Look, I'm glad he's practicing a new form of politics, but really, I don't care that much. It's not going to impact me. What will impact the average American are stances on issues and policy, and that's what should be the center of every campaign run in this country. If he wants to cross Clinton off the list, that's fine -- but it should be for legitimate reasons, not inconsequential campaign tactics. Is it playing a game? Sure, but it's politics. Name me a potential Obama VP choice, give me a few days to do some research, and I'll come back with an example of "games" for you. If he wants to entirely change that system, more power to him (although honestly, it doesn't make much of a difference to me). But he's going to have to make some short-term concessions to get that done, because those types of people simply aren't out there (and those that are haven't gotten far enough to be qualified for VP). Here's the flip side, which Obama supporters routinely decline to address sufficiently. Clinton clearly connected with an enormous network of people within the Democratic Party. They're people this party needs going forward, and people whose voices deserve to be heard. If he's truly the great leader his supporters claim him to be, what better way for him to prove it than to swallow his own ego and reach out to those millions of Americans?
I have to give you credit for trying, The Cat. Good luck getting a reasonable response! Impeach Bush.
Unless what? Unless he grants her wishes about her future? Sorry, but that leverage goes away when he wins before she concedes. We have seen before that her word is not necessarily her bond, but she has repeatedly pledged to work and work hard for the Democratic nominee. It is her job, as much as or perhaps even more than it is his, to convince her supporters to vote for him. If she is seen as failing to do everything in her power toward that goal, she will be looked upon very badly by the party.
I can't believe this argument is being made. Seriously. The Obama campaign has guilty of sexism, thuggery, intimidation, misogyny, distortion, voter disenfranchisement and outright lies throughout this entire political season. Heck, they just cut FL/MI voters in two pieces by fiat. Yet the crazy zombie Obamabots continue to try to claim the moral high ground? You've got to be kidding me. UNJUST
The Cat: The reason the new politics matters is because of its impact on ability to govern successfully. Think bi-partisan appeal. Think mandate. Think Reagan. And the main reason not to pick HRC as VP is also impact on ability to govern. Forget everything that's happened in this campaign; in the most pleasant of circumstances, any new president would be hamstrung by choosing a VP that is married to a former president. There are many other reasons the new politics Obama has practiced and preached are valuable and there are other reasons Hillary shouldn't be veep, but if you are concerned about the issues and the ability to best lead on them, you should consider the above.
Think Democratic party divided like never before, no experience in reaching bi-partisan consensus on contentious issues, already alienated foreign leaders, and think can not relate to the white working class. Is 'new politics' like 'new math' in its ineffectiveness?
TJ is supporting setting an example for our nation's children that says rules don't have to be followed, and if someone is unhappy with a result that followed the rules, they should complain and do everything in their power to change the punishment issued for not following rules.
I would've bought that argument a few months ago. But as the candidates have become increasingly better defined, Clinton has been the option preferred by conservative Dems and even some Republicans. She's the one that today has crossover appeal. Her ridiculously in-depth policy knowledge and legislative skill would make her ideal in a VP role, which has little direct power but can play a vital role in agenda setting. I'd buy that Bill could be a problem, but I think Obama could lay certain unofficial terms on the table that he and Hillary would abide by. They're all honorable people, imo.
She may or may not be preferred by more Republicans. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that a goodly number of R's were crossing over to try to deny Obama the nomination or to try to extend the process. Honestly there's no way to know for sure. But even if she is more popular among conservative D's and R's than he is, that doesn't in any way mean that she'd be more popular with them than whomever else Obama might choose. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest, for example, that anything about the primaries shows that Hillary would be more popular with those groups than, say, Sam Nunn. As for setting terms about Bill's role, official or not, we part company when it comes to trusting him or Hillary to abide them. I remember not so long ago when certain rules for this primary process were set and agreed to. I also remember that "things changed" (in other words, Hillary went from winning to losing) and those agreements went directly out the window. I think the Clintons can be trusted on any number of things, but sticking to agreements ceding power is not one of them.
The primary results don't necessarily show that, no, but they at least put her in the conversation. They don't prove the opposite, either. I hope you understand that I'm not demanding that Clinton be on the ticket. All I want is for the Obama team to do their due diligence, and decide if she fits based on merit -- instead of dismissing her based on ego and paranoia, like many of his supporters have (not you). I still don't really get that argument. The MI/FL ruling was always with the condition that the ruling could be appealed to the credentials committee. That's what happened. The rules weren't changed -- she argued the case under the parameters set forth by the party. Furthermore, I don't think anyone in a million years would have expected this race to be this close or for MI/FL to matter in the least. I thought Obama had a good chance to win, but I thought he or Clinton would effectively clinch on Super Tuesday. This was a ridiculously unlikely -- stunning, really -- primary season, and as such I don't think the long-term character of the candidates can be fairly judged based on it. Very, very unique and complicated circumstances.
Thanks for not including me among the paranoid. I agree, as I think anyone would, that this decision ought not to be made on ego or paranoia. But I've cited various other reasons I think it's a bad idea. On your other points above, I agree. She should absolutely be in the conversation, she should be considered and she should be on any short list, regardless of whatever very bad blood might exist now. Hillary herself said it was clear Michigan wouldn't count. Then she said not counting it made us like Zimbabwe and would be an offense on a par with slavery. She also said this was a race about delegates and then she said it shouldn't be. I could go on and on. When it comes to power and influence I just can't trust her or Bill to stick to their word. That's mostly true, though not especially relevant. I have a hard time believing that anyone believed Obama had a good chance to win when the FL/MI decisions were made though. Remember, this was pre-Iowa at a time when no serious person gave anyone a chance of upsetting Hillary. It has been a stunning season, I agree. But I don't see how it follows that that should mean MI should go from clearly not counting to needing to be counted in full, unless you're a member of a campaign (understandably) doing every single possible thing -- however crazy -- to win.
Eh, there was never a point in which I assumed Clinton was the nominee. 2007 polls are worthless -- Iowa's the first moment that these candidates actually begin to establish a national identity. I still think it's relevant, as the support and money flowing Clinton's way is absurdly unprecedented for a losing candidate. It's flip-flopping, sure -- but I think the circumstances are unusual enough that it's understandable. I'm not saying that's the way it should be -- but I don't think it's truly revealing of their character.
I agree with all that, The Cat. The only thing is that if there are circumstances under which these sorts of agreements can or should change according to the Clintons, I'd be hesitant to put total trust in them to honor agreements regarding Bill or Hillary's role in an Obama White House. This last 'flip flop' (I really hate that term) was to do with an election. What might happen when there's a strong disagreement on an issue that they've both said they care more about than an election? It's a VP's duty to support the president in all matters. I'm sorry, but I think there are many better choices where that duty is concerned.
I think the reaction to a disagreement would be very different without the enormous financial and supporter network that she has in the primaries. But, I will admit that that's conjecture on my part, and Obama doesn't have to take that chance if he doesn't want to.
I actually think he'd consider it a lot more seriously if he thought it gave him the best chance of winning or thought he was going to have a hard time doing so. But I don't think he thinks either of those things are true. I certainly don't. Although I took strong issue with the dishonest way Clinton framed Obama on health care (asking over and over how he would choose whom to exclude), I marginally preferred her health care plan to his. I would like to see her lead the effort in achieving national health care, whether in the Senate, as majority leader, as health care 'czar,' or as Sec. of HHS (though that particular position seems way too small for her). She clearly cares about this issue more than any other and I think it would nice if she shared or even took the lion's share of the credit for finally getting this thing done. But I couldn't hate the idea of her as VP or running mate any more strongly than I do. She'd beat out a Lieberman in my estimation but few others. Meanwhile: Breaking News. AP just reported Hillary would be open to being Barack's VP. Here we go....
Again though the VP only has one Constitutional power which is to preside and break ties in the Senate. The VP's powers other than that are delegated by the President. Having a VP who was married to a former President need not hamper the ability govern unless the President makes it possible by giving the VP responsibilities that could interfere. Consider that LBJ was quite possibly the most powerful politician in Washington behind the President prior to 1960 and then once he was VP was pretty much marginalized by JFK.
That's an excellent point and Obama does have a lot to do to reach out to disgruntled Clinton supporters. I'm not fully convinced that having Clinton on the ticket though will resolve that as most people are aware that it is the top of the ticket that really matters. Either way Obama does have his work cut out for him and I'm not sure those votes can be taken for granted. As an aside I personally think it would be a mistake for anyone that primarily agreed with Clinton on the issues to not vote for Obama.
