An Obama-Clinton Ticket? Why It Doesn’t Seem So Preposterous After All
The idea of replacing Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 Democratic ticket is preposterous, an idea that won’t go away and one that is growing on me.
Bill Keller offers the most compelling argument for an Obama-Clinton ticket in The New York Times, and while I have known Biden since we were in our teens and I deeply admire him, my own views track closely to his.
I was disgusted with Clinton by the end of the 2008 primary season because of her refusal to rise above the fray and instead run a man’s campaign replete with negative and sometimes dishonest attacks on Obama, but when she eventually conceded to the young Chicagoan she did so with dignity before accepting his invitation to serve as secretary of state, something that she has been spectacularly good at.
At age 64 Clinton has been, according to Gallup, the most admired woman in America for 10 years in a row, far outdistancing Oprah Winfrey (remember her?) and Sarah Palin (ditto). Biden, who is 69, has been a peripatetic veep who has exercised his foreign policy chips well.
Keller’s argument for an Obama-Clinton ticket goes something like this:
Although the president’s inner circle believes that he doesn’t need Clinton to win a second term given the utter mess that is the Republican field, it shouldn’t allow itself to get cocky and there is much to be said for running up the score and perhaps help some Senate and House candidates along the way.
In the late winter or early spring, Clinton would step down as secretary of state to rest and write a book. The president would add State to Biden’s portfolio. Come the party convention in September, Obama invites a refreshed Clinton to join the ticket while Biden keeps State.
What’s not to like about that?
20 Responses to “An Obama-Clinton Ticket? Why It Doesn’t Seem So Preposterous After All”
I think she should stay on as SecState, she is doing a really good job. As VP she’ll be under utilized.
Would this move be taken as a sign of weakness/worry on the part of Obama? Hmmmmm.
Personally I wouldn’t walk across the street to see Clinton (and I didn’t) let alone vote for her.
And I doubt all the Clintonistas, who are still bemoaning the fact that she wasn’t the candidate last time; some to the point of berating Obama’s every move and/or declaring they are no longer interested in “partisan” politics (no longer interested since their favorite didn’t prevail), would rally round such a change, though some would.
Nothing would galvanize Obama’s opposition more (note: for the same reasons listed that supposedly would help Obama’s reelection) than to have a) a WOMAN b) a CLINTON.
That opposition would be further incensed by the fact that she’s a beltway insider, which they conveniently ignore when it comes to Gingrich and Santorum.
Ms. Clinton has been a successful Secty. of State. She may be a viable candidate in 2016. But able as she is, she does not have the foreign policy grasp of Mr. Biden, whose advice has, unfortunately, not been followed as closely as it should have.
The rumors are that Clinton will resign as Secretary of State if Obama is re-elected. I doubt that she would be interested in the Vice Presidency. Certainly State is a higher level of responsibility and power than the Vice Presidency.[/satire]
And I don’t think that the Vice Presidency would that much of an advantage to her in the off chance she wants to run for the presidency in 2016.[/satire]
Hillary Clinton is an accomplished woman who would be an asset to Obama in any role he could get her to accept. I am not just sure that this is one of them.
I think that the only position he could offer her that she would accept would be to the Supreme Court.
Oh, but those missing/found papers, etc.
Clinton seems to be doing a good job as Secretary of State and I agree with others the VP spot would be a step down for her. Why would she want a demotion?
I agree with the posters who state that she is really good as Sec State. But 1. she is going to step down and 2. she would likely bring a slam dunk to the Dem ticket. Maybe she would be more involved with Congress in that role, let alone groom her name to be President herself after Obama’s 2nd term.
I think if Ms Clinton wants the job, and Obama wants her, she would be an asset to the ticket. I suppose she has a better job now, but I know I need to change things up every few years to keep things fresh, and maybe she does too.
“Hillary Clinton is an accomplished woman who would be an asset to Obama in any role he could get her to accept.”
Agreed. VP would be fine with me. Even better would be a supreme court appointment. I can only imagine how republicans would froth and steam over that. For the record, I would have been happy with Hillary as president as well.
Gee, why not put my Aunt Minnie up for SCOTUS, since having vast experience as a judge doesn’t seem to matter. She is a very nice person and even does a great job as a lawyer.
No I really think putting an aging person into the Vice spot is not good for the country. We need vitality and virility should something happen to the president. Especially this president, because this president is very active fighting unprecedented republican do nothing partisanship.
I would suggest someone energetic. Someone powerful with executive experience. Someone that can manage the square root of 81 and the square root of that three times three into victory. May I suggest Herman Cain? Split ticket to unseat the fence sitters and bake up a fine aromatic consensus, crusty style. Someone a little less perfect but mild mannered with pizzazz. Cain is a winner and a doer whom will fit into a magnificent black duo national topping. A deal no one can refuse!
“I can’t stand pain, it hurts me!”
Ageism much Allen? Heck, being codger (or codgerette) is practically a prerequisite for the SC. Besides, Hillary will probably live to be a hundred. (there, that oughta make the HDS’ers grind their teeth ;-]
Duck-
I’ve been arrogant, and, selfish. I hadn’t realized your reactionary state. Forgive me.
Have I told you what beautiful feathers you have? It’s such a warm winter and your plumage is so full, surly you don’t need them all. May I? Will you share a few? Just a few for my baldspot?
zephyr-
One must face reality. It’s nice to be open minded, but we dare not bet the kids on it. Country first, chin up!
Allen: I’ve worked with a lot of wise-quackers, but you are dethpsicable!”, still.
Cover your bald spot with your left hand while you pat your fat belly with your right hand. Next alternate your hand positions rapidly and you won’t need any “Horse Feathers” or any other kind either to keep warm.
Other than that wait, for the Dems to come up with a new Cover Your Bald Spot Dept.
duck-
New dept?…and in the mean time my bald spot remains frozen to my head. Well the soup kitchen opens in an hour and I have more wise-quacks to make.
Clinton for SCOTUS — bizarre.
The VP not being important? As someone else already has said, and is right about it, Cheney and Palin have changed that.
The VP job should be much more powerful. The VP should be the #1 “domestic” federal person or official, as well as the backup or alternate to the President at any time (and in charge when the President is abroad, for example). The jobs from which people try for President are governor of a state, Senator, and Vice President. The VP should be the #1 job for this, a true kind of “grooming” job.
(Yes, it makes the major party problem we have even worse with the presumption that such a job would imply, but it’s more important that the job be important and powerful, not just someplace to park somebody. It shouldn’t be a union-type or bureaucratic nightmare cobweb kind of phony job.)
Zephyr:
Clinton may be past her prime (which is more important than if she’s to old, getting into her 70s).
The thing you might want to think about (especially given what we see this year with the GOP presidential clowns!) is what things might be like in 2016. Jeb Bush is who’s on everyone’s mind for the GOP because there’s nobody else (Rubio for VP, then going for President after Bush). If the GOP in 2016 is anything like this year, Clinton can easily and should go for it.