Obama, Clinton, history, the question of who should be VP

[pegkerr]

I've been reading some interesting commentary all over my friends page about last night's historic end to the Democratic primary season. See, e.g., comments by sleigh, or comments by merimask. The New York Times did a good break down of the arguments pro and con for Obama to tap Clinton for the VP spot.

As I said to sleigh, I think it might possibly be a good idea for Obama to tap Clinton for Secretary of State rather than Vice President. As to whom he should name for VP, I'm not really sure. Thoughts?

The other news reports I've been reading say that the race between McCain and Obama will be very close. sleigh points out the remarkable contrast in the effectiveness in McCain's and Obama's speeches last night, which makes me think (hopefully, but perhaps over-optimistically) that Obama should clobber him. But as merimask has pointed out, the GOP has been very effective at using wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) to persuade people to vote against their own interests, especially economic. Will that be the case in this election? California's recent gay marriage decision is an added factor, perhaps--a measure just made the ballot to overturn that decision. But that might not carry as much water for the Republicans this year. I believe all the Republicans that supported the Arizona Defense of Marriage measure (which was the first measure NOT to pass) are no longer standing. Schwartzenegger is still in office--and he's come out against the California ballot measure.

Comments

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

My thoughts are not fit for polite company, but best summarized by Susan B. Anthony:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26966166@N03/2542112958/

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I am very sorry for your disappointment. I would have supported her if she had won the nomination, and I think she would have made an excellent President. She did fight a remarkable campaign. No one, looking back over her work over the past year, can ever cavil that a woman isn't strong enough or tough enough to go the distance.

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I don't want to get into an argument and I certainly can respect anyone who supports Sen. Clinton. I think she would be a fine candidate.

I'm failing to understand the relevance of the Susan B. Anthony reference, however. I don't see how the party could be characterized as ignoring women in general or of ignoring Ms. Clinton particularly.

Or is there something I'm missing? (Which is entirely possible; I miss a lot of things.)

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

Melissa McEwen (not a Clinton supporter) has been calling out the sexism during the campaign and the last post was the 104th. I challenge you to read them all and try to understand why the attack on Clinton is an attack on all women who dare to compete against men for power.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-104.html

The most egregious example of this has been the continuing drumbeat from Dem leaders for her to drop out; something no male candidate in her position has ever been subjected to. Compounded by the Rules & By Laws Committee's decision to take 4 MI delegates from her and award them to someone who wasn't even on the MI ballot.

I don't understand how women raised in America can take this with any equanimity; maybe it's just me, being an immigrant, thinks this is fubar.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I'll go and have a read. It may take me a while, but I'll try to report back.

Re: the MI ballot. As I understand it, none of the Democratic candidates should have been on the ballot. I see your point about Ms. Clinton accepting the compromise position of 69 delegates from MI vs. the 73 based on the voting, but it doesn't look to me like taking them from her because she's female so much as because she didn't play by the rules. I may see it differently after I read the articles you've pointed to.

[splagxna.livejournal.com]

i am hesitant about putting her in as running mate for a variety of reasons... part of it comes down to the reasons i didn't vote for her. as much as i'd love to see a woman in the white house, she is in many ways not liberal enough for me. (i know this is partly because she is a very savvy politician, but... not enough for me.) i'm also hesitant about the wisdom of a clinton-obama ticket for a lot of the reasons the NYT article referenced.

i think your idea clinton as sec'y of state is brilliant. i'll certainly be interested to see who obama considers for running mate; i'm still holding out hope for edwards, myself.

[priscellie.livejournal.com]

She's not the most engaging speaker, but I really like what Kathleen Sebelius brings to the table. She'd be an excellent way to fill the constituencies that Obama is missing.

She's older (59) and more experienced, she's from a more rural state (Ohio), and she's the Governor of Kansas, not to mention also being white and a woman. She champions a number of liberal causes, such as abortion rights, an opposition to the death penalty, and an opposition to the amendment that made gay marriage unconstitutional in the state of Kansas. However, she also has a broad appeal across both parties, as she has fought for Kansans' right to own firearms, though she opposes concealed-carry handgun laws.

I also like Edwards and Richardson as potential VPs. Though it would certainly help bring the party back together, I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a good fit. There's too much bad blood in the water.

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

I would much rather see Richardson as Secretary of State than Clinton, since I think he's remarkably qualified for the job. That having been said, even if she remains 'just' a senator, it will take a lot of work for Clinton to fade into the background.

I don't think there are enough Republicans in California to make the state 'go' Republican. I could be wrong; we'll see. I'm still sending the HRC money.

[nmsunbear.livejournal.com]

I am so with you that Richardon would be a fab Secretary of State.

[jenett]

On the McCain-Obama race:

My mother, who has been a die-hard Republican (including significant campaign contributions, local party work, representation at state conventions, etc.) and who until Romney dropped out was a serious Romney supporter (fancy parties, et. all) has turned into an Obama supporter.

(My siblings and I are a bit bemused, but not minding at all.)

I'm wondering how she and other people like her (and I've heard a few more anecdotes in that direction) are showing up in the polling. Or whether they are at all right now. And what that's going to mean.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

From what he said in his speech last night, I gathered that Obama intended for Clinton to play some role in developing universal healthcare for this nation. (Finally!) So Health and Human Services? Surgeon General?

[aome.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree that Clinton might make a nice Secretary of State, better than a Veep.

[dreamflower]

I don't think she'd accept a VP slot. I'd like to see her finally get to take the role she was given when her husband was still in office: in charge of revamping the nation's crippled Health Care system, something that is more urgent than ever now that the economy's tanked and even more people are uninsured!

As for VP, I would like to see Rep. Gene Taylor tapped for the spot. He's a maverick, a bit conservative on some of the social issues, but scrupulously honest, outspoken, fair and highly concerned for the people he represents. His fury at the mismanagement of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina could, I think, be turned into an asset, and he comes from the Deep South, and is respected even by his opponents, which would probably help pull in votes. But I don't know if he'd want the job, even if it was offered to him.

[silme.livejournal.com]

I like your idea as Clinton for Secretary of State. That seems almost a stronger position for her than VP, which is a real concession. (You know, back when I heard Obama speak at the Democrat Convention in 2004, I was thinking Clinton/Obama. What a reversal!)

For VP... Edwards? But Obama does well in the South already, which is my only misgiving. What geographical area does he really need? Texas? California? The Northeast Corridor?

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

He needs the Hispanic vote and the white working-class vote, from what I heard on NPR last night.

[swords-and-pens.livejournal.com]

Edwards could help deliver the blue collar vote. The question is whether he is willing to back-pedal on his oft repeated claim that he is not interested in the office of VP. My gut is he'll stick to that. He could get Labor if they wanted to bring him in; for some reason, I also see him as a potential AG, but I'm not sure what his agenda might be.

I think Bill Richardson would make an outstanding Secretary of State, even more so than Hillary. He has scads of experience in that area, as well as some real accomplishments to tout.

I could see Hillary getting either Health & Human Services or being made into a "Health Care Czar" (I shudder as I write this mainly because I've always hated the "czar" label we've developed in this country -- it's dumb). She has background in this, but that could be both a boon and a bane. There are likely still some hard feelings over how she tried to handle the Health Care issue as First Lady. If she can come at it from a different angle with a different approach, this time could be the charm.

Of course, there is always the Supreme Court, too. Justice Hillary? Hmm. There should be a couple seats opening up next term...

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to bring up Gov. Brian Schweitzer for VP. He's a gun-totin' Westerner, but he's also an environmentalist and has come out as firmly against cattle-tagging human beings (the RealID Act).

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I'll worry about the VP slot later. Any number of fine candidates would add to the ticket.

As I've been saying for a while, Sen. Clinton, in her 2nd and third terms, would be more powerful than she would be as VP. I think she'll take the position where she can be most influential on issues that matter to her.

I don't think the Obama/McCain race will be that close. The goppies know they're going to lose, and are throwing McCain a bone to end his career on a high note, like they did with Bob Dole.

And they know they're going to lose, and lose big. Even Limbaugh and Coulter hate McCain so much that they've urged they're supporters to vote for... Clinton. I think that's why she's done so well in the later primaries.

In the national race, most of the country hates Bush --not just "disapproves", but hates -- the torturing, smirking drunken frat boy. McCain made an interesting appeal to "the right change" but his base is the 27% of the country who don't live in the real world.