An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« The Day Bill O’Reilly Got Reaaally Mad Off The Air

9,000 Killed In Massive China Earthquake (Video Of Quake) »

The LBJing of Hillary Clinton

Posted by ROBERT STEIN in Politics.
May 12th, 2008 | Comments

Now that the question is coming front and center, Barack Obama may want to turn to his backer Ted Sorensen for advice about putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket with him, as John F. Kennedy did with his chief rival for the nomination, Lyndon Johnson.

Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, reports today that she “is probably going to fight to be the vice presidential nominee on an Obama-for-president ticket.”

After a bitter campaign, it won’t be easy. Obama supporters, notably his wife Michelle, are reportedly opposed, but as Sorensen notes in his new memoirs, so was JFK’s brother Robert. Yet Kennedy offered Johnson a place on the ticket, mostly to help win Texas and other Southern states in what would turn out to be a close election.

Moreover, Sorensen could also enlighten Obama about the virtues of converting a former enemy into an ally or at least neutralizing possible opposition. If Johnson remained as Senate Majority Leader, JFK told him in 1960, he “would be just impossible…Lyndon would screw me all the time.”

Unpalatable as the idea may be to Obama’s most fervent supporters–ironically, even Ted Kennedy has publicly opposed it–this could be another time when the Democratic Party needs unity more than a balanced ticket.

True believers in both camps will offer fervent arguments about why it wouldn’t work but, in a year when so much is at stake, neatness may not count.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GreenDreams

This seems really unlikely to me. First, it seems unlikely that Hillary Clinton wants to go to the White House-her house-to work for President Obama. Second, she has the highest negatives of anyone except Bush, and after she worked so hard to raise Obama's negatives, combining hers and his makes no sense at all. Plus, it's questionable that she really brings states into the fold that he could not win anyway (New York for instance). Then, there's Hillarycare. She already tried to launch that out of the White House during her husband's tenure there. When you look at another choice, say Sam Nunn, he brings Georgia, military and foreign policy experience and many more years of insight into the workings of the Senate than Hillary can offer. Richardson is strong out West, has executive experience and the admiration of Hispanics.

Slamfu

Democrats are not the GOP. You can't just tell them this guy is totally incompetent, not ready for the job, and a closet black pantehr to boot, then expect the voters to forget when you reverse the story once its politically expedient to do so. That may fly with Bush supporters, Rush fans and the listeners of FOX News but democrats actually remember stuff. Its why talk radio never caught on for the left.

Amanda

Obama doesn't need Hillary Clinton to unify the party or the country. And, to be blunt, he also doesn't need to make this the Repressed Minorities Campaign for President. There are still a lot of people in this country who find the idea of a black man running for office to be a tough pill to swallow. Pair that with putting a woman on the ticket, and you have an awful lot of inherent prejudices to overcome. Considering Clinton's negatives and the fact that Obama doesn't want either of the Clintons overshadowing him in the White House, there's no logical reason why he should offer her the VP slot.

As GreenDreams said above, Obama would be better off with someone like Richardson or Nunn. He needs a VP candidate with foreign policy chops, low negatives, and the ability to bring in more votes without alienating half the country. The worst thing that the Democrats could do now as a party would be to throw out Dean's 50-state strategy and go back to the losing pattern of relying on the northeast and northwest, and picking up a few big states. Putting Clinton on the ticket, in either spot, automatically hands the Republicans all but a handful of states east of California and south of the Mason Dixon line.

blog comments powered by Disqus