Reconsidering Clinton
I've long been opposed to the so-called "Dream Ticket." As I've written here before, I think Hillary Clinton's supposed general election strengths have been greatly exaggerated by her supporters (and her liabilities not sufficiently acknowledged). I also questioned those who argued that Obama needed to choose her as his running mate in order to "unite the party." I think time has shown that contention to be mistaken.
All that said, I find myself warming ever so slightly to the idea of picking Hillary as VP. It's not that my opinion of her relative strengths and weaknesses has changed; it's that I'm not all that enthused about the people on Obama's apparent short-list, and I think that, relative to them, Hillary stacks up pretty well.
If media reports are to be believed, the top names on Obama's list are Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Kathleen Sebelius. Let's start with Kaine. He's an intriguing choice in some ways, someone who would compliment Obama in many respects. But I think his relative lack of experience might prove to be a liability. He's not going to reassure any voters who are concerned by Obama's own lack of experience. The same is likely true of Sebelius.
Joe Biden has plenty of experience and he'd probably be the best surrogate of the bunch, but he's also a bit of a loose cannon. He's the kind of guy who I can see making an ill-timed gaffe that hurts the campaign. And as stupid as it sounds, I can see the Republicans reviving the whole plagiarism thing in a big way and trying to paint both Obama and Biden as plagiarizing phonies (remember the Deval Patrick plagiarism charge from the primaries?).
Bayh also brings a decent amount of experience to the ticket, but he strikes me as a rather bland Clinton stand-in. I'm not sure what he brings to the ticket that Clinton herself wouldn't, other than perhaps a marginally better chance of winning Indiana.
Which brings me back to the idea of picking Clinton herself. I honestly don't think Clinton would help Obama win over very many swing voters and she may actually alienate some of them. That said, she does have something to offer that none of the four short-listers do, namely, a lot of very engaged and very enthusiastic supporters throughout the country. If those supporters could be re-engaged in the process, they could significantly improve Obama's fundraising and ground operation, which are already impressive. Her presence on the ticket might also improve the enthusiasm gap, which already strongly favors the Democrats, and thereby improve voter turnout on election day.
And I don't think there's any question that Clinton would bring experience to the ticket and serve as an effective surrogate and campaigner (at least as good as Bayh, and better than Sebelius and Kaine).
To be clear, I'm not at all sold on the idea of Clinton as VP; I'm just not convinced that any of the other names currently being discussed are obviously better choices. Like Clinton, they all have some obvious strengths and weaknesses. I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to make the call. It's a really tough one this time around.
All that said, I find myself warming ever so slightly to the idea of picking Hillary as VP. It's not that my opinion of her relative strengths and weaknesses has changed; it's that I'm not all that enthused about the people on Obama's apparent short-list, and I think that, relative to them, Hillary stacks up pretty well.
If media reports are to be believed, the top names on Obama's list are Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Kathleen Sebelius. Let's start with Kaine. He's an intriguing choice in some ways, someone who would compliment Obama in many respects. But I think his relative lack of experience might prove to be a liability. He's not going to reassure any voters who are concerned by Obama's own lack of experience. The same is likely true of Sebelius.
Joe Biden has plenty of experience and he'd probably be the best surrogate of the bunch, but he's also a bit of a loose cannon. He's the kind of guy who I can see making an ill-timed gaffe that hurts the campaign. And as stupid as it sounds, I can see the Republicans reviving the whole plagiarism thing in a big way and trying to paint both Obama and Biden as plagiarizing phonies (remember the Deval Patrick plagiarism charge from the primaries?).
Bayh also brings a decent amount of experience to the ticket, but he strikes me as a rather bland Clinton stand-in. I'm not sure what he brings to the ticket that Clinton herself wouldn't, other than perhaps a marginally better chance of winning Indiana.
Which brings me back to the idea of picking Clinton herself. I honestly don't think Clinton would help Obama win over very many swing voters and she may actually alienate some of them. That said, she does have something to offer that none of the four short-listers do, namely, a lot of very engaged and very enthusiastic supporters throughout the country. If those supporters could be re-engaged in the process, they could significantly improve Obama's fundraising and ground operation, which are already impressive. Her presence on the ticket might also improve the enthusiasm gap, which already strongly favors the Democrats, and thereby improve voter turnout on election day.
And I don't think there's any question that Clinton would bring experience to the ticket and serve as an effective surrogate and campaigner (at least as good as Bayh, and better than Sebelius and Kaine).
To be clear, I'm not at all sold on the idea of Clinton as VP; I'm just not convinced that any of the other names currently being discussed are obviously better choices. Like Clinton, they all have some obvious strengths and weaknesses. I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to make the call. It's a really tough one this time around.
posted by A.L. at 9:36 PM
7 Comments:
I've been finding myself drifting in your direction on this topic as well.
Although part of me remains uncomfortable with the idea, for a variety of reasons: (a) Clinton is old school, (b) the ticket would be missing a white male, (c) can Bill really be quiet, before and after the election? (d) don't see what additional states Clinton brings [certainly not in cracking the South, which is looking more and more hostile to Obama.
As I said in my comment a few weeks ago (sorry, I can't find the date), I think Obama will pick someone who few, if any, people are talking about. Forget this "short list" nonsense. Obama said months ago that neither he nor anyone on his team who is in the know would say anything about the VP until he actually announces the VP. I think he was telling the truth. Everything else is typical hot (and foul) air coming from a foul and clueless media, desperately trying to remain relevant.
I agree. I think Bayh is the probable choice among the media short-list, but Obama is keeping tight-lipped about it so I wouldn't be surprised if the pundits were pretty far in the outfield. That said, I still think Clinton would be a terrible choice. She made one, count it, the one speech in Unity, NH, and now methinks that it wasn't much more than a symbolic gesture. If she were seriously trying to make a good impression, then she would be more vocal and public in supporting the guy. Couple that blandness with Bill's own bitter remarks, and, sad to say, it feels like the end of an era.
I'm going to respect the Clintons for their past work -- his solid presidency and her passion for health care -- but I don't think they have the strength to do anything but watch their own aging political careers.
"I'm not sure what he brings to the ticket that Clinton herself wouldn't,"
1) Governing experience
2) No baggage of Clinton years
3) Doesn't have to defend numerous anti-Obama quotes made in the heat of a primary campaign
4) Youthfulness
5) Perception of wholesomeness
6) Perception of moderateness
7) Won't overshadow Obama
8) Not a lightening rod for the Republican base.
9) Doesn't step on the change theme
"other than perhaps a marginally better chance of winning Indiana."
Bayh had an EIGHTY PERCENT approval rating as governor of Indiana and has won his last three elections with over 60% of the vote. The name Bayh is synonymous with Indiana in a state where that kind of thing matters. I'd say he's the only person on that short-list who can bring a red state with him. And Kerry states+Iowa (which is a sure thing) + Indiana=270. So, yet another path to getting to 270.
I'm opposed to this idea for all the same reasons that I wasn't for Clinton in the primaries. Picking Clinton would undercut just about every message Obama is trying to get across (change, new type of politics, not getting into stupid unnecessary wars).
Similarly picking Biden or anybody else based on experience is dumb. If Obama himself has enough experience to be President, then he doesn't need some Washington graybeard to hold his hand in the vice presidency. Conceding the lack of experience charge to McCain and the media talking heads would be a huge mistake.
Well, I have to say one thing. *IF* he chose Clinton, he can do so in relative safety now.
See, now, it doesn't look like he was forced to do it. Now, it doesn't look like a sop thrown to the second place candidate. Now, it can be spun as a positive.
And there's one advantage I see to a Clinton vice-presidency... it *would* be a lightning rod for Republican wankery. Get them het up enough, and they'll make mistakes.
What about Wes Clark, A.L.? You didn't even mention him. How do you think he stacks up? As for me, I like him.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home