The Candidates
For those who believe that surprise a selection of Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s Veep is in the cards for us sometime within the next 48 hours, I have one question: why would Hillary accept the #2 spot?
If you assume that Hillary and Bill still desire a return to he White House above all things, the one action that would absolutely assure that they would never obtain that goal is for Hillary to accept Barack Obama’s offer of the Vice-Presidential slot.
If the ticket emerged victorious in November, the possibility of Hillary becoming the 45th President of the United States after eight-years as Obama’s second fiddle would seem remote. Does Hillary Clinton seem like someone who would wait patiently for eight-years? She will be 69 years-old in 2016.
If Obama/Clinton lost their re-election bid in 2012, it is highly unlikely that she would be the choice of the Democratic Party to retake the White House in 2016.
If the ticket loses this November, would the Dems really want to nominate someone who was part of the “sure win” ticket that lost? Wouldn’t it be more likely for them to nominate one of their emerging All-Star candidates such as Mark Warner or Ted Strickland?
The only way for Hillary to become the President of the United States one day is for John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States on January 20th, 2009.
She is a Clinton after all… Last time I checked, a Clinton plays second fiddle to no one.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Vince Foster.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Metro,
I can’t believe you went there.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I was thinking the same thing.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“The only way for Hillary to one day become the President of the United States is for John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States on January 20th, 2009.”
Of course, Clinton is running in 2012.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Michelle Obama is too.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
BTW, I think a running mate can be on a losing ticket and win the nomination next time around. Especially in Hillary’s case, as her initial assessment of Obama would be vindicated and the party would realized they’d made a mistake in pushing her aside.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’ve heard more rumors that privately, the Clintons still don’t think Obama can win. She won’t accept, I hope. That’d ruin us.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Metro #5,
I don’t think so in this case. She cannot credibly say “I told you so” if she plays a substantial role in the loss herself.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Kavon, I cannot believe you posted this at the same time Dowd’s article?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20dowd.html
August 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
The Clinton’s want power…VP may be the best she can ever get. Consider this: if Obama/someone else wins, Hillary can’t run until she’s 69 and likely won’t be selected then anyway, but if Obama/someone else loses, Hillary may be the pick in 2012. On the other hand, if Obama/Hillary loses, Hillary is still the shoe-in for pick in 2012, but if it wins, at least she’s VP.
There’s really no downside for her to run with him unless it makes him more likely to win (although I would argue it would).
August 19th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Clintons, not Clinton’s.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
You guys are dead wrong. Hillary is in worse shape than she is in now if she takes Obama’s offer and they lose in November. She cannot play a substantial role in a loss that is supposed to be a sure thing.
Mark Warner. Ted Strickland. These people are the future if Obama/Clinton loses in November.
If Hillary and Bill get to say, “I told you so”, their future is 2012.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Before I read a thing, I was thinking the same as 1 and 3 also.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
With the fundraising and organizational infrastructure Hillary had this year, she will not be stopped in 4 years in the DP primary campaign. There will not be another Obama in 2012, especially in light of the fact that everyone will be saying, “I told you so” in November.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
But she won’t have to say “I told you so.” Everyone will know it.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
When someone can name me the last election in which Democrats nominated the candidate who came in second during a previous election (and when that candidate wasn’t the sitting president or vice president when nominated), that’s when I’ll start to believe you guys that Hillary has a shot in 2012.
In fact, coming in second is almost the best way to guarantee that a candidate will never be the Democratic nominee.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Dave,
Name me the last election when the democrats nominated a black guy with no experience?
Trends are made to be broken
August 19th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Obama wouldn’t want to win with Clinton on the ticket, I don’t think.
First of all, it would be a HUGE blow to his massive ego - he’d be forced to admit that he can’t win without her, and people wouldn’t look back on him in history and say, “Look at what Obama accomplished!” They’d look back and say, “Look what Obama and Clinton accomplished!” I think the thought of that terrifies him.
Secondly, he knows the Clintons would be a thorn in his side for four (maybe eight) years. Every decision he made would either have to have their seal of approval, or they’d deride the decision and say, “Well what do you know? Listen to us, we’ve done this before.” And if the Clintons were wrong they’d never admit it, and if they were right he’d hate them for it. Everything he did as President would be done under the very long shadow they cast.
Finally, I think there are other people he *really* wants, and even though he may not pick one of them, if he picks Clinton and wins he’ll spend every Cabinet meeting thinking, “Why didn’t I just pick Kathleen? Or Evan? Or even Tim? Why do I have to be stuck here with *her* when I could have been here with one of them?” And he’ll convince himself that he *would* have one anyway, so he’ll think he just punished himself when he picked Clinton for expediency.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Dave #16,
I think Hillary would be different.
She would so be able to say “I told you so”. Her followers are already ultra-motivated and would likely start working for her the day after the election.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
in that last sentence:
would have **won**, not “one”
August 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
DaveG,
George McGovern lost the nomination in 1968 and became nominee in 1972.
Johnson lost the nomination in 1960, and was selected VP.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Of the wall quesiton: if hillary accepted, could the general election donations be used to pay off her debt?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
#21:
Johnson makes my point. He didn’t become the Democratic nominee in 1964 because he came in second, but because he was the sitting veep when Kennedy died.
As for McGovern, he did run in ‘68, but McCarthy came in second to Humphrey.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
We should all have mass celebrations across America when Obama selects someone other than Hillary. If he selects Hillary, we’re FU**ED.
Obama/Hillary- Dems Win
Obama/Someone Else- GOP Wins!
August 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Mondale won the nomination in ‘84 after serving as VP for four years. Hillary could do the same.
I would point out that if Hillary can’t be POTUS, I think she’d run for VP strongly. Then she could be the first woman as either VP/POTUS. That would count for something.
Besides, if Obama lost & wanted to torpedo her run in 2012, he could point out that she declined the VP role. That would prove to the ABC crowd that she wanted Obama to lose, which would hack them off no end.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
All she would have to do is deny that she was offered the spot, and that Team Obama was just saying it was offered to try to appease her supporters.
It would play right into her hands… It would hardened her supporters against Obama even more.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
#23, Yes, actually many of the runner-up’s had personal reasons they could not run.
Kennedy was going through a divorce, Tsongas had died the year before 2000 primary season, Muskie was slandered by the Nixon administration (evidence came out from Watergate investigation), Shriver never recovered from the 1972 election disaster, and let us not get in to Gary Heart.
…….and then there was John Edwards.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
“All she would have to do is deny that she was offered the spot”
I think Obama is smart enough to record the phone conversation or something like that. And then hold it in reserve and see what her plans were in 2012.
If she denied it, he could prove she was a liar. And his inner circle could confirm that she was asked. It would kill off her hopes.
I think she has to take it if offered.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
24, there is one winning option here…..
but nobody wants to consider it….
August 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
“It would play right into her hands… It would hardened her supporters against Obama even more.”
Sorry, Kavon, I’ll make my point clearer. He would tell people he had offered her after this election, in the lead up to next election.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
It’s hard to imagine that a candidate would choose a VP that would have been a better candidate than himself. Obama goes with someone else…
August 19th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
no answer to my dumb question in #22
August 19th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Hobie (31) it often happens that the VP is better than the POTUS. The VP is chosen by a rigourous process involving vetting & analysis. The POTUS pick is chosen by votes from the general public (who are bought by ads, etc)
Edwards was a better POTUS candidate than Kerry. Clinton/Bayh/Zinni are better candidates than Obama.
However, the less said about Quayle the better
August 19th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Sampo, thats a good question. And I have no idea. I don’t think so.
I seem to recall that Bloomberg’s millions could be used in a POTUS run, but NOT if he was VP. Because that would count as a donation to the POTUS (and therefore subject to a $2,300 limit). That was one of the limits of the Bloomberg/Hagel unity ticket, cos Hagel’s millions would be useless.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
#22,
Sampo, probably the actual GE dollars couldnt be used, but she could call in a solid from the DNC fundraisers if they were to win.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Everyone who still believes it will be Clinton has seem to forgotten that Patti Solis Doyle is the VP Chief of Staff. When the news came out, it was taken as the nail on the coffin for the Dream Ticket since they are not on speaking terms, and pretty much hate each other after what happened in the primaries.
Don’t worry about Obama/Clinton. NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN. (thank god)
August 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
#29, McCain-Clinton vr. Obama-______?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:08 am
My prediction is McCain-Romney vs. Obmoma-Hillary
August 20th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Mark, #38, If its that then 4 years time is going to be terrible.
Everyone will run for President, believing that its the only way to become a VP (and perhaps a POTUS candidate in the future).
In fact, why not start running for President in 2016 now?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Obama-Hillary will take AR, MO, and possibly the carolinas…
August 20th, 2008 at 12:18 am
That would be our heardest competition by far. I think Obama and company are playing up this Biden thing to creat the WOW factor after giving it to Hillary.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:20 am
#41 Mark, If you want to see the evangelic vote come out in record force, without McCain courting them, put Clinton on the ticket.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:21 am
True, but it the female vote will come out in droves.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am
As much as I really, really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, I will be disgusted with her if she accepts the VP. Who wants to be the first woman VP under those circumstances?
Most PUMAs won’t vote for a Obama/Clinton ticket.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:13 am
I’m just assuming that it’s Hillary because I’m a relentless pessimist. Most of us seem to have come to the conclusion that she’s the worst/best candidate, which leads me to believe that Obama’s team is capable of reaching the same conclusion. Prepare for the worst… be ecstatic when he selects someone else.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Bret: The ticket would probably take AR & MO (Carolina’s not sure) plus Ohio, but the Dems would have trouble in CO, OR, MN, Iowa and Virginia to name a few, but in a way, all bet are off.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:35 am
I don’t want to see another Clinton in the White House. I heard the rumor she might be Obama’s VP. If she is, hope they will lose in November.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Battleground National Poll by Terrance Group
McCain 47
Obama 46
http://www.tarrance.com/082008/Battleground-35-charts.pdf
August 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
It won’t be Hill I’ve said 100 times it’s Bayh, Biden or Kathleen.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Drudge has “McCain Up 5 points” But a pic of BHO and HRC kissing (yikes) above it. Matt just trying to get people talking?
-
August 20th, 2008 at 6:35 am
What is this headline from Drudge about McCain being up by 5 points? His link isn’t working right now…
August 20th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Mary:
That is exactly why I am not afraid of a Clinton on the ticket. Too many people like you and I would make extra extra sure to vote for Mr. McCain to prevent her from the possibility of her being in the WH.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:45 am
YOWSERS!
New Reuters/Zogby Poll.
***McCain leads by 5***
McCain 46
Obama 41
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
August 20th, 2008 at 6:46 am
New Reuters/Zogby Poll.
***McCain leads by 5***
McCain 46
Obama 41
h++p://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
August 20th, 2008 at 6:54 am
“McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy — an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.
That margin reversed Obama’s 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.”
August 20th, 2008 at 7:16 am
McCain leads by 5 w/ leaners in new Ras OH poll.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Why couldn’t this McCain surge have happened a week later? I’m terrified that this is going to panick Obama into swallowing his ego and selecting Hillary. Then again, maybe he’s been playing us like a fiddle, and it’s been Hillary all along; I never understood how he expected to unite the party without Hil. She’s been the obvious choice from the get-go.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Jeff,
McCain has a 9 pt lead over Obama on the economy. Mccain says, frankly, I need to bone up on economics. It’s an area I know little about. I haven’t gotten into numbers since I worked with Keating and his gang.
1. What does that say about the public’s understanding of economics?
2. What does that say about Obama’s understanding of economics?
We may be screwed since know one evidently knows squat about economics and the public doesn’t know enough to even care.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Matt,
I think it’s all going to depend upon the extent to which Obama believes he is the Second Coming. Also, as Kavon points out, do we really know for sure that Hil wants it? Does she really want to have to wait until 2016 to run if Obama wins?
But yes, I am worried too.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Craig
1. It says that perception is reality
2. It says nothing about Obama’s understanding of econ
Fact is we deal with a pathetically uninformed and illinformed electorate. Disghusting actually that voters take more time reviewing the menu selection at McDonald’s than they do in reviewing the candidates and making an informed selection.
That Battleground poll (post #48) gave plenty examples of how little attention people give to the government. As I recall, 56% believe that we have a Republican congress.
In the immortal words of Earl Pitts “WAKE UP AMERICA!”
August 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
It’s not going to be Hillary. I’ll bet you 100 to 1.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Mr. Nikrad,
Warner might indeed be a future Dem nominee for president, but not Strickland. Ohio is an economic basketcase, and Strickland is in the long tradition of ineffectual taxers and spenders of both parties who have inhabited the Ohio governorship for as long as I’ve been alive (and maybe before). Ohio will continue its long downward spiral under Strickland’s leadership, and he would have nothing to run on.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am
#56- Matthew-
True, but we have all been under the perception that Obama’s choice is already made. Would he have the guts to change it at this late juncture? Maybe. Probably not. Time is running out. He may have all his confidence in the convention bounce, particularly, with the mile high stadium crowd gimmick.
If McCain really has a 5 point national lead, I want to start seeing state polling that confirms this, more than just a 5 point lead in Ohio. If we could somehow win by 5 points or more, I think that translates into at least 320 Electoral Votes.
The GOP would really benefit from winning an election not decided by one state (FL 2000, OH 2004).
August 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I would bet anything that McCain’s movement on the economy numbers is directly related to the drilling issue. Plus he has been running ads telling people that Obama will raise taxes on anyone making over $42,000. I’m not surprised at all that he took the lead on that question.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
She doesn’t have to refuse it, as it won’t be offered! And, yes, she would be the natural frontrunner if Obama lost. It would make perfect sense.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Well, as Hillary once said, RFK died, remember?
Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck.