As much as I dislike Senator Clinton (for all the common reasons cited), I think it is important not to underestimate the challenge Obama will face in the fall. We must remember that our challenge is not with high-information voters but with low-information voters. And we must remember how resistant low-information voters have been to Obama's candidacy. I have no doubt that Senator Obama would be one of our best presidents and is eminently qualified for the job--even so, we must remember that he is a black first-term senator with an arabic middle name, with a firebrand ex-pastor who has proclaimed "God Damn America."
So, reluctantly I here offer the case for Obama-Clinton, primarily because I think that the pair would be an "unstoppable force" and would handily win the White House. The presence of Clinton would dispel the fears of Obama skeptics who think he's too green or "foreign." Such a powerful mandate would help Democrats accomplish many of their goals including withdrawal from Iraq.
Note: This is my first diary, and I welcome your thoughts.
The background to my thinking is Andrew Sullivan's article Obama-Clinton, a hate-filled dream ticket
Legacy (Why Hillary and Bill should be interested and why they perhaps ought be trusted)
(1) Hillary and Bill’s legacy if Obama won (or lost) without them would be deeply tarnished. If Obama lost, the animus towards them from the progressive and African-American community would be deep and long-standing. This animus would make a run in 2012 all that more difficult and remote. If Obama won, Bill’s presidency would be rendered a footnote, and Obama’s criticisms of his administration seemingly vindicated.
(2) However, if they joined forces with Obama and won the Whitehouse, not only would their reputations be restored but their legacies greatly enhanced. Hillary would go down in the history books as the first female vice president, and the Clintons would join a place with the Adamses and the Roosevelts. They would be seen as not only presiding over an era of prosperity in the nineties but as helping to elect the first African American president.
Objections
(1) Hillary could not be trusted as VP and would undermine his run so as to have a chance at 2012.
Response: A loss in 2008 would be humiliating to the Clintons. Since the progressive and AA communities are already suspicious of her, such undermining would be noticed and would make a 2012 run all the more difficult.
(2) Hillary and Bill would be a horrible headache.
Response: If they are given well-defined and appropriate tasks then this can be mitigated. As my subject line intimates, Hillary could be Obama’s star technician [Eleanor Clift of Newsweek talked of Hillary the technician a while back but in the top spot on the ticket], policy wonk, and negotiator in the Senate. Bill could be the global-glad hander, restoring his reputation and getting him out of the country (hopefully, not getting involved in any uranium deals J) and out of Obama’s hair.
(3a) Would Penn ever take orders from Axelrod? (I read this worry mentioned somewhere I don’t recall.) Or more broadly, how can the "Psychodrama [and Mendacity] of Hillaryland" (to quote the TNR article of the same name) be reconciled with the calm of Chicago?
Response: Give Penn a nice bonus and tell him to take a hike. More broadly, and like mentioned above, if Hillary and Bill are given well-defined roles, then the psychodrama can be mostly kept away from Chicago.
[Though I still worry that the Clinton camp would be hard to control and would constantly try to second-guess Chicago. But given that Chicago whooped their ass in the primary, hopefully they would defer. Certainly, this is the most important and worrisome practical impediment.]
(4) Hillary would be humiliated and would never accept the second banana position.
Response: Not as humiliated as if she were sent back to the Senate complete with her tarnished reputation. Furthermore, she could be a powerful and star VP on the Hill.
(5) One of the most important features of a VP is the ability of the candidate to trust him or her, and the Clintons are not trustworthy.
Response: I think if their self-interest aligns with Obama’s, they can be trusted.
(6) What about the Clintons’ baggage? Wouldn’t they repel independents and bring out the right-wing opposition research in gale force?
(a) When the Clintons claim that they are vetted what they really mean is that people trust them to do a good job in government and because of that people are willing to ignore their truckload of sleaze and scandal. If the Clintons will allow him, Obama can decry the right-wing smear machine as employing the "politics of personal destruction" and use it as an opportunity to call for the new politics. Besides, won’t the right all look hypocritical given their recent love affair with the Clintons? And as for Clinton gaffes and sniper fire? Well, hopefully in the second banana role they’ll feel less inclined to embarrass themselves, especially after this primary season. And I don’t think Barack will be held too accountable for their missteps. Everyone will understand why he chose them.
Electoral Benefits
(1) Women! = 50%+ of the population
Hillary could attract not only working class women but moderate Republican women as well.
(2) The Working Class
(a) The working class, given their traditionalism and relative financial insecurity, is understandably skeptical of a first-term black senator with a strange name and an "off-putting" (to put it mildly) ex-pastor. Even me, a die-hard "Obama-maniac," has a little voice in my head that cries out: "But he’s only a first-term Senator!" Even I would prefer that he had a thicker legislative resume, and I find this is the key issue of resistance among the fair-minded to Obama. The financially comfortable can more easily afford to "hope" but with "hope" comes risks, and again the working class is probably more risk-averse than the more well-to-do.
(b) The presence of the Clintons would instantly reassure these voters, and banish fears of Obama as a second Carter. If anything got wobbly, these voters could trust the Clintons to help Obama stabilize the ship of state.
(3) The same rationale goes for other voters worried or skeptical about Obama: Jews, Hispanics, etc.
(4) Would heal the party and capture those Hillary supporters (and party fundraisers) who threaten to defect.
(5) Hillary and Bill are veteran and tireless campaigners. AND, as you mentioned, you don’t want the Clintons (or their many minions) working against you. And besides they’ve already campaigned in almost every state. They could hand over their organizations as well.
Objections
(1) But a black guy and a lady! And they’re both crazy liberals!
(a) I think the historic nature of the ticket can help offset the potential queasiness of "too much change." Besides, let Bill work over the worried working class males with his good old boy charm. Furthermore, the Clintons are well known and viewed as highly competent. Hillary isn’t Geraldine Ferraro. And ironically, the spirit and ideas of the Bill of ’92 aren’t vastly different from Obama’s.
(2) A Chicagoan and a New Yorker! AKA The Pelosi Objection. (That is, the VP is supposed to help carry a swing state, typically their home state, and New York ain’t a swing state.)
(a) Hillary can help carry many swing states and maybe even Arkansas.
(3) Hillary would be too old to run for the presidency in 2016, and we like to have our VPs to be potential successors.
(a) She would be 69, and women are feistier than men. And if Hillary chose not to run, Obama could put his anointed successor on his cabinet. And let’s not put the cart before the horse. 2016 is a ways away.
Further Benefits: Protection in Case of International Crisis in Lead-up to General Election; Iraq Withdrawal Facilitation While in Office; Extra Senate Seat
(1) The Republicans will do all in their power to maintain the presidency given that it would open them up to charges of war crimes were they to lose the office and should not be underestimated. They could very well manufacture an international crisis, raise the terror alert level, or indeed a genuine terrorist attack could occur in the lead-up to the general. This could frighten independents into McCain’s hands and cost Obama the election. The Clinton hawkishness would provide Obama cover.
(2) Withdrawing from Iraq will be extremely difficult and be the most serious challenge of an Obama administration: having the support of Ms. "Testicular Fortitude", Ms. "Obliterate Iran", and Ms. "Kyl-Leiberman" will give Obama the necessary cover especially during the inevitable violence that a withdrawal will unleash.
(3) If he can’t make peace with the Clintons, how can he make peace with Ahmenidinijad?
(4) Although a McCain-Rice ticket would be obvious pandering, beware a McCain-Jindal ticket. It would give those feeling guilty about not putting an African American into office some genuine cover with the "exoticism" of Jindal.
(5) It would most likely give the Dems an extra senate seat when Hillary vacates hers.
(6) In addition, an Obama-Clinton ticket would instantly reinforce the JFK and Lincoln parallels. With a narrative like that, even a Vietnam War hero can’t compete.
SUMMARY
Of course, this only goes if there isn't a better VP out there. But Obama-Gore or Obama-Kaine, etc., are a topic for another day.
Thanks for reading!