Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ON THE "UNITY TICKET."
To add to the debate about the merits of a unity ticket, I should say that I completely reject the central premise of some defenders, namely that the party cannot be unified in the fall if Clinton is not on the ticket. It is of course true that Clinton has many strong and deeply committed supporters, for good reason. But this is also true of any substantially contested primary. And, historically, no matter what they've said in the immediate aftermath of defeat, partisans of the losing candidate have generally supported the winning one, even in cases as bitter as GOP 2000. I simply don't believe that most supporters of Hillary Clinton are narcissistic enough to want John McCain to be elected out of spite should she be a powerful and influential senator rather than a vice presidential candidate. (I do agree with Armando on one narrow point: I think Obama's prominent supporters should follow his lead, be gracious, and not say anything about the VP slot. Kennedy's comments are indeed not terribly productive. But whether he's wrong on the merits is a separate question that we bloggers surely can discuss.)
So, I simply don't believe that this is the only criterion that should be considered. And there are others on which Clinton is a less-than-ideal VP candidate, some of which I've already mentioned. First, by far the biggest impact of vice presidents on the ticket is the potential to bring a swing home state into the fold, which Clinton doesn't offer. Second, if the idea is to shore up Obama's "foreign policy cred" you want someone with military experience but who opposed the war (such as Webb or Clark); Clinton of course is the opposite. Third, the media. It's hard to know what to do about the media's grossly unfair treatment of Clinton; if I was convinced that she would make the best president I wouldn't let it dissuade me. But when picking a running mate, surely this has to be considered a great deal more important. Fourth, partly because of the unfair treatment she receives from the media, she has much higher negatives than you would prefer in a VP candidate. Finally, even if you assume this is a lot more important than I do I should note that the fact that Clinton appeals more to lower-class whites and older voters 1)compared to Obama and (this is the important step for those of you who don't understand why it's illogical to make inferences about the general from primary results) 2)among people who vote in Democratic primaries hardly means that she is the optimal choice to appeal to these voters compared to other possibilities.
Of course, there are points in her favor. I think she fares very well on the important question of whether she would make a good president if necessary, for example. Her mastery of policy detail would be especially useful (although when it comes to health care I'd much rather have her putting plans together in the Senate, where any plan is going to rise or fall.) The fact that she inspires strong commitments from a lot of voters is also important. And, of course, it all depends on who the other possible choices are. But, on balance, there are other choices I would prefer, and I certainly can't see how it's irrational to believe that the #2 spot on the ticket isn't the best role for Clinton's future in the party. I would count 7 major candidates I would like as much or more, and that's with removing Red-state senators from consideration.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (15)
It comes down to the rules, the rules state the convention picks the vp not the candidate. It's just been standard procedure to let the candidate pick his running mate. With 49% of the delegates, the vp spot is hers if she wants it, else we have a floor flight over that too.
Posted by: Los Politico | May 12, 2008 10:18 AM
McCain gets my vote if Obama swipes the nomination. Obama did not play fair and square -e.g. he sabotated efforts to get the FL and MI votes to count and won caucuses hijacked by Moveon.org. Another aspect assuring the vote for McCain - Obama's getting the nomination because of the his skin color, the black racism in the African American voting and the pro-Obama biased media. These reasons entrench voting for McCain in November. Combining the "narcissistic" Hillary supporter factor, his lack of qualifications and his other weaknesses, Obama will crash and burn in November and the Democratic Party will be a train wreck by choice of the superdelegates.
Posted by: crat3 | May 12, 2008 10:31 AM
Dream on, crat3. We don't need the racist drooling cretin vote- i.e., you- to win. Don't let the door hit you (and your buddy Joe Lieberman) in the ass on the way out.
Back on topic, the Vice Presidency is a subordinate position. Is there anybody in the known universe who believes Hillary Clinton is capable of being a loyal subordinate? And that's even before you start wondering what Bill will get up to. This whole "Nightmare Ticket" idea is such a no-go that it's laughable.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 12, 2008 10:35 AM
It would be a horrible mistake to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. It will not molify her diehard supporters who say they'll vote for McCain rather than Obama, and it will not win over the NASCAR & Wal-Mart Democrats who supported Clinton in the primaries. They'll go for McCain in November, just as their daddies went for Nixon & Reagan. Moreover, the presence of Hillary on the ticket greatly lessens the chance that Obama can attract moderate Republican and Independent voters. And finally, worst of all, when you get Hillary, you get Bill the limelight hog. His mouth is more dangerous to Obama than Rev. Wright's. He'd be like an anvil around Obama's neck, both in the campaign and in the White House.
Posted by: Hollie | May 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Unlike others here, I don't think we can win without a unified party. The only way to unify is for both top contenders to be on the ticket. That's why I hope Hillary picks Obama for her VP.
Posted by: John Petty | May 12, 2008 11:46 AM
The conceit that a unified party requires herself on the ticket is laughable. (I'm certainly not opposed to somebody from her camp, say Wes Clark.) Anyway, as well as being an unmanageable veep, she'd be a drag on the ticket. She turns off exactly the middle of the road voters Obama is trying to attract. She steps on his antiwar message. She steps on his change message. As a highly divisive figure, she steps on his "bring us together" message.
Just a dumb, dumb idea for so very many reasons.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 12, 2008 12:02 PM
I don't know why Clinton would want to be on the ticket anyway. She has a pretty important job at the moment. It's not like she'll vanish from the scene after November.
Despite all the debate over Clinton's health care plan versus Obama's; it's the Congress that writes legislation, not the president. The reason we think differently is that too many Senators consider the president to be their boss, not their equal.
The VP only has the authority that the president allows them to have. It's a step down from Senator. It would be nice if more Senators realized that.
Posted by: Jinchi | May 12, 2008 12:44 PM
I don't see how you can say she's a "drag" on the ticket. Face it: African-Americans and liberals are a big base in the Dem Party, but not enough to win a national election. Obama would need--if he gets the nomination--Hillary's constituency.
Try winning a national election without women, who are likely to constitute up to 58% of the vote. Try winning without senior citizens, who vote out of proportion to their numbers. And try winning without the poor and working class.
Posted by: John Petty | May 12, 2008 1:15 PM
HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:
IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, and loss in Indiana makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.
It is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Sen. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Sen. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Sen. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Sen. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Don't be fooled by the pledged delegate, and math arguments. Neither candidate has the necessary pledged delegates. The entire delegates counts, and votes from Florida, and Michigan are not even being counted. Plus the democratic caucuses, and primarys have been heavily corrupted by fraud, and vote cheating. The only relevant question now is who can best WIN IN NOVEMBER and take back the Whitehouse for the American people. And the answer is HILLARY CLINTON. Everyone knows that now.
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. I have been under heavy attacks for some time now. But it wont stop me. :-)
Posted by: jacksmith | May 12, 2008 1:36 PM
IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o
p.s. I have been under heavy attacks for some time now. But it wont stop me. :-)
Posted by: jacksmith | May 12, 2008 1:43 PM
Sounds more like you've been om heavy medication.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 12, 2008 2:03 PM
Whatever he's on, we should get some for everybody.
Posted by: John Petty | May 12, 2008 2:15 PM
Interesting, this is the first time, to my recollection, I've heard a Tapper admit that Hillary has gotten unfair treatment from the media. Guess that was one of those things that could wait until the primary was essentially over to mention.
Posted by: Dazir | May 12, 2008 2:22 PM
Interesting, this is the first time, to my recollection, I've heard a Tapper admit that Hillary has gotten unfair treatment from the media.
You must be getting some of whatever jacksmith has...
Try search for "sexism," "sexist," or similar concepts.
Posted by: T. Paine | May 12, 2008 5:18 PM
Vice President names like Charlie Rose, Micheal Bloomberg, or Ted Turner come to mind. But they would not likely run. So you have another knowledgeable person in Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
I started a Draft Claire for Governor in which we had over 75 team captains statewide in 2003. She instead became a US Senator two years later. Claire McCaskill was a prosecutor in Kansas City, a single mom while serving as state representative for 3 terms and then a State Auditor. Her knowledge of local, state, and Federal levels of governments and how they work is extremely important. There has likely never been a vice presidential candidate which such a record of service.
She has become known as a center of the road legislator fighting for anti ear mark legislation and an accountability office for expenditures on the war. What she is most noticed for is that she has a pulse of the people that comes naturally and speaks out for the people when something is not in their best interest concerning government or important issues. Yes two inspiring candidates who bring out the best in people on the ticket sound real good.
Steven L. Reed
Springfield MO
Posted by: Steven Reed | May 12, 2008 11:50 PM