Los Angeles, Calif.:
While Gingrich predicts (perhaps prefers is more accurate) Clinton-Obama, wouldn't a far better Democrat ticket be Hillary Clinton for president and Bill Richardson for vice president? First, adding Obama to the ticket wouldn't increase Black votes (Hillary does quite well among Black voters herself). Adding Richardson likely would significantly increase Hispanic votes for Democrats and set-back Republican efforts to attract this demographic. Second, while White voters say in surveys they can accept Obama, a big question is will they do so on Election Day (recall there never was a Governor Tom Bradley although polls predicted he'd win). Finally, given the current issues (i.e., Iraq, Immigration, Competence, Constitutional Imperative, Justice Department Interference, economic fairness and Foreign Policy) and the reluctance of Republican candidates to break from Bush's policies, wouldn't a Clinton-Richardson ticket be more exciting, more strategic and better experienced with the issues than the current cast of potential Republicans?
Dan Balz: Parsing vice presidential possibilities is fun at this stage but until the nomination battle plays out, we all do it without enough real information. So much of this is the comfort level between presidential nominee and potential VP nominee. So much also depends on how the presidential nominee sees himself or herself and what message they want to send with their choice. Bill Clinton's decision to pick Al Gore sent a powerful message of generational change, even though in picking a fellow southerner, Clinton violated traditional norms of finding a running mate who provided geographical or ideological balance. Walter Mondale ended up picking Geraldine Ferraro because he found her personal story intriguing and powerful and wanted to send a message that way -- not just because she was a woman (he had actually been leaning toward Dianne Feinstein) but because of what else she symbolized.
As for Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson, I doubt she would pick Obama for purposes of winning African Americans. His appeal would be the card he's carrying through the nomination battle: freshness, new direction, etc. Richardson would no doubt stimulate Latino interest in the campaign and as a governor would bring some balance to her Senate credentials. Maybe she won't even be the nominee -- Newt Gingrich not withstanding.
There was a comment on this exchange as well:
Putting Obama would make sense not because of the African American vote but because he would attract the younger generations while sending a very inspirational message to the world at large, i.e., that it's possible for a woman and an African-American can get nominated for the highest offices in the land. And if elected, Americans would have eight years to get used to the idea of an African American president -- and by then, Obama will be ready.
A Clinton-Obama ticket would mean a gradual rather than a radical change, which human nature can more easily embrace.
On Meet the Press on Sunday Dan Balz was on, and there was this interesting exchange:
“She absolutely doesn’t admire and like very much Barack. In fact, Obama is the only candidate who gets under Clinton’s skin, and the aftermath of a mild exchange at the debate shows just how much.”
There something there, Dan?
MR. BALZ: I think there is something there. We’ve seen some evidence of that from time to time. The Clinton campaign has been—obsessed is too strong a word, but, but obsessed is not far off—with Obama and the Obama campaign from the very start of this.
MR. RUSSERT: Is it because he’s an upstart who’s in her way?
MR. BALZ: I think that’s part of it.
MS. MITCHELL: And a successful part.
MR. BALZ: And, and a very bright new-age person who, who has made clear that he wants to, you know, close the book on not just the Bush era but the Clinton era as well, that, that he thinks...
MR. RUSSERT: So turning the page is a double turn.
MR. BALZ: ...he thinks—he thinks—he thinks this, this period that we have been through for the last 12 or 15 years has been bad in terms of what it’s done to American politics. He wants to change that. She’s certainly part of that, so there’s a personal element there.
MS. MITCHELL: The only disagreement I’d have is that John Edwards also gets under her skin.
MR. ROBINSON: Yes. I think that’s clear. I think that’s clear especially after he criticized her apparel at the, at the YouTube debate.
I find it silly to speculate on personalities. Undoubtedly personalities play a big role in politics, of course. Former Congressman Dick Zimmer says that when he came to Congress, there was one member that his colleagues said could sponsor a bill praising motherhood and it wouldn't get any votes, because nobody liked him! But honestly, on the presidential level, if you are convinced a particular running-mate will help you win the presidency, I don't think personal differences will stand in the way much. What I object to is not the understanding that personalities are important, but the speculation on who likes whom. What evidence is there that Obama and Edwards get under Hillary's skin? They didn't give any that that is the case, so at this point I think it's just pundit blather.
I don't think Hillary will choose either of them as her running mate if she wins the nomination, however. Edwards would of course be too weird to be a VP candidate again. The comment on the politics hour is both right and wrong. In terms of Obama eventually becoming president, yes, him being a VP for eight years certainly would help! But the "youth vote" is so overrated. Young people don't vote. And when they do, they already vote heavily Democratic. And the point about gradual change works against her choosing him. It's already enough change to have the first female president. Add in the first black vice president, and that's a lot of change.
Hillary to my mind will probably if nominated choose a staid, experienced, somewhat conservative Caucasian male. Here's a post I agree with from Oval Office 2008.
Hillary Clinton: I bet she would probably will pick a middle the road white guy to balance out her ticket. Classic resume-fillers. I can't see her picking Obama or Richardson, because a woman and a minority on a ticket may be asking for too much change too soon. And as evidenced by the way Hillary is running her campaign, she is a very cautious politician.
The pick: Evan Bayh.
Other possibilities: Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Wesley Clark
Dark horse: Barack Obama. Just because a lot of people would really want it.
Here's Roger Simon from the Politico on the topic:
There would be enormous pressure within the party for her to select Barack Obama. It would be a unifying choice, an historic choice and she wouldn’t do it in a million years. Her best bet would be to make a symbolic offer to Obama in the certain knowledge he would refuse.
John Edwards? Forget it. He would never do it again and I don’t think she would offer it to him.
But what about another historic ticket - - Hillary and Bill Richardson, which would make it the first woman presidential nominee and the first Latino vice presidential nominee.
Though Richardson would be pleased as punch to get the bid, though he would add geographic balance to the ticket and though he is a governor, which voters tend to like, somehow I don’t think it is in the cards.
Why? Richardson may be too close to Bill Clinton. Of all the guys Bill could have gone to in order to get Monica Lewinsky a job, why did he go to Richardson? And Richardson came through, offering her a job at the United Nations. It was all investigated and there was nothing illegal about it, but does Hillary really need her running mate going on “Meet the Press” to try and explain it once again? And does she really need a reminder of that chapter in all of their lives?
Safer choices (we think) would be Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.
No comments:
Post a Comment