Six Reasons Why Clinton Shouldn't Be Obama's VP

I liked Hillary Clinton a lot back in my teenage political junkie years, and she won big points with me when she copied John Edwards' health care plan.  Even though I've become an Obama guy lately, I was excited to see her stick it to him on domestic policy issues -- her one clear area of superiority -- during the Texas debate.  But an Obama/Clinton ticket is a match made in a place with lots of brimstone for making matches.  So let me tell you why she clearly won't be the best VP choice for Barack Obama. 

6.  We'll have party unity regardless. 
Over at Shakesville, PortlyDyke wants a unity ticket, regardless of who the nominee is, because a unified party is important.  Of course it is!  But after a Democratic convention where everybody in the party including Clinton talks up Obama and a couple months of campaigning against a warmongering GOP nominee with a 0% NARAL rating who doesn't care about working people, Obama will consolidate Democratic support. 

We're moving through the stage in the process where there's maximal bitterness between the candidates' supporters.  (I remember this from 2004, except it happened a lot earlier in the year.)  But sure as Dean people fell behind the once-hated Kerry and people who care about each other make up after a fight, you'll see the vast majority of Clinton people cast a vote against McCain.  And looking at the numbers, Hillary-Obama animosity is pretty tame by historical standards, with 1/5 of Obama people saying they won't vote for Hillary and 1/4 of Hillary people saying they won't vote for Obama.  You know what percentage of McCain supporters said they wouldn't vote Bush in March 2000? 51%. 

5.  Just look at her favorability / unfavorability numbers.

When I want to see how people think of a candidate (and therefore, whether they'll make a ticket more or less likely to win), I don't rely on my own subjective impressions.  My youthful fantasies of being the young White House intern Hillary would use for post-Monica revenge, for example, shouldn't have led me to believe that everybody liked her the way I did.  Instead, I should look at favorability ratings and other poll numbers. 

Even at the end of a brutal general election campaign, I don't think a non-Clinton VP nominee will end up with fav/unfav numbers worse than Clinton's now.  If you ask the question the way Gallup does, both her favorables and unfavorables have been stuck between the mid-40s and the low 50s for a long time now.  To give you an example of what a more standard VP choice's numbers would look like, John Edwards ended the 2004 campaign at 48-37.  Those were his worst numbers of '04 -- he usually had favorables in the 50s and unfavorables at 30 or less. 

4.  I don't trust the consultants in Hillaryland to play well with an Obama campaign.
Some of this depends on whether the disastrous Mark Penn really has been replaced  -- word is that he retains his access, but not his official stature.  But even if he is gone, I don't trust Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Howard Wolfson -- all of whom came into this with the confidence that they'd be running the next Democratic general election campaign, and probably the next Democratic administration -- to take orders from Plouffe/Axelrod and fit their candidate into the role that Obama's folks want them to play.  There's a huge potential for organizational dysfunction here, one that's much smaller with any other VP candidate.  Hillary herself strikes me as less problematic -- if she really wants the VP slot, she'll adapt to it.  But a lot of people under her won't be content with less than they expected, and they may make trouble.

3.  I want to see the Republican Party's 15-year investment in smearing her come up absolutely worthless.
Over the years, the Republican Party has spent a gargantuan amount of money and effort smearing Hillary Clinton.  Right-winger Lisa Schiffren's post is one of my favorites:

Let's say last night really did indicate that Hillary's negatives will keep her off the ticket. (Or keep her from winning if she's on it.) You know what? Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealling looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.

Imagine all that well-tended right-wing fury... gone to nothing.  What a pleasure it'll be to say, in January 2009: "Guess how much that enormous anti-Hillary investment was worth?  $0.  We had another great candidate -- the smart black guy who will make sure that American foreign policy won't ever be done your way again.  His army of young followers will be voting Democrats into office for the rest of their long lives."

2.  We need a clear antiwar message.
Bill Clinton's presidency made the economy a Democratic issue.  Obama's big promise is that he'll do the same with foreign policy, and advance a view of the issue that will serve the Democratic Party and America well for the next several years.  For VP, he needs somebody who can reinforce that message -- either a Democrat who never supported the war, or one who has totally renounced his/her support and rejects the war with the zeal of a convert.  Hillary could've -- and should've -- come out against the war full-force during or before the primary.  As it stands, it'll be a grand shame if we accept a candidate who's tied into Kerryesque knots on this central issue, and whose impulses for how to do foreign policy and how to strategically position yourself on the issue are so far inferior to Obama's.

1.  We've got a whole heck of a lot to choose from.
Stephen cites the polls showing that 60% Democrats think Obama should choose Hillary.  But this data is most likely the product of low name recognition for any of the other contenders.  Most Americans, for example, have no idea who Kathleen Sebelius is.  John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Jim Webb probably didn't come before most respondents' minds at the time, as they weren't mentioned as options. (Hillary was the only option named.)

One of the pleasures of all this Veepstakes talk is that it gives people a chance to learn about a bunch of Democrats who have accomplished great things for the party.  And in fact, we have some excellent people to choose from.  I'm going to be talking up Sebelius (who accomplished some truly amazing things in Kansas), Edwards (probably the ultimate in-office VP pick),  Brian Schweitzer (the badass governor of Montana) and my favorite dark horse -- domestic policy Senate superstar Sherrod Brown of Ohio -- over the next couple weeks.  I'll read more on Napolitano, too, and see if there really is as much of a case for Jim Webb as some people seem to think.  Stay tuned. 

(I misstated PortlyDyke's views in the original and have now corrected them.)

Comments

[Joe Klein's conscience]

The case for Webb is his military background and his ability to connect with working class whites(or as some might call them, Ray-gun Democrats), if you think that is what Obama needs to shore up(according to the theory of balancing your weakness).

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

That's what they say, conscience. It's just that I'm not a big fan of ticket-balancing on the VP side (more on this later), and I haven't heard the greatest things about him as a campaigner. He was kind of a sexist in the past, too.

[PortlyDyke]

Actually, Neil, this: "Over at Shakesville, PortlyDyke wants Clinton to be VP" -- is a complete misrepresentation of my post.

[ikl]

I agree with all of this and would also add 7. Clinton just spend two months running a toned down version of McCain's attacks on Obama so she would make a uniquely lousy surrogate for the general election. On top of that voters don't tend to find her "honest and trustworthy" to begin with which seems like a problematic quality for a chief surrogate even if voters like them for other reasons (seem competent). This seems like a big problem. How is Clinton going to explain that Obama has passed the CiC threshold (whatever that is) without looking extremely silly or opportunistic?

One bright point here is that team Obama has until at least July to make a call on this so if their polling in July or August indicates that it will be hard to consolidate the base without Clinton on the ticket, they can decide with this in mind. That is pretty much the only reason to put Clinton on the ticket, from my perspective.

I'm also interested in Sebelius for VP. Tim Kaine might belong on the short list for similar reasons.

[Stephen]

But this data is most likely the product of low name recognition for any of the other contenders.

I think that's unintentionally insulting, implying that people answered affirmatively to a yes/no question merely because they know Hillary's name - it's not like they were asked to name an alternative. If they didn't like her, then they didn't like her and had the chance to say no. Hillary only got 41% support for becoming the nominee, but 60% support for being picked as VP. That implies a fair amount of Obama supporters who think she should be on the ticket.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

That implies a fair amount of Obama supporters who think she should be on the ticket.

They think that before they have any clear idea who the other options are. These aren't the kinds of preferences that are particularly meaningful for any purposes at all.

[Edmund in Tokyo]

Unintentionally insulting? Come off it, ikl - you see different effects in polls again and again depending on what options you give the person you're asking. Bear in mind that most of these people will hardly have thought about this, if at all, and are being asked to give an answer on the spot. In that situation, if you're only supplying one name you might as well be asking them whether their opinion of Hillary Clinton is favorable or unfavorable. If their opinion is favorable, and they don't know of anyone better off-hand, they're going to pick her.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Just so you know, Edmund, the author of a comment is listed below the comment, not above :)

[Mike Meginnis]

Neil, it's clear you only wrote this because you hate Hillary.

[Stephen]

Edmund,

First, it was me, Stephen, who wrote that. Second, if the poll respondents have a favorable opinion of Hillary, that should be important. Apparently the idea that 60% of the respondents have a favorable opinion of Hillary isn't acceptable, and what you want is for the that choice to be taken completely off the table.

They think that before they have any clear idea who the other options are. These aren't the kinds of preferences that are particularly meaningful for any purposes at all.

Maybe, maybe not. I daresay lots of people have heard of Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards and Al Gore. You're skirting around the way the question is worded:

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, would you like him to pick Hillary Clinton to be his Vice-Presidential running mate?

Yes or no. They don't need to know any other options. They just need to answer yes or no.

What about the 63% of Democrats who think she should stay in the race? Certainly that doesn't have anything to do with name recognition, does it?

I've never been one to say this - in fact, I've long denied this to be the case - but the liberal blogosphere has taken a path that leads directly away from the bulk of the Democratic party. If we take polls seriously at all, then we need to admit that a clear majority of the Democratic party wants Hillary to stay in the race until all the primaries are done and would like to see her on the ticket.

Coupled with the fact that people are still voting for her even though the liberal blogosphere has been declaring for months now that the race is over - and not every vote can be the result of Democratic racism - ISTM to be perfectly reasonable to consider that Hillary is a great choice for VP, even if that will get the GOP's knickers in a twist or make some bloggers and commenters uncomfortable as they work on ways to support such a ticket in light of what they've been writing lately.

[ikl]

Yeah, for the record, I agree with Edmund, not Stephen.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Yes or no. They don't need to know any other options. They just need to answer yes or no.

So I ask you if I should give you a cheesecake for your birthday. You say, 'Yes!' I don't tell you that you had other options -- namely, a Tesla Roadster, a cruise ship, and a good-natured and intelligent pet dragon. Should I assume that cheesecake was your preference?

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

um, to fix the case, we should let you know that you had other options, but you had no idea that such rich and amazing gifts were among them.

[Corvus9]

I would go with the pet dragon. Fuck cruise ships.

A part of me is resistant to Webb, for a lot of the reasons sighted above. However, it would be awesome to have a full-throated liberal populist (Jon Chait's terms) on the ticket. Such a figure would do wonders in moving the conversation on economics in a leftward direction. Unfortunately, as a sad result of media narratives, anyone who starts talking about how the workers are getting screwed by the bourgeoisie gets tarred as a fancy-smancy elitist pansy. This I think was the point haircut piece. Edwards started talking class war, so they had to turn him into a pussy. The benefit of Webb is that he would completely immune to such attacks. He looks like he could kick your ass.

That is the problem of course, with the economic populist angle: basically anyone who isn't a straight white male can't get away with it. See what happened to Obama over the bitter comment. Now, part of that was the poor wording of the statement, but someone like Webb would not have gotten in trouble for such a line. I think Obama is aware of this, and this partially accounts for why his stated policy positions are as soft as they are. He has all the rhetoric and reasoning of an economic populist, but it's like he is refusing to connect the dots. Maybe I am just reading my own hopes and dreams into things here, and there is a really good chance of that, but I think Obama might be willing to go a lot farther on economic issues than he has shown. Having a really high-ranking surrogate like Webb or Edwards available to speak on these issues, and I think only the VP slot would be high enough to qualify, would allow the Administration to go farther in expressing certain social arguments.

[Corvus9]

Oh, and the argument that it is insulting to point out that people are basing their opinions on limited evidence is silly. There should be no insult in someone with a bit more knowledge in a particular area pointing out that someone else has a bit more. It's not even a matter of ignorance; people just have vastly different knowledge sets. Some people know a lot about politics, some people know a lot about cars. In different situations, different skill sets are more useful. If my car breaks down in the desert, I would rather my passenger know about cars than politics.

[Josh R.]

Coupled with the fact that people are still voting for her even though the liberal blogosphere has been declaring for months now that the race is over - and not every vote can be the result of Democratic racism - ISTM to be perfectly reasonable to consider that Hillary is a great choice for VP, even if that will get the GOP's knickers in a twist or make some bloggers and commenters uncomfortable as they work on ways to support such a ticket in light of what they've been writing lately.

not really. A VP candidate should do something for the ticket - win votes that wouldn't otherwise be won, put states in play, solidify the narrative the main candidate is running on. Senator Clinton fails at that last goal and the other two goals can be achieved otherwise.

Besides that point, the VP candidate is not a democratically chosen spot. It is a position chosen by the Presidential candidate. It may be the case that a VP is chosen to solidify the ticket due to a need seen from public polling, but this isn't a necessary condition. Obama needn't pick who the polls say he should pick, just as Clinton needn't have done so were she to become the candidate. It may be a wise decision, but that is a different matter (and I think it actually wouldn't be wise).

[Stephen]

If my car breaks down in the desert, I would rather my passenger know about cars than politics.

To use your analogy in a way that's relevant to what I was talking about, let's say that upon your car breaking down in the desert, your passenger suggests changing all the tires, even though they clearly aren't flat, because that's the only thing he knows how to fix on a car. The expected response would be for the passenger to just admit that he doesn't know what the problem is, unless, of course, he's too stupid to know better.

Who cares that there's others to choose from? Each other potential pick comes with his or her own list of strengths and weaknesses - none of them can fit the bill of a cruise ship compared to a cheesecake.

Hillary's favorable/unfavorable scores are nothing as bad as Neil is suggesting. Other VP possibilities look good in part because they aren't going through a campaign right now, but mainly because they aren't Hillary Clinton. In fact, Hillary's poll results stack up quite nicely against Obama's in every category except blacks, Republicans and Independents - not that she's that far behind even in those columns. The R/I results can be encouraging for the GE, or can be read as due to Obama's serious deficiencies in terms of progressive policies. Republicans will certainly like a Dem who advocates messing around with Social Security more than one who doesn't.

We need a clear antiwar message.

And we have one, Neil. We have a message that isn't affected at all by Hillary's vote for the AUMF. Obama just keeps coasting on the fact that before he was in a position to do anything about it, he was against the war. Yippee. He isn't going to bring the troops home immediately - under his plan it will take 16 months, and that's obviously if everything happens the way he wants it. Hillary is also saying that it's time to end the war, and that when she takes office she will start removing our troops from Iraq. So the sum total of the differences between them is that Obama says 16 months and Hillary doesn't. Wow, consider me underwhelmed.

And this "judgment" stuff is pure bullshit. Obama hasn't cast one vote, not one, to take a stand against the war. If this really was such a big, all-important deal for him, he would be voting against funding bills and introducing legislation to de-authorize the AUMF. He hasn't done it. So perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking that his rhetoric on the Iraq War is just that.

Maybe I am just reading my own hopes and dreams into things here, and there is a really good chance of that, but I think Obama might be willing to go a lot farther on economic issues than he has shown.

Yes, you are. All of Obama's progressive supporters are, at least insofar as every single issue except the Iraq War is concerned - and there's not much to distinguish Obama there, either. Yet it seems perfectly reasonable to you to think that secretly Obama is a hard-charging economic populist and will come out of the closet next January - and unreasonable to suggest that Hillary hasn't actually advocated war with Iran and, like the other Democrats in Congress, based her AUMF vote on misleading info from the White House.

Again and again and again it comes down to Hillary the person, not the policies, not the actual words or actions. Just her. As much as Neil would like to say that GOP's investment in Hillary has amounted to zero, ISTM that by turning so many Democrats - who should know better - against her, they've managed to reap some pretty good dividends from it.

To be clear, Neil is just about the only person I've seen who consistently keeps his worries and opposition to Hillary focused on her advisors. And I'm worried about them, too, but I dearly hope no one thinks that Obama will just sweep away all the old guard when he takes office. Penn, McAuliffe, Ickes and more will still be around, and not just to show up on Fox and bash the Dems.

[Josh R.]

If we take polls seriously at all, then we need to admit that a clear majority of the Democratic party wants Hillary to stay in the race until all the primaries are done and would like to see her on the ticket.

This may be true. But it doesn't follow, necessarily, that this is the wise decision. Polls said a majority of the country was cool with invading Iraq, too, but likewise the wisdom of such a decision had to be assessed beyond the popularity of the issue. Likewise here: does Hillary Clinton truly help an Obama candidacy win the Presidency? Or does she hinder those efforts? That is ultimately the most important consideration at play. I believe she has a net negative effect (she undermines the campaign narrative, creates incentive for the media to imagine conflict between the two, and potentially hurts him among Reagan Democrats and Independents, beyond the potential negative of taking a political fighter and wonk from Congress when we need them there. Moreover, it hasn't really been shown she is all that and a bag of chips on the campaign trail - the botched post Super Tuesday campaign, top aide Mark Penn not even knowing California was proportional, etc; I believe she also underperformed in 2000 against Rick Lazio of all people.)

If it could be shown that a significant number of Clinton supporters really would leave hte party/not vote for Obama and are not blustering (as a large number of McCain supporters were in 2000 when they said they wouldn't vote Bush, a figure that was even higher than those currently saying they won't vote for Obama), then she may make sense as VP. Other than that, though, and the logic is uncertain.

[Josh R.]

And this "judgment" stuff is pure bullshit. Obama hasn't cast one vote, not one, to take a stand against the war. If this really was such a big, all-important deal for him, he would be voting against funding bills and introducing legislation to de-authorize the AUMF. He hasn't done it. So perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking that his rhetoric on the Iraq War is just that.

Having the good sense to oppose the initiation of the war, which Obama did, is quite different from believing that it is wise policy to cut off funding of said war in the middle. Those are distinct issues.

Obama is not an economic populist. He swims in the centrist river that the Clinton-led DLC has largely created. I do believe him superior on issues of foreign policy - I find Hillary Clinton far too ready to buy into the tough man posturing of the Republican Party (that or she does believe in interventionism, having learned that lesson from her husband's administration; plus ça change). I find many things to disagree with Senator Obama, as many as I do with Senator Clinton. I simply put trust him on foreign policy more and think he has a better chance of actually moving the Democratic party to a stronger position (due in part to things not in the control fo either candidate - principally the media treatment of the Clintons these past fifteen years). This next administration is a beginning, hopefully, of a larger trend towards a liberal governing coalition. I think Senator Obama much more likely to be able to move the nation in that direction than Senator Clinton. She should stay in the Senate where she can better serve the nation with her wonkery and her ability to fight in the corridors of power.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

On the clear antiwar message, Stephen, I don't mean an Iraq withdrawal plan. I mean a general approach to foreign policy. And as far as I've seen, Hillary's approach to foreign policy in general involves a lot of reflexive centrist positioning and looking as tough as possible.

Obama, not only in the 2002 speech against the war, but in his remarks on Cuba and the whole 'negotiate with foreign leaders' issue, seems to be a little more confident that he can lay out the costs and benefits of various plans of action and convince the American people to choose more reasonable options. I don't know exactly what distinctive brand of foreign policy will emerge here -- we actually have to see him be president for that, and it'll depend on what general patterns of costs and benefits he sees. But there's a possibility of having a distinctive approach to foreign policy (maybe something like Yglesias' liberal internationalism) that voters will embrace and that future presidents will wisely follow. Getting something like that off the ground would be an immense boon to our country and the world.

(I'm reading the Yglesias book now, btw, and it's pretty good.)

[Corvus9]

Ah, state a theory, humbly point out its tenuousness, only to be told flat-out that you are wrong before being railed against for having a naive view of reality, all with no proof or reasons given. Stephen, you are truly magnanimous when in disagreement.

Well, here's my reasoning, or at least an anecdote to it: single payer health care. At the New Hampshire debate, Clinton accused Obama of being for single payer before being against it. Obama said he still thought, that, given the opportunity to choose any health care system, he would prefer single payer, but given the present environment, he did not see any point pushing for it.

What I took away from this is that, ideologically, Obama favors single payer, which as far as I know is about as far to the left as you can get on the health care issue in America. It's basically saying that health care should be run as if it would be in a socialist country. So why doesn't he expound that? Because it has no chance of happening at this point. Hey, Edwards didn't advocate for it either.

Now, I think the thing to remember is that Obama is a political pragmatist. He may have ideals, but he seems to keep them close to his vest. He thinks less in terms of the end game then in terms of moving the goal posts. Thus, I think many of his policies are closer to the center than he is himself; he favors those policies not because he thinks they will solve everything, but because he thinks they are a good start. I recently read (most of) The Audacity of Hope. The book it full of oodles and oodles of fantastic, insightful analysis of a variety of issues, followed by policy descriptions that, to a one, I feel do not go far enough. Because I am farther than Obama to the left, by orders of magnitude. But they are a start, and if they can lead to things being more amenible to my viewpoints, that's really all that I can ask for. Also, Obama never phrases his policies as solving the problems once and for all, but as workings towards decreasing their severity. There is a pretty clear implication that he expects further work will need to be done in the future. What this work is exactly, he of course doesn't say, but I doubt it involves a repositioning back towards the right.

[PTS]

I think that Neil's point can't be emphasized enough. It isn't just that Obama got it right and Clinton got it wrong (N.B. the "misleading information" dodge is at, best, disingenuous as many Senators showed the good judgment voted against the AUMF despite the "misleading information," it isn't clear what this evidence was, and many equally informed individuals opposed the AUMF).

The point is that Obama has demonstrated good foreign policy priorities (such as working on nuclear anti-proliferation and avian bird flu when there wasn't really anything in it for him) and, at the same time, has challenged--even inchoately--the fundamental assumptions upon which the neoconservative foreign policy is based. (Edwards has done the latter as well.)Clinton has not done either, and some of her votes and rhetoric seem to indicate--much less clearly, I'll readily admit--that she really does believe in the basic precepts of the Bush foreign policy, but would simply do it better.

Even if we reject the idea that Clinton is Neocon Mark II (Now, with competence!), Clinton is more hawkish and generally accepts parametes and character of American foreign policy as is. And this is shown in a whole host of small ways she characterizes her policy and her rhetoric. Obama has the potential, and a demonstrable willingness (at least on Cuba, negotiation etc), to produce a genuine Democratic alternative on national security and foreign policy beyond being Republican Lite. Obama has more upside.

P.S. This isn't especially relevant, I don't think it is true that there is no daylight on every single issue. It seems to me that Obama has a distinctly more liberal view on immigration and first amendment/civil liberties, while Clinton has a distinctly more liberal view on healthcare. I don't weigh the latter very heavily because I think that Obama will do more downticket to get the Senate votes we need to pass healthcare reform. Still, there is room between the candidates on these issues, but the differences are obviously dwarfed when comparing either candidate with McCain.

P.P.S. The most encouraging thing about Obama is that he has a view of political campaigning and deliberative democracy that may go some way to repairing our utterly dysfunctional political process. That, I think, is potentially the most radical aspect of Obama. Clinton offers no such possibility; her brand of politics positively contributes to it. I don't mean to say that Obama always goes the high road, but he does appear really think that campaigning can be a mechanism of persuasion, not just positioning (See his speech on race and his response to the gas tax holiday as examples).

[PTS]

Gack, I hate typos.

[Joshua Whalen]

Hey... a crazy idea just occured to me....

I've mostly been pushing Liz Holtzman for veep (see my blog for my arguments), but how about.... Howard Dean? His term as party chairman ends with this convention, unless of course he's reelected (the prez pick gets to pick the chairman I believe) to the post. Why not Dean for veep? That'll drive the repugs nuts.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Liz Holtzman! didn't even know who she was. But she seems pretty awesome. Well, I guess that's the kind of thing we learn in Veepstakes...

I think Howard Dean's numbers would have some upside if we reintroduced him into the arena today and polled on him. But the historical record makes me nervous about that.

[Joshua Whalen]

Ok, well, then, why not go with Holtzman? We pour a soothing balm on the disappointed feminists after clobbering Hillary by trotting out a REAL feminist with her own very real accomplishments, instead of her husband's, and a ruthlessly effective debater to boot. Given her history, her presence on the ballot effectively annuls the "Obama's a secret muslim" schpiel, and she has a long history of standing up for blue-collar workers, renters, and immigrants.

As an added plus, she is too old to run for prez herself, leaving the field wide-open for the next Democrat to run in 2016. If you think about it, no Democratic veep has ever succeeded in running for prez unless his predeccessor died in office, leaving him an incumbent. MAybe the "Veep as Successor" strataegy should die, and her place as veep would accomplish that. She also assasination-proofs Obama, becasue the repubs are probably even more frightend of her as Prez than they would be of Hillary.

Nuff said.

[Toast]

But sure as Dean people fell behind the once-hated Kerry and people who care about each other make up after a fight, you'll see the vast majority of Clinton people cast a vote against McCain.

That's a highly-suspect analogy. I don't remember anyone "hating" Kerry, in part because he was so extraordinarily bland, and in part because he didn't run a dirty, divisive campaign like Hillary has.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Toast, maybe you weren't going through the Daily Kos comments in late January 2004. There was some pretty intense dislike of Kerry in those quarters back then.

[Toast]

My youthful fantasies of being the young White House intern Hillary would use for post-Monica revenge

Oh... just... Ewwwwwwww...

[Toast]

Toast, maybe you weren't going through the Daily Kos comments in late January 2004. There was some pretty intense dislike of Kerry in those quarters back then.

No, I wasn't. From what I know of Kossacks, however, they're not representative of Democrats generally or even the liberal blogosphere generally. There's a weird, vicious echo-chamber thing they've got going on over there that distorts pretty much any discussion going on.

[Toast]

Oh, and I should add: Great post.

[Stephen]

We pour a soothing balm on the disappointed feminists after clobbering Hillary by trotting out a REAL feminist with her own very real accomplishments, instead of her husband's, and a ruthlessly effective debater to boot.

You should literally be ashamed of yourself for writing that.

When people complain about Obama supporters, this is what they're talking about. Or do you think that one of the reasons it's good for Obama to be the nominee is because he's a candidate to placate "the blacks," but who isn't a crazy, attention-whore preacher like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

[nimh]

My youthful fantasies of being the young White House intern Hillary would use for post-Monica revenge

Umm.. uh... this place needs smileys so I can pick the wide-eyed shock one.. ;)

[Daisy]

Trackback:

Odds and Sods - Sunday Matinee edition

[litbrit]

Oh boy, I've been trying to bite my tongue and stay out of this thread, but I just can't. (Insert eye-rolling avatar here___.)

A few thoughts, for what it's worth:

1. The above-referenced Shakesville post reads thus:

if the DNC doesn’t come away from Denver with and Obama/Clinton ticket, or a Clinton/Obama ticket, I will tear up my registration card and wash my hands of the Democratic Party forever, because it will be clear to me that the Democratic Party has no interest in actually electing a Democrat as POTUS.

In other words, if the ticket winds up being other than exactly as the writer wishes, she will either vote third-party, sit out this election, or vote for McCain. PortlyDyke is correct to hold the candidates accountable for being wishy-washy and disappointing in their stands on marriage equality, among other important issues, but the fact remains, if everyone who was less than satisfied with the Democrats did likewise, particularly in swing states, we'll have another situation like Florida '00 on our hands, where a third party candidate's siphoning off of the Dem. votes contributed to a Republican win. It is my position that fighting for change and progress is vital, but if we're honest and can set aside our distaste for "the lesser of two evils" thing for a moment, we'll agree that the spearheading of any such initiatives belongs in the years between elections, not in the months and weeks right before them, not when they take the form of vote-withholding protest. This is not to say we shouldn't press the candidates themselves to commit to supporting and working toward the realization of our ideals, right up to the day of the election. Rather, it is to say that I, personally, feel it's irresponsible to encourage such thinking and acting that, carried out en masse, could cost us the WH (again.) Remember what Greg Palast said: Democrats = slap in the face; Republicans = sock full of bricks to the back of the head.

I was excoriated by numerous Shakesville folk for taking this position; it led to my resignation as a contributor there, though I continue to respect many of the writers.

2. I do not believe Senator Clinton is the best choice for VP--for all the reasons Neil states.

3. I agree with Stephen: that "soothing balm on the disappointed feminists" line is ghastly. I am a feminist, and I am disappointed by the horrible behavior of all three candidates' surrogates. I continue to like, respect, and even admire Hillary The Person; Hillary the Candidate, though, has increasingly disappointed me, though I'd rank President Clinton's behavior right at the top of my list of Most Disappointing of All. Bill Clinton is an ex-president and a brilliant, well-educated, well-spoken man--his behavior would have been considered unseemly coming from any garden-variety campaign rep; that it comes from a former two-term president makes it that much worse, in my opinion. Disagree with me if you like--it's just my opinion. As well as that of my husband, mother, and father, all of whom are registered Republicans, two of whom voted (twice) for Bill.

4. I think John Edwards would be a great AG.

5. Count me among those who feel an armed services veteran would be a great choice for VP--Webb, Clark, and (yes) Paul Hackett are people who know what it's like to serve. At the very least, can we please not allow another chickenhawk/mulitiple-deferrals/"I had better things to do but don't mind sending other people's kids to die" person anywhere near the executive branch.

6. I'd also love to see a VP who is committed to fighting global warming and setting up all manner of green initiatives. I want to see all of Bush's anti-environment (i.e. "Clear Sky" *gag*) moves reversed.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Litbrit, I don't want any more tongue-biting from you! We can't have enough comments like that at this blog.

The reason I didn't fixate on PortlyDyke's vote-withholding threat is that I didn't regard it as a good predictor of her eventual behavior. Just as the 1/4 of Clinton supporters will mostly end up voting for Obama, I think she'll end up casting her vote for him in the end. (Besides, WTF is going on with a electability-focused vote-withholding threat? That's an inherently unstable position!) Of course, I completely agree on the underlying issue.

And I didn't know that was the story behind your departure from Shakesville! Good to have you with us.

[Joshua Whalen]

"You should literally be ashamed of yourself for writing that.

When people complain about Obama supporters, this is what they're talking about. Or do you think that one of the reasons it's good for Obama to be the nominee is because he's a candidate to placate "the blacks," but who isn't a crazy, attention-whore preacher like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?"

So sorry, but I feel no such shame.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was raised in the feminist movement. My Mom co-founded NOW in 1967, chaired NOW's marriage and divorce comittee from 1967 to 1976, wrote NY State's chils support law, and lobbied Liz Holtzman to use her clout to get it voted on.

My best friend in HS was Betty Friedan's god daughter, and I used to help her babysit her little sister Katie Roiphe, all through my teens. I've been close friends with the daughters of pretty much every major feminist icon in Hillary's generation, and I don't recall anyone every mentioning her name until her husband became president.

I realize that many women regard Hillary as some kind of icon. I cannot imagine why. Perhaps, for someone of her age, just having gone to an ivy league school and been an attorney(for some of the most heinous corporate swine on earth) is enough to establish cred, but that is only for her generation.

It is not a coincidence that Barack Obama and I are the same age, nor is it a coincidence that Barack hs wrapped up this race mostly along generational lines. Identity politics is kind of somewhere in the same class with the NRA for people of my generation adn younger, we've seen it sink one winning coalition after another.

There will be a woman president, someday, and most likely, someday soon, but she will be my age or younger, and have real accomplishments in the political arena achieved entirely on her own merits.

I've noticed that when I mention Katie Roiphe's name, older feminists seem to go berserk. What I admire about her is she broke the silence. Like Obama, she has not built her literary rep on her struggles as a woman, but as a person. She espouses a stance she (and I) call post-feminist. For people our age and younger, this stuff is just a done deal. it is the people of the Hillay-McCain era, with their endless need to justify their actions 40 years ago, that have given us 40 years of gridlock, forty years of made-up war stories (under fire in bosnia? Really.) as they seek to match the tales of vietnam vets with some kind of made up machismo of their own. Honestly, there are plenty of other struggles and triumphs one can lay claim to, but the class of '72 keeps trying to fight the '60's forever, and then tries to crucify those who dare to shout "It's OVER!" at them.

No one with any education my age denies either women or africans their place as true, full equals in this world anymore. To do so is to instantaneously mark yourself a cave person. It is only the walker brigade (so named for the ubiquitous device employed for stroke victims) that continue this nonsense. I'm voting for Barack not so much because I share his policy goals entirely (I'm totally anti-nuclear), but because he lives in the 21st century, and is not trying to fight the identity wars of the '60's.

[Joshua Whalen]

Oh, yeah, and I admire Liz because she demands to be judged on her merits as a person, not on her merits as a woman. She competes as an equal, thast's why she is one.

[Matt Weiner]

Huh, I'm younger than you, and a guy, and I like to went berserk when you mentioned Katie Roiphe's name. It's not about fighting the sixties, it's about her having made her name by writing a book that by all accounts minimized date rape.

[litbrit]

Joshua, I am an Obama supporter, I am not stuck in the sixties politics-wise, and I STILL think your statement was ghastly.

Since you obviously don't get it, here's why: you don't need to "soothe" all of us "disappointed feminists" with your balm, since many of us feminists are happy with the apparent outcome of the primaries. Your statement plays into that age-old meme of feminists as angry, upset, dissatisfied women. Guess what? I am a happy, excited, and satisfied woman--more so than ever these days.

Secondly, you miss the boat with the Hillary slur--no matter what you think about HIllary, you can't deny her many achievements pre- Bill. Or outside of her partnership with Bill. Hills is an extremely smart and dedicated woman with an admirable work ethic; furthermore, she raised an intelligent, well-adjusted, poised daughter while the family lived in a fishbowl the likes of which we could only imagine.

Again: shame on you, dude.

[Stephen]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was raised in the feminist movement. My Mom co-founded NOW in 1967, chaired NOW's marriage and divorce comittee from 1967 to 1976, wrote NY State's chils support law, and lobbied Liz Holtzman to use her clout to get it voted on.

Are some of your best friends black?

I don't care what your mom did. I really don't. My Great-great grandfather helped found the KKK. That doesn't mean I'm proud of it, or that I've let that shape my own worldview - except perhaps to be extremely opposed to any appeasement of the revisionist history the south has been pushing on the rest of us for the last 150 years.

For people our age and younger, this stuff is just a done deal.

I'm younger than you and I don't think it's a done deal. Most of my friends are younger than you, and they don't think it's a done deal. Perhaps it's because we haven't been able to rest on what our parents accomplished while thinking that we're self-made or something. Call it being born on 3rd base and believing you hit a triple, if you will.

So long as it's ok to discriminate against women, and it is, there can be no "post-feminism." Just like with racial discrimination. It didn't end with the Civil Rights act, it didn't end with the assassination of MLK, Jr. and it won't even end by electing a black president.

The only people who think that are themselves racists, just like the only people who think that the work of feminism is "a done deal" are sexists, no matter who their parents were.

Secondly, you miss the boat with the Hillary slur--no matter what you think about HIllary, you can't deny her many achievements pre- Bill. Or outside of her partnership with Bill.

Or even within her partnership with Bill. He's no saint, but ISTM that they do have a very real partnership; certainly Bill isn't the one going around telling everyone that all Hillary did during the 90's was serve tea.

[litbrit]

Stephen, that's absolutely true (it's certainly true of my own marriage), but credit for what one does within a partnership is always going to be inextricably tied up with the other person's efforts, and Joshua, in his original comment, was implying that Hillary wasn't "a REAL feminist" without her own "very real accomplishments" outside of her husband's--hence my distinction and my assertion that she had achieved a great deal completely on her own.

[PTS]

Shorter Stephen:

When I say that Obama will divorce his wife for political gain, that's clear-eyed dispelling of Obama-loving cultists who really just hate Clinton, but a basically anonymous Obama supporter saying sexist things is a reason to excoriate Obama supporters in general.

Yup, those Obama supporters sure are pieces of crap. Thank god for Stephen, who will tell us how awful we are and how righteous he is.

[Stephen]

PTS,

You really don't understand what rhetoric is, do you? You don't understand the idea of intentional hyperbole either.

And it really makes you look silly to keep picking at that since commenters on this very blog have repeated the same old nonsense about the Clintons' "arrangement" and how Hillary probably only stays with Bill out of political ambition. But that's ok, isn't it, because while many people who support Obama aren't "cultists," you apparently are. Or, to put it in terms that I've actually used, Obama and Hillary appear to have both become ciphers for all your unresolved neuroses.

The problem is that Obama becoming President isn't going to make you all better, asshole.

[PTS]

Ah, I see. When YOU say it (and get called on it), you're joking. Other people are clearly assholes. The "just kidding" defense.

I don't understand your second paragraph. Did I ever make any such comment? Didn't I say that Joshua's comments were sexist? How do I get tarred with the that brush? What, is it because I didn't denounce AND reject the statement? Are you saying it is okay to go after the Obamas domestic relationship because other people go after the Clintons? That I am an asshole because people other than me make reprehensible statements? What?

This is my problem with you. I laid out my reasons for supporting Obama further up on the thread. Instead of, you know, responding to those views, you simply adopt lazy generalizations about "some" (what a weasel word, of course some Obama , call me a "cultist," and then you call me an "asshole." And not once have you engaged in the substance of what I wrote.

You, sir, are simply not worth talking to. It seems pretty clear that you are engaging in your desire to be a self-righteous scold. Which would be fine if you were incisive, interesting, or even willing to constructively engage those who disagree with you. But you're not. Go to hell.

[Stephen]

When YOU say it (and get called on it), you're joking.

That's not what I said. The issue with that post was that I felt Obama betrayed a lifelong friend out of political expediency. Given the narrative about him - that he is a "different kind of politician" - that was surprising. So I brought up an example of another betrayal that would be even more surprising - shocking, really - to try to illustrate the gravity of Obama's behavior to Rev. Wright.

Anyone not already on the defensive and/or not completely in the tank regarding Obama's inherent righteousness is able to see that.

Did I ever make any such comment?

Never said you did.

And not once have you engaged in the substance of what I wrote.

Unlike, of course, this entirely substantive critique of my comment. The problem is that you want it both ways. You want to be able to repeatedly insult my intelligence, question my integrity, accuse me of base motives, and, apparently, have me just roll over and agree with it or take it in silence.

And you're doing it in my own home. A non-trivial amount of your comments are devoted to excoriating me over some thing or another that you're deliberately misunderstanding or mistakenly assuming I'm directing toward you - I was responding to Whalen, not you. But I let these comments stand, I don't bring up what is increasingly becoming troll-like behavior to the other blog owners, because unlike you, I have a pretty thick skin and can handle the existence of a person who doesn't fall into line with my thinking - even after I tell them how wrong, stupid and bad they are!

I'm willing to let my actions toward you - or rather, the lack of same - speak for themselves as to which one of us is engaging the other with more graciousness. As for the "asshole" comment, the best way to not get called one is to not act like one. Bringing up old slights, accusing me of not engaging the substance of your argument when A)you consistently refuse to give me that courtesy and B)I wasn't engaging your "arguments," such as they are, because I wasn't responding to your comment, and generally polluting the comment threads with your juvenile vendetta against me is all very assholish behavior.