The issue of VP choices for the Democratic nominee has been a point of conjecture on many liberal forums. We are now down to two candidates and Barack Obama is now the odds-on favorite.
Once Edwards dropped out of the race, the consensus seemed to be that if Hillary won, she would virtually have to offer the VP slot to Obama, whether he chose to accept it or not. I contend now that their political fortunes have reversed, Obama is, nonetheless, obligated to extend the same respectful gesture to a worthy adversary. There is no doubt they have made each other better general-election candidates.
The conventional wisdom is that Senator Clinton wouldn't accept a VP offer. Let's examine that premise after the fold.
First, I want to backtrack a second. Why do I suggest Obama is obligated to extend the VP offer to Mme. Clinton?
Because, respectfully, she has earned it.
While not running the best campaign, no one can contest Senator Clinton's appeal to a large lsegment of Democratic voters who view her, rightfully or wrongly, as having the experience to perform as Commander-in-Chief. Obama has expressed that sentiment himself on multiple occasions.
No one can also contest her command of the issues. When her and Obama go wonk-for-wonk, she holds her own and, on more than one debate exchange, has won outright. There is simply not much daylight between their policy positions, another point both candidates readily acknowledge.
Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, already known around the world, mostly in a positive light among international leaders. Hillary also enjoys a good, bi-partisan reputation in the Senate and would no doubt be a valuable ally in advancing Obama's agenda which, by and large, is also her own.
Senator Clinton as VP also heals the electorate from a DNC standpoint, because the choices of Michigan and FL would be reflected on the ticket. She is not just an also-ran, but a survivor; If she were to carry the race out to the end, Obama may win by a few hundred delegates, but her pledged-delegate totals would be nothing to sneeze at.
I submit the most important question a nominee must ask himself when looking at prospective VP choices is not who would most help them get elected -- but rather, who would be the best president in the event the nominee could not serve. To this end, all the above said, if Obama were not in the race, I could argue Ms. Clinton would have long ago been declared the nominee.
So, in my mind, there is absolutely no question that she has earned the offer. But back to the issue at hand...which is the conventional wisdom that she would not accept it.
My first observation would be, what if she did? It's easy to say she shouldn't, but the party has to prepare itself for the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket, because the offer (regardless of whether it would be accepted) SHOULD be made. If she doesn't accept, then Obama could pick anyone he wanted to. But why SHOULDN'T she accept?
By accepting, she would:
- Be the first female on a ticket favored to win
- Mop the floor in any VP candidate debate with the other side
- Bring her policy knowledge to bear directly in the Oval Office
- Give Obama the worthy foil he suggested he wanted from a VP
- Unify the party behind a "dream ticket"
- Bring the Big Dawg's experience to the table by proxy
- Engage the joint power of the party's premier candidates
Naturally, there is an issue with the negatives a Clinton brings to the ticket. However, given that the offer is warranted, and Clinton was fully-prepared to deal with those negatives should she have won the nomination, why would she not be prepared to deal with them if she were the VP nominee? In this respect, she does come essentially pre-vetted, allowing the ticket to hit the ground running. And the two have remained about as civil as two combatants can be ("I am honored to be here with Barack Obama") -- neither has scorched the earth and need to be applauded for running, essentially, very positive campaigns.
The truth is, that Obama's look to change the style of politics in this nation and eliminating personal attacks provides perfect cover for any personal shortcomings of Mrs. Clinton the Republicans tried to exploit. One can almost see Obama taking on the other side, quoting, "This is exactly the kind of slash-and-burn politics that our ticket is trying to move the nation away from." The "change" Obama is looking to promote provides immediate insulation against the typical slanderous crap likely to be lodged against her.
With respect to Mrs. Clinton's high negatives, they are unquestionably muted to a degree with her on the undercard. Of course, there are people (some Republicans and Independents) that won't vote for a ticket that has her on it. However, as the nominee, this becomes Obama's job to convince those voters that a vote for this ticket is precisely a vote for the same type of change he has always stood for -- building that new coalition, which is something Hillary would have to accept -- instead of looking to advance the agenda by beating the other side to a bloody pulp.
Personally, I think this could work very well. Hillary would be excellent presiding over the Senate, and one could just see the gleam in her eye as she casts tie-breaking votes. Heading up wonky task-forces with Obama graciously giving her the credit for everything accomplished in those areas. Her and Obama's agendas are nearly identical...advancing his agenda is already advancing her own. And in the political instances where Obama needs that hatchet-person or attack-dog...could there be anyone better?
And lastly, yet another benefit would be her ability to run in 2016, well outside the shadow of Bill Clinton's legacy. At 68, she would not be too old and enjoy the favor of incumbency as well.
I dunno...I could argue to leave Bill in the doghouse, allow her to run alongside Obama as her own politician with her own personal narrative (and not on Bill's coattails), allow Obama to serve the sizzle while she serves the steak, and allow the Democratic party to not have to choose between two stellar candidates.
Will the Republicans unify against her? To a degree. In my estimation, the Republicans were battling against the prospect Bill making his way back into the White House which, after what they put him through, is proverbially pissing in their corn flakes. With Hillary as #2, Bill is not back in the Oval Office, which I believe will mitigate some measure of the GOP reflex. In any event, this is the year that Democratic values trounce tired Republican ideas because of the electorate sizes. Obama brings a new generation of voters that hold no grudge against Hillary, but long for the hope in their politics he embodies.
I say record Democratic turnouts absolutely blast McCain and whoever his foxhole-buddy is (since they are effectively running as Bush's 3rd term), with an Obama-Clinton ticket winning by a landslide.
Let's heal the party and get on with it.