Veep Veep!
(posted by Jim Henley)
One of the things I wanted to blog about before the fortnight from hell took me away from writing was an argument that, Hell yes Obama should pick Clinton for the number two spot if they could possibly work it out. That was before Clinton went number two all over the possibility with her actions of the last few days. (When you start to hint that your opponent’s prospective victory will be illegitimate, you’re beyond the pale of practical intraparty politics.) It is now probably impossible to forge a joint ticket, which is too bad for the Dems because, regardless of what you or I think of Hillary Clinton, she in fact has a whole lot of passionate support behind her. Back when I famously, and laughably, argued that Hillary Clinton was “inevitable,” I based my argument on the evidence that American white womanhood really did passionately support Clinton’s candidacy. Events have actually borne that out, and I’m pretty sure that white women are going to decide the 2008 election. A majority of white men will vote McCain, because the GOP candidate always wins among white men. African-Americans will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. After a summer and fall of media articles about Obama’s “problems” with the Jewish vote, Obama will win two-thirds to three-quarters of the Jewish vote because most Jews are liberals and so is he.
That leaves white women to decide the election. In 2004 they were “Security Moms,” but in 2006 they broke for the Dems. Structurally, they “ought” to go left in 2008 too, but Obama needs to be sure they do. (And no fair Mona piping up in comments to declare that you’re a white woman and you don’t like her!) Hillary is - was - a way to make sure that happened. Plus, she’d make a damned good “attack dog” veep. I don’t like her, but she’d be the most sensible choice.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
unfortunately, I don’t think hillary would make a good VP for obama, it would probably lead to disillusionment amongst voters as they would appear to be huge hypocrites.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Here’s an important piece of advice: If it looks like it’s going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a “no brainer” for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There’s currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows — even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick — selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin’s own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there’s absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!
There’s no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real ‘change’ (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.
In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain’s age and health, Palin is more than perfect — now.
(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)
May 24th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Obama should only pick Hillary for VP if he feels like giving his food taster a heart attack.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Considering Hillary’s behavior, I think she’s crossed to the point where if I were Obama I’d be worried she might try to have me whacked after the election so she can be president.
Not only should she not be his VP, she deserves to be blown out in a primary challenge when re-election time comes.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
b-psycho, I hear ya, but for me the most relevant question is: which running mate will be most likely to ensure that Obama wins? In my thread below speculating on picking up Chuck Hagel, some protested that Hagel is unacceptable because he’s pro-life. (I don’t care about that and at other times have explained why that issue’s importance is over-inflated. As Veep, Hagel would have squat to do with that subject, anyway — and Obama is a healthy young man.)
Hillary’s recent behavior has, indeed, been atrocious. And I dislike her intensely. But if Obama/Clinton would be the surest route to preventing the McSame Admin, she should be the Veep pick.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
@Mona
I don’t think Hagel would be that great of a pick for the democratic nomination. He’s conservative in a lot of different ways. He’s socially conservative and he also has a bad track record on the environment. The one thing he does have going for him is that he, unlike the rest of his party and most of the elected Dems, has managed to act like an adult. That maturity qualifies him for a cabinet post, but I really think he’d be a fish out of water in the democratic party. Webb is a little closer to the center. But overall my money is still with Richardson, he sided with Obama when it was iffy and he can help with the latino vote.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Joel:
1. But Hagel has great cred as a decorated (and wounded) Vietnam combat vet to trump McCain’s Hanoi Hilton card — Hagel can (and has) said things that would be tricky for Obama to counter on that score. And then there is the women thing — Webb has that article from a few decades ago arguing women should not be in the armed services, or at least nowhere near a combat theatre. Which brings me to point 2.
2. If it is true that women pissed over Hillary’s failure to get the Dem nomination would stay home, then Obama needs a woman possibly more than he needs a soldier on his ticket. Hillary is one possible female choice. I don’t think Richardson helps in either of those two critical ways.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
There are more competent, qualified white women in our party, Henley, than dreamt of in your philosophy. He can Sebelius, for example.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
SCMT: I find that it’s a mistake to treat white women as interchangeable, at least in my house. All I know about the Clinton phenomenon is what Carolyn Kay spams me with, but it does appear that, for the diehards at least, only Clinton herself will do. Now granted, that’s in May. Come November, who knows?
May 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Henley:
I find that it’s a mistake to treat white women as interchangeable, at least in my house.
The word you’re looking for is “uppity.” Fear not. Help exists.
It would be one thing if Obama were to pick some random woman, a woman who was clearly only on the ticket because she was a woman (e.g., Ferraro, by most accounts). But that’s not the case here. Sebelius has punched all the relevant stops. She’s a two term governor in a red state. Same for Napolitano. Each could make a credible case for being a better candidate than either Clinton or Obama, given the traditional standards for nominee selection.
I think the number of Clinton diehards who would accept Clinton as a VP but not another extremely (read “better”) qualified woman is relatively small, or will be come November. I don’t think Clinton is the sort of charismatic politician that engenders personal loyalty. Her support, I suspect, is support for the available credible female candidate. If there’s another one, I expect that support to shift. If there’s evidence to the contrary–and there really might be; I don’t know–I’d love to see it.