Will a Hillary Vice Presidency continue the precedent of presidential candidates picking VP running mates who also serve as insurance against impeachment and as pit bulls who do the dirty work?
We already know how far right wingers- the remaining 27% who still staunchly support Dubya-- feel about Hillary. They hate her guts from their heads to their toes, kinda like liberals feel about Cheney.
While the mainstream media and a lot of bloggers are proclaiming their indignance over Hillary's dumb remark about RFK, castigating her for her inappropriate mention of assassination, some even accusing her of suggesting the idea, I see a different perspective. Hillary is setting herself up to be Obama's Cheney-like junkyard dog.
She's shown how, with Bill, she can be incredibly tough, aggressive and abrasive-- to the extent that she's certainly pissed a lot of Obama supporters off. On the other hand, Obama has worked hard to come across as the great healer, the candidate to heal the divide and bring people together. Frankly, when the campaign gets into full gear, in September, I want a team that can get very tough. Hillary and Bill could play the "bad guys" in the good cop, bad cop routine, leaving Obama to hold on to his vision and hope positive persona. I get the feeling, Bill could really sink his teeth into the job of being the hardball guy who goes after Republicans.
Hillary at a rally in Bristol, PA
Further, once Obama wins the Obama-Clinton election, Hillary will serve for Obama very nicely as Cheney served for Dubya, as a huge disincentive to right wingers even thinking about impeaching Obama. Bill Clinton had the relatively benign Al Gore, who was not anywhere near as polarizing as Cheney. Bush senior had Dan Quayle, generally seen as a mental midget who no-one could have seriously considered as a serious presidential replacement. If you think about it, Gore was an anomaly-- a tolerable VP who the other side might not have loved, but that they'd have lived with Gore without grinding their teeth in their sleep. He certainly was no attack dog for Bill Clinton and perhaps things would have been different for Clinton and for Democrats if they'd had a high visibility tough guy who was also so unacceptable as a Vice President, they would never have considered impeachment.
If Hillary does run with Obama and does play the bad cop, tough guy roll for him, which seems so, so natural, it might be a very good thing for future female candidates. She's already been villified in so many ways by right wingers, if she comes off as a tough, Cheney-type of negotiator, she'll play a valuable role for the Democrats and she'll show that women in the US can be Iron Women, like Margaret Thatcher. That will "stretch the envelope" of public perception of female American leaders, and that's a good thing.
Clinton lost the candidacy because she allowed her campaign managers to plan and run an overly top-down campaign against Obama's incredibly successful predominantly bottom-up campaign. There WILL be a roll for top-down management and leadership in the Obama presidency, even if it works better, image-wise for Obama to limit and delegate some of his top-down command and control functions and needs to Hillary, or whoever he chooses. As "bottom-up" leadership and strategy continues to explode as the new political paradigm, Bush's selection of Cheney, which allowed Dubya to come off as the regular guy may be seen, as history looks back, as a brilliant move. If Obama gives Hillary some of the more aggressive Top-down jobs, he'll be able to maintain his image as the "bottom-up" we-the-people, grassroots leader, while tapping the power of the executive office.
Meanwhile, it's interesting to consider other potential Democratic VP candidates in light of, not only their ability to pull key states or demographics, or to cover strengths lacking in the presidential candidate, but their "Cheneyesque" natures-- their ability to be a tough, to play hardball. Chris Dodd might be one. He's shown his willingness, on occasion, to stand up to the Dem leaders who have given the senate its "spineless" reputation. California's attorney General Jerry Brown might be another one. Hey, he's a former flower child, but we're talking about toughness, not corruptness or corporate sellout, at least in the case of Brown. Selling out to corporations IS a concern for Hillary. She's a bit too chummy with the K street crew. Then again, roses have thorns. I wonder if it's possible to actually elect the purest of candidates in today's world.
That said, I am not suggesting that Hillary will become a criminal who engages in a multiplicity of offenses against the constitution, who engages in serial corruption, totally worthy of impeachment, as Cheney has. My hope is she and Bill will operate as tough, honest operators who work to accomplish the vision and mission Obama is elected to complete.
Politics is all about compromise and putting Hillary on the ticket with Barack would be the penultimate compromise. It may also be a brilliant idea that really does bring together America-- at least the Democratic party and more than 50% of the voters in November-- which is the outcome I think the rest of the world and a majority of Americans desire.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
On one level, it would be nice to see the party united. But on another, I’m not sure that the Clintons would “operate as tough, honest operators who work to accomplish the vision and mission Obama is elected to complete”. Honest is a big hurdle here.
Rather, I think that Bill and Hillary are like Bush in one way in particular, they are always in campaign mode, or perhaps I should say in “perpetual slash and burn campaign mode”.
I think your analogy with Cheney may be too precise, and that the Clintons would continue to practice what they preached against for so long, the “politics of personal destruction”.
Plus, Senator Clinton will bring a lot of negatives to the ticket with her, perhaps enough to ensure McCain is the 44th president of the United States.
by
John R Moffett (79 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 596 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 9:43:22 AM
I can't argue with your observations, but I can hope that if you give a pit bull a job functioning as a pit bull, then maybe she'll stay on task. If she's not VP, there's a good chance she'll replace Harry Reid in the Senate.
She can, after all, if she chooses, make trouble anywhere. Let's hope Obama, if he chooses her as VP, gives her assignments that give her the responsibility and power she craves, so she can put her energy into doing good work.
by
Rob Kall (748 articles, 3834 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1613 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 9:53:12 AM
as you know, you and I had taken a 180 degree turn concerning an Obama/ Hillary ticket. Now it seems I'm inclined to agree with you and do yet another turnaround. I think your points about Hillary are essentially correct. She'd make a great bulldog and I don't see that as hurting our chances of winning in November. My biggest concerns involve the current election methods that create an easy environment to deceive as our biggest enemy. That and the deliberate voter disenfranchising of the poor, the elderly and the minorities concerning this new voter ID program which has been upheld by the Bush appointees in the US Supreme Court. I am also one of the few Obama supporters who believes her statements concerning RFK, though certainly blunderous have been blown far out of proportion. I also don't see her as the criminally dishonest candidate comparable to Bush and company either as some seem to do. Granted her and Bill have at times gone over the top(at times I believe too far in fact) but I think you had that in mind when you wrote this article. I don't believe she would run the Obama presidency either and you are certainly right about this, the republicans will never try to impeach Obama as long as Hillary is VP. I think that is an angle no one else has looked at.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 310 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 4:57:10 PM
Agree with your premise that a pitbull type is best suited for the VP slot with Obama. But the animosity that Hillary has generated in the Obama camp will not lend itself easily to such a match up.
Personally I would not bother to mail in my ballot with such a ticket because I would perceive Obama as just the mouthpiece that Hillary is hiding behind.
In other words, just like Cheney is running the country now, so would Hillary be doing so in the next administration.
And Hillary represents the "old guard" politician that will water down, imo too much, Obama's message of hope and change.
Obama would do better to select a somewhat unknown "bulldog" type and forge a new coalition rather than try to make peace with the corrupt politics of the current batch of Washington insiders.
by
bushtool (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM
Mr. Kall justifies the Clinton/Obama ticket with interesting arguments, but I am not sure that ticket appeals to that many voters anyway: HC is and will remain--even in her own party--the woman you'd love to hate because she has this mysterious ability to attract intense dislike, even hatred, for no rational reasons. She is just grating, annoying and downright unpleasant, that's all. It's unfair and I am sure she has tried very hard to change hER image, but these irrational but powerful impressions just won't go away.
Mr. Kall compares HC to a pitbull, and think that if the Dems could find a pitbull job for her, she should be useful and would not create too much trouble.
For one thing, you always have to watch a pitbull; don't ever think you can let it play with kids without supervision, or sleep with you in your own bed, like with a poodle. Hillary being loyal to Obama, while she would be eyeing the 2012 nomination? Do you really believe it?
Second, and most of all, HC is a pitbull allright--it's clear that once she has sunk her teeth in the jugular, she does not let go. She is undoubtedly very tough and tenacious, she fights ferociously and below the belt if necessary but she is not a clever fighter;
as we have seen lately, when she is desperate and feels cornered, she lunges and lashes unthinkingly with as much aim, coordination and efficiency as a drunken man in a bar brawl. Her all out lowblow attacks against Obama missed their mark by miles, and in the process, she stupidly shot herself in the foot and damaged her image even further.
Who needs a fierce but inept fighter who hurts herself more than her adversary in combat? I sure hope that Obama has enough sense to pick someone else.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 282 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM
An insurance veep is a Bush dynasty tradition that has made itself manifest in two ways. Bush Pere used the formula that had a scheming asshole in the White House with an imbecilic asshole at the Naval Observatory. Bush Fils reversed the formula for his own reign of destruction.
Obama doesn't need an insurance veep, as evidenced by the fact that Republican outrage has to be whipped up over issues like an anecdote about his great uncle actually being set a few miles from where he said it was.
An arm twister with some intestinal fortitude may come in handy to assist in moving the Presidential legislative agenda, but there are many who can fulfill that role without bringing along Hillary's baggage, including the valise full of her husband. I still favor Jim Webb of Virginia, and Virginia has two alternatives to Webb who would likely serve as well, they being Mark Warner and the current governor.
Hillary may have alienated African American Democrats for the long term, and in that eventuality, her Senate seat is a risk. I say let her fade. The United States does not owe any family a place at the government table, be they Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Taft or any other.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1015 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM
Hillary is a crook and I may be naive, but I think Obama is actually fairly honest. It would be tempting for corporate crooks to knock off Obama so they could get another licence to steal.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1047 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 1:51:00 PM
Hillary should definitely say no and run as an independent. I urge her supporters to send the DNC a message that the media/DNC gang bang against the most qualified candidate should not go unanswered. In November, if HRC is not at the top of the Democratic ticket, vote against the party. Men behaving badly should not be rewarded.
by
Suza Eliz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 2:41:02 PM
the votes of Democrats if (when) Hillary's most stident supporters abandon the party. When one of them casts their vote for a Republican, it will be because they are a Republican. Indeed, taking a strong position according to the equipment concealed by a candidate's underwear sounds like a plank to be lumped in with the rest of the God, guns and gays positions espoused by the Republican Party.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1015 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 3:45:06 PM
but the truth is Kennedy and Johnson couldn't stand each other but Kennedy needed Johnson to win the southern protestant vote. I don't think Hillary and Obama hate each other as much as their respective supporters seem to. And if someone were to bump off Obama God forbid, it would happen in spite of who the VP was and more than likely be the product of racial hatred than political motivations.
One question we should ask ourselves is why is the Bush administration still so blatant and arrogant? Could it be they do not fear the electorate? Will Diebold fullfil the current legacy and steal yet another election making John McCain their king? I believe that is a more probable likelihood.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 310 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 5:11:10 PM
I will bet that she won't be picked. Reason I believe this? First, both Obama and Hillary are minorities. 2 minorities winning a ticket? Nope, I don't think so. Obama will pick a white male. It's the only way he will win.
Secondly, Bill Clinton and Geo. Herbert Walker Bush are buddies to the end. With Hillary, her husband, and his bud, Herbert Walker, Obama doesn't even have a say in anything. Ppl under-estimate the power of Geo. Herbert Walker Bush and his corruption> (that's being kind).
Obama would do well with Sen Webb, one of the rumored choices. I know for certain, that Obama would lose a load of votes hooking up with Miss Hill. She has plain out called Liberal activists a drag on her show, she has stated so many things against progressive ideas and she is neck deep into Rupert Murdoch, Blackwater USA, and so many of those buck shot Dick fronts.
If he picks her, he is committing political suicide as far as winning this race. That's my opinion, and I'm sorry to disagree with you Rob, but I call it as I see it. I know young voters don't like Hillary.
As for me, I voted for Obama in the primary in order to push Hill out. As for my vote in the general election, if Hill is with Obama, count me out. I will vote McKinney, or even Barr.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 257 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 6:56:13 PM
What progressive value does this article champion?
Let's consolidate the unitary executive for OUR gang-banger?
Rob, you understand impeachment better than most and have committed a lot of your time and effort and some money to it. But you have always equivocated. You have always said you'd accept the lesser of two evils. That you'd take whatever Democrat was nominated over whatever Republican.
That, I respectfully (because you have been a decent guy and a diligent citizen) submit, is exactly the problem with American progressives. You are Americans looking to your priviledges first, and to your human values second.
I don't know how it is that with your understanding of the difficulties of getting impeachment through first the house and then the trial in the senate you can imagine that the Republicans would succeed in impeaching Obama if he did not deserve impeachment.
Rob the problem with lesser evil thinking is that it always encourages us to surrender and to retreat. Sooner or later there is nowhere left to retreat or to surrender too.
To be a true human progressive we need to have hierarchies of values. If there is no universal human value that you won't ultimately stand for and no negotiate away then you aren't a progressive. This is not meant to be an attack it is matter of logic.
In tough times, in concentration camps, the choice can come down to rush the fence and almost certainly die, or appease the tyrants and live. Some appease the tyrants even to the extent of working for them. They turn on their own. They give up the plotters who would try to organise a joint rushing of the fence.
American progressives are becoming like that. You claim to be against torture and pro the rule of law and I think that you genuinely are so long as those values do not cost you too much.
You really are going to have to choose or be seen to have failed to choose. You know that you can, that it is within your power to go to Obama before the election and to seek a commitment from him NOT to use the Presidential pardon power to pardon war criminals, you also know that Obama will not want the baggage of that committment and the publicising of that commitment whilst he is trying to get elected. But without getting that commitment from Obama you are not doing your due diligence as a progressive that wants a world in which Presidents do not order torture and do not order aggressive invasions.
If your read your article not as an American but as a human being what universal human values does it champion?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 953 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 7:46:38 PM
about every two or three days this Hillary thing (devine savior B.S.) keeps floating back to the surface with hopes that she's the one for the people......
All I can say is........you people ain't doing your home work........you ain't digging deep enough for the truth about this woman.........if you did, you would find yourself as a foolish clown for entertaining the idea for this woman to darken the doors anywhere in Washington D.C...............
These kind of opeds are kinda like for fun right???.......This is a rib tickler, huh????..........Or maybe you folks ain't serious about our economy?.......or you guys maybe like having criminals running the country?..........No wait a minute.........some of you older guys find her seductive, right????............is that it??
I just can't figure it out.........what the hell does Hillary have to make you want her back in the White House?????.........
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 4:35:24 AM
If he is going to pick someone who is well-known, who voted for the war resolution, whom progressives are not terribly fond of and with whom he has had a media-enhanced tiff, it should be Biden. He has foreign policy credentials and something resembling integrity.
by
Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 8:47:37 AM
Well said, and importantly positioned, Rob. Liberals are supposedly the intelligent ones, right? We truly need to comprehend the difference between idealism and the real world. Evolution is slow, and running mates are often like bedfellows who compliment each other for the mutual task at hand. The Republicans win because they state their beliefs as if it's an obvious facts and they strategize for the win; climax-- nothing less.
Hillary has a strong voice. For my money, she's not yet shown it-- partially due to her own flaws, partially because any woman who has fought for anything can tell you, the world IS a man's way of doing things. that is an undisputable fact. It's exceedingly tough for a woman to navigate how she should be perceived in anything to get ahead-- should she wear the pants, show a little bit of her feminine side, androgynous, mother, sister, unemotional or emotional, supportive wife or independent woman.
As VP Hilary will fight like a momma protecting her cubs. And though Obama is too young for this analogy to fit exactly—yes to the good cop-bad cop--- and also a bit of “mom and pop” (Ok slightly younger brother/son taking the helm) protecting the business for the benefit of the whole family AND the surrounding villages.
by
crystal haidl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 3:20:42 PM
