Barack Obama has won the Democratic nomination. I don't think the hardcorest of hardcore Hillary supporters, the kind who take it as a given beyond the slightest doubt that tomorrow morning Hillary Clinton will be endorsed by 400 superdelegates and that Obama will self-destruct when it's revealed he's actually Donald Rumsfeld, still post here anymore, so I figure we won't get too much argument if we state that as a given.
The primary season is all but over, but until running mates are selected it's hard to make the complete transfer to general election season, and we're not getting through that without answering the questions surrounding the possibility that Clinton herself would take that spot. There's a few parts any answer of that question: the question of what she would bring (and take from) a ticket, and whether and why she'd take it in the first place.
You've probably read all this in bits and pieces all over the place, but for my own convenience I'm putting it all in one place so I can look back in a few weeks and either marvel at my remarkable prescience or shame myself at my ineptitude.
Pro: People would vote for her because so many already have
There's the obvious, which is that Hillary Clinton brings with her over 16 million people (let's be generous and give her Florida) who have already shown they want the opportunity to vote for her in some capacity this November. That's pretty staggering, and would be more noteworthy if not for the small fact that the number of Obama supporters is bigger. And, as much as Obama supporters like myself are irritated by some of Clinton's more vocal supporters, the vast majority of whom were not Limbaugh listeners, racists, or voters who wouldn't vote for someone besides her for president who wouldn't be satisfied with her taking the number two spot. Bottom line: her following is loyal enough that most of her supporters would be okay with, if somewhat wistfully, voting for her for VP too. No one else besides her and Obama himself have demonstrated that level of national support at the ballot box, so maybe it's a reasonable metric.
Con: But wait a second--
It's more or less generally accepted (but don't tell the Clinton campaign, who seem to really want to believe it) that results in state primaries don't have all that much to do with their success or lack thereof in November, hence why Obama's done better or as well as Clinton in some states she won, like Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Texas. (You could say the same about Clinton in some Obama states.) So let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Pro: White People <3 Hillary Clinton <br>Some of them do, anyway. The ones in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Arkansas would eat glass for her, or so we're told. Even the hardcorest Obama supporter can admit, though he'll probably do fine in Pennsylvania anyway and though there are other paths to victory, that it might be kinda cool to win in those places. So, slam dunk, right?
Con: White People <3 Hillary Clinton? <br>Okay, let's go ahead and grant--again, if only for generosity's sake--Clinton and her supporters that she's just absolutely awesome at attracting white working class votes. I'm to this day just absolutely floored by the fact that she's taken the role of working class warrior/mascot--ten years ago, could you have even imagined it?--and more surprised still that she's had any success at all with it. (I'm not trying to imply her concern for working class issues is phony; it's not. But she never wore them as part of her public persona in the way that, say, John Edwards does.) It's a method that's worked well thus far (not quite well enough to win, but better than bad) but putting her on the ticket runs the risk that that line of reasoning will wear thin.
Pro: Think of her coalition!
The aforementioned Appalachian white folks, older people, tons and tons of women--man, it sure would rock to add to Obama's appeal among people in such categories who might remain unconvinced.
Con: Why Hillary, anyway?
Clinton sure did clean up with those people, in the Democratic primary, so it might follow that she's the ideal person to help do the same in November. Let us yet again be extraordinarily generous and grant the Clinton campaign and supporters their arguments that success among certain demographic groups and states in primary season translates directly into general election success among same and that the polls saying that X number of Clinton supporters won't support Obama in the general are perfectly valid and will stay true for the next few months--even though I buy neither argument myself.
I'm ripping off arguments I've seen in one or two places online here, but are we to believe that the very best that the Democratic Party has to offer in terms of natural charismatic appeal to the white working classes is Hillary Clinton? Is the Wellesley-educated Chicagoan living in Chappaqua the most appealing Democrat to Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, and West Virginia, more so than Phil Bredesen, Ben and Bill Nelson, Mike Easley, John Edwards, or Evan Bayh? Would those of us looking forward to seeing a woman in the White House be more excited about her on the ticket than Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano? I think the answer to both of those is maybe, but one has to wonder whether it's worth it.
Likewise, the assumption goes that Clinton on the ticket is the only thing that can unite the Democratic Party after an arduous primary. That may be true for the first "pro" reason I cited above, but there's also the fact that, far from being a uniting figure, Hillary Clinton has (mostly through little fault of her own) historically been seen as divisive. Is she the best person to bring the party back together? I'd say there are as many reasons to question that suggestion as there are to support it.
Pro: What no one can take from Hillary
What it might come down to is the fact that at the end of the day, Clinton is one of the most brilliant politicians in Washington. She brings to the table near-obsessive devotion to policy detail (well, except for that one vote she maybe could've looked into a bit more), particularly when it comes to health care, an issue upon which she's been a leading voice since forever--I am really looking forward to the day that I can start liking her again. The woman knows her shit and works her ass off. She would and should be on anyone's short list regardless of personal grudges, obnoxious campaign tactics, and possible baggage.
Con: Possible baggage
I can't refute any of the preceding paragraph, but man I would not want to be President Obama if Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, and Terry McAuliffe were running around sticking their noses all up in my business. It's true that if anyone were setting up a phys ed game of Domestic Policy Dodgeball, Hillary Clinton would likely be the first picked for either team, but it's also true that it's a pick with consequences.
We could keep doing that four hours but I think that generally covers what I wanted to say and I'm getting really tired of the point-counterpoint nonsense anyway.
As important to consider is the actual likelihood that it would happen, and this is where I've been having the most trouble wrapping my head around the idea. It isn't really a secret that being Vice President would be a fairly substantial relinquishment of power and influence for Hillary Clinton. Assuming--and there's no reason not to--that she stays as popular as she is in New York, she will have a job in the Senate for as long as she damn well pleases, probably will be groomed into Senate leadership spots sooner rather than later, and already has earned enormous influence with which she'll be able to easily push favored legislation through what will be a dramatically increased Democratic majority. She might eventually reach the lofty levels of Senate influence that only people like Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden get to--she certainly has the legislative skill and political savvy. At the end of all this she could very well end up being President Obama's top go-to Senator. Moving up to VP, she'd spend four or eight years grumbling over being left in the shadows in favor of Samantha Power and Lee Hamilton. It would, frankly, comparatively suck for her, and if I were her I wouldn't bother.
But let's remember: being VP isn't all that crappy a job if you do it right. She'd have less hard power but a bigger bully pulpit. Moreover, she'd be an instant frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2016 (she'd be younger than McCain is now), and if there's anything we've learned over the last year it's that Hillary Clinton really, really, really wants to be President. I'm not really convinced that being VP is a better path to the presidency than spending eight years as Lord God-Queen of the Senate, but I can see why she might be. So suppose she's mulling it over, but still: one would assume, given that she's still running a quixotic campaign for the nomination, that it would behoove her politically to keep it to herself.
And yet, look! In this corner, Ed Rendell talking up how awesome a unity ticket would be! Terry McAuliffe doesn't seem to mind it too much, either.
But what the hell, Ed Rendell? Except maybe for Mayor Villaraigosa over in Los Angeles, I can't think of any major player who's been as much of a clutch player for Clinton. This guy's gotta be inner circle enough that he wouldn't make a major appearance without double checking the talking points with one of Clinton's people first. The most remarkable thing about Rendell's CNN comments was, to be sure, the admission by a prominent Hillary guy that she might not pull out this thing after all, but almost as important was the fact that someone this close to Clinton's ear took the time to promote a unity ticket, implying consent or at least passive comfort with the idea.
The fact that McAuliffe brought the notion up in public further cements for me the counterintuitive notion that the Clinton camp might kind of want it to happen. Terry McAuliffe doesn't strike me as an off-the-cuff, free speaking kind of guy; he was being interviewed as part of his position as a Clinton surrogate, he was speaking as one, and he knew it. And obviously, don't buy it when he says that he and Clinton haven't discussed the possibility. If they hadn't done so as of May 9, when that interview with TPM was conducted, they have in the week and a half since.
As I've noted, I really don't see any reason why Hillary Clinton would want to be Vice President, but it would strongly seem to me that she and her buddies disagree. The campaign itself has done very little at all to downplay the notion, a silence loud enough that you know the idea not only has come up at Camp Clinton but that they kinda like the sound of it. Actually, it's pretty surprising to me.
In case you're wondering what I think: I don't think it's the death curse that some have written it off as, but nor do I agree with people like Ed Kilgore who claim it to be the tonic that will create the wave to victory. I think there are better choices (I like Richardson, Sebelius, and Nunn myself), but I wouldn't be disappointed with Hillary Clinton. After 2004, when I rooted strongly for Edwards' VP candidacy and ended up a little disappointed when I didn't see him being all that effective a spokesman (which may have been a failure of the campaign or just my overestimation of how much the running mate slot really matters), I've learned to be a little more reserved in my favor for running mate picks. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that my feelings are an emphatic, enthusiastic we'll see.