The Case Against Picking Hillary for VP
There are a number people out there, particularly those who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries, who insist that if Obama picks anyone but Hillary to be his running mate, it will be a huge strategic blunder. Here, for example, is Big Tent Democrat over at TalkLeft commenting on today's Gallup tracking poll:
I also think there's some truth to the suggestion that Clinton's presence on the ticket would energize the GOP base which currently seems uninspired and apathetic about the election. Whoever Obama picks, the GOP will do its best to demonize him/her, but with Clinton, they won't even have to try very hard. She's pre-demonized.
Which isn't to say she couldn't be a net asset to the ticket. That's certainly possible. It may be that her presence on the ticket inspires so many of her followers (particularly women) to participate, to donate, and to vote that it more than makes up for any drag she creates on Obama's message or his appeal to swing voters. But this far out, and with so many variables in the equation, it's just not at all clear that picking her would be a smart strategic move.
Obama is aiming for a tidal wave election, much like Reagan's victory in 1980. That may turn out to be foolishly optimistic, but from where things stand right now, it's not inconceivable either. And as long as he's aiming high, he needs to consider how a potential VP candidate might complement or amplify key parts of his message. This is a year where voters are more open to change than they have been in a very long time, a election where, under the right circumstances, a whole slew of new voters and disenchanted Republican and Independent voters might be persuaded to cast their votes for the Democrat.
My personal feeling is that Obama's strategic interests would be better served by picking someone who is not all that well known on the national scene (at least yet), someone who hasn't been around Washington very long, someone who can help put a new face on the Democratic party. My personal choice would be Jim Webb, but there are a number of others who would fit this mold, including Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, and Ted Strickland of Ohio.
Clinton would undoubtedly bring some positive things to the table, but I fear that picking her would foreclose the possibility of a truly map-changing victory, the kind of victory that redefines a party and changes voting patterns of Americans for decades to come.
IF Obama does not pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. I would expect an Obama drop the day, if it comes, Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton as his VP.I think this conclusion rests on a number of dubious premises. First, I think it's generally foolish to draw sweeping conclusions about general election voting patterns based on what happened in the primaries. As I wrote yesterday:
See, for those who do not get it, I am not arguing that Hillary Clinton is entitled to be VP, I am arguing that it is in Obama's best interest to choose her as it will insure his victory in November.
To oversimplify greatly, there were essentially two kinds of voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries: 1) those who voted for her because they were enthusiastically pro-Hillary (mostly women and mostly strong rank-in-file Democrats) and 2) those who voted for her because they were wary of Obama and she was the only real alternative (a group that includes much of Appalachia and many who do not consistently vote Democratic in the general election). The people who are the most crushed by Hillary's loss fall largely into category #1, and these folks, I suspect, will eventually get over her loss and vote Democratic, as they always do. At the end of the day, they're not going to vote for the party that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and bomb Iran back to the stone age.I think there are a number of other potential Vice Presidential picks who seem more likely to help Obama win over voters in category #2, i.e., the non-enthusiastic Clinton voters. After all, despite her strong showing in the primaries, Hillary Clinton remains a polarizing figure. Most voters have well-formed opinions about her, positive or negative, which presents a serious obstacle to Obama's desire to rebrand the party and re-introduce it to new voters and voters who have become disenchanted with the GOP. Clinton very much represents the Democratic party that people already know and have already formed opinions about. Her presence on the ticket, therefore, would undercut Obama's message of change and perhaps limit his ability to reach out to certain voters who might otherwise be open to voting Democratic.
I also think there's some truth to the suggestion that Clinton's presence on the ticket would energize the GOP base which currently seems uninspired and apathetic about the election. Whoever Obama picks, the GOP will do its best to demonize him/her, but with Clinton, they won't even have to try very hard. She's pre-demonized.
Which isn't to say she couldn't be a net asset to the ticket. That's certainly possible. It may be that her presence on the ticket inspires so many of her followers (particularly women) to participate, to donate, and to vote that it more than makes up for any drag she creates on Obama's message or his appeal to swing voters. But this far out, and with so many variables in the equation, it's just not at all clear that picking her would be a smart strategic move.
Obama is aiming for a tidal wave election, much like Reagan's victory in 1980. That may turn out to be foolishly optimistic, but from where things stand right now, it's not inconceivable either. And as long as he's aiming high, he needs to consider how a potential VP candidate might complement or amplify key parts of his message. This is a year where voters are more open to change than they have been in a very long time, a election where, under the right circumstances, a whole slew of new voters and disenchanted Republican and Independent voters might be persuaded to cast their votes for the Democrat.
My personal feeling is that Obama's strategic interests would be better served by picking someone who is not all that well known on the national scene (at least yet), someone who hasn't been around Washington very long, someone who can help put a new face on the Democratic party. My personal choice would be Jim Webb, but there are a number of others who would fit this mold, including Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, and Ted Strickland of Ohio.
Clinton would undoubtedly bring some positive things to the table, but I fear that picking her would foreclose the possibility of a truly map-changing victory, the kind of victory that redefines a party and changes voting patterns of Americans for decades to come.
posted by A.L. at 9:15 PM
7 Comments:
I fully agree with your analysis. Clinton would work, but doesn't add enough to justify the choice. A new face could bring more assets with less baggage.
I voted Hilary Clinton, and only support Hilary Clinton, No matter what Hilary Does suspend her campaign concede her campaign. No matter what Hilary does she could even support Obama and campaign for Obama I will never Vote for Barack Obama, I do think America is ready for a black president, just not Barack Obama,,, The way The Democratic party handle this election with the Corporate Media propaganda this whole election, Turned this election upside down,, Obama could of ran over someone,, like Haley Berry, No one would care and still vote,, Obama..
There several million Voter right now like my self, will not ever vote for Barack Obama, Many like my self will be Voting for McCain, my reason is simple,, the Obama voter came on CNN & MSNBC and said if obama does not win the primary, Obama supporter will vote for McCain, Democratic party did not do anything to the obama camp to stop ,, why is obama party splitting the party in half, Now pelosi and many other are blaming Hilary and kept on with the propaganda Corporate Media, Obama Said on the new so many time,, does not Matter, if your Democrat or Republican,, you want the right person for the right Job,, He is so right,,when He said that we wanted Hilary,, Well Congrats to Obama his supporter got him to the primary,,,but He will never win the election,, for President, I will not stop with my blogging,, who is the best man for the job between Barack & McCain,, will vote for McCain he will be way better than Barack Obama, I can put up for McCain for 4 years and Hilary Can run again, Pelosi and the rest of the democrat party,, days are number at this point, For pushing Hilary out and ruining her Career, Even now During Clinton Exit speech,, Democratic party Told Hilary if she does not back there little puppet Barack Obama they will ruin her career,, In my opinion They all ready Ruined Hilary Clintons Career, Right Now I am goint listen to one thing Barack Obama said, and that is, like I said, it does not matter if your Democrat or republican who is the right person for the job,,,, Hillary supporter need to stick together, Vote for McCain or just not vote for we need the right person,,, Hilary is up on stage right now saying what pelosi and the democratic party are telling her what to do,, or Economy is down and the way the propaganda Media is,, we are turning into a 3rd world country,, by rigging the election thru the media, Hilary Supporter who really want Hilary to be president Need to vote for McCain or just not Vote for Barack Obama, let McCain win,, there nothing more he can do as president, Congress will not let him it Congress who controls everything,, not the president, Pelosi and the a lot of the democratic party ruined Hilary Career, If all Hilary Voter, stick together, than We can restore Hilary Career and make her President, in 4 years. if you vote for Obama we have to wait maybe 8 years or 4 years and republican will be office, if Obama wins the presidency he will only be 4 year term,,, I say give all your supporter not to the democratic party, but to Hilary Clinton.. democratic party needs all of them need to leave office and get fresh people in there, who can unite the party not keep it separated and force unity, to who they want not who the voter want,, Hilary would of won this election, DNC screwed her with Florida and Michigan if those vote were counted at the beginning she would of won this race along time ago..and for the sexist Media, Like CNN & MSNBC… will continue to not report the new but Make it up as they see fit, All Hilary supporter need to unit together.. and stick together,, Margaret Thatcher was prime Minister 30 years ago,, but American Men and New Bias, is keeping woman down for personal gain, Like Keith Oberman, & Chris Mathews Who are the biggest Sexist on this MSNBC stations,
Dear Loki,
Hillary Clinton is where she is because of the Democratic Party. She owes them her career. She isn't some mythical figure who attained her status through the power of Christ or Positive Thinking or some such. The Democratic Party doesn't owe Hillary Clinton; Hillary Clinton owes the Democratic Party.
It appears to me that you believe Hillary Clinton should be rewarded, and not punished, if she should choose a course of action which contributes to the failure of the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, for no reason other than that she believes she was owed the slot.
Strangely enough, I fail to see how the Democratic Party could possibly agree.
It doesn't say anywhere in any Constitution or rulebook that Hillary Rodham Clinton is owed anything.
Sorry.
Dear AL:
I enjoy your take on things and generally agree with you. And even when I don't, I often learn something from what you say. But I wish you could bring yourself to acknowledge, graciously and not in a backhanded way, Hillary Clinton's concession and endorsement of Barack Obama on Saturday. I'm a 60-yr-old white male professional who voted for Clinton in the CT primary, but who always intended to support any Democrat who won the nomination. I am delighted to vote for Obama. And yes, Clinton said some things during the primary that I wish she hadn't. So did Obama. He was occasionally supercilious towards Clinton in their debates; by all accounts he was dismissive of John and Elizabeth Edwards when he met with them, though they have now made up. That is what grownups do. So can you please stop the Hillary-bashing, agree that she ran a tough but generally fair campaign, that she made Obama a far better candidate (as he himself admits -- his debate performance got worlds better thanks to her), and that she, as well as he, energized the Democratic base?
A lot of women my age (and older) are disappointed because they hoped to see a woman president before they died. Give them a break and let them get over it. Clinton endorsed Obama -- enthusiastically -- after a wait of 4 days. Bradley endorsed Gore -- grudgingly -- after a wait of 4 months. You're starting to turn into one of those bloggers who can't take "yes" for an answer.
As I said above, I like your blog and generally agree with your views. So don't take this as being too critical. We all need to get over the primary. Healing happens on both sides.
Best wishes,
The thinking behind the push for Hillary as VP is visceral. It is backward-looking in nature. It has its roots in dashed hopes, and it looks no further than the election. Hillary would not ensure Barack the election, and she would be useless, or worse, as VP, the most ill-defined job in all of government.
Hillary could be a major player in a Cabinet position (like attorney general or secretary of state). But as VP, she'd be either an underground dark force, like Cheney, or a festering malcontent (Nixon?).
She needs to be in charge of a significant aspect of Obama's domestic or foreign policy, and the VP slot needs to be accorded to someone who brings Obama the votes, the regional representation and a new-Democrat credibility for which Hillary is too prominent, and too known.
I find "Big Tent Democrat" is just a conservative in the bent of Bill Clinton -who really crippled the party and did more to set it back and Reaganize it than any Democrat in modern history. I find I never agree with his commentary. I find no solace in candidates either that choose to out republican the republicans.
The notion that picking a Vice Presidential candidate can "balance the ticket" and pay significant electoral dividends has become something of a political dogma, but where is the actual evidence? A lot of pundits talk about it, sure, but they also obsessed over how Obama asking for orange juice would affect his electoral chances.
Certainly, if a candidate makes a particularly weird or just plain bad choice, there's a cost to that. If Obama named his wife as the VP candidate, for instance, I can see how that would seem very odd and cost him some votes.
But really, my sense is that presidential elections are viewed as mano-a-mano contests between the two candidates and the VPs (so long as merely adequate) have little significance electorally.
Unless there's some data that demonstrates a real and significant "ticket balancing" effect empirically, I'm disinclined to believe it. So I think Obama should pick someone with whom he sees eye-to-eye and who he would have confidence in as president. Personally, I thik Chris Dodd would be an excellent candidate on this score. As the Democrat who has been the most outspoken in support of upholding the Constitution, he could serve as a sort of anti-Cheney and focus on undoing the abuses of the executive branch by the Bush administration while Obama devotes his attention to the challenges of Iraq and the economy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home