Allan Lichtman: The (Non-Electoral) Case for the Obama-Clinton Ticket
[Mr. Lichtman is a professor of history at American University and the author of The Keys to the White House (1996). His latest book is: WHITE PROTESTANT NATION.]
Leaving aside the elusive question of which vice-presidential pick would help Barack Obama get elected, non-electoral criteria powerfully favor an Obama-Clinton ticket.
Hillary Clinton clearly has the requisite experience and skills to assume the presidency if necessary and her campaign demonstrated that the usual reservations about a woman president — a lack of toughness and courage — do not apply in her case. In a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in late 2007 Clinton far outpaced all Democratic and Republican candidates in the people’s assessment of qualifications for the presidency.
As demonstrated by the tenures of Al Gore and Dick Cheney, a modern vice president must also be prepared to make substantive contributions to an administration. Hillary Clinton would bring to the job deep knowledge of both the executive and legislative branches of government and expertise in a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues.
A vice presidential nominee should also share the number one’s values and beliefs. Obama and Clinton have nearly identical voting records in the Senate and comparable ratings by ideological and interest groups. To quote the late George Wallace, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between them on issues.
The number two pick should also help strengthen the party, an important criteria if the ticket loses and the party must prepare for upcoming midterm and presidential elections. Hillary Clinton has a much larger and more loyal following than any other Democrat, especially among groups skeptical about Obama such as elderly Hispanic, and white working class voters.
Finally, the path-breaking ticket of an African-American and a woman would send to the nation and the world the positive message that any American, regardless of race or gender, could aspire to the highest offices in the land.
Forget the counter arguments that Clinton would overshadow Obama or blunt his message of change. That didn’t happen to the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and Obama, like Kennedy, is a strong enough leader to make sure it won’t happen this year.
The only major downside to picking Hillary Clinton is that no president would want Bill Clinton rattling around the White House. But Obama could occupy Bill Clinton with an appointment to the Supreme Court, the United Nations, or the World Bank. Many former presidents have taken on new careers, including John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter.
In short, Obama should team up with Hillary Clinton, not because the so-called “dream ticket” is good for his campaign, but because it is good for his country and his party.
Read entire article at Britannica Blog
Leaving aside the elusive question of which vice-presidential pick would help Barack Obama get elected, non-electoral criteria powerfully favor an Obama-Clinton ticket.
Hillary Clinton clearly has the requisite experience and skills to assume the presidency if necessary and her campaign demonstrated that the usual reservations about a woman president — a lack of toughness and courage — do not apply in her case. In a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in late 2007 Clinton far outpaced all Democratic and Republican candidates in the people’s assessment of qualifications for the presidency.
As demonstrated by the tenures of Al Gore and Dick Cheney, a modern vice president must also be prepared to make substantive contributions to an administration. Hillary Clinton would bring to the job deep knowledge of both the executive and legislative branches of government and expertise in a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues.
A vice presidential nominee should also share the number one’s values and beliefs. Obama and Clinton have nearly identical voting records in the Senate and comparable ratings by ideological and interest groups. To quote the late George Wallace, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between them on issues.
The number two pick should also help strengthen the party, an important criteria if the ticket loses and the party must prepare for upcoming midterm and presidential elections. Hillary Clinton has a much larger and more loyal following than any other Democrat, especially among groups skeptical about Obama such as elderly Hispanic, and white working class voters.
Finally, the path-breaking ticket of an African-American and a woman would send to the nation and the world the positive message that any American, regardless of race or gender, could aspire to the highest offices in the land.
Forget the counter arguments that Clinton would overshadow Obama or blunt his message of change. That didn’t happen to the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and Obama, like Kennedy, is a strong enough leader to make sure it won’t happen this year.
The only major downside to picking Hillary Clinton is that no president would want Bill Clinton rattling around the White House. But Obama could occupy Bill Clinton with an appointment to the Supreme Court, the United Nations, or the World Bank. Many former presidents have taken on new careers, including John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter.
In short, Obama should team up with Hillary Clinton, not because the so-called “dream ticket” is good for his campaign, but because it is good for his country and his party.