Comments on: Hillary Clinton for VP

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:46:42 +0000

JPSpencer, I understand exactly what you're saying and that's generally my thought. However if the race is close between O and C, then it makes sense to have C as the VP. I think back to the 2000 election which left many Dems feeling that the Reps had stolen it. And then Bush pursued a Republican agenda without regard for the thoughts of the majority of the people (more people voted for Gore than Bush). Same thing in 2004. It was a close election and Bush pursued a Republican agenda, not bothering to recognize that almost the same number of folks backed Kerry. At one point Bush said he won by a "landslide" (which I don't know how he could claim), that the American people had spoken, and finally that he had a lot of political capital. He used this as proof to pursue his Republican agenda. I've said on here before that the Prez is leader of all the people, not just some of the people, and not just the people he chooses (on this very last statement I'm thinking of Bush and how he seems to overwhelmingly support the wealthy donors).

It's fine to pursue your agenda if you're the leader, but when you divide the country and totally disregard up to 50% of your citizens, it doesn't make for good governing. So having Hillary as VP (if she still close behind Obama) recognizes her positions and ideas. Ultimately the Prez. will make the decisions, but Hill, being a VP, allows her to pull for her programs and supporters. There may be other ways of doing this, especially since O's and C's positions are so similar. But then there's also all those people who support Hillary because it's their opinion that she has more experience. All the Hillary supporters I know support her over Obama precisely for that reason.

Anyway, it's just a thought and I'd be happy if Obama chose someone else other than Hillary, regardless of how close she was following him.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:37:13 +0000

Whoever wins the nomination (hopefully based on the will of the voters rather than some arcane, twisted protocol) should pick the VP of their choice. If it's O or H, then so be it. Otherwise surprise us.

By: adolphus

adolphus — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:04:49 +0000

I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be interesting. It would officially give Bill Clinton no place in the White House. My guess he would find some way to undermine this, as he cannot stand to NOT be in the limelight as the biggest tree in the forest.

For that reason , if I were Obama (or any other VP candidate) i would think twice about seconding that ticket. Chances are you would not be a real VP but the second VP and would have to take a back seat to Bill on just about everything whether HIllary wanted that or not. Again, Bill doesn't sit well in the back seat.

I like a VP with more to do than chair the Senate. Otherwise it is a waste of salary, benefits, and secret service.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:31:31 +0000

Bob: Hillary is the same old same old- part of the hegemony since Reagan that has destroyed the middle class. BTW- so is Al Gore.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:59:22 +0000

jscott, I haven't seen Hillary's most recent thrashing, Ill have to keep an eye out for it. But I still think that if she is close to Obama in the number of delegates come the convention, then she should still be the VP (or at least very strongly considered).

But if she does continue her negative campaigning, then she will continue to lose support. If she falls far enough behind Obama, then she can be thrown out with the bath water.

If what you say is true about her behavior today (and it doesn't surprise me, given her repeated history of this), then she's just not doing anything to help herself with either the Prez or VP position.

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:51:29 +0000

DLS: yes, a Clinton VP may be the kind of arrangement necessary if the race is still tight come the convention. If you stop and think about it, in a way it's how the Founding Fathers envisioned the Executive Branch be selected. (Before I go any further, I want to say that I'm only comparing how a party (Dems) selects a Prez/VP could be similar to how the "real" selection was done originally). Originally the electoral college cast votes for the President, with the runner-up being named VP. It could be the same way how the Dems select a VP (talk about getting back to Democracy!). I think if Obama were ahead (by a fairly narrow margin) then it makes perfect sense to have Hillary named VP. Even though I don't support Hillary and would rather not see her as VP, I understand that a huge number of people do support her, so it makes sense, for the sake of unity, for Obama to recognize her support and have Hillary as his VP. This assumes that Hillary is still fairly close on Obama's heels. If Hillary bombed between now and then and there were a big margin (say 10 percentage points or more in delegates, maybe?) between O and C, then Obama should be able to choose a veep without undue pressure from the Dem leaders. It may be Hillary, it may be someone else. So yeah, Hillary as veep is attractive to me in certain circumstances. I wonder where Bill would fit in as the spouse of the veep. Certainly not the power he was hoping to have and LOTS of opportunity for misdeeds, but it could work. BTW: I haven't seen your earlier post, but I'll search it out now.

OutOfContext: I'm up in the air about how powerful the VP should be. This is actually a whole other topic. However given a.) how the country has grown since its founding and the complexities and b.) the VP is suppose to step into the Prez's shoes if something were to happen, I think a little power sharing is a good thing. We don't want a VP to hold an entirely ceremonial office and then in the event of the Prez becoming incapacitated, having such a powerful and complex position thrust upon the VP. But whatever additional powers the VP may have, ultimately the Prez should make final decisions. But I agree with your basic tenet- that the VP should not be very powerful.

Tube: I used to be a big supporter, but I'm sorry, Powell gave Bush what he asked for. It says a lot about Bush, and it says a lot about Powell. My one time respect for Powell has a thin residue marring it.

By: jscott

jscott — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:37:51 +0000

Maybe you should have waited to see Hillary on the stump today before suggesting a unity ticket. I think the 'burn the party down if necessary' faction in her campaign won out over the 'go out gracefully' faction.

By: Tube

Tube — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:06:13 +0000

While it may go against what the Dem establishment wants, what about a Barack Obama-Colin Powell ticket? Powell shores up Obama on foreign policy, is reasonably well known as an early skeptic of war in Iraq, AND meshes with Obama's message of unification..

By: OutOfContext

OutOfContext — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:26:19 +0000

I'm breaking a vow to myself to stay out of campaign discussions until after I vote, March 4, but I can't resist.
I don't think Hillary Clinton (or to be fair, Obama, in the less likely event she's the nominee) is the person to roll back the alternative administration type Vice Presidency Dick Cheney has carved out. I don't want the Vice President to be so powerful.

By: DLS

DLS — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:23:38 +0000

As I had said on an earlier thread, this certainly is possible as an example of the kind of “arrangement” Howard Dean and the Dem leadership may force Obama to accept.

Clinton as VP will be tough on Clinton but Cheney has already demonstrated the model for a strong VP (not needed in Obama's case for remedial or safety purposes as it is seen with Dubya) and I wonder if Obama would risk being frequently undermined and worse by Clinton. Obama cannot fire Clinton, only ask her to resign, if she were to misbehave.