Hillary for Veep

By Aziz P. -
I'd previously been a fan of Richardson for Obama's veep, but the results today coming out of West Virginia have made me question whether a brown-black ticket wouldn't be overdoing it.

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.

Comments

Nick Istre said…
#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.
1:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A fair solution to Jerusalem

By Aziz P. -
I remember reading one of the books by Tom Clancy in which Jack Ryan was credited with coming up with a solution for Middle East peace which was pointedly never actually detailed in the novel. It was just a way to give his character some foreign policy cred, but ended up like that mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. I couldn't help but be reminded of that, though, when I read former New York mayor Ed Koch's innovative solution to resolving the status of Jerusalem . Instead of putting the hot-button issue of Jerusalem last on the agenda, the issue should be addressed first. If the Jerusalem question is solved, everything else should fall into place more easily. I believe there is a way to keep Jerusalem unified. I am talking not only of the old walled city, which is a very small part of the city of Jerusalem, but the whole city, east, west, north and south. [...] My suggestion is to situate the new Palestinian capital in that part of East Jerusalem that is occupied overwhelming...
Read more

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad

By Aziz P. -
An interesting meta-debate by intellectual conservatives over conservatism's future is playing out. It started with David Frum's Waterloo essay, which led to his political excommunication. Julian Sanchez observed that this represented an epistemic closing of the conservative mind , a thesis that was validated by the retribution visited upon Jim Manzi for daring to suggest that conservatives will achieve more persuasion by using honest, strong arguments instead of weak, emotional ones. All of this has led John Quiggin at Crooked Timber to argue most wisely that as conservatism implodes, liberalism needs to find its own rationale that is more than just "not conservatism". Quiggin has a list of priorities for the liberal movement to address, and closes with the general plea, ...the left has to stand for something more than keeping the existing order afloat with incremental improvements. We need to offer the hope of a better world as an alternative to the angry tribali...
Read more