The media seem to agree these days that Obama will be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. So now there is much talk in punditry circles about the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket in November.
I cannot quite decide whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.
Let's take a look at some of the pros and cons.
Pro: It would unite the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters, many of whom have threatened to vote for McCain or Nader or the as-yet-unnamed Green Party candidate if their preferred Democrat didn't win the nomination.
Con: Chances are good that most Clinton supporters would ultimately rally around Obama, even if he chooses someone else as his running mate, rather than risk another four years of war, torture, corporate rule, and economic upheaval.
Pro: It would give us the best of both worlds: Obama's fresh promises of change and Clinton's hardened-yet-cynical pragmatism honed by decades of experience inside and outside the beltway.
Con: Obama is running on the promise of bringing change to Washington, bringing an end to politics as usual. To some extent, however, Clinton embodies the very kind of political gamesmanship that Obama seeks to overthrow.
Pro: It would combine Obama's high-road style of avoiding negative campaigning and meeting attacks with dignified rhetorical responses with Clinton's more seasoned ability to fight back as ferociously as she is attacked.
Con: Do we really need Clinton on the ticket in order to fight back? Didn't Obama respond quite adequately on his own when he addressed the Reverend Wright scandal with his powerful speech on race in America today? And don't we have MoveOn.org and other 527s to do the real dirty work when needed?
Pro: If they won, Clinton would beat out Condi Rice in the glass-ceiling wars.
Con: It shouldn't be a matter of electing a woman just for the sake of electing a woman. It should be a matter of electing the right person regardless of gender.
Pro: We'd have Bill Clinton back in the White House.
Con: We'd have Bill Clinton back in the White House.
Hence my dilemma. I encourage readers to share their thoughts with me on the issue.
But, whether or not Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate, one thing is certain: Any democratic White House would be far better for this country than a McCain-led continuation of the status quo.
It appears that Americans are ready for change. The remaining question is: How much change?
http://www.maryshawonline.com
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
For me this is an easy one. Hillary Clinton has some of the highest negative ratings among the American people of any modern politician. While she would bring some very good things to the ticket, the negatives she would bring would far exceed the positives.
I would like all progressives to really consider the Clinton legacy. Bill Clinton was to the right of Richard Nixon in terms of domestic policies. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA, media deregulation, and the end of meaningful welfare for poor and disadvantaged people. None of those things could have been done by George Bush because the resistance would have been too high. But with the help of a hard-core Republican Congress, Bill Clinton managed to set the country back decades in terms of worker's benefits, wages and rights, and media responsibility, among other things. The booming economy of the 90’s had as much to do with the coincidence of the tech revolution as anything else, plus Bill Clinton's continued Republican-like deregulation of virtually every corporate sector.
Hillary Clinton is at least as conservative as Bill Clinton (she began her political life as a Goldwater Republican). Barack Obama is clearly to the left of them in terms of policy. No thanks, I don't need any more Clintons in the White House.
Obama/Edwards, Obama/Richardson, Obama/Feinstein, Obama/Gore, Obama/Clark would all be superior to Obama/Clinton in my opinion.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 598 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 7:43:28 AM
I can sympathize with how much you guys want a Leading Lady close to the Oval Office...........but IMHO, Obama-Clinton Ticket will simply not work..........Maybe something like Obama-Pelosi?....................
Besides.........haven't you had enough of the Clintons?...........You should know by now , that you can't have one without the other............I can see it all now, "Bill Honey, don't you think we can crank up some support for NAFTA again, don't forget we dropped 10 mil on that campaign I fkd up on?"...........................
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM
Much as I would like to have a qualified female VP (and Clinton is obviously qualified), the down side is just too powerful. In addition to the thoughtful comments throughout this thread, I would add:
First, both Clintons have an astonishing phototropism: they can sense limelight miles away and head for it unerringly and unstoppably. It is the job of the VP to be self-effacing (notice that Gore didn't bang the drum for the environment -- already his dearest cause -- when in office). Either one of them would be in competition with their president and both together would be insufferable.
Second, aside from gavel-rapping in the Senate, the VP has no essential duties, except what the president gives and/or he/she appropriates. This tradition that the job is whatever the holder makes it would be irresistable to either/both Clintons.
Finally, the Clintons control the old-line DNC power structure (as I saw to my dismay here in Oregon). Obama will have enough trouble taking charge of it without having its old rajahs still around to oppose him.
It's not that I don't like Senator Clinton (though in fact, I don't). I might not like my dentist either, but I'm not in his chair for friendship, I'm there for oral care. But the fact is that the office of Vice President doesn't require her evident talents, and would be harmed by her equally obvious liabilities.
by
Jim Stinson (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 59 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 4:53:08 PM
