For those of you with your jaws on the ground after you get the text from Obama naming Hillary Clinton as his nominee, I have compiled for you the following list of rational strategic reasons for Obama's decision and the circumstantial evidence that supports the conclusion that Hillary Clinton has already been chosen as the VP nominee, and not just because choosing another candidate with an O in their name has such interesting typographic possibilities:
2
OBAMA
CLINTON
8
First, the rational, strategic reasons:
11. Why not Hillary? To answer that question, we have to ask why the other contenders are being considered. The apparent short list (Bayh, Biden, Kaine, Sebelius) seem to have been chosen based on four possibile qualities to strengthen the ticket: experience/expertise, a contrasting position on the political spectrum, base constituency, and gender/ethnic diversity. If you're going to choose Biden for his experience in national and international politics, why not Clinton? If you're going to choose a centrist or right-leaning democrat who voted for the Iraq war like Bayh or Biden, why not Clinton? If you're going to choose Bayh, Kaine, or Sebelius to help win Indiana, Virginia, or Kansas, why not choose Clinton to help win Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? If you're going to choose Sebelius for gender diversity, why not Clinton? Assuming that a balanced ticket is the goal, the choice will not be the personal favorite of either Obama or his supporters. If you accept the premise that the running mate will be chosen based on contrasts rather than similarities to Obama, the points against Clinton become points in her favor. Clinton's resume seems to be at least at a level of parity with the other contenders. There's no compelling argument against Clinton that could not be made against the other possible choices. So why not?
10. What is the downside to choosing somebody else? Potentially huge. 20 million people voted for Hillary, and if Obama doesn't win most of them back, he can't win. If he does lose, everyone will say he lost for the same reason Gore lost, because he didn't have the guts or the humility needed to embrace the Clinton legacy. And from the day the other guy is picked until election day, he will always be perceived as "the other guy." Every time that other guy disappoints or falters in some way, the media narrative will be, "maybe this wouldn't have happened if Hillary were on the ticket." Excluding Clinton from the ticket will not exclude Clinton from the narrative. It will only cause "the other guy" to live in a constant shadow of comparison to what "might have been."
9. What is the upside to choosing somebody else? There isn't one. Will anyone outside of Kansas, Delaware, Indiana, or Virginia vote for Obama because Sebelius, Biden, Bayh, or Kaine is on the ticket? Not likely. They all seem to be competent people and safe choices who won't lose any votes for Obama, but they also won't win him any more votes outside their home states. There may be nothing to be lost in any of these picks, but there's nothing to be gained either.
8. What is the upside to choosing Clinton? Again, potentially huge, but at a minimum, significant. 20 million people voted for Clinton, and these are voters who felt so strongly and were so loyal that they came out to vote even after it became obvious that her chances of winning were slim to none. If you project, optimistically, that only 10% of those people will either vote for McCain or stay home, that's 2 million people. Based on the last couple of elections, that's more than enough to be decisive, especially in battlegrounds like Florida and Ohio. Obama might be able to win enough of Clinton's supporters to win the election, or he might be able to make up for the loss of Clinton voters by winning new voters and independents, but by choosing Clinton he doesen't have to take that gamble and virtually guarantees that he'll receive millions of votes. Only an idiot would throw that away, and let's assume that Obama is not an idiot.
7. What is the downside to choosing Clinton? Again, there really isn't one. There are plenty of Hillary haters out there, both within and outside of the Democratic Party. To make a gross oversimplification, I'd say the hatred for Hillary on the left is based on differences with Clinton's politics, e.g. voting for the Iraq war, and her tendencies of centrist triangulation and equivocation, while hatred for Hillary on the right is based on misogyny. But let's face it. None of the Hillary hating Democrats who voted for Obama are going to abandon him and vote for McCain if Clinton is on the ticket. And the Hillary haters on the Republican side weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. People who hate the idea of a strong woman in power probably hate the idea of a Black man in power even more. The argument that Hillary will energize the Republican base likewise seems fallacious. If your election strategy is to avoid antagonizing the ignorant, misogynist element of the Republican party, then Obama is at best the second-worst possible choice for your candidate (or perhaps third worst if Jim McGreevey is on the list).
6. This is an election where the vice presidential pick really can make a difference. Because the Democratic Primary is first, Obama must choose before McCain. If Obama makes a safe, conservative choice, he opens the door for McCain to change the game by making the daring choice. If he doesn't choose Hillary, McCain can choose Fiorina, or Bloomberg, or Powell, or someone else who's likely to attract Hillary supporters and/or independents, and take it all away. If Obama makes the daring choice, McCain can play it conservative or try to match him by being equally daring, but McCain can't beat him at the game because Obama made the daring choice first. Obama would be a fool to choose a boring, safe candidate and give McCain the opportunity to be the daring maverick.
Now, the circumstantial evidence:
5. Obviously, the Obama campaign is building the VP announcement into something big. If the text arrives, and it's Hillary, that's going to create an uproar. It's going to be exciting, it's going to be surprising, it's going to be big news. Granted, a lot of people will be shouting, "God no! Not her!!!!!" A lot of people will also be shouting, "Yes! Thank God, it's Hillary! He's listening to us!" But you can be certain that NO ONE will be shouting "YAAAAAAAAAY!!!!! It's Joe Biden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "Whooopeeeeee!!!!! It's Evan Bayh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!! It's Sebelius!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Like I said before, the other contenders seem like competent, respectable choices, but none of them is going to generate the kind of excitement that the Obama campaign is building up for. If it's anyone other than Hillary, the reaction will be, "OK, that's interesting....oh well, so much for that." If the final reveal isn't someone exciting, the whole thing is going to be a letdown. So it's Hillary. Or Bono.
4. For some reason, the Obama campaign is determined to announce the VP before the convention. But why? The convention is days away. Why not just announce it during the convention, as is traditional, and which would provide a draw for curious viewers, instead of competing with the Olympics in the news cycle? There might have been an advantage to announcing a couple of weeks before the convention, but a couple of days? What's the point? Unless the announcement will make it necessary to rearrange the convention schedule, or unless the choice is going to attract more interest in the convention. No one is going to make it a point to tune into the Democratic Convention just to hear what Evan Bayh has to say.
3.
Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
Has anyone noticed how quiet the Clintons have been since the primaries ended? Clinton enthusiasts would say that Bill and Hillary are tenacious combatants who fight for what is right until the last dog dies. Clinton cynics say that Bill and Hillary are ruthlessly ambitious and would rather bring the party down in flames than lose. So if the cynics are right, why are the Clintons not rallying their supporters to petition Obama to give Hillary the VP spot, or even getting ready for a floor fight at the convention? Or if you take the more generous view that the Clintons are tenacious rather than ruthless, why aren't they engaged in constant negotiations behind the scenes, doing everything in their power to secure Hillary a place on the ticket? Why is Bill going off to Africa, when it would be more characteristic for him to be calling Obama every day while there is still a chance, until that day when Obama names somebody else and it's really over? Can't be because Hillary doesn't want it. If she didn't she would have said so. Could be because she's already got it, so there's no need for further discussion.
2. Probably the most telling evidence is the fact that Obama's surrogates have so emphatically ruled Clinton out. If Obama were really determined to pick anyone else but Clinton, they would do the opposite. They would include her in the short list in every discussion. Obama would meet with her, just as he has met with Kaine, Sebelius, Biden, and Bayh. He would always use both male and female pronouns. He would do everything to suggest that Clinton had been given every possible consideration as a VP candidate. To do otherwise would appear disrespectful, and would risk further alienating Clinton supporters. When you think about it, it's pretty insulting to tell a half-dozen other people that they're in the running until the eleventh hour, but you tell Hillary that she was scratched off the list a month ago. If Obama were choosing someone else, he would do everything he could to give the impression that Hillary was seriously considered. He's not doing that, because you only have to worry about going through the motions of showing respect for the people you didn't pick.
1. Hillary and Bill are speaking on two different nights. Hillary is speaking before Bill. Bill is speaking before the vice presidential candidate. This makes no sense. Think about it. If you lobbied the presidential nominee for the vice presidential spot on behalf of your spouse, and someone else was picked instead of your spouse, would you agree to be the opening act for the other guy? If you were a former president, and you wanted to pass the torch of leadership to your spouse, wouldn't it make more sense to give a speech before her, rather than after her? If Obama doesen't want a Clinton on the ticket because it "blurs the message of change" does it make sense to give the Clintons the chance to dominate half of the convention? If the Clintons MUST be given a speaking role, wouldn't it make sense to at least minimize their influence by letting both of them speak on the same night? Senseless. Unless Bill and Hillary actually will speak on the same night, because one of them is the VP nominee.
Well, that's it. So when you get that text and it says "Hillary Clinton," just remember, "I CALLED IT." On the other hand, if it turns out to be somebody else, well, I wasn't being serious you know, this is all a clever satire, like that New Yorker cover...