Monday, June 2, 2008

Obama-Clinton Ticket? A Nightmare

The Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African-American for the President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is probably going to make a major concession speech tomorrow and following Obama's victories in South Dakota and Montana, the remaining superdelegates will quickly coalesce around him. As the primaries are finally over (and if a political junkie like myself has gotten bored with them, I can imagine how other people feel), the pundits and the Clinton people have increased the pressure on Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate. The so-called "dream-ticket" scenario is probably the worst idea I have heard in a long time, and here are just a few reasons why. Let me preface this by saying that I hold no grudges against the Clintons, despite being terribly disappointed in their behavior during the primaries, and that my only concern here is seeing Obama win the White House.

1) Hillary would undermine the very core of Obama's message: change. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House hardly spells change. The magic and charisma behind Obama's dizzyingly fast rise to power is due to his ability to personify the country's hunger for change in the way politics function. Of course, every candidate runs on this (remember Bush's promise to bring "honor and integrity back to the White House"), but Obama's background and his campaign so far has truly exemplified the kind of politics his supporters want. His behavior shows a genuine lack of meanness that has exemplified Republican-dominated politics in this country since the mid 1990s. While he is certainly no saint, but rather a shrewd politician, I deeply believe he is sincere about trying to unite the country in solving everyday problems and changing America's image in the world. If he brings on Hillary, he will certainly alienate independents and some Republicans who might vote for him and make McCain's job easier. At the same time, I truly doubt that having Hillary as a running mate can help him with those white voters who will not vote for him simply because of the color of his skin (they may mask this by pointing to his supposed "radical roots," or his "Muslim background" but these are just euphemisms for describing him as the Other). Some of these voters (a minority, I hope) may be unreachable. Not having reached these voters and alienating independents and leftist Democrats at once would spell disaster for Obama in November. In short, he would lose.

2) An Obama-Clinton administration would be a mess. Hillary would spend her days eying the Oval Office and she would form her own camp within the White House with the potential of undermining Obama's policies just so that she could run in 2012. Most importantly, having Bill Clinton around would be a constant headache for Obama. Can you imagine what his role would be in this administration? The man's hunger for politics, his genuine intellectual curiosity and his vanity would make it impossible for him to stay in the shadow. The Vanity Fair magazine is coming out with an article that talks about his continuing propensity to see many women on the road while campaigning (I was so naive to think that he might have "cured" himself of this habit). Finally, his inability to keep his mouth shut and to go on politically embarrassing rants would have the potential of paralyzing the administration.

While Obama is sounding very conciliatory towards the Clintons, I believe he will not bow to the pressure of the very same pundits whose almost every prediction about his chances has, fortunately, been proven wrong. He should pick someone with strong national security credentials (a military person?), and a fairly conservative political background. I think Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been a consistent critic of the war and has also been heaping praise on Obama lately, is definitely on his short list, as is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. By the way, Jim Webb's popularity among the Appalachia can do a lot to convince some of these voters to go for Obama.

So, I think it would be best for Hillary to grow deeper roots in the Senate where she has been effective and maybe even serve as a successor to the wonderful work of Senator Ted Kennedy and Bill should continue doing work for his Foundation.

But, an Obama-Hillary ticket would be a nightmare.

7 comments:

Cyril Crozier said...

I always thought a Kucinich-Sanders ticket would have been best.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Hilary as a VP would be bad idea.
Obama-Edwards would probably be the best for democratic party.
However, Hilary is not giving up yet according to "news" today.

Fedja said...

I am not sure how much Edwards would benefit Obama. He is way too populist and anti-capitalist for the taste of many independents and Republicans. Also, he has no national security credentials. I really think that Obama has to pick someone more conservative.

I personally like Edwards but thinking strategically, I am not so sure...

Oh and Hillary really wears me out. She needs to save face and really bow out tonight and get behind Obama. He is giving a major speech today in Minnesota at the site where McCain will be nominated at the Republican convention. What better way to start hammering away at the Republicans than for Obama to declare himself the nominee at that site?

Anonymous said...

"I am not sure how much Edwards would benefit Obama. He is way too populist and anti-capitalist for the taste of many independents and Republicans."

Who said anything about caring what the taste of republicans or independents is?

shley said...

i just listened to some ridiculous talk radio (of the liberal variety) where a caller insisted that 67% of hillary's backers would refuse to vote for obama, then went to explain that the reason was because "we are sick of being berated for supporting a candidate that's always being berated." well, boo-fucking-hoo. could cost us a democrat in office if you stay home, then we'll really have something to berate you about.

Cyril Crozier said...

"Who said anything about caring what the taste of republicans or independents is?"

The former will never vote for a Dem, thats true, but the latter group is absolutley necessary since something like 40% of Americans claim not to identify with a political party.

Werner Herzog's Bear said...

I'm just excited that Obama now has the nomination! Yes, a Clinton VP would be a disaster. In my opinion, Bill Richardson is an ideal VP. He has lots of foriegn policy and cabinet experience, and comes from a battleground state, New Mexico.