A more honest title: "Why I Should Be Hillary Clinton's Running Mate."
He will be, too. Think about it. He's an Arkansan who's close to the Clintons. He's a military man, and a Southerner. She needs shoring up on the defense side, especially because it will fall to the next president to resolve Bush's war.
You have a more sensible idea for an HRC running mate, maybe? Speaking only in terms of political calculation, of course...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
PRESIDENT Hillary Rodham Clinton. Madam President. Heh heh heh heh . . . . That is all.
Who cares?
I don't mean to be snarky, I'm merely making the point that the #2 spot on the ticket is of absolutely no importance.
I mean, if there was EVER a time when the VP candidate should have made a huge difference, it was 1988. Lloyd Bentsen was a highly respected, fairly conservative Southern Democrat, while Dan Quayle was a lightweight who commanded no respect and didn't hold any special appeal for any voting bloc. By any standard, Bentsen was an infinitely stronger VP candidate.
So, did Bentsen deliver Texas to the Democrats? Did he deliver a single Southern state? Did he even make Dukakis competitive in a single Southern state? Uh, no.
And that's not surprising. I mean, look at your own voting history. Have YOU ever switched your vote based on the VP candidate?
Hillary Clinton certainly can win. Her chances are very good. But there isn't a single potential Veep who'll significantly help or hurt her chances. Wesley Clark would be a perfectly solid choice, but he can't win Hillary a single state that she wouldn't win on her own. Neither could Obama. Neither can anybody else.
So, she might as well ignore "practical" considerations and just pick someone she thinks would make a good President in the event of her death.
I think the Veep choice often does help a candidate significantly. Not by directly causing the ticket to carry certain states, but by helping shape public perception of the presidential nominee.
In the 1988 example, Bentsen might have helped Dukakis a great deal. The problem was that Dukakis was such a comically weak candidate that, frankly, nothing could have helped him.
Clinton's choice of Gore in 1992 was brilliant. It broke from the conventional wisdom that geographic balance mattered. By choosing a fellow Southern and perceived moderate Democrat as his running mate, Clinton underscored the "new Democrat" theme that was critical to his campaign.
G.W. Bush also made a shrewd political choice in 2000 by picking Cheney, who gave a grown-up appearance to the ticket and telegraphed to the public that, at least in foreign policy, Bush 43 would be much like Bush 41.
By contrast, Kerry's decision to pick John Edwards in 2004 was a complete waste. Edwards hadn't attracted any great national following and brought nothing at all to the ticket except one more U.S. Senator. Really dumb.
"Neither could Obama."
Somehow I think the opportunity to run a second term, sitting Vice-Presidential black candidate as President might carry more weight in some circles than you realize.
The pants suits only do so much.
Okay, Brad, I'll bite- name me a state that wouldn't normally go for Hillary that WOULD if she picked Obama.
For that matter, name me a single person whose presence on the ticket would deliver a state that wouldn't normally go to the Democrats.
In my opinion, there ISN'T anybody in either party who's popular enough to flip a state from the red to the blue column (or vice versa) all by himself.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.