It is for many in the Obama camp an unthinkable thought. But politics is sometimes the art of adjusting today to what seemed inconceivable yesterday. I’m talking about the possibility — and the powerful logic — of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats.
Andrew Sullivan is either onto something…or just on something. I have a bet with my neighbor that Hillary will not accept anything less than the #1 spot. A Clinton simply will not settle for a subordinate position. He thinks she will. A case of fine ale is on the line.
What do you think?
Xenos
I just can’t picture it. Hillary getting up each morning and going to work each long day in the west wing, Bill sleeping in. lounging in his jammies in the Naval Observatory, observing some navels, heh, heh. Would Hill have recourse to the intelligence operatives to keep track of her Billie?
slippy hussein toad
This gets discussed daily on Daily Kos. It is TEH ZOMBIE TICKETZ DAT WILL NOT DEI!
I don’t see it. Hillary is too arrogant to accept second banana, and there are too many Obama supporters who are permanently turned off by the damage she’s tried to do to him during this campaign. It’s not like she’s entitled to a consolation prize for running the Most Quixotic Campaign Evar.
Notorious P.A.T.
I’m one of them. You don’t reward Clinton for trying to destroy the party by giving her the VP appointment.
Lavocat
Fuck her. No way Obama should even think about it after the way she’s abused the whole Democratic Party.
Besides, you want this witch a heartbeat away from #1?
Truly frightening.
4tehlulz
Neither Clinton nor Obama will do it. I also doubt Hillary will settle for the VP slot.
KRK
Sullivan is definitely on something with this one.
Really just so many reasons why this is a bad idea. Here are a few:
Obama has pointed to Clinton as the option for voters who want business as ususal in Washington (most pointedly of late with the gas tax holiday farce); putting her on the ticket would be a sign that he’s not really serious about changing things. There goes all that grassroots enthusiasm, GOTV efforts, and fundraising.
Clinton on the ticket would motivate the Clinton-haters among the GOP to show up and vote when they might otherwise consider McCain unworthy of a trip to the voting booth.
The GOP would make endless hay with clips of VP candidate Clinton making all of their arguments why her running mate Obama “isn’t ready,” “doesn’t relate to regular Americans,” has “nothing but words,” etc. This will probably happen anyway if it appears to have any legs, but putting Clinton on the ticket guarantees that it will have legs.
KRK
Regarding your bet, Clinton won’t have to decide whether to settle for #2 because it won’t be offered. Now who wins? (Other than America – hah!)
jake
Yep. Sullivan needs to lay down until the paisley elephants stop galloping across his ceiling before he goes near a computer.
Thanks to Clinton’s rapid metamorphoses into Bush with a Bush, people would think Obama was out of his fucking mind to even consider such a thing. It would be like Gore picking J. Lieberman (I-ConU) as running mate in 2012. Thanks to her antics a lot of people who once thought she was OK now can’t stand her. I’m sure Sully has heap powerful logic that explains how you get unity out of that mess but I can’t be bothered.
Make her USAAG, put her on the Supreme Court. But the nice house on the USNO’s campus? Forget it.
Kathy
Aside from the political noise that would be a constant for a President Obama with Hillary and Bill ensconced in his administration, why would anyone accept his promise of being an agent for change in Washington if he enters the doors of the White House dragging along with him two of the worst examples of what is wrong with Washington? Is anyone going to believe he is serious?
August J. Pollak
It’s not happening. Not at all. Double your bet it you want more free booze.
1. Obama and Hillary HATE each other. I have friends working for both campaigns who tell me this about both of them. Not like the Kerry-Edwards “they don’t get along” or “they have different viewpoints” stuff, I mean the two of them don’t want to be in the same room with each other.
2. Absolutely no one wants Clinton’s post-Super Tuesday strategy to be validated by suggesting that you can be Vice President by destroying your top opponent and maintaining a desperate fan base long enough to force it. You may as well insist Ron Paul be McCain’s running mate.
3. Hillary adds NOTHING electorally. The few major states where her numbers exceed Obama’s (e.g. Ohio) will be counter balanced by open Republican hatred of Clinton. Suggesting either of them have a chance winning Florida is a pipe dream. It’s a red state and has been since 2002.
4. There is no one, especially on the talk show media, who will not see the pairing as a faulty, blatant pander of convenience, and it will rightly be mocked as such. “Odd couple” and “forced marriage” jokes and sketched will rule late night for three straight months.
5. Armando will NEVER SHUT UP if this happens and frankly I would rather kill myself.
Jeffrey
She could always become McCain’s VP and hope the old bastard dies of old age in his first year.
Betty Cracker
I definitely think Clinton would accept it; she accepted a 2nd banana role for most of her life, deferring her own considerable ambitions to further her husband’s career. I don’t know whether Obama will offer it. I don’t necessarily think it would be a good idea. But I do think Clinton would be on that offer like a duck on a junebug were she convinced she couldn’t wrest the nomination from Obama.
TR
It’ll never happen, for all the reasons already laid out above.
Obama will bring the party together by picking someone connected to the Hillary camp as his VP — Clark or Rendell?
Helena Montana
All the points made above are excellent. In addition, I think Obama would be absolutely crazy to do it. But if he does, he’d better be watching his back constantly. She will never subordinate herself to him; she’ll constantly attempt to undercut him and undermine him. It would be a disaster. Her knife would always be hunting for that spot between the third and fourth ribs.
zoe from pittsburgh
Hillary just stated very clearly on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “more people have voted for me in primaries and caucuses than my opponent.”
That’s a BOLD FACED LIE. Even worse, when she says it NO ONE SAYS “whaaa?”
(banging head on table)
As for her odds of becoming Obama’s VP? I’m not entirely sure he’d offer it to her. Hasn’t she set herself up as the champion of “old politics”? He risks looking a little hypocritcal and politically expedient but I don’t think it would lose them any votes.
As much as she really bugs me at this point I think she’s better suited for the position than Obama– she’s a great attack dog. I just don’t think she’d take it. That said, it would heal the rift between the two camps nearly immediately so I’d be all for it.
August J. Pollak
If I had to bet (though I don’t) I would say Obama’s top choices should be Ted Strickland and Joe Biden. The former would be mainly to help carry Ohio, the latter would be the best balance available to a perceived foreign policy.
montysano
It’ll never happen; Sully must’ve gotten a fresh shipment of the Good Stuff.
John Edwards should be Obama’s play (if Edwards would accept). Obama/Edwards would crush McCain/Whoever.
zoe from pittsburgh
It should go without saying, that REPUBLICAN Joe Scarborough is totally in the bag for Hillary– he spends 3 hours every morning on MSNBC praising her and undermining Obama. Like Pat Buchanan, he just can’t say enough great things about her.
Also, listening to a panel of RICH media people talk about how “working people” saving $2.50 per fill up is SERIOUS RELIEF feels so condescending that it stings.
Con Mhac
Personally, I love the commenters over at TalkLeft who will stay home if Clinton give the VP nod to Obama.
Walker
A fair number of people who want “Clinton or else” badly want a woman president. You are not going to bring these people back on board by putting the woman in the subordinate political role.
rob!
they have Howard Wolfson on so much they just officially name him co-host and be done with it.
flyerhawk
I don’t see how giving her the VP slot makes sense politically.
Her problem is her huge negatives. A VP doesn’t much help a ticket but they can hurt the ticket easily enough.
Senate Majority for Clinton. Mark Edwards for VP.
r€nato
it’s a very silly idea.
Bob
I honestly feel that Clinton will take the low road in a last ditch attempt to win the popular vote, so she can use it to lure the S-D’s. She will spend the last few states kneecapping Obama.
This will not only destroy any hope of a unity ticket but will damage the party beyond words.
She’s just too ambitious to quit.
TheFountainHead
QFFT
I actually enjoy reading Sully most of the time, but at least once a week he takes a hit of something and goes Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs….this is one of those times.
Mike D.
Is your neighbor a Hilltard, or are we looking at some kind of blunt trauma to the head, here? Some people just can’t step back and observe a general trend; it’s like they have a fish-eye lens on their brain. I guess that’s a third possibility: is your neighbor among the half of the population that’s dumber than average?
Bob In Pacifica
The people who want business as usual, the people who run the businesses, want Hillary over Obama. Do you think that Mrs. Obama is going to get a decent night of sleep knowing that it’s her husband’s heartbeat that stands in Hillary’s way?
Mike D.
And Lavocat is right. Hillary is the anti-Quayle. Worst life insurance policy ever. Economy in the tank, probably looking at two more years before we’re physically thrown out of Iraq, etc., etc., and look who’s running the show: a nigger. GEE-dum!
His Secret Service call sign would pretty much have to be Bullet Magnet if Her Rightful Coronation was a heartbeat away.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Nah, both of them have that ‘politics as usual’ aura about them. (Strick more so since he didn’t shove Mark Dann out the airlock.) You also want to have a little Quayle insurance for any would-be James Earl Rays. My vote would be for Wes Clark.
p.lukasiak
Obama-Clinton is, and always has been, a bad idea. (Clinton-Obama was not always a bad idea, but it is now).
Obama will have enoough trouble getting his message out over the usual Right Wing Noise Machine chatter. VP candidates are supposed to remain in the background, so that the top of the ticket gets all the attention.
Hillary Clinton could do exactly what every VP candidate does in terms of campaigning, and the media would pay far more attention to her (and Bill) than they would to an “ordinary” VP candidate.
For instance, a VP candidate who sought the nomination has to adjust their opinions to be consistent with the top of the ticket. The media makes half-hearted attempt to hype this “hypocrisy” on the part of the VP candidate, but nobody really cares.
But should Hillary Clinton be the VP nominee, and “adjust” her policy proposals to make them consistent with Obama, the media won’t let up on it. Ever. The focus will be on Clinton and her “hypocrisy” and “cynicism” rather than on Obama’s policy proposals.
PSoTD
If Hillary Clinton is offered the VP slot, and I hope this does not happen, then she will HAVE to take it. She cannot afford politically to allow Obama to select another woman as a VP candidate, and that will be a strong consideration. I’ve begun to believe that this is part of her calculation now – that if she isn’t the candidate this year, Obama could likely pick somebody who will instantly compete with Clinton for the national woman’s vote in any future national primary.
If I were Obama, I wouldn’t pick Hillary, period.
Media Browski
OH OH OH! I have a name for this particular Political Parlor Game. I call it “Would HRC Be On the Ticket if She Hadn’t Tried To Kneecap Obama?”
The rules are 1. suspend disbelief and 2. everyone takes a shot each time someone says “if” or “would”.
Ron
She would definitely accept it. She doesn’t care about policy at all. She wants power. Being the vice presidential nominee is her one path to the presidency in 2012 or 2016. She is a very poor choice for Obama in many ways (she supports the Iraq war, she is the poster child of business as usual, she is divisive), but if picking her for veep will get her to end her presidential campaign rather than causing mischief at the convention, he may have to go that route sometime this summer.
Dennis - SGMM
First, Bill Clinton wouldn’t accept being number two-and-one-half.
Second, most of the work of undoing the Bush years will have to be accomplished through the Congress. Whomever Obama chooses as VP will hopefully be someone with a strong personality with a practical understanding of both the House and the Senate. Clinton is an obnoxious, polarizing personality who hasn’t exactly been a star in the Senate.
If I had my druthers and the rest of the country would play along, I’d love to see Obama choose Barbara Boxer as his VP. The shitheads and toadies who’ve made up the Bush administration would be lining up for one-way tickets to Timbuktu at the very prospect.
Suicidal Zebra
I think I’d agree with you Michael, it’s pretty damn unlikely that Clinton would take the subordinate role. That said, looking at the amount of power Dick Cheney has accumulated within the office of Vice President (including the novel ‘both executive and legislative and hence bound by the limitations of neither’ defence) you could almost imagine her not seeing it as the #2 slot*. Best not count your chickens just yet.
*Hrm… perhaps that should be ‘convincing herself that it isn’t the #2 slot’ is more accurate. ;)
dougie smooth
Never. Gonna. Happen. I’d put money on it. Sullivan is on crack.
p.a.
How much does a vp nominee really matter to the general population compared to we inhabitants of outer blogania? And given the % of people saying they won’t vote for an african american or a woman, can the D’s afford both on the ticket? Should we assume the great majority of these people won’t vote D anyway?
Scrutinizer
Good to know that’s not already happening.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Bill Richardson for VP: sew up Latino voters; get a big push out West; cover any questions of foreign policy expertise.
John Edwards for AG. “Breck this, bitchez!”
Billary for the Supreme Court.
Yeah, that’s right, Billary. Put both their asses in the Supremes and watch wingnut heads explode from Orange County to Virginia.
(to reach across the aisle– Colin Powell for Defense. He’s a soldier with proven diplomatic skills; and the five-sided building is going to need a lot of fixing after 8 years of Bushite asshattery. Go ahead, flame away.)
uh_clem
The main job of a Veep is to sway a swing state in the electoral college. After that, the gig is mainly attending funerals and occasionally breaking a tie in the Senate.
The current administration nonwithstanding, VP is pretty darned far from “second in command” – more like 385th in command.
So given the fact that 1) Hillary probably doesn’t deliver any swing states and 2) I can’t see her being happy as designated-funeral-attendee, the liklihood of a unity ticket is pretty small.
That said, I wouldn’t find it far-fetched at all for the powers that be to offer her Senate Majority Leader in return for quietly bowing out.
PK
Bad idea! Obama and the democratic party needs to make a clean break from the Clintons. Besides the last few months have exposed her to be the worst type of pandering politician. If she becomes the VP it will be all about her. We do not need another Dick Cheney type self important ego maniac in the VP slot.
Shinobi
I just spent the weekend in rural Indiana. To say that it was somewhat of a wake up call for me would not be an understatement. Based on this recent experience I think it is VERY important that Obama select a white male as his running mate. This country is full or racist and sexist assholes.
TheFountainHead
P.luk and I agree.
I need drugs to handle the pain.
Dennis - SGMM
I forgot to mention that the choice for VP should also be able to correctly spell the word “potato.”
Barbara
Clinton offers no geographic balance to Obama and comes with serious negatives. That makes her unsuitable. FWIW, Gore probably should have been a bit more strategic in his choice of VP as well.
I also doubt that Clinton would want to be VP. That said, I don’t know what else she might be angling for, if anything, at this point. I still think the most straightforward interpretation is that she knows this is probably her ONLY chance for the nomination, and rationalizes the scorched earth increasing desperation of her tactics with the thought that Obama will have future opportunities.
TheFountainHead
Dennis, Barbara Boxer is a bad idea. I’m not sure she would even deliver California if she needed to, and she certainly doesn’t bring anything else to the electoral math table.
demimondian
Whatever else you can say about Billary — either one of them can spell potato. The difference is that he’s the stupid hick who can only spell it in three different languages.
PaulW
If Obama gets the nomination (likely) and decides to make Hillary his Veep choice (are you insane?!) he better be prepared for 4 years of inter-office backstabbing. As long as she’s in the Senate and he in the White House, she’ll be attacking from the outside which is a weaker position, from inside she can poison the atmosphere, promote toadies into key positions to disrupt Obama’s objectives (ala Bolton doing the dirty work for the neocons vs. Powell). And let’s not forget how LBJ hired the mafia and loose cannons from Operation Mongoose for that little number in Dallas…… oops, did I say that? (runs) (hides from the MiBs)
Incertus
After the story that Powell was in the White House meetings where they had torture acted out in front of them? No. Fuck that guy.
I’d love to see that, too, but since Arnold gets to choose her successor, sorry, she has to stay in the Senate.
Shygetz
Ivan, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Jebus. I hadn’t seen that. In that case, yeah, fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
And fuck reaching across the aisle, too; the torture lovin’ sonsabitches. Wes Clark for Defense.
4tehlulz
>>Barbara Boxer
California is going to big battleground st….
No, can’t do it. Sorry.
I’ll go with any of the following:
Jim Webb — makes the GOP spend precious
bodily fluidsfunds in VABill Richardson – to get the eight Latinos outside Florida who are still voting Republican
Darkhorse – Brian Schweitzer – for cred in the Mountain West
Sheldon Whitehouse – for the lulz
rob!
Hagel for VP?
–reaching across the aisle
–one republican a lot of dems don’t instantly hate
–war background, but isn’t pro-iraq (sure, he used to be, but so did Biden, Edwards, Clinton, etc)
–older white guy
–mid-west heartland kinda thing
phein
Obama for President,
Hillary for Supreme Court.
Think about it: It frees her from having to politic, which brings out the absolute worst in her, and allows her free rein for her pragmatic-liberalism.
Plus, Bill is permanently removed from having a direct stake in political races, and that too will be a blessing.
Dennis - SGMM
You’re absolutely right – and that’s sad in and of itself. That’s why I had to qualify my wish with “if the rest of the country would play along.” The electoral math will likely dictate Obama’s VP choice, as well as McCain’s, more than anything. The choice of the best VP may have to be second to the best ticket-balancer.
TheFountainHead
I’m actually SERIOUSLY looking at the math for a Rendell VP spot, and the numbers look, well, the numbers look good. Yeah, he has a bit of the same tell-the-truth-at-the-worst-possible-time disease that I think Obama has, but I can’t think of a real awful downside.
Thoughts?
CrazyDrumGuy
Hillary supporters have been suggesting a unity ticket from the moment she dropped behind in delegates, and in every single case it’s always Clinton/Obama. You’re right to think she won’t accept anything less than the top. After all, it was her turn to be president before that rascal Obama came and started winning the states that don’t matter.
Whoever’s the nominee, I think they should avoid taking too many Dems out of the Senate. Since the Constitution apparently now requires 60 Senators to pass anything, we’re going to need as many as we can get.
Egypt Steve
Two words: Kennedy-Johnson. ‘Nuff said.
Barbara
Only thing with Supreme Court for Hillary is the pesky issue of conflicts of interest. Of course, that all seems so jejune these days, with Justices getting speaking fees and what not. Back in the day, it actually kept some people off the court (Haynsworth) and made others resign (Fortas).
I would prefer Webb to remain (my) senator. Richardson is probably a good choice, but I get the sense that he can be an unguided missile.
In addition to whether it makes electoral sense, I agree that having the two-fer Clintons back in the WH as VP would be a serious distraction for Obama. I also think picking a woman would be a mistake because the cultural whiplash is already going to be strong. It’s too bad, but I think it’s the truth.
dr. bloor
Ivan Ivanovich Renko Says:
Billary for the Supreme Court.
Yeah, that’s right, Billary. Put both their asses in the Supremes and watch wingnut heads explode from Orange County to Virginia.
Ivan, you crazy genius! I’m thinking Brangelina here, only older, with more gravitas. Maybe we can get Kathleen and Mike to do their “War of the Roses” thing again, only with robes this time. Get the script treatment to me by Wednesday, and we’ll have lunch Friday!
The Moar You Know
I love Ivan’s idea of both Clintons on the Supreme Court. I think you’d have wingnuts lining up for exit visas to…where the hell would a wingnut emigrate to? Not Canada. Maybe Saudi Arabia.
b. hussein canuckistani
I don’t know how many people who aren’t raving nuts would entertain the idea that LBJ might have been behind the Kennedy assasination. But I have to say that if Obama were assassinated, VP Clinton would make a much more credible conspirator.
HeartlandLiberal
She would be stupid NOT to accept VP slot. She could not be so stupid as turn that down! Could she? First woman VP? Next in line to the oval office? Heir apparent? The opportunity to actually do good?
Oh, wait, let’s look at how she has run her campaign the past six months. Hmmm. Never mind. She probably COULD be that stupid.
Bottom line: My wife and I based on the past few months of HRC’s campaign have determined that we will vote for Ralph Nader if she steals the nomination from Obama. This is not an idle threat. We will NOT vote for her. We have NEVER voted third party, and will never vote Republican, but if the Democratic Party leadership steals this nomination from Obama, the party is dead as far as we are concerned.
Game over.
Punchy
OT:
This is easily towards the top of the world’s worst idea, ever.
b. hussein canuckistani
I believe Argentina is the traditional choice.
dr. bloor
Punchy Says:
OT:
This is easily towards the top of the world’s worst idea, ever.
Maybe the threat of a theme park is the Pentagon’s way of getting those ingrates on board with the idea of permanent military bases?
Ed Drone
Sigh. Where is Shirley Chisholm when you need her?
Ed
Soylent Green
True. It also reflects the party’s preference for whom it wants to inherit the top slot after their two terms as VP are up, and gives them the inside track. I don’t think Hill would wait that long, and Bill surely doesn’t want to be co-vice-president.
You know, Uh Clem, my mother was a bozoette at school.
Incertus
If Clinton manages to convince enough superdelegates to vote for her, she will not have stolen the nomination. For fuck’s sake, there are plenty of reasons to criticize her without dipping into bullshit-land. There’s nothing in the rules that says you have to win a single state in order to be the nominee–you just have to get the requisite number of delegates, and if that number is predominantly superdelegates, that’s still a legitimate win.
Arguing that Clinton will somehow have “stolen” the nomination if she gets the supers to vote for her is the same as her argument that Florida and Michigan should count even though they broke the rules. Like it or not–and many people do not right now–the supers are part of the system that everyone agreed to at the beginning of this race, so a win at their hands is every bit as legitimate as a win via pledged delegates. It wouldn’t be a good idea, and there would be plenty of acrimony, but it would still be a legitimate win, not a stolen one.
Richard Bottoms
Suckers.
Barbara
Incertus, one small detail: it’s fairly clear that part of Clinton’s strategy with the super Ds is leveraging Florida and Michigan votes (e.g., counting the pledged delegates, or the popular vote so as to make a claim that she is actually ahead of Obama). If the super Ds buy that, then even if it is within the rules for them to anoint her, it would be far outside the spirit of the rules. Although they CAN do it, that is, they have the rule-based authority, they would be legitimizing their decision based on votes that occurred outside the agreed upon rules.
Punchy
and when Preznit McCane finalizes his SC with 4 Scalia-clones, 1 Thomas, 1 Alito, 1 Roberts, 1 liberal, and Karl Rove, you can go cry in your own damn….prison cell, after the Court decrees that, yes, the Executive CAN imprison any citizen it chooses, especially liberals.
You faux-Dems are so shitty, it makes me physically ill.
Scrutinizer
Yeah, that Vince Foster thing proves it, right?
thomas
It’s a must. It would be Gobama’s life insurance policy.
Can you see some knuckle dragging racist thinking about putting Obama in the cross-hairs if Hillery would replace him?
Incertus
If the super Ds buy that, then they’re idiots–not outside the realm of probability, I realize. But that still wouldn’t make a Clinton victory a stolen one. And there are plenty of other reasons, outside of MI and FL, that super Ds could use to justify Clinton support, including the (misguided, in my opinion) argument that she’d be the better candidate. My main point is that they were given the power to make this decision independently before the process began. The time to change that system was before the primary season. We didn’t, so we get to swing in the breeze while the super Ds make up their minds.
I’d also like to point out that I don’t actually think the super Ds will give Clinton the nomination, not unless someone pops up with video of Obama blowing a Klansman and jerking him off into a chain mail shirt made of flag pins.
Will T Patriot
Putting all the serious thoughts aside wouldn’t it be fun to watch all the Hillbots eat their silly arguments one talking point at a time while Hillary becomes Barack’s most ardent supporter? Peace
mrmobi
Given the fact that there is no discernable difference between the Obama and Clinton policy positions, I don’t see why this is a problem, P.luk.
I would remind everyone that Clinton is a politician, as is Obama. McCain is also a politician. They all lie, the have to, it’s part of the job. Our job is to figure out which ones are lying just to get the job, and which ones are motivated by a desire to actually “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” I’m going with the Constitutional Law professor myself.
Every Vice Presidential candidate “adjusts” their policy positions when they accept the job. It’s part of the deal, and always has been.
For the record:
I would vote for Clinton/Obama.
I would vote for Obama/Clinton.
I would vote for Clinton/anybody.
I would vote for Obama/anybody.
I would vote for any Democrat and Satan also, provided Satan is a Democrat.
ABM, baby. Anybody But McCain. To quote someone here, and for purposes of this election only, “there are no good Republicans, and there are no bad Democrats.”
You’re not getting this. The Republicans have no policy proposals to run on, other than more tax cuts for the rich, never-ending war in Iraq and the continued slow degradation of the quality of life and liberty, so whichever Democrat is nominated will get the full “hypocrisy” and “cynicism” treatement from them, regardless.
Despite McCain’s promises of a “respectful” campaign, this will likely be one of the dirtiest, most dishonest campaigns in our history. I expect only “Willie Horton” style ads.
You, of all people, should know this, your candidate has been caught cheerleading for the other team several times during this primary season. I assumed you were down with character assassination and McCarthy-style tactics. Hillary certainly seems to be.
As far as the VP pick goes, while I think Satan has some pretty high negatives, he cannot be called a flip-flopper, so he’d make a pretty good VP candidate, even though he’d probably be more comfortable in the Republican Party, what with torturing to death innocent people and all, you know.
Jay
Food-taster. Bullet proof everything.
Z
I’d much rather see a Obama/McCaskill ticket. She is a reformer. She’s been a Obama supporter since day 1. She’s a former state auditor and mid-westerner. They’d work well together on the change agenda.
Zifnab
People were looking crosswise at LBJ for years after the Kennedy Assassination. And Barack Obama is nothing if not sniper bait in an age of the Blackwater military, Nixonian dirty tricks, and the crazification of right wing.
Clinton would be a fool not to take the VP slot for more reasons than one. Al Gore proved that the VP slot could be used effectively for pushing the Presidential agenda in the Senate. Dick Cheney proved that the VP slot could be used to effectively set the Presidential agenda in the White House. The VP slot isn’t just some honorary function anymore. You’re electing the whole ticket when you pick a President. That’s one reason I’d be rather skiddish about a Hillary as number 2 pumba. She’d be a great arm-twister for Obama’s agenda, but she’d also be in a great position to leave a knife in his back. And given her politics as of late, I don’t see her playing nice with the Obama/Dean wing of the party.
chopper
well, as much as it would be fun to watch wingers’ heads asplode, hillary doesn’t seem to have a great head for constitutional law. shit, when was the last time she practiced law at all anyways? kinda a dealbreaker for me.
Dennis - SGMM
Absent an absolute genius for governing and some very lucky breaks either Democrat will be a one-term president. The Republicans and their echo chamber will damn’ sure devote their energies to blaming our Bush-induced problems on the Dem and our POS media will do variations of “Democrats Fail to Meet Expectations in Dealing with Nation’s Woes!” when the new president doesn’t magically fix everything in his or her first week in office. We Democrats are also anticipating a lot of change from our president and we’re bound to be disappointed simply because limiting further damage to the nation, let alone fixing what’s broken, will be a Herculean task in its own right. Much of what’s gone wrong started going wrong well before Bushco accelerated the decline and it’s not going to be quickly or easily made right again. I do not envy whomever is elected.
Joy
Jay – I’m with you. He’d definitely need a food taster. I also like the Bill wouldn’t take the 2 1/2 spot. I’m kinda liking the Chuck Hagel VP thing. I think he would bring a lot of crossover Republicans who definitely do want McCain. Boost Obama’s foreign policy cred. But I also like Chris Dodd and a few others. Definitely not Hillary. But what do I know? I’m just your average American, not an elite or anything.
mrmobi
Agreed, Richard.
It’s been a long time since I threw away my vote for Barry Commoner in an actual election. I regret that I believed there was any value in a “symbolic” vote.
It should be pointed out that the superdelegates, by their very definition, cannot “steal” the nomination. Supers are allowed to do what they want, by party rules. If you believe in those rules, either of these two candidates can be the nominee at any time.
Unfortunately for Hillary, those same rules prevent her from getting any delegates from Michigan or Florida. So, if she wants to use the rules to get the nomination by winning over supers, she has to abide by the rules which preclude her from actually stealing the election.
I don’t expect there to be any resolution to the Florida or Michigan disqualification that would affect Obama’s lead, so we’ll see which of the candidates has got game with regard to winning over supers.
This is the fun part.
cleek
for large numbers of people in both camps there is no way their candidate can “legitimately” lose. any loss will be illegitimate.
best case, this is decided before July, and the losing camp will spend the summer seething at the winning camp, while the GOP chuckles. hopefully, enough of them will come around, get over their complaints, lose their lawsuits, etc, by Nov. worst case, it goes to the convention, and the losing side is still seething and battling when Nov arrives.
none of the polls taken now can capture just how much the losing side is going to dispute the result.
mrmobi
Agreed, Richard.
It’s been a long time since I threw away my vote for Barry Commoner in an actual election. I regret that I believed there was any value in a “symbolic” vote.
It should be pointed out that the superdelegates, by their very definition, cannot “steal” the nomination. Supers are allowed to do what they want, by party rules. If you believe in those rules, either of these two candidates can be the nominee at any time.
Unfortunately for Hillary, those same rules prevent her from getting any delegates from Michigan or Florida. So, if she wants to use the rules to get the nomination by winning over supers, she has to abide by the rules which preclude her from actually stealing the election.
I don’t expect there to be any resolution to the Florida or Michigan disqualification that would affect Obama’s lead, so we’ll see which of the candidates has got game with regard to winning over supers.
This is the fun part.
mrmobi
Agreed, Richard.
It’s been a long time since I threw away my vote for Barry Commoner in an actual election. I regret that I believed there was any value in a “symbolic” vote.
It should be pointed out that the superdelegates, by their very definition, cannot “steal” the nomination. Supers are allowed to do what they want, by party rules. If you believe in those rules, either of these two candidates can be the nominee at any time.
Unfortunately for Hillary, those same rules prevent her from getting any delegates from Michigan or Florida. So, if she wants to use the rules to get the nomination by winning over supers, she has to abide by the rules which preclude her from actually stealing the election.
I don’t expect there to be any resolution to the Florida or Michigan disqualification that would affect Obama’s lead, so we’ll see which of the candidates has got game with regard to winning over supers.
This is the fun part.
mrmobi
Agreed, Richard.
It’s been a long time since I threw away my vote for Barry Commoner in an actual election. I regret that I believed there was any value in a “symbolic” vote.
It should be pointed out that the superdelegates, by their very definition, cannot “steal” the nomination. Supers are allowed to do what they want, by party rules. If you believe in those rules, either of these two candidates can be the nominee at any time.
Unfortunately for Hillary, those same rules prevent her from getting any delegates from Michigan or Florida. So, if she wants to use the rules to get the nomination by winning over supers, she has to abide by the rules which preclude her from actually stealing the election.
I don’t expect there to be any resolution to the Florida or Michigan disqualification that would affect Obama’s lead, so we’ll see which of the candidates has got game with regard to winning over supers.
This is the fun part.
NickM
I think if Sully thinks it’s such a good idea, he should volunteer to be Obama’s food taster.
mrmobi
Jeebus, sorry about the multi-post!
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Even though you only get partial credit (the correct answer is that, even if Obama would have the gun pressed to his temple and be forced to nominate her to the USSC, Hillary could no more get through the nomination process than her disbarred hubby could), you still are clearly not quite brain-damaged enough to qualify as a Balloon Juice Retard. Please frequent a different blog from now on. Thank you.
Regards,
The Mgmt
Genine
Unfortunately, I think that might be true. I know a lot of women who support Hillary that would go ape-shit over her being picked as VP or any woman. Then Obama would just be “throwing women a bone” or being “patronizing” or whatever. He needs to pick whoever he thinks is best whether they are male, female, Latino, white or whatever. Because sometimes, once people get certain ideas in their heads, you cannot make them happy. Also, to cater to such people is rewarding bad behavior, imo.
John Cole
I don’t want Hillary anywhere near the damned White House if it can be at all avoided. She has proven she can not be trusted.
eastriver
Just to piss off JC, I think it might happen. And maybe *should* happen. And probably *will* happen.
The Kos Kidz would eat their Hacky Sacks. Shoot bong water out their noses. Figure out ways to use even bigger ALL CAPS for their heavily recc’d BREAKING diaries.
ker-SNARK.
Brachiator
Selecting Clinton as the VP choice has a number of virtues.
It keeps her on track to be the first woman president.
She will be able to dispense with fantasies that she is qualified (e.g., her imaginary role in Northern Ireland peace talks, dodging sniper fire) and actually earn some presidential cred.
She and Bill will have to campaign hard for Obama or look like total fools.
By accepting the VP nod, she will immediately validate Obama as a unifier.
If she fails to fully support Obama or otherwise demonstrate that she is an empty pantsuit, no one will have to bother with asking “what if” questions concerning a Hillary candidacy to succeed President Obama.
I think you have a good point here, but the media focus on the Clintons might paradoxically give them an opportunity to sell their support of Obama more strongly.
And the Right Wing attack machine may be much more vulnerable this election cycle. McCain is not trusted by the pro-business camp, evangelicals, or Ron Paul libertarians, despite McCain’s attempts to embrace these groups. Smart Democrats should be able to exploit this weakness.
Bill Richardson would be a very interesting choice, and might appeal tremendously to many Latino voters, but despite his deep experience, his heart did not really seem to be in his presidential run.
I like Edwards for AG.
Billary on the Supreme Court would be very in-your-face, but I don’t think that Bill’s nomination would ever make it through the Senate. And didn’t Clinton have to surrender his law license?
Hillary is not smart enough to be on the Court. Besides, The Nine is an elite, and Hillary hates elites.
Billy K
I see Hillary as the Landshark, knocking on Obama’s White House door.
Candygram.
b. hussein canuckistani
She’d steal the “O”‘s from the computer keyboards.
cbear
Jeebus Genine, that’s a fat one right down the middle of the plate—I’m too stunned to even swing at it.
Zifnab
Meh. When she’s on it, she’s on it. I still like her health care policy. I can’t really fault her for a more moderate withdrawal approach in Iraq and a more business-friendly conservative domestic agenda. I don’t like it, but its definitely GOP-sane rather than GOP-insane. Her campaign staff is an absolute train-wreck, but I still have faith that she wouldn’t physically govern worse than her husband.
Given the current political climate, she’s the best of the worst as far as I’ve seen. She’s better than Rockafeller and Fienstien, on par with Harry Reid. She lies like a rug, but she’s a politician, so I can’t begrudge her too much.
We need an Obama in the White House, but we could survive another reign of Clintons. I’m glad with what we’re getting. But there are miles and miles of difference between Clinton and McCain. I’d trust her more than most.
Cris
Whenever I see this topic come up, I want to link to August J. Pollak, but it turns out he’s already shown up in this thread and he’s still right.
HeavyJ
I think that getting inside Hillary Clinton’s brain is best left to self-absorbed, stupid, trivial, right wing fools like Peggy Noonan and Andrew Sullivan.
A unity ticket is a fantasy.
demimondian
Umm, EEEL? WJ Clinton was not disbarred. He surrendered his license — and that is not a trivial distinction.
Don’t worry, your party will have completely returned to the opposition soon, where it belongs and where its members feel most comfortable, and will be staying there for a long time indeed, so you won’t be constrained by anything inconvenient like, you know, reality.
Tim Fuller
500 words to my reality based friends on last weeks top news stories and my thoughts on the candidates vis-a-vis their relationship with Atheist morality.
Concluding with:
Better to be in league with a man who fears for the better nature of his soul, than a women who promises to annihilate an entire civilization hoping to score a few boners with the neocons over at Faux News.
http://thetimtimes.com/?p=221
Enjoy.
ThymeZone
Independent run for the White House.
Don’t laugh. It ain’t funny to contemplate.
Chris Johnson
I’ll take “please no” for $100,000, Alex…
4tehlulz
>>Independent run for the White House.
NADER/CLINTON ’08!!!
Incertus
It also ain’t gonna happen. Clinton’s not insane–she knows she’d lose, and lose bad, and would be a pariah afterward.
Ben Atkinson
Both of you will have to buy your own brew. NO WAY IN HELL will she be offered the VP slot!!!!!
Svensker
Understatement of the day.
Crust
A Clinton simply will not settle for a subordinate position.
Well, she is the junior Senator from New York. And she accepted the junior position in her marriage for most of her life. If it came to it I think she might accept the Veep slot, though it’s hard to imagine Bill Clinton as the Second Laddie. Besides, 8 years from now she’d still be in her 60’s, so not too old to run for president if Obama was reelected and she still wanted it.
In any event, I think it’s pretty unlikely that Obama would offer it to her. The campaign has gone on too long and, as long campaigns will, it’s become too acrimonious.
Man I long for the days when Erick captured the mood of Republicans about their candidates by posting on the front page of RedState “they all suck”. And when Democrats were saying how we have three great candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards; most people would probably have been happy with many of the minor candidates too).
Vlad
Sully’s idea is based in part on the premise that Hillary is attracting support from a large numbers of center-right voters. I think this idea is misguided, and that a large number of those voters bear no real affection for Hillary, but are simply voting for her because she’s Not Obama. As such, they’d be unlikely to follow her to an Obama-Clinton ticket.
There are any number of other potential VPs who have Hillary’s positives (high-visability, “tough” political fighter, a uterus), and many of them do not share her negatives (relentless criticism of Obama during the primary, high national negatives, focus on “old way” of politics, no swing-state connections, no foreign policy cred, etc.).
I do not like Rendell, Biden, or Richardson as potential picks, either. Rendell makes me worry because he is a Philadelphia machine guy, and thus very shady. I’m from PA, and I’ve voted for him, but he’s definitely got some skeletons in the closet, and I worry that the bright light of a national campaign might unearth them. Biden brings foreign policy gravitas, which is good, but he also has significant negatives: an unpopular vote for a terrible bankruptcy bill, a position within a safe blue state, an old plagiarism scandal, and a 2008 campaign that crashed and burned on the runway. It’s tough to make a case for him over the similar – but superior – Chris Dodd, who is just as good a wonk, but who also has a clean record and a respectable 2008 performance. Richardson is demographically valuable, both due to his state and his appeal with Latino voters, but his presidential campaign was one gaffe after another, and I could easily see him saying something dumb that’d sink the ticket entirely.
Personally, I’d like to see Obama go with one of the following:
a) a Mountain West governor like Schweitzer or Freudenthal
b) a prominent non-Hillary female politician like Sebelius
c) a spotless “old man of the party” like Dodd
d) a candidate with a military background like Webb or Clark
YMMV.
Vlad
I should also say that picking Hillary is just about the ONLY thing Obama could do to make me hesitate about voting for him at this point. Like John, I don’t want her anywhere near the White House.
Justin
So is burying Hillary Clinton more important than unity and fighting the Republicans? Apparently it is to some Obama supporters….pretty shocking and disappointing.
tballou
It most definitely can and will happen, because the alternative will alienate about half of the Democratic party. This is hardly a stretch given that Kennedy took Johnson. Obama would be a fool to pick anyone else.
Kit Smith
I’ve not read the thread yet, but I’ll just chip in that Hillary will do what benefits Hillary most in her decision. If she thinks that Obama will flop as a president, she’ll keep her Senate seat and mount a primary challenge that lets her keep her political distance. If he succeeds well, she’ll want to be his VP to try and pick up the easy nomination. Either way, Hillary will do what she calculates the best odds are of letting her succeed.
Leisureguy
I think Obama would be ill-advised to make Hillary the VP. I think she would work to undermine him, not support him. She will never be satisfied until she’s president. John Edwards I would like as VP.
Krista
I agree with Genine on this. His supporters want her to be president, and are not going to be pleased at Obama offering her the consolation prize.
Several weeks ago, I would have said that having Hillary on the ticket could have unified the party. But now, I don’t think so. Giving her the veep nod would be seen by her supporters as patronizing, and by his supporters as a betrayal. The key is to find someone who is respected enough across the board so as to be able to obtain grudging acceptance from Clinton’s supporters.
But even that is going to be easier said than done. If he picks a female, many of Clinton’s supporters will view that as pandering. If he picks a male, he’ll be branded sexist. With the very hardcore Clinton supporters, I really don’t know if there’s any way to placate them. So, he’s going to have to pick who he thinks is best and keep his eyes on November, and hope that people’s ire will fade.
cleek
Clinton supporters who say they would not vote for Obama still far outnumber Obama supporters who say they wouldn’t vote for Clinton.
Soylent Green
I think Obama’s biggest need for his second is foreign policy and military cred. This to undercut McCain’s claim (bogus, but popularly accepted) to being better qualified to protect national security. I’m hoping for Wes Clark. Democrats think the anti-Iraq numbers are ironclad, but many people still want to win the damn thing, or at least give somebody who isn’t Bush a crack at it. Americans hate to lose, and will buy into any fantasy to pretend they haven’t (remember “Peace With Honor”)?
A general or respected vet on the ticket would give the campaign a chance to drive home the fact that the war is unwinnable any way you slice it and that not getting out weakens our defenses overall. Only a respected military guy on the Dem side can reveal McCain’s true identity as a neocon militarist.
Andrew J. Lazarus
My guess is that the Clintons get veto power over Obama’s VP pick. It might have been Hill, but not after this campaign.
Aside to demi: in many states, surrendering your bar license while under investigation is tantamount to a guilty plea, in terms of reinstatement.
John Cole
Sam Nunn’s name was tossed out a few weeks ago. I thought that was interesting.
ed
It the Dem candidate for Veep (for either) is not a white guy with some sort of military cred, I’ll eat my hat.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
Make that “foreign policy” cred, and I’m right with you.
I really like Bill Richardson; but, well… the guy is brown. That’s just a wee bit too much for conservative white boys to stomach at once.
chopper
well, if EEEL knows about anything it’s “being retarded”.
Calouste
Satan as VP candidate would give a whole new meaning to the idea of using the VP slot as the campaign’s attack dog. Interviews with negative talking heads could become rather, uhm, fiery, and of course we can all look forward to the Satan-Huckabee
vice-presidential debatedeath match.vanya
After the current campaign Hilary may have difficulty keeping her Senate seat, she would be well advised to take the VP slot.
Brachiator
The odd thing here is that Clark is not high on my list of preferred presidential candidates, so I am not sure that he would be my top choice for a VP.
Also, while foreign policy and military cred is important to right wing pundits, the economy is the central issue for most Americans. So while Obama’s choices for Secretary of State and Defense are important in this regard, I think that Obama has more freedom of choice with respect to a VP choice than the conventional wisdom allows.
I don’t see this at all. Obama has no reason to even trust any advice that Hillary, and especially Bill, might offer. On the other hand, Bill would look like the biggest spoiled brat in the history of the universe if he fails to campaign for Obama. The continuation of Clinton power is entirely dependent upon Hillary getting the nomination. The continuation of the Clinton reputation is entirely dependent upon both Clinton’s being gracious to Obama when he gets the nomination.
This is an interesting dilemma. I agree that there is a strong sentiment among some that there must be a woman president in 2008. Would Senator Clinton herself be able to mollify her supporters if she accepted the VP nod?
Genine
Cbear, it must be interesting to be in your mind at times.
Hypatia
That’s nothing compared with the bad feeling between the Kennedys and Johnson prior to Johnson’s selection as the veep in 1960, and that deal went forward despite profound misgivings on both sides. I don’t think Obama will offer it and I don’t think Clinton will accept – it’s not in the self-interest, or the larger interest, of either one.
Yup.
Irrational ClintonHate at its (almost) worst. This is fantasy.
Those were the days. I was for Dodd, myself.
Chuck Butcher
There is absolutely no electoral college reason to pick Hillary and little that has to do with the tenor of the Obama campaign.
Bury Hillary? Exactly how stupid are you? She can go back to NY which likes her, that’s buried? Did you somehow forget that she is a US Senator which in many ways is more powerful than a VP?
I’m not too sure what her future looks like as Sen NY, though, some are pretty pissed.
Dr. Squid
Enjoy your ale.
robert
I think Rendell, Hagel, Webb or Nunn would be good choices. I would think Obama should offer the VP nod to Hillary and I bet she will reject because she thinks he will be a one term President.