their selection of a running mate.  In fact, it is wishful thinking that the convention would usurp their nominee's choice.  The selection of the VP is first and foremost the nominee's choice.  If he does not have a selection then the convention will render its choice, but by tradition and history, the convention accepts their nominee's choice of running mate.
[ Parent ]
It happened at the DNC, certainly in 1960 (0.00 / 0)
probably in 1968, too.  The RNC did it in 1980.  A close nomination contest is a rare contest.  There is certainly prescedent for giving the vice presidency to a candidate who finishes a close second.  And, once again, Clinton controls half the pledged delegates, and holds nonzero influence over most of the superdelegates.
[ Parent ]
she is the anti-Obama (4.00 / 3)
Hillary Clinton with her gas tax pander, delusional resume, and kitchen sink/Tonya Harding negative campaigning is the living embodiment of the kind of politics Obama has been arguing against as a central message of his campaign. Picking her to be vice president would expose him as a complete fraud. The pledged delegate contest isn't even all that close that he has to consider her for political unity. He should show strength by rejecting her situational ethics in regards to seating Florida and Michigan and picking a vice president who shares and reinforces his own values and message.
pledge delegates (0.00 / 0)
I don't usually push the pro-Hillary line but even in the non-MI/FL totals she will end the race with about 48% of the pledged delegates. I'd call that close. Still, I'm not advocating an Obama-Clinton ticket for some of the reasons you mention.
[ Parent ]
Close (4.00 / 4)
True, but a 52%-48% win is a perfectly normal election outcome, the sort of thing that happens all the time. When it happens we don't say it's basically tied and call for a recount or say we should give the office to the 48% candidate because the 52% candidate didn't "close the deal". There's been entirely too much talk during this contest about the "neck-and-neck" race "see-sawing" between Clinton and Obama, which doesn't correspond to reality, and if the media hadn't been covering it that way for so long Clinton's support might have dropped more.
[ Parent ]
Normal? (4.00 / 1)
Name me other presidential primaries where the losing candidate took 48% of the delegates?
[ Parent ]
52-48 when 20% of the delegates are supers (0.00 / 0)
and you select tons of the delegates by arcane district level formulas and caucuses (and when the caucuses heavily favor one candidate) IS extremely close.  The above non-super biases put error bars around the final result of more than 2%, certainly.  thankfully, the popular vote metrics all also seem to favor Obama
[ Parent ]
Agreed 100% (4.00 / 2)
If HRC becomes the v.p. nominee Obama can say goodbye to all those independents who supported him because of his change message and promise to turn the page on the past, and say hello to President McCain.

That pick would be even worse than Dukakis picking Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, who had voted on the other side of most issues which Dukakis ran on, making him look stupid and uncommitted to his policies.  

[ Parent ]
As an independent ... (0.00 / 0)
... I beg to differ

Obama is no Dukakis, in case you haven't noticed.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
As an Independent... (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you 100%.

There is a reason why left-leaning Independents don't register Democrat....and the Clintons are a big part of that.  

[ Parent ]
It might not be Obama's position to pick (4.00 / 1)
Clinton still controls a hell of a lot of delegates, and has a lot of sway with a lot of the supers.  The convention picks the VP nominee, not Obama.  If Clinton really wanted the VP spot, she could make a move for it at the convention, and it would be hard for Obama to stop her.  Do you really think that Kennedy chose LBJ, or that Raygun choose the man that accused him of being a voodoo economist?  
[ Parent ]
Thank You! (0.00 / 0)
...and I believe Lieberman was picked too -- and just look what happened there. I hope the more rational delegates have learnt their lesson.

HRC I don't think will get through the vetting process.  There are stories about both her and Bill that haven't hit the media yet!.

If the decision was made to put her on the ticket to placate the special interest delegates etc and HRC supporters then I for one don't have the time, energy, nor patience to play in the muck and defend her in what will become a 24-hour media circus buzzing around the Clintons, and NOT our nominee. We have too much to loose.

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here.

[ Parent ]
We have too much to lose... n/m (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You do realize that there are advantages to that, too (0.00 / 0)
if the press is buzzing about the crazy old hat that is the Clintons, they won't have the time to talk about bullshit like reverend wright 24/7.  Also, Hillary can go on the attack against McCain and have her negatives go up a bit, while Obama gets to stay in as "Mr. Post-Partisan" and stay completely positive and talking about his new vision for America.

And Clinton supporters are half of the Democratic party, and half o fthe base.  Perhaps saying "fuck all of you" to them isn't completely smart.  Both sides need to start actually being conciliatory here.  We're all going to have to work together to win, now that this thing is decided.

[ Parent ]
Hillary on attacking McCain: I don't think she's gonna play ball... (4.00 / 1)
...she's too wounded, way too wounded.  Bill is pissed too. Obama needs a committed VP especially when we all know how the media operates.

It will be the media that will have the advantage -- They know exactly how to press the Clinton buttons. Plus, Obama is more than capable handling Rev Wright and the like, what he doesn't need is a constant [Entertainment Today] side-show focusing on his ticket-partner and spouse...  A ticket that the media will have a field day joining the three of 'em at the hip.

Prediction:  "Look at Obama's judgment. Can't even vet and control his VP."  

The Democratic Party needs a stable and focused presidential campaign (for once)!  I shudder to think what hell will be created if we have an Iranian crisis during the campaign and we have a Clinton VP candidate teaming up with McCain and Bush advocating an attack rather than diplomacy.  You know damn well she'll do it!

The fit is just NOT there...

Clinton supporters will have to get over it...  It will be hard but I believe necessary.

[ Parent ]
Right. (0.00 / 0)
This is why he needs Al Gore as VP.  Not just because of what Gore could do for the environment/energy policy, but because he's the only one with stature that outranks Hillary.  And his views are closer to Obama's.  If there wewre someone else who has the gravitas, I wouldn;t be pushing Gore.  But there really isn't any alternative who is ready for the presidency who brings much to the ticket.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It's not about 2012 (4.00 / 1)
If Hillary was interested in 2012, she wouldn't be pushing so hard on Florida and Michigan.  The whole point of banning early votes in Florida in Michigan was to keep New Hampshire and Iowa happy.  Hillary is now, essentially, telling those two states to s*** themselves.  There's no way this is a good strategy for 2012.  She's gotta be thinking of something else.
good point (0.00 / 0)
Unless she is trying to leverage a change to the nominating process that removes IA/NH from their current "first" positions. If they aren't first then they won't matter at all due to their size.
[ Parent ]
I don't think so (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there's a way to keep IA/NH from their "first" positions. The upshot of disregarding the rules won't be to change that... as IA/NH threatened to do this year, they will just move their contests earlier and earlier... to summer 2011 if need be.

After she got ridiculous yesterday comparing her fight for MI/FL delegations to voting rights struggles and Zimbabwe oppression, it has to have further poisoned any more possibility of Obama deciding to invite her onto his ticket.

[ Parent ]
IA and NH (4.00 / 1)
I don't see what trump card IA and NH have to play. Other states could just as well pass similar laws requiring their own primaries or caucuses to be first in the nation. The DNC will have to do something to keep things under control, which is why I hope MI and FL are still significantly penalized this time, but they could apply penalties to IA and NH just as well as any other states that violated whatever schedule is developed.

In any case, we won't need to worry about the 2012 Democratic nomination contest, since President Obama will be running for reelection.

[ Parent ]
A penalty to IA and NH short of removing all delegates (0.00 / 0)
will be meaningless.  The number of delegates allotted by these two states is pretty inconsequential.  Their influence is in being first and the insane press overreaction.  The only way to make them change is to turn their contests into beauty contests.
[ Parent ]
which is obviously unpaleatable to everyone. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
If he does choose Clinton, Obama can easily spin it (4.00 / 4)
as acceding not to Clinton's machinations, but to the will of her Democratic supporters. They are, after all, almost as numerous as his own. He can, in effect, say, "this is the will of the Democratic party, and I have decided to respect it."

Indeed, he could turn the act of selecting Clinton, in spite of their differences, into a powerful political gesture that would fit right in with his rhetoric about overcoming differences to find a unity of purpose. He can cast his rebuilding of bridges with Clinton as a precursor to the rebuilding of bridges with moderate Republicans. (I know lots of us aren't crazy about that aspect of Obama's political persona, but it is what it is, and in this case it could offer him an opportunity.)

Yes, some people will inevitably spin it as a weakness, but very few of those people are on the fence about who to vote for in the fall.

My biggest concern is that having Clinton in the number two spot on the ticket might do just as much to drive Republican turnout as having her at the top. However, the Republican brand is so tarnished at this point that that may not matter in the end. It's possible (though not certain) that the political advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

If it is Clinton, would Obama be wise to announce the choice as early as possible, rather than waiting until close to the convention, to give both of them more time to close the divide between their supporters? Again, I don't know.

the point is to be strong ... (0.00 / 0)
... not just to look strong

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
But how do you define "strong?" (4.00 / 1)
Obama seems to be cultivating a politics where strength is based not on dominating and controlling one's political opponents, but on listening to their concerns, respecting their positions, negotiating with them, reaching positive-sum compromises with them, and building broad public consensus for new policies. It all sounds touch-feely and librul, doesn't it?

I suspect many of us here at OpenLeft (including myself) have conflicted feelings about this kind of politics at our current moment in history. On the one hand, in principle, most of us would probably say we support a politics of negotiation and consensus-building, and a big part of the reason the progressive movement has so much energy right now is that conservatives in the Bush era have failed to even pretend to be interested in what anyone else thinks. On the other hand, we see an opportunity to move policy and public discourse sharply in a progressive direction, and we don't want to squander it. On the third hand (we're kind of like a statue of a Hindu god, here) we want revenge (so I guess it's a statue of Siva, the destroyer?) against the conservative bozos who have so throughly screwed up our country.

It might be wise to dampen our enthusiasm for the swift, radical implementation of our preferred policies, however. For one thing, we would risk alienating the mushy middle of the American electorate if we made too sharp a turn. For another, since Obama will be the nominee, his political approach is likely to be ascendant. Rather than dig in our heels and insist he do our bidding or else, we might be better served to sign up for the new politics of coalition and compromise and just keep hammering away at our policy preferences. We won't always get we we want, but we can expect our voice to be heard and respected. We will just have to put up with conservative voices also being heard and respected (insert gnashing of teeth). Since I think our policy preferences are substantively superior, a durable political paradigm where policy-making is based on dialog and fact, rather than the current blind adherence to ideological fantasies, is likely to be better for us (and everyone else) in the long run.

In this context, choosing Clinton would be, for Obama, the first major statement that he is confident enough in his own capacities, convictions, and ideas to work hand in hand with a person he doesn't completely agree with. Since that person represents a large portion of the American public, and an even larger portion of the Democratic electorate, the signal he sends by choosing her could be a powerful message of inclusion.

[ Parent ]
I agree with much of what you (0.00 / 0)
have written, but I respectfully disagree with the "powerful message of inclusion" resulting from selecting Sen. Clinton as his executive partner.  I think it would be viewed more as a buckling under the weight of the old guard political forces, especially represented by the infamous Clinton machine.

Regarding the unique approach of Sen. Obama, one of inclusion, dialog, partnering, and compromise I think you are correct.  His approach provides a hopeful sign that intelligent discourse will be the foundation for discovery of what should become our nation's policy.  Certainly, it is a far better approach than we have seen lately (the past 20+ years--remember, Pres. Clinton's tenure was marred by some of the same exclusionary tactics as the republican administrations--just not as nasty!).  So, I agree: there is hope for real progress, but it will be slow--the very nature of a democracy implies a compromise tempered by a deliberate and thoughtful approach.

I am one of those folks who can be considered a middle-of-the-roader, even though I am a supporter of what would be considered seriously liberal ideas, and I resist a lot [most] of the conservative ideas.  My middle-of-the-road-ness is due not to the rightness or wrongness of the ideas espoused by the different ideologies, but by the practical realities of passing legislation.  It is, in my view, an unreasonable expectation that the progressive agenda will be adopted in a democracy without first having to go through the long drawn out process of persuading good people to join forces and become partners in the effort to pass legislation that is truly in their/our best interest.  This takes time, patience, perseverance, and will in many instances make people angry about the process.  But the process should be viewed as a community effort--not imposing the beliefs of one person or group of persons on the whole of the community.  It requires, as you say, inclusion.  This process does not happen overnight.  

[ Parent ]
Just What Obama Needs (2.00 / 2)
but doesn't want. A VP who is a Cheney like figure in the sense that they have more experience, more stature, are more worldly, and can command an audience that will listen, among other things.

"For now I am dismissing out of hand that she is trying to damage Obama to set herself up for 2012 run." - tremayne

It is more likely that Obama will damage himself. It is more likely that his 'change' will not change anything at all. And if it does change anything people probably are not going to like the watered down middle of the road policies that emerge as those types of policies are not likely to improve the lives of Americans or get us out of Iraq. It is very likely that people will understand that Obama's pretty speech making was just that, pretty speech making without the beef.

I've longed believed that Clinton would not want to be VP. But I've also looked at the flip side of the coin as to why she may want to be VP. The obvious one is so that for a first time a woman could hold the position of being one heartbeat away for the Presidency. The second would be if Obama truly does disappoint and implode and it looks like the Party might lose to a Republican challenger in 2012, in the same way that Bush almost lost in '04, that she may resign as VP and challenge Obama for the nomination once again after displaying her bonifides.

IMO she would have a better shot of that without being VP but there is a good argument to be made that by being VP it may enhance her already impressive political standing and therefore better her chances in 2012 if Obama falls on his face.

You're pretty convinced Obama will mysteriously fail somehow (0.00 / 0)
...when he's yet to fail at anything he's set his mind to. I really think you're dramatically underestimating him with no evidence to support your predictions.

And yet, what you point to at the start is the biggest reason against selecting Clinton: the perception of another "take-under" vice presidency in the pattern of Bush-Cheney. Ideologically opposite, but the same power structure. Also, that ticket would bring the negatives of both candidates, but very little net gain in positives. Hillary is still soundly disliked by independents and Obama does not play strongly enough to the base, and neither will deliver for the other.

Personally, I think she would be a fine VP, not just on the ticket but in the office as well. Unfortunately she doesn't come alone, but with Bill, McAuliffe, Ickes, Wolfson, Penn, and dozens of other slimy characters who will disrupt the normal workings of the White House on a daily basis in order to promote themselves and their personal agendas. Can Hillary find a way to distance herself from all those people?

[ Parent ]
No Mysterious To It (0.00 / 0)
He will either fail to deliver post-partisanship which is highly likely because it is naive to think the Republicans are going to cooperate with him. And when they don't then the other half of America will that he was naive in even thinking such a thought...

Or he will actually deliver post-partisanship which will only deliver watered down Republican influenced policies that will do nothing for the economy or healthcare or a host of other issues because the Republicans will demand compromises that don't go against their ideology.

Either way he fails.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the almost insurmountable challenges that any new President would face in the wake of Bush.

As for Obama accomplishing "anything he's set his mind to" - what would that be in his two years in the Senate? Not much. Winning a lefty dominated primary who was against his opponent form the beginning is not such a great achievement. The Caucuses were his for the taking being dominated by anti-Clinton people.  

[ Parent ]
Your sureness is amusing (0.00 / 0)
I can only assume you are independently wealthy, for it's rare to read someone state things with such assurance.

Would you share your stock market picks with me?  

[ Parent ]
Obama's going to fail (4.00 / 6)
and the candidate who started out with every conceivable advantage only to blow it by running out of money, conceding 10-15 states and running her campaign $20 million in debt is his savior?

At some point, Clinton supporters really need to look in the mirror, and at their candidate who so spectacularly blew her advantages as the reason why she's, at best, going to serve out her political life as a marginally influential Senator.

[ Parent ]
You naively (0.00 / 0)
equate running a country with a stiff opposition party to winning a Lefty dominated primary. That is not even an informed comparison.
[ Parent ]
Informed? Prejudiced (2.00 / 2)
Funny, you almost never say anything that I or most posters here would characterize as "informed."

Prejudiced is more like it.  You are completely prejudiced.

You are the living definition of the term.  

[ Parent ]
Politics has nothing to do with it (4.00 / 1)
Obama's biggest victories were in places like Nebraska and Idaho. I've never perceived those states as being full of Trotskyites. That applies to their activists too.

But that's OK. Everybody knows you're arguing in bad faith. Here's an opportunity to prove it: explain to us why the appalling strategic thinking that marred her primary campaign won't be replaced by appalling strategic thinking if she gets the VP job. There are reasons to advocate for her, but competence isn't one that has been strengthened this year.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I don't get it (4.00 / 1)
I mean, I think she's really on shaky ground to try and make the  case that she's somehow entitled to the VP.

Look at it this way. To get Clinton's female base, Obama runs an ad campaign for 2-3 weeks reminding voters that McCain = replacing retiring justices with more Alitos. For all the hurt feelings, no one is going to just roll over and let Roe v Wade get overturned.

Secondly, the argument that she lost because of sexism is laughable, at best. Who believes that? I mean, you've seen Michelle Obama, right? Sounds like a sexist to me...

Honestly, the day Obama picks his running mate that IS NOT Clinton, the media will relegate her to crazy old man who yells at a cloud status. And Bill will fall somewhere below that. She just won't have any air to make her gripes.

She controls enough votes at the convention (4.00 / 1)
that she just may be entitled to the VP.  No one knows.  But she could very well have the influence to force this issue.  Or obama could just avoid a fight.  AND avoid a credentials committee fight.
[ Parent ]
you need to check out this link (4.00 / 1)
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...

"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said "no." Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

"And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn't say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August."

If this is the truth of the situation, we're dealing with a very scaring individual, considering Clinton's sudden change of tone yesterday.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

multiple sources... (4.00 / 1)
that he fails to even characterize. I wouldn't be surprised but I'm certainly not convinced by "The Field can now confirm..."  
[ Parent ]
on the other hand... (0.00 / 0)
Al has been right about almost everything this election season, so I'm feeling optimistic that she won't be on the ticket.
[ Parent ]
Let's pretend we're the grownups (4.00 / 5)
Hillary is qualified.  She's not the only one, but that's beside the point.

People enjoy selecting  the VP candidate by what voting blocs they can pull in, what regions, etc.  But we face a unique situation -- two candidates in a near tie, with both sides highly passionate, mobilized and motivated, and if Hillary wants the VP slot, I think she should get it.

By the way, I'm an independent.  As such, maybe I'm not as in vested in the differences between them.  As an independent, I see Obama and Hillary as relatively similar compared to McCain.  The notion that Hillary is Cheney-lite is just plain ridiculous.

As an independent, ironically, I think the most important task is to unite the party, a party I generally despise.  There are fights to be had down the road, to be sure, but fact is that if we can unite the party, the votes will be there.  The Republicans haven't had the successes they've had because they've been so clever at picking VP's (Dan Quayle, for Chrissake!), but because they've been able to move in lockstep.  One reason we're going to kick their asses this fall is because their lockstep has broken down.  For good reasons.

A load of sexist trash has been unleashed in the heat of battle.  All's fair, some might argue.  But the war is over.  While these sexist attacks were NEVER justified, I'd say that anyone continuing them because some Hillary supporter said something dumb this afternoon is just a total idiot.  We're contending for president, not king of the schoolyard.

Amends must be made, not for the sake of Hillary's ego, but for the sake of her followers.  Our wavers of the bloody shirt can howl in their righteousness, but we have said things in the heat of the battle that can only be looked at -- in hindsight -- in shame.  In our touching enthusiasm for Obama, we've inflicted hurt, and that has to be dealt with.  Hillary for VP.  Have Hillary supporters inflicted hurt?  To be sure.  Racist hurt?  Of course.  Leadership is called for on our part.  This requires affirmative action.  This requires us pretending we're grownups.

If we can't show some human feeling in this, if we can't demonstrate some magnanimity in our victory, then we (progressives) don't deserve the White House.  

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Cheney Lite (4.00 / 2)
I don't think any reasonable person sees Clinton as Cheney lite, since they're such polar opposites ideologically. But the perception would arise that she is the power behind the Obama throne, just as the common perception is that Cheney is the power behind the Bush throne.

And whether or not that's true, a Clinton vice presidency would bring endless infighting to the White House as her dozens of loyalists constantly pushed, pushed, pushed their own agendas and solutions designed to raise their own profile and consolidate ever more power in the VP's office.

We don't need a VP candidate who will deliver in November. We need a VP who will deliver for Obama in office to make sure his agenda succeeds. And the Clinton style of politics is directly opposite of the Obama style. They would be fighting every single day about every single issue, and you know how good a fighter she is -- she'd eventually win, and then we really would have Hillary as the power behind the throne with a return to the bad old days of '90s power politics. Constant fighting, nothing accomplished.

[ Parent ]
Cheney only has a power base because Bush agrees. (4.00 / 1)
If Bush, as president, had the inclination to limit Cheney's influence, he could easily do so.

Could Clinton cause real political roblems for Obama once she was his VP? Yes. But he could also severely limit her power if he wanted. That's why I think they will only be on the ticket together if they mutually agree; I don't think Clinton would seize the VP nomination at the convention, because she could end up actually reducing her influence compared to her potential role as a lioness in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
no Lioness (0.00 / 0)
She's made too many enemies in this primary.

Specifically, her campaign's condescending attitude toward any state that isn't Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia or Kentucky.

[ Parent ]
I don't buy that. (4.00 / 2)
In the grand scheme of electoral politics, those slights will prove to be trivial--especially in the face of the influence she will wield because she will continue to command a large bloc of public support, no matter how the election comes out.
[ Parent ]
Insulting states, voter groups, etc. (0.00 / 0)
nobody in the real world is out there saying "___ insulted my state!!!"

This is political-junkie-think only.

The blogospehre debate on Obama vs. Clinton is mostly completely blind to this fact.

I'm really not sure on whether she matters to him as VP.  I could go either way.    

[ Parent ]
Obama would be in pretty clear control (4.00 / 1)
he'll have control over the DNC, and factions in Congress will have to be loyal to him, or at least responsive to him, since he's the one appointing the Cabinet, holding the veto pen, and writing executive orders.  To say that Clinton will dominate an Obama white house is to imply that Obama is as weak in experience and connections as Bush was in 2000.  If it is actually true, than maybe Obama shouldn't have been the nominee.

I really don't believe it.

[ Parent ]
I wasn't referencing reasonable persons ... (0.00 / 1)
... I was referencing people on the OpenLeft comments.

The perception that Cheney is the power behind the Bush throne arises because it's true.

This is a historic moment, and of course there will be infighting.  Consider the extent to which the Democrats were able to paralyze the Bush agenda following their 2004 defeat.  Putting Obama in the White House isn't going to resolve the fact that this country is bitterly divided, not evenly divided, but divided enough that we better fasten our seatbelts the day after the November election.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Strange strategy (2.00 / 2)
I don't know how she thinks making herself unacceptable to Obama supporters makes improves her odds of being VP.

The best way to make herself VP is to demonstrate that she's a team player. She's done the opposite by trying to destroy the party.

The only reasonable conclusion is that she's:
a) Pursuing a 2012 strategy
b) She's insane

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

wow (4.00 / 1)
If those are the reasonable conclusions in your world, say hello to Ken Starr et al. who reside on that same planet.
[ Parent ]
Delegates (4.00 / 2)
Check this out:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I agree with just about everything in that article: Clinton has enough delegates and enough superdelegates who won't say no to her twice to get the VP nomination if she wants it.

Now what would make Obama REALLY look weak would have his pick lose a floor vote.

Both sides need to cut a deal.

Yes it would make Obama weak.. (0.00 / 0)
So does the Party really want to go there?
[ Parent ]
I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)
I think the premise that all those supers would vote for her for VP is incorrect. If Obama chooses someone else, and Hillary decides to try to win a floor fight for VP, the defections will be enormous.

My Congressman is a Clinton super. When Obama gets the nod at the convention, I expect him to support O's VP choice. He'll get some serious pushback from a lot of his constituents if he decides he won't stand behind Obama.

I don't care what political favors the Clintons think they're owed. They were paid back by all those super-delegates who supported Hillary for prez. Once she lost the nomination, their debt was repaid in full.

Shoving Hillary into the VP slot isn't going to happen, imho. It damages the whole party and there are way too many savvy elected folks who want the party to succeed and don't want to piss off their voters and local machines. Supporting Obama's VP choice is the easy and safe way out. And they'll take it.

Your mileage may vary, but I think that article is utterly wrong.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Clearly, GOP wants it to look like Obama's hand was forced (4.00 / 1)
However, this, like every aspect of a campaign's message can be properly managed.

It is wierd that I and so many in the blogsphere have been warming to the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket.  I've been reviewing the charts by Poblano and electoral-vote.com like crazy and was totally aware of Chris's conclusions a few days ago.  I used to fear the 'baggage' that Bill and Hillary Clinton could bring, drawing alot of possible media coverage into their vacum.  However, this also forces McCain and the GOP to waste time hitting two targets and have the inverse affect of actually diluting said attacks.  In addition, where we see great reluctance of many voters in the appalacian region to embrace Obama, I know they would definately warm to the ticket with Clinton on it.  I was born and lived in Scranton, Pa till I was 13.  They are not(all) racist but they are kinda isolated.  They are more comfortable with voting for someone like them, who thinks like them, someone like Clinton.  McCain doesn't fit this either and they are more than likely to stay home on election day.
Absolutely, for Obama to select Clinton would require great political skill.  Without a doubt, a Republican tactic will be to make this selection 'look' weak.  But this already fits the Republican approach that is starting to gel on how the GOP plans to go after Obama.

1. Project doubt on Obama
2. Project weak, calculating decisions by Obama
3. Project favortism to minorities while excluding the 'average, blue collar worker', who is by and large, white

Even though I was a big Edwards supporter, I don't see him fitting as well.
In my opinion, the bigger challenge to adding Clinton would be the affect on Obama's change message.  Hillary has been in Washington for 16 years now, 8 in the Senate and worst of all, voted for the Iraq war.  I'd worry more about those things than Obama looking weak.  The Republicans are going to spend the next 6 months doing everything in their power to make Obama 'look weak'.  And no Digby, I don't think Republicans want to lose.  They(conservatives) very much want to win and they very much want to lock in theirs policy "gains" by dominating the Supreme Court.

Question - does it double our support or double our negatives? (4.00 / 3)
Totally serious here.  There are certain voting blocs that will not vote for Obama under any circumstances.  And there are certain voting blocs that will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

So what does Hillary bring?

To make this work, she needs to get her supporters who previously were going to go McCain or sit out to vote (D).  And that number must be greater than the number of (R) voters that were going to sit out who now vote McCain.  And it must be greater than the number of Obama voters who now sit out because they don't believe an honest agent for change would pick Hillary.

So how does the math work out?  Dunno.  But it's definitely not without serious risks.  Especially if she gets there by ripping up the party on a daily basis until he finally gives in and offers her VP.

It could be 2016 (4.00 / 2)
While the comments about how Clinton is still fighting for the nomination suggest otherwise, I don't accept the premise that 2012 would be Clinton's last shot.

In 2016, Clinton would "only" be 68, which is not so old to run for President, especially factoring higher life expectancies for women.

The choice of VP isn't Sen. Clinton's (0.00 / 0)
to make.  This is a decision that Sen. Obama has to make, and he will make it based on what he judges to be in the best interest of not just winning the general election, but also on who is best to serve as his executive partner.  Sen. Clinton may want the VP slot, and she may exert as much influence as she can muster to persuade Sen. Obama that she should be selected, but the decision is Sen. Obama's--and his alone!  Certainly, he will be advised by his select group of trusted people, and that is as it should be; a good president relies on the people he appoints as his cabinet and who are in his inner-circle.  Sen. Obama will select smart, intelligent, and effective people.  They will advise him, and he will make good, informed decisions.  I think he knows better than most that including Sen. Clinton on HIS ticket is an invitation for disaster.

Neither Sen. Clinton nor her surrogates can force Sen. Obama to chose contrary to what is in his and the country's interest.

Actually, the Democratic convention, not Obama, (4.00 / 2)
will have the last word on who the VP nominee will be.
[ Parent ]
Will likely (as almost always) defer to Obama... (0.00 / 0)
Yes, it's possible they could force him to take someone that he doesn't want on the ticket... but probably unlikely.
[ Parent ]
She controls a hell of a lot of votes at the convention (0.00 / 0)
and all of those supers who want to cede to the will of the voters on their Pres vote, despite their connections to the Clintons, will be a lot less inclined to do so on the VP vote, where there has been no popular contest, and one could make an argument that the 52/48 result sorta indicates that voter preference is and Obama/Clinton ticket.
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure that by the time of the convention (4.00 / 1)
She will really "control" those people.  Some are loyalists, but not all.  And, as she herself has said so often, at the conventon any delegate can vote for anyone.  By that time Party and winning may be more important than pissing off a couple who demand to be the center of everything, all the time, with so little regard for others.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Possible, but not certain (0.00 / 0)
It's a plausible scenario that she coudl force a convention fight
[ Parent ]
Yep.. (0.00 / 0)
Hillary is bringing in her the backup.

There's a post over at Huffington Post that seems to imply that the NORPAC/AIPAC shiny rally buses will be coming to the Convention.  Oh joy...

[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 1)
I just want to make it clear that Obama doesn't have carte blanche to choose whoever he wants as his running mate, because the commenter above seemed to think that he does, and I know many people have that impression. Of course, he can say who he prefers, but even that statement faces significant political constraints; that's what this whole thread is about, really.
[ Parent ]
Give me one example ... (4.00 / 1)
In one sense, you are right.  The convention can vote against the will of their nominee, if they chose.  But think about that: does the democratic party want to begin the general election by undermining their elected nominee?  Can the convention's delegates do it?  Yes, of course.  Would they presume such power?  By openly disagreeing with the nominee?  In public?  Nothing smacks of failure more than electing a leader and then immediately tying his hands behind his back.

So, I agree.  Sure, it can be done.  Now, give us an example.  There may be one, I don't know.  And if you do have an example, then did the candidate win the general election?

[ Parent ]
1972--McGovern--No. (4.00 / 2)
His VP selection process was a disaster because he spent so much time fighting off the establishment wing of the party.  Fortunately, the Obama people know this history.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Yes, (0.00 / 0)
fortunately, Sen. Obama and his staff know this.  Thanks for the example, and let's hope that cool heads prevail and allow our nominee to select his own running mate.
[ Parent ]
In canada, the queen's representative picks the prime minister (4.00 / 1)
Except not really... the leader of the majority party is picked by the governor general as prime minister. So the law on the book is not necessarily what matters. Yeah, the convention votes on the VP but the question is whether in reality, they simply ratify the nominee's choice or not.
[ Parent ]
Looking weak (4.00 / 4)
I'm not worried about Obama looking weak if he chooses Clinton as his VP, at least not from the point of view of him having his hand forced.  He has constantly told us that the election is not about him but about us.  If 50%-1 voted for Hillary he has a strong rationale for going with what the people asked for.

I do worry a great deal about Hillary playing second fiddle and even more about Bill.  But as has been mentioned many times, the two don't differ all that much when it comes to policy.

That all said, this is an interesting test for Obama.  Assuming he doesn't want Hillary, will he be willing to play hardball as much as she is?

I actually thnk it might not be that bad (0.00 / 0)
Hillary could serve as a bit of a lightning rod for Obama, the more I think of it--if she attracts all of the wacko attacks, perhaps we can get out of this with the guy at the top looking a bit better than we have in the past.

It's at least a thought.

[ Parent ]
They differ in foreign policy as you well know. (4.00 / 1)
... and unfortunately, Hillary is not just not VP material -- shown to be too unstable.

But as we all seem to be aware there are other forces at play rather than the plebes wanting HRC.  Obama will need to play more than hardball.

[ Parent ]
unstable = attack dog (0.00 / 0)
which is the traditional VP role.  Just so long as she avoids looking crazy and incompetent
[ Parent ]
A 'consistent and rational' attack dog would help. (0.00 / 0)
Hillary is neither.
[ Parent ]
i think it's more likely she's going to end up senate majority leader (0.00 / 0)
just a guess.  i'd be surprised if she has any interest in VP given the emotional violence of this campaign.  or perhaps she and her husband are fighting to maintain as much control of the democratic party and its organs as possible.  that might be more likely.

what form it takes is largely going to be the outcome of how much credibility she can garner as a presidential candidate in her eyes and those of her supporters (of all kinds, not just voters) i would guess.

No longer sure about that (4.00 / 1)
She's burned a great many bridges.  Look at all the committee chaors who support Obama.  Maybe Durbin or Dodd are better choices with Obama as Pres.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It is politics (0.00 / 0)
For Obama to govern effectively, it has to be HIS party, not shared with the Clintons.

Mark my words - Dodd or Durbin will be majority leader.

He should promise her a spot on the Supreme Court and be done with it.

[ Parent ]
Bush shure crippled Reagan during his first term... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes he did... (0.00 / 0)
...I'm sure ex-CIA Bush knew full well that Reagan had Alzheimers well before the run of this first term -- maybe even before...

A time where the powers that be could hide alot... Now with the internet -- not so much.

[ Parent ]
Then he did it through behind the scenes influence (0.00 / 0)
the VP has power directly in proportion to how much the pres iss willing to listen to them.  If Clinton is so antithetical to Obama's policy goals (which, IMO is blatantly false), then she won't hold any influence over him if he is competent.
[ Parent ]
Yeah right... (0.00 / 0)
...coz the Bush's and Clinton's always adhere and honor the rules../

"If Clinton is so antithetical to Obama's policy goals (which, IMO is blatantly false), then she won't hold any influence over him if he is competent...:

Got some inside knowledge on that?

[ Parent ]
Just endless policy speeches from both of them that differ infinitesimally (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Policy is only part of the picture --- (0.00 / 0)
Implementation is another.
[ Parent ]
just analysis (0.00 / 0)
For Obama to govern effectively, it has to be HIS party, not shared with the Clintons.

Well, yeah, but he hasn't won over about half the constituency :)  I'm not talking about what would be ideal to happen- just speculating on what I think will happen.  But the Supreme Court option sounds ideal...which is probably why it won't happen.  I think one of the loudest messages from this contineud run by the Clintons is that they're not going away quietly...because it's politics :)

[ Parent ]
Hillary Clinton's Push for VP | 95 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox