Secretary of State (0.00 / 0)

Someone on HuffPost suggested secretary of state, and for the life of me, that seemed the best suggestion I'd heard in a while.  It forms a good counterbalance to Obama's temperment, puts a powerbroker in a key position to coordinate on behalf of the president, and is fitting of her strong finish.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

Searching for John McCain?

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:23:16 PM CDT

I'd actually rather see her as Secretary of Defense. (4.00 / 1)

I mean, I'd have some misgivings, because she's just more of a hawk than either myself or Obama.  But I think one traditionally puts the hawk at SecDef and the dove at SecState, and then the president benefits from the ideological diversity and political tension between them.  I wouldn't want to see Hillary in the role usually reserved for the dove, but I wouldn't at all mind seeing her in a role that's probably going to go to a hawk anyway.  As far as hawks go, she is a pretty damn good one; I wouldn't want her as president, but as the hawkish voice in an administration, she seems alright.

I'm working off a fairly superficial understanding of administration dynamics though.  It's quite possible that Hillary as SecDef would be a total disaster for reasons that are obscure to me.

It is a position worthy of her though.  A lot of the positions being floated around seem like a slight, but SecDef is absolutely not.

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 18:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as you point out (0.00 / 0)

she can't erase her "establishment-ness" but if there's a successful Obama Presidency then whoever his VP is would have an inside track at being number 45.  If his VP is somebody else then it's just another competitor in 2016. Also, if you're VP and something bad happens to the P then.... but she wouldn't be considering that.

Also, she may want to be asked but may not take it...she may want influence over who it is.

---

by: tremayne @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:30:02 PM CDT

In 2012, she'll be older than McCain... (0.00 / 0)

IF Hillary pushes her way in, she will push him around for his entire term.  If he capitulates to this, he will look weak.  Great way to start out a term - not.

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 16:05:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary is now 60 (4.00 / 2)

In 2012 she'll be 64.  McCain is now 71, turning 72 in August.

I'm not sure Hillary will ever be "older than McCain"

---

by: TeddySanFran @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:23:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was a deliberate exaggeration and (0.00 / 0)

64 is a lot closer to 71 than it is to 46.  

...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:30:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm not buying it (0.00 / 0)

Face it, your math sucks. Even in 2016 she'll be younger than McCain is today.

---

by: tremayne @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 21:43:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's only one sitting vice president that's won the presidency since van buren (0.00 / 0)

not counting gore.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:27:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and not counting sitting vp's that became president and then were reelected (4.00 / 1)

because then, in the 20^th century alone, you have Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and LBJ.

And old Bush was a sitting VP that won the Presidency, and Nixon was set up for his '68 run by having been VP during Ike's Presidency (and came damn close in 1960).  And then Gore, too.  

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:33:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

which means, over the course of the 20th century (4.00 / 1)

a full third of the time, the Presidency was occupied by someone who was there by virtue of having been Vice President (Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, Ford and Bush I).  You can add seven more if you want to include Nixon.  

I hope Obama is giving serious thought to what this person will be like as President.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:55:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i guess my pithiness went too far (0.00 / 0)

:)

i was arguing that she wouldn't use the reasoning that she would have a better chance at becoming president, though I do agree that it's very important.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 19:29:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

through an election i mean. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 19:30:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is very simple, the Clintons know shit happens (4.00 / 1)

Shit happens, shit happens. And if it happens, its good to be hanging around as VP. Is Vegas running odds on Obama being shot in the next four years yet? Because I think everyone knows that's what its all about. Its kinda grim, but its not terribly unreasonable, if you really really really want to be president and will take the best chance on the table.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:35:42 PM CDT

Totally agree... (0.00 / 0)

When I saw this:

I don't get why Hillary Clinton would want to be Vice-President

I thought: she said why she was sticking around a few weeks ago.  I know some will think that's a mean thing to say, and we need to heal the party, and language like this doesn't help.  But she put the thought in our minds.

---

by: happycozy @ Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:17:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two can play at the media game (0.00 / 0)

Obama campaign making announcements about their VP search team.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:53:52 PM CDT

Nice to see Kennedy on there, hopefully pushing things leftwards. n/t (4.00 / 3)

John McCain is against children's health insurance, says CNN.

---

by: sb @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 15:04:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unity? (4.00 / 1)

I just ran a campaign. I'm glad to be done.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can tell you there are a lot of people out there that are Democrats that are bitter right now.  I think they'll eventually get over it, though.

This election is a little different because Hillary has so many delegates--Obama didn't run away with it in February.  So she has some leverage.

So, forget what she should do.  If all of the Hillary is a bogey-man people are right, then she should definitely be VP because it will help us win.  If they're wrong then she's not a bad choice.

The ultimate and only criterion should be winning.  Forget about who should do what. Win.

---

by: attorney at arms @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:56:10 PM CDT

Other options (4.00 / 3)

It seems likely that both parties will have a woman on the ticket as VP, so I'll just work from that basic assumption.  That said, there are any number of exceptionally talented female candidates who haven't spent the past several months accusing the Democratic nominee of being everything from naive to incompetent to probably not a crypto-Muslim.  Kathleen Sebelius seems an extremely viable option, as does Janet Napolitano.  I'm sure there are plenty of others, as well.

The big problem is that Clinton's insinuations McCain is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Obama would be particularly damaging because it hits on so many levels.  It makes Obama look weak as a candidate by choosing someone who attacked him on a very personal level with her "Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" comment, and it makes her look either insincere or like someone who will do anything in the pursuit of power.

I can already imagine the question from Charlie Gibson: "Mrs. Clinton, in spring of 2008 you said that there was a threshold a candidate must pass in order to be ready to be commander-in-chief.  You said both you and John McCain could claim your years of public service to push you over the threshold, and that all Obama had was a speech he gave.  What made you decide to take on the role of a Vice President under a President whom you've already said is qualified?"  No thanks.

---

by: L Boom @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 15:35:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can hear the wingers now.. (0.00 / 0)

If Obama can't stand up to Hillary and Bill, how's he gonna stand up to the terrorists.  Carter is right.  Hillary is a bad, bad choice.  

...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:36:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, I don't know why she would want it (4.00 / 4)

Perhaps the same reason that LBJ was on the Kennedy ticket in the 1960 election, a kind of unity ticket.

But think how much influence LBJ had in the Kennedy administration.  If I were her, I wouldn't bother.

In any case, I'd say Bill and his big mouth are a deal killer.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 14:59:10 PM CDT

That's not why LBJ accepted the slot (4.00 / 1)

I'd have to hunt down a book, but I do seem recall a quote by LBJ where he acknowledged that VP was worth a pitcher of the bodily fluid of your choice, but that 25% of presidents didn't complete their full terms, so it was his best chance of becoming president.  It's pretty obvious from the way that the campaign has unfolded that Hillary Clinton will cling bitterly to even the slimmest chance of becoming president and right now the #2 spot is that slim chance.  It's not necessarily banking on Obama being assassinated, but he could always get cancer or get taken down by a Whitewater-like investigation stemming from Rezko or a Spitzer-like scandal from personal moral failings.  It may be a 1% chance of happening, but that's still better than a 0% chance.  It's like Pascal's wager, where the presidency is given a near-infinite value that makes even the smallest hope worth pursuing.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

LBJ was President for six years because he took the VP slot, and if he hadn't botched Vietnam he would have been President for ten years.

LBJ, Ford, Bush I, and Gore (should've, anyways)... yep, VP isn't such a bad idea.  

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:56:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not going to happen (4.00 / 1)

The Pres candidate needs a VP who would be a good attack dog (Hillary could do that) but not overshadow the top of the ticket (Hillary can't do this).  Even if Hillary wanted not to overshadow, she can't.  People can't stop talking aout her.  Look at this post, for example.  If she wanted it, she had to be more gracious, not talk about people who voted for her as "bargaining chips" she would "use" somehow.  People just have to stop talking about her and get on with the general.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 15:48:41 PM CDT

All of this VP talk is nuts. (4.00 / 1)

It's not going to happen. It's the delusional flailings of a loser who can't accept losing. I think that the days of Clintons helping themselves by hurting the party are over.

Chomsky Fever!
John McCain sucks.

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 15:56:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope you are right because if you are wrong, (0.00 / 0)

that means that Obama's presidency is going to be like all the rest, and there will be no change in Mudville.  That would really piss me off.  

...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 16:33:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

VP selection issues (4.00 / 1)

Just a thought: should we seek to avoid plucking people out of the Senate, which would be self-defeating in light of the arduous task of building a solid majority there? Based upon the many excellent points raised here, doesn't Richardson in some ways make the a lot of sense because he's (1) not a Senator; and (2) comes from a potential swing state; (3) brings some gravitas to Obama in vital issue areas; (4) although he endorsed Obama, Richardson can be perceived as a link with the Clinton era -- a positive link; (5) already ran for president and thus has been partially vetted and examined by the news media, etc.; (6) has a remarkable sense of humor and wit that works well on the stump; (7) and has the kind of "ready on day one" resume that Mondale (1976) and Gore (1992) possessed when they were tapped; (8) has perhaps the widest range of government/public service experience, including executive (NM governor) and legislative (NM Rep.) executive branch/cabinet (Clinton's Sec. of Energy) and foreign policy (UN Ambassador)? I'm certainly open to persuasion on this, but perhaps Obama should take a page out of the Carter/Bill Clinton playbook and pick a person who is clearly seen as qualified. The methods used for the 1976 and 1992 selections are remembered today as models of good judgment, with the emphasis on credibility, whereas the 1984 and 2000 processes left much to be desired. Any thoughts? I'm not campaigning for Richardson, but merely hoping to start a conversation about what we should be looking at.
-- Chris O'Sullivan

---

by: osullivanc @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 15:58:59 PM CDT

Problem is .. (0.00 / 0)

Ricahrdson is prone to making gaffes on the stomp .. like his "Whizzer" White comment

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 16:08:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some people never listen (0.00 / 0)

People have said over and over he's a bad campaigner.  And he has problems of some sort with women staffers from NM.  Something people don't come right out and talk about.  But it will disqualify him.

If not Al Gore, how about Bill Moyers?  

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 16:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BILL MOYERS! (4.00 / 2)

Just had to smile at that thought. :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project

Searching for John McCain?

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:09:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do we know if Gore would even accept? .. (4.00 / 1)

one .. it would make a lot of the right wingers heads explode .. and second .. Gore is a lot more progressive now .. if you don't believe me .. read The Assault on Reason  .. so I'd be all for it

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 17:21:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Global Warming Czar (4.00 / 1)

If there is any justice in the world, Obama will create a cabinet post for global warming czar, and Gore will fill it.

While we're making cabinet recommendations: Patrick Fitzgerald for A-G.  He's the only person who can restore integrity to DOJ.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 18:30:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Carville called him Judas (0.00 / 0)

I don't think the Clinton links carry much weight now.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:17:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]