Why Hillary may have to take Obama as veep
I admit to changing my mind on occasion. Now is one of those times.
It may be that Obama becomes so popular--even if he doesn't take the nomination--that Hillary Clinton will have to take him as veep.
I have been saying for months that it would be crazy for the Dems to go with a double-precedent: the first woman AND the first black on a presidential ticket--but it may prove crazy NOT to do so.
If Obama isn't on the ticket there will be a lot of disappointed Dems: liberals infatuated with Obama and blacks. That is, two of the three main pillars of the Democratic Party (the third is labor, of course). They won't vote Republican come November but they just might sit out the election.
That could be a disaster for the Democrats. Even though this year Dems are certainly favored, McCain would be a formidable opponent.
Would it be good for the country if Obama was veep? It would! He needs the kind of experience the vice presidency could offer (assuming that Hillary would give her veep the same kind of responsibilities that Bill gave his veep).
I'd be thrilled to have both on the same ticket. But I'm not the audience. The American people are. Just how much change do people really want?
We'd find out in November if the Dems nominated H&B.
It may be that Obama becomes so popular--even if he doesn't take the nomination--that Hillary Clinton will have to take him as veep.
I have been saying for months that it would be crazy for the Dems to go with a double-precedent: the first woman AND the first black on a presidential ticket--but it may prove crazy NOT to do so.
If Obama isn't on the ticket there will be a lot of disappointed Dems: liberals infatuated with Obama and blacks. That is, two of the three main pillars of the Democratic Party (the third is labor, of course). They won't vote Republican come November but they just might sit out the election.
That could be a disaster for the Democrats. Even though this year Dems are certainly favored, McCain would be a formidable opponent.
Would it be good for the country if Obama was veep? It would! He needs the kind of experience the vice presidency could offer (assuming that Hillary would give her veep the same kind of responsibilities that Bill gave his veep).
I'd be thrilled to have both on the same ticket. But I'm not the audience. The American people are. Just how much change do people really want?
We'd find out in November if the Dems nominated H&B.
Re: Exactly Backwards?
And like Cheney, she has experience. Granted, Cheney didn't have First Lady experience, he was just a lowly Secretary of Defense, among other things. But I know how it goes. Experience is being defined by... again, tell me. Who is it being defined by?
And as the candidate more focused on her biological identity, she gets to be the symbol that so many people see her as - and that she's obsessed with seeing herself as.
Inability to connect with voters and eschewing vision the way George H.W. Bush did both make her a perfect fit for the job. It will be better than the Chief of Staff function that she seems to see the presidency as. And let's face it, her managerial skills can't be that good given the state into which she's run her campaign's finances.
Symbolism, Experience, Wonkishness. Hillary for VP!
Re: Exactly Backwards?
Hopefully, Hillary's "experience" dividing the electorate from on high will lead to another, and even more blatantly imperialistic Bush-like presidency, and then we will start to rethink the wisdom of pronouncing the importance of elitist experiences at the expense of democratic considerations and more lowly expressions of sound judgment.
Exactly Backwards?
I love your posts, but I wonder if you don't have this one exactly backwards: Shouldn't Senator Obama consider taking on Senator Clinton as his VEEP?
- Tim
Re: Exactly Backwards?
Re: Exactly Backwards?
See, it depends on whether uniting the country behind an ethical and intellectually driven individual even remains a consideration. If it does, and if it continues to grow in importance to an electorate that is less racist or otherwise less fractiously grievance-oriented than the Clintons and the bio-politically driven pundits predict, then Obama won't need to put up a female VP nomination as a concession to disgruntled feminist constituencies. If a good one exists, fine. But just putting him on the ticket will probably win the general. That part has to be analyzed separately from the primaries. And it has been. It's probably at least part of the reason why the Democratic establishment is all bolting for him. One by one. To make it look the kind of cautious, measured groundswell of support that seems more serious than relieving.
Obama seems to appeal too much to both independents, as well as to Republicans who value character in their head of state, to not win - at least as can be determined at this stage of the game. Even if there are women who are so disgruntled that Hillary doesn't make it, it seems unlikely that they would comprise a type of voter willing to vote Republican just to "punish" Obama for merely winning the nomination on his merits and ethical character. But Hillary's base tends to be less well educated as well as older, so who can predict what they would do?