The other day, Hillary Clinton said that her campaign was beginning to look for a Vice Presidential running mate and that they would cast a wide net doing so and might even pick a businessperson. This is a fairly head scratching thought, which all but begs for some examination.
The first thought that comes to the observer is recognition that Secretary Clinton has a bit of a problem when it comes to finding a VP. Seemingly, this person can’t be a better or more enthusiastic speaker than she is, which is not an easy thing to do, unless Harry Reid is in the running. Certainly, this leaves Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders out, even if they were interested.
Ideally, she should balance the ticket by picking a progressive person who can rally the Democratic base and appeal to disaffected independent and Republican voters. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has not done a very good job of getting progressives elected to Congress or to governorships. Further, Secretary Clinton can’t afford to take any Democratic Senator out of the Senate, unless the governor of the applicable state is a Democrat and is allowed to appoint a successor.
In these circumstances, it is going to be hard for the Clinton campaign to find an experienced, progressive politician who won’t over-shadow Secretary Clinton and is younger than she is to be the person who is a heart-beat from the Presidency. So one can understand the need to “cast a wide net” looking for a VP candidate.
Despite all that, it is hard to see that the solution is to look for a businessperson to be the VP candidate. (Although this might just be a “signal” to rich CEO’s that Secretary Clinton is willing to take their money and will play ball with them in terms of protecting their interests against those of the rest of us.) In the first place, one is reminded of Sam Rayburn’s comment to Lyndon Johnson that no matter how smart John Kennedy’s cabinet may be, he’d “feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff.” It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to question the wisdom of putting a person a heart-beat from the Presidency who has never held significant elected public office, has no political skills and has spent no time considering and debating a wide range of public policy issues. Almost on the job training to be President does not seem even remotely like a good idea.
Even more so, just the suggestion that an inexperienced businessperson is a reasonable possible choice for Vice President negates one of Secretary Clinton’s best arguments for electing her over Trump, namely her experience in public affairs. Having one clear-cut and easy point in her favor as a Presidential candidate over Trump and, even better, one that rises above her proposed campaign of mud-slinging with Trump, she has proceeded to throw it away. Even suggesting that a businessman is theoretically acceptable as Vice President, and hence possibly President, is to throw out all of her resume. How can she say her experience counts heavily in favor of voting for her, when she has now admitted it counts for nothing. One can only shake one’s head at the fact that neither she nor her staff saw this problem.
Further, she once again seems bogged down in the 1990’s and unaware that she is running in 2016, when there is discontent and change in the air and considerable hostility (and rightly so) against businesspeople. Secretary Clinton is already burdened with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is way too close to big businesspeople, particularly the payday loan industry. It makes no sense in 2016 for her to tie herself to the very people who are widely (and correctly) viewed as a big part of the economic inequality problem, the decline of the middle class and the Great Recession. Once again, one wonders where Secretary Clinton’s head is and that of her staff.
The days of 1990’s yore when businesspeople were viewed (incorrectly) by many as having some special insight into something or other are largely gone. Too many people have seen products in the grocery store shrink while prices rise. Too many people have seen airline seats shrinking, while airfares and airline profits soar. Too many people have seen their pensions or their jobs disappear into the pockets of CEO’s. Too many people have noticed that CEO income keeps rising while that of the rest of us keeps dropping. One could go on for some time. To even suggest making a business person VP is to put a big target on your back.
So once again, it’s time for Secretary Clinton to walk back something she has said. If she had any self-confidence or backbone, she would fire half her staff and bring on younger people who are more in touch with the reality of 2016 and less inclined to be yes women. Given her recent ill-considered admission that Bill knows more about the economy than she does (although he has failed to explain what he would do in 2016, that makes any sense, to increase wages and employment other than what Secretary Clinton already has on her website), one would have thought that she would be thinking more carefully before speaking.
One can only hope that after the California primary is over, Secretary Clinton will do something like take some time in a quiet place without her staff or Bill and meet with some political science, history and economics professors and refocus on the big problems and possible solutions in the here and now.