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

Well, It Could Be Hillary, Couldn’t It?

I have asserted on numerous occasions that Hillary will not be Obama’s running mate. And yet…

It’s not like any of the other apparent contenders are obvious choices (or would be perfect picks). One can make compelling, if not convincing, cases for the likes of Biden, Dodd, and Nunn, for example, but one can also make compelling cases against pretty much all of them. Even, I suppose, against Gore and Edwards — the former was my preference for the top spot all along, the former was my preference among the top three through the first few primaries and caucuses, and I wouldn’t mind either one on Obama’s ticket (and Edwards has said that he would “seriously consider” it).

(I don’t include Hagel here. Although there’s much speculation surrounding his upcoming trip to Iraq with Obama (and Reed), it must be remembered that, however impressive a voice he has been against the Iraq War, he is, on most other issues, a hardcore conservative Republican. Just imagine how a Hagel pick would look to Hillary supporters.)

Of course, one can make a compelling and perhaps convincing case against Hillary, much of it having to do with the bitterness that seemed to come between her and Obama during their race for the nomination, not to mention the fact that she could overshadow him both in terms of substance (Hillary is an impressive and impassioned policy expert on a variety of issues) and in terms of celebrity (Obama is a star, but the star power of the Clintons is still immense).

As the L.A. Times has reported, however, Obama has apparently told a Democratic donor and Hillary supporter, Jill Iscol, that Hillary is on his list of possible running mates.

The main obstacle? Her husband, of course, Big Dog Bill, who is, well, a “complication.” (To put it mildly.)

Hillary wouldn’t be my first pick, but I’ve warmed to her again since the primaries ended, and I think the case for her has gotten more compelling, not less, with time.

The problem is, Bill may just prove to be an insurmountable obstacle — or at least one with which Obama would rather not have to contend.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

  • LS51
    I think it is just a convenient excuse to not support Hillary for VP because of her husband. George W. Bush hasn't had a problem with his father being a former president, and I don't think Bill has that much time on his hands to be that involved. The fact is, if Hillary is not selected, there will be angry folks who will never get over it. By not selecting Hillary, Obama will be creating enemies and energetic supporters for McCain. I don't think you can say that about any of the other possible contenders for VP, if he didn't select them. The Democratic Party will never heal unless Hillary is brought on the ticket.
  • Silhouette
    It's not so much who Obama will pick, but rather who will accept.

    I said before that he is going to face a lot of "thanks but no thanks". Of course we won't hear about that or why that is until after August because it is harmful to his image as a "winner". [see: The Obama Trap]

    Here's the reason people he thinks of as potential VPs will pass up his offer like a hot potato:

    O'Reily and the late Tony Snow seem to know something [as far back as February] that has been agreed to stay under wraps until??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPuVJwWg-Q

    Is it Obama they're talking about? Why does "everyone in journalism know this story is in play, [note he doesn't say "a bunch of BS, but rather "in play"] but isn't reporting it?" Are they waiting for until after the Denver convention? You be the judge..
  • Amanda
    I'd say the bigger problem facing Obama should he tap Hillary will be the droves of right-wingers who aren't enthusiastic about McCain suddenly becoming very enthusiastic about defeating a Clinton. Besides, strategically speaking, Obama needs Hillary Clinton in the Senate, preferably as Majority Leader, to really push a Democratic agenda through. As VP, she would have little actual power and would have to continuously set Obama's agenda above her own.

    And for Clinton, it makes little sense to settle for VP now. If McCain wins this time around, she'll be in excellent shape to challenge him in 2012. If Obama wins and has a rough 4 years, she can take him out in the 2012 primaries. And if he has a great 4 years with Clinton as VP, they'll get re-elected and in 2016 she might be considered too old to run for President. Not to mention, Obama would get all the glory from their successes. She's better off as Majority Leader, setting the schedule for votes, promoting legislation that matters, and keeping the next President on his toes.
  • DLS
    Clinton could very well "settle" for the Vice Presidency because the Presidency is now almost certainly out of her reach (in her lifetime). Having Clinton as VP makes perfect sense; she has experience -- she has been co-President already. Having little actual power as VP is not something to expect, as Cheney illustrates.
  • DLS
    I'd say if Clinton is sought as VP she should hold out for not only the position but also payment of the rest of her campaign debts. (Where's Marc Rich when she and her husband need him? Ha, ha, ha.)
  • DLS
    "George W. Bush hasn't had a problem with his father being a former president"

    I have stated this, too, and noted additionally that this is a closer relationship (that didn't become a problem*) than Obama and the Clintons, who aren't related at all.

    * I had also said that given how things have gone, if anything, the public would like to see the elder Bush intrude or even take over, or similar words to that effect.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC