Thursday, May 15, 2008
Hillary for Veep http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/13/131813/697
Todd Beeton lays out a number of reasons why the Hillary veep scenario makes sense, not least of which being that a majority of Democratic voters want it to happen, according to a US News poll:
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers. [...]
Three of four Clinton supporters would like to see her on Obama's ticket. But 52% of Obama supporters would rather he "choose someone else."
There are however pragmatic reasons for Hillary as veep, as Todd also notes. I think that anyone who is automatically against Hillary for Veep is needs to understand the role that a Vice President pick plays. In order of importance, a running mate is expected to:
1. help the nominee win
2. help the nominee win
3. cast tie-breaking Senate votes
4. be President in an emergency
As far as #1 and #2 go, Clinton delivers Appalachian states and makes the big rust belt states competitive. Keep in mind that Obama lost WV by 41 points. Kentucky is coming up and promises more of the same. With Clinton aboard, Obama fills in the holes very nicely indeed. With Obama at the top of the ticket, the Mountain West states are also in play. And most importantly of all, a joint ticket might even turn Texas blue.
Obama-Clinton means the GOP gets so totally pwned that it destructs, and then the sane conservatives (see amconmag.com) can rebuild it into something less insane. McCain will get crushed, so incredibly crushed, that this site will not even be necessary. McCain will be the new McGovern, as the greatest loser of all time. Overconfident? Maybe. But the bottom line is that Hillary has everything Obama needs. And that's what matters more than anything else.
#4 is one reason some Obama backers are against the idea. Think "Vince Foster conspiracies" from Obama enthusiast who were former right-wing Clinton haters. Some of them truly think that Hillary Clinton's ambition is so great that some "incident" would happen to Obama and allow her to step in. Well, we are talking about high-level politicians, but I do have doubt about that happening, myself.
There's also a bit of worry of a "backlash" by some Clinton supporters who are incensed about "woman playing second fiddle to a man", but I presonally don't think that will be a big issue.
My own biggest worry is the Clintons seriously energizing the right-wing base, bringing out Republican voters in record numbers. But whether this will be different from smears of Obama (I.E., the recent Bush speech that "some people want to talk to terrorist like Chamberlain appeased the Nazis"... bleh) by himself energizing the Republican is very difficult to guage. So, I'm pretty neutral about Hillary Clinton being picked to be Vice President. I would vote for her to be president anyways, even with her recent antics (Though I do admit that I wouldn't like it); I'll vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket too.
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.