SHOULD OBAMA PICK HILLARY FOR VP?

Now that Senator Obama has won the Democratic nomination, he will turn to the challenge of rounding out the ticket. Who will Obama choose to run with him? What will he do about Hillary Clinton?

Yesterday Clinton told her Democratic colleagues from New York that she would be open to running as vice-president. But will Obama offer it to her?

Offering Ms. Clinton the vice-presidential nomination might help assuage the anger of many women who feel sexism, especially within the media, helped rob their candidate of her victory. Senator Clinton might well help the Democratic ticket where Senator Obama is weak and she is strong: white blue collar workers, older women and Roman Catholics. This might well help Obama win states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, both with high Catholic populations.

On the downside, Ms. Clinton comes with pretty strong negatives of her own: About 40 per cent of Americans say they would never vote for her. Asking people to vote for a black president and a female vice-president may be a bridge too far.

Perhaps worst of all Ms. Clinton comes with an opinionated husband who was president himself and would have plenty of advice for the new one.

Of course, choosing Hillary with a gun to his head, might well reveal Obama as a wimp.  If he is unable to withstand the pressure from the Clintons, how could he deal with hostile foreign leaders. Remember Walter Mondale in 1984 who succumbed to raging feminists and named Geraldine Ferraro to the ticket.

Which raises t he central puzzle in this whole drive to make Ms. Clinton vice-president. Way back in the sixties, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York turned down the veep job because, he said, “I am not stand-by equipment.” No one would say about the Clintons that they are stand-by equipment. Yet here we are with Bill Clinton pushing for his wife to be veep and his wife saying she is open to it.

Why? And here’s where a black thought emerges from the shadows. The Clintons think it is only a question of time before something happens to Obama and Hillary will be in the wings, ready to take over the Oval office.

Do you think Obama should offer Hillary the veep slot?

If he does, do you think she will accept?

If she does do you think Obama-Clinton would be a strong ticket both to win theelection and to govern together?

Are there others that Obama should consider?

28 Comments »

  1. 1
    John Says:

    Neil, although choosing Hillary Clinton might seem to be a politically expedient move at the moment (in terms of unifying the Democratic Party etc.), I think it’s a move that would ultimately come back to haunt Barack Obama.

    Even now, Hillary’s continued refusal to suspend her candidacy in the face of reality clearly indicates that whatever happens, she wants it to happen on her terms, not his. That will never change.

    More important than the positive effect Hillary Clinton might have in terms of her own followers is the negative effect she would have in terms of Barack Obama’s. Her presence on the ticket would clearly compromise his message of change. Her shadow on him, and everything he says, would be as counter-productive as the one George Bush currently casts on John McCain.

    In order to continue to empower a younger constituency and to appeal to independents, I think Obama has to stay true to his message. Win or lose, I think he has to do so with what got him here. Choosing someone else may not be his easiest move, but it will allow him to continue with his credibility in tact and in the long run I think that will serve Obama better than jumping on the Clinton bandwagon.

  2. 2
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Naming her as Veep probably gets him more votes, for all the reasons you stated.

    However, you also wrote: “Perhaps worst of all Ms. Clinton comes with an opinionated husband who was president himself and would have plenty of advice for the new one.”

    I can’t imagine Obama wanting to sit in the White House knowing that, down the street, not only is there Hillary sitting there pining for your job but arguably the most popular president of the 20th century who likes to talk, loves the limelight, and has the capacity to overshadow just by being in the same room as you.

    Who wants to be contstantly looking over your shoulder for 4 years?

  3. […] SHOULD OBAMA PICK HILLARY FOR VP? – Clinton vice-president. Way back in the sixties, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York turned down the veep job because, he said, “I am not stand-by equipment.” No one would say about the Clintons that they are stand-by equipment. … […]

  4. 4
    dez Says:

    As a staunch member of the Someone-Else-For-President party, I believe that anyone occupying the office of President of the United States who is not George W. Bush would be an improvement over what we have now.

    If the only choice on the ballot were a log (a fine NW red cedar log, to be sure), and the possible choices for VP ranged from a cactus to a pile of bat guano, I’d be happy with whatever choice was not GWB and Dick Cheney.

    Seriously, whoever gets the job will be so busy cleaning up the mess from the previous administration they won’t have time to screw up the country worse than it already is. I already feel sorry for Obama, since it looks like he’s going to be stuck with the job. I hope he has the cojones for it, because it will get rough.

    I’ve seen Hillary go from sweet to cast-iron-bitch in the time it takes to say “Lewinsky”. So, I know she can cope with the job at hand.

    Could someone else be VP? No doubt, but they better be hard as a ten penny nail and willing to get their hands dirty.

    I recommend Chuck Norris.

  5. 5
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “I recommend Chuck Norris.”

    As long as he stays away from education… he’s so ignorant he doesn’t “believe” in evolution! That’s the last thing America needs…

    (believe is in quotes because evolution is a fact, not a belief)

  6. 6
    Chimera Says:

    Chuck Norris can’t be vice president. Chuck Norris has no vices. ;D

    Seriously, folks…so relieved will be our kith and kin to the south at the termination of the GWBship that they are very likely to grasp at anyone who resembles sane. And who could blame them? And therein lies the danger…

    Hillary as veep? I think not. She doesn’t have the temperament for that job. I can, however, imagine her occupying a position with a much higher profile if Obama wins the presidency…say, Secretary of State?

  7. 7
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “I can, however, imagine her occupying a position with a much higher profile if Obama wins the presidency…say, Secretary of State?”

    That’s right Chimera… where a WOMAN belongs: secretary! 😉

  8. 8
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Joe: even its proponents call it “the theory of evolution”, not “the fact of evolution”.

  9. 9
    Joe Agnost Says:

    Tony: Are you not familiar with the meaning of the word “theory” in science?

    Are you saying ‘gravity’ isn’t a fact because science calls it the “theory of gravity”? I’m sure you’re well aware of the FACT of gravity even though science describes the phenomenon as the “theory of gravity”.

    There is no question about evolution – it IS a fact. They are still working out the EXACT mechanism involved – but the fact that life evolves on earth is undisputed.

  10. 10
    Chimera Says:

    Tony and Joe: In science, facts exist. Theories are the currently best explanations for why they exist.

    Evolution exists. The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation of how and why.

  11. 11
    Joe Agnost Says:

    Right Chimera – claiming that evolution is a belief because science explains it by the “theory of evolution” is like saying gravity is a belief because science explains it by the “theory” of gravity.

    When evolution is attacked as “just a theory” I get a little upset – it’s ignorance and plays well to the uneducated masses. It makes evolution sound like an uncertainty. It is not, it is a fact and has been observed many many times.

    Tony seems to have fallen for this fallacy…

  12. 12
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Joe: The theory of evolution is one that I accept as “fact” myself wholeheartedly (and one that I find 100% compatible with creationism, by the way). All I was doing was pointing out to you that it is commonly known as a theory.

    Is quantum mechanics a “fact”? Perhaps…but there is not one scientist that can tell you with 100% certainty where an electron is located at any given time (that’s why they call it the “uncertainty principle”).

    So, Joe, the great science of quantum mechanics — responsible for explaining and inspiring a whole slew of advancements and fields of knowledge in western society — has not been able to tell us with complete certainty one single “fact” ever since its formation about a century ago.

    Joe, you say you get a little “upset” when evolution is attacked as “just a theory”. I get a little upset when people are so dogmatic about what they claim are undisputed “facts” and adopt intolerant attitudes about others’ worldviews.

    There’s room for everybody without any one group claiming to have the absolute truth on reality.

    Is Jesus the ONLY way to gain salvation and go to heaven? Will all others (the other 5 billion of us) burn in hell for all eternity?

    Or are there MANY paths to God?

  13. 13
    jim Says:

    He should pick a female politician. He should pick someone who has
    demonstrated negotiating abilities and who has worked the halls of Congress for many years. He should pick the lady who is presently second in line to the presidency. As VP that would put her first in line.
    That lady is Nancy Pelosi.

  14. 14
    Peter LeBlanc Says:

    I think Obama will choose Hillary for Vice President. She could well serve the United States with the portfolio of providing Universal Health Care to every citizen. She has much experience gained from her previous failed attempt.

    Tony, “Is Jesus the only way to gain salvation and go to heaven.” The answer is ,Yes. St. Paul says “All things are in Christ”, including the 5 billion, were all going to the same place as Jesus, ” HEAVEN.”,

  15. 15
    Heidi Gulatee Says:

    I also would like to see Hilary as Vice President. Despite his problems during the race Bill is a very personabel character that could help smooth path when they are rough. I see loads of problems coming up in the United States, not the least of them finances(debt in the trillions!) and the war in Iraq. We , they need all the bright heads they can get. And I think the situation will not allow them to fight each other. I see them working together, once the elections are over. And I really respect Hillary as a fellow woman that has something to bring to the tabel. And I like the idea of 2 for 1, which means Hillary and Bill.
    Regarding evolution and creation, to me they go together, one does not exclude the other.
    Tony: I just want to put my two cents worth in about the path going to heaven. We have the most interesting God and I would expect Him to laugh at us a lot of the time because we think we can figure Him out . I think that there are a lot of path’ to Him.
    But they all are all defined in Love and Truth and Peace.

  16. 16
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Peter, I like your spin on “the only way” quote.

    All Christians should interpret it that way.

    Thanks.

  17. 17
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Is quantum mechanics a “fact”? Perhaps…but there is not one scientist that can tell you with 100% certainty where an electron is located at any given time”

    But that is exactly what the theory says – electron placement (exact location) is not a claim that quantum theory makes, so claiming this as a flaw is disengenious.

    “I get a little upset when people are so dogmatic about what they claim are undisputed “facts” and adopt intolerant attitudes about others’ worldviews.”

    Are you saying I’ve done this? I’m really asking… where did I do this?

    “Is Jesus the ONLY way to gain salvation and go to heaven? Will all others (the other 5 billion of us) burn in hell for all eternity?”

    What about a guy like me? I don’t believe in god. Period. I believe that THIS life is the ONLY life we get – once we die we’re nothing more than worm food, I really believe that.

    Heidi: What happens to an atheist like me in your scenario… hell? I’m just curious because you seem to have a unique take on god.

  18. 18
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Joe: I think you come off as dogmatic as some born-agains. Your non-belief in God sounds a tad stringent.

    Quantum mechanics is a theory.

    Evolution is a theory.

    Gravity is a theory.

    Creationism is a theory.

    Yes, those that believe in creationism, it’s true, state it as fact…and that riles some of us.

    However, I find the following statements equally riling in their stringency:

    “As long as he stays away from education… he’s so ignorant he doesn’t “believe” in evolution! That’s the last thing America needs…”

    and

    “When evolution is attacked as “just a theory” I get a little upset – it’s ignorance and plays well to the uneducated masses. It makes evolution sound like an uncertainty. It is not, it is a fact and has been observed many many times.”

  19. 19
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Quantum mechanics is a theory.

    Evolution is a theory.

    Gravity is a theory.

    Creationism is a theory.”

    The first three are scientific theories. The last one is not.

    You’ve used the word “theory” in 2 different ways here…

    As someone who claims to understand the fact of evolution I find it hard to follow your logic. There is no grey area, evolution is a fact which is backed up by 150 years of evidence. Creationism is a belief in something which has not presented ANY evidence at any time.

  20. 20
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “I think you come off as dogmatic as some born-agains.”

    For this to be true you have to show where my views aren’t based on facts. Dogma tends to stay away from facts.

    “Your non-belief in God sounds a tad stringent.”

    Not to me. There just simply isn’t a god. It’s not stringent at all, simply a reflection of my experiences. I have absolutely no reason to believe in a god of any kind… much like santa and the tooth fairy I have seen no evidence of god and nothing to convince me of the need for one.

  21. 21
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Heidi: What happens to an atheist like me in your scenario… hell? I’m just curious because you seem to have a unique take on god.”

    I realize this is a bit of a loaded question Heidi… I understand if you want to ignore it. I do insist that I was just curious though – and had you said ‘yes, you’re going to hell’ I wouldn’t take it personally!😉

  22. 22
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Joe: Here’s what dictionary dot com provides under the entry “theory”:

    1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
    2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
    3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
    4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
    5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
    6. contemplation or speculation.
    7. guess or conjecture.

    Joe, I’d say that definitions 2, 6, and 7 fit quite nicely with “creationism is a theory.”

  23. 23
    Chimera Says:

    ““Quantum mechanics is a theory.

    Evolution is a theory.

    Gravity is a theory.

    Creationism is a theory.”

    The first three are scientific theories. The last one is not.”

    Not only that, but both gravity and evolution are facts, as well as theories.

    Gravity is a fact. You can observe it as it happens. Evolution is a fact. You can observe what has already happened (and if you live long enough, you would be able to watch the entire process for yourself). And quantum mechanics is a theory that tries to explain the fact of our existence in general, rather than in the specific.

    Creationism? Not a fact. Not even a sustainable theory. Its entire premise begins with an unprovable fantasy character that no one is the history of humanity has been able to observe. Creationism has no base, no foundation. It cannot stand.

  24. 24
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Chimera: Gravity may be a fact but there is not one person who has ever “observed” gravity. What we “observe” on a daily basis are the EFFECTS of gravity (e.g., a ball dropping down; pretty much everything sticking to the ground and not flying up into the air, etc.) and from observing those effects we come to the conclusion that a thing called gravity — which no one has ever actually SEEN — exists.

    In the same way, a creationist may conclude, through observing the wonders and intelligence inherent in nature and life around him, that these EFFECTS are the result of a creator.

    Thank you for invoking gravity to make your point as I can think of no better example to demonstrate the reality of creationism.

  25. 25
    Chimera Says:

    A creationist may conclude anything he wishes, but unless he can demonstrate the effects of his wishes, he is still blowing smoke.

    Gravity can not only be demonstrated to work precisely the same way every time an exact set of circumstances is reproduced, but it can be explained in mathematical terms.

    Try that with creationism.

  26. 26
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Joe, I’d say that definitions 2, 6, and 7 fit quite nicely with ‘creationism is a theory.'”

    That why I said “you’ve used the word ‘theory’ in 2 different ways”.

    English is a funny language….

    Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. It just isn’t… gravity and evolution? Very much a scientific theory based on mounds of actual evidence.

    “Thank you for invoking gravity to make your point as I can think of no better example to demonstrate the reality of creationism.”

    Thank you for typing this sentence as I can not think of a better example to show your complete lack of scientific knowledge. Fooled by the old ‘it’s only a theory, nobody’s ever seen gravity’ fallacy…

  27. 27
    Joe Agnost Says:

    I’m looking forward to Tony’s reply…. Tony?

  28. 28
    daphne Kenward Says:

    I don’t think for a single moment Obama should pick Hillary, there is the White Water scandals that is coming back into the media. The huge amounts of the Clinton’s security service agents or body guards that has turned up dead for knowing too much. And the hundreds of people who have died who have conections with the Clintons. Any one who wanted to speak about what they knew have been found with one bullet to the head.

    The Clintons are a TARNISHED BRAND, if HILLARY could not beat OBAMA there is more PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE THEM than one’s who do.

    OBAMA don’t need HILLARY, she would like OBAMA to think he does need her. OBAMA needs people who dont have the baggage of Hillary and Bill Clinton. The SEX SCANDALS, the FRAUDS The Clintons have become a DIRTY BRAND.


RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: