Daily Kos

The 22nd Amendment and 2008 (w/poll)

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

I attended a rally the night before last at the Andre Agassi College Prep Academy in Las Vegas last night.  The speaker was President Bill Clinton, who spoke on behalf of Hillary's campaign and the importance of the Nevada caucus in setting the tone for the Democratic race.

The following disclaimer is important, because I don't want this discussion to get bogged down in a debate over the merits of Hillary Clinton versus the other candidates.  I would be proud to support any of the current Democratic nominees.  I expect that Senator Clinton has the best grasp of what the Democratic nominee -- any nominee -- can expect during the general election campaign, and understands that it will not stop on Inauguration Day.  That said, I don't agree with her on all issues and she has been too cautious for my taste in many regards.  But again, this is not about the candidates.

It's about running mates.

One thing that stood out for me in President Clinton's speech was the importance of climate change as a key issue in the race.  He talked about how the next President would face the challenge of persuading China and India to support the U.S. in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and opined that developing sustainable carbon-free energy would provide tremendous growth to the U.S. economy.  His speech in many respects echoed what I've heard from another national Democratic Party icon: that climate change is both a challenge and an opportunity.  In fact, the one Democrat he praised above all others, except his wife, was his former vice-president: he talked about how proud he was of Al Gore for being a pioneering voice on climate change and how thrilled he was that Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.  

President Clinton also talked about the Democratic field: he had praise for all of the candidates, but spent little time discussing them.  He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he wasn't surprised at the shots Hillary took in the recent debate, but was proud of her for not saying anything bad about the other candidates in return.

As the campaign heats up, these attacks will likely disqualify many of the current crop of candidates from running on a Clinton ticket, if she does win the nomination.  Soundbites from the debates and the campaign trail can be packaged into extraordinarily effective attack ads.
And I got to thinking:

The 22nd Amendment prohibits a president from being elected to more than two terms.  

It says nothing about the vice-president.

Al Gore has experience, support within the progressive community, and credibility on what the Clinton camp calls a key issue in the campaign.  His critiques of this administration and the right-wing in general have been devastatingly on point, and a visit from Gore during the campaign would draw huge crowds and galvanize Democratic support in a way that most other vice-presidential candidates could not match.  And to the extent that there is a current of "buyer's remorse" in this country among independents who have become disillusioned with their support for the GOP, there is no better choice to tap into that current without saying a word.

And so I submit this proposal: if Hillary does prevail in the campaign, her ideal running mate would be the man who won in 2000, and who is at this point probably the most revered figure on the national Democratic scene beside Bill Clinton himself.

Poll

If Hillary Clinton does win the Democratic nomination, who would you most like to see as her running mate?

2%2 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
9%7 votes
7%5 votes
18%13 votes
5%4 votes
0%0 votes
11%8 votes
15%11 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
11%8 votes
11%8 votes

| 71 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, vice president, poll (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 11 comments

  •  A version of this diary (0+ / 0-)

    ... went up yesterday, but I deleted it because I inadvertently left Senator Obama out of the poll.  Apologies to anyone whose comments and votes were deleted as well.

  •  Wes Clark (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    john07801, Hairy Legs, rigso

    or Wes Clark for Secy of State, and Richardson for VP.

    I want the dem senators especially Feingold, Kerry, Biden and Dodd to stay as leaders in the Senate.

    To a tapeworm, man exists for the tapeworm. - Edward Abbey

    by jimraff on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:48:27 AM PDT

  •  Gore would not (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, tbetz, john07801, VClib

    be VP again.  He should be president and VP would be an insult.  As much as I defend Clinton on this site, I can not see him being her VP, he is way over qualified.

    Other than that I think she will make an imaginative choice for VP and it is kind of like having a baby, I always think it is silly of us to think we can chose  for a candidate.

    •  What you said. (0+ / 0-)

      In the first paragraph, at least :)

      It seems that Clark, Bayh and Richardson are the main contenders on HRC's VP list.

      My three fav. tickets remain: Gore/Obama, Gore/Sebelius and Omaba/Webb.

      Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:10:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hear lots of good ideas (0+ / 0-)

      for various positions in the new Democratic White House but most people don't factor in the career-image fundamentals.  

      Everyone is looking to advance his/her career and a repeat move (Gore as VP), parallel move (say, Hillary as Senator of another state) or backward move (Bill Clinton as VP) would never be considered despite the fit of the personality/ideology and the position.  

      This would also include a matchup that appears like a submission (Obama as Hillary's VP, for instance).

      I'm no expert at career advancement but these things seem pretty obvious to me.

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:07:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hasn't she really already chosen Wes Clark? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tbetz, VClib, rigso

    ... and he has accepted.

    I mean come on, it's beyond obvious (and a perfect choice).

  •  I agree w/ Clark (0+ / 0-)

    I think Clark would be the best choice, though I picked Edwards above.  Now that I think about it, it would be stupid to put Edwards on her ticket w/ all the anti-Hillary quotes by Edwards that are coming out now (he's too liberal for her now).  Also, Sherrod Brown and Russ Feingold are too liberal for her.  Plus, Brown and Webb just got to the Senate and it's important that they stay there to keep those seats.  And Bayh is probably the only Dem that could hold that Senate seat right now.  Clark's not in any office and he's semi-known with some political/campaign experience from '04 and of course as a white-haired white guy decorated former General it would add perceived strength and a more traditional component to an unprecedented femal nominee.

    - All that being said, I'd be more interested in talking about who Edwards might pick as VP...why not Clark as well?  Who else is there on the Dem bench who's not currently holding an important spot?  And I don't mean losers like Gephardt or Daschle (or Bradley unfortunately) or guys I don't quite know if I trust like Bob Kerrey.  Maybe that Tennessee Gov. Bredesen or whatever, is his term up soon?  People seemed to talk about him, and the female Govs from Kansas and New Mexico or Arizona or whatever a lot in '04.  Or of your list above maybe Schweitzer would be the best choice to balance out a Sen. like Edwards or Hillary.

  •  It doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

    If HRC gets the nomination, we lose in November

  •  Vice President Wesley Clark (0+ / 0-)

    I love the idea of having a US Army General on a daily basis saying, "Yes, Madame President."  Snap to with the respect she deserves.  Would show the rest of the country what respect looks like.

    Clark was the only candidate brought in by a draft effort in the 2004 race, lead by Michael Moore no less.  Clark has populist credibility as well as ironclad foreign policy credentials, and he would clearly be a team player for her.  I want someone who will be a powerhouse as an ally for her.

    I don't see Edwards adding anything to her ticket.

    Going with a conservative Dem, like Bayh or Vilsack, to try to shore up support among people who have misgivings about her or to try to specifically win one of those states, would be much too narrow a focus and a waste of such an important choice.

Permalink | 11 comments