Much speculation is floating around at the moment about the possibility of President Obama dumping Joe Biden as his running mate and bringing Hillary Clinton on board. The same thing happened a while ago and then died down; no doubt it's been revived because of the belated realization (on the part of Obama's campaign) that they might not coast to victory, after all.
I have read at least four or five opinion pieces on the subject, all related to whether or not it will actually happen and how it would be accomplished so as not to make Obama look bad. (The most popular guess seems to be that Biden and Hillary would make a switch, and he would be Sec. of State in a second Obama administration--in effect, that he would not be 'dumped,' but would agree to the swap.)
None of what I've read, though, addresses what seems the most obvious and important question. Why would Clinton even consider such a move? Why would it be in her own best interest? The assumption seems to be that it would--but I don't see it.
It's certainly in Obama's, because she could well boost him to a win (although I suspect this would be a particularly bitter pill for him and Michelle to have to swallow--needing Hillary...) She remains highly popular with her fans and her tenure as Sec. of State has earned her respect even among non-fans and past critics. Her substitution onto the ticket is unlikely to change any votes among those who've already decided Obama's performance doesn't merit a second term, but it could easily energize disillusioned Dems and still-undecided Independents who voted for Obama the first time.
But what's in it for Hillary? Regardless of her many strengths, she would still be just the vice president--the "spare tire in the automobile of government' as one v.p. famously put it. Certainly, if she's v.p. for a popular, accomplished president, her chances of succeeding him would be boosted. But if Obama wins, I don't see that happening. Obviously, for the good of the country and all the people out of work, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that if he gets reelected, he'll double down on what he's already done and what he wants to do, and the backlash will be that in 2016, the Republicans could run almost anyone and win. Being associated with Obama could be a huge liability for her, rather than a help.
In a situation like that, she would actually have a better chance running as the Democratic nominee if she had not been involved with the administration in such a capacity. Really, an Obama win, with or without her, doesn't necessarily improve her 2016 chances. If Romney wins, he's inheriting as big or an even bigger mess than Obama did, and a Democratic challenger will have more traction against him than against a new challenger after 8 years of Obama. Unless--and once again, for the good of the country, this would be the best scenario--Romney did a bang-up job.
Either way, it's a political calculation, but I don't see that hitching her wagon to Obama as his second-in-command really is the smart gamble. And my opinion of her (for 2016) is not going to be improved at all if she cooperates with Obama to turn Uncle Joe loose as Sec. of State. That's really what we need in today's world, isn't it? As our top diplomat, a man who merely opens his mouth and people hold their breath and cringe because they don't know what might come out. Oy.
I think any talk of Clinton joining the ticket is pure speculation and there's nothing to it. In retrospect I think the best ticket in 2008 would have been Clinton/Obama. Clinton may have done a better job and if re-elected Obama would have been more seasoned after 8 years as V.P. But that didn't happen so we've got what we got.
ReplyDeleteOn more than one occasion Clinton has stated that she's done with politics after this term but we'll see. I think her time has passed and Democrats probably missed an opportunity last time.
You're probably quite right about a Clinton/Obama ticket, but that's water under the bridge, for sure. We agree that Hillary won't do it, it seems, but for different reasons. I know Clinton has said she's done after this, and certainly, it's possible she means it. But I take these kinds of denials by politicians with a grain of salt, at most. I believe she won't do it, as I said above, because there's very little to her advantage in doing so. Clearly there's none if she really has no further political ambitions, but there's little to gain and much to lose, if she does. I don't agree that her time has passed, and I won't be surprised--in the slightest--if she goes for the nomination in 2016.
ReplyDelete