All right, I don't hate Hillary. But I did hate her campaign, and I hated it in a big, big way. I could list all of the horrible tactics pursued in the Penn/Rovian playbook, but I don't want to invite Hillary supporters to unload on Obama's shortcomings, so I'll stay mum. "They're horrible people," I think, was my comment in the midst of the campaign's end. Let that speak to my deep animosity toward the Clintons for their campaign.
So why in the world would I be excited, even overjoyed, to see Hillary get the VP nod?
Because I want to see Obama elected President.
Because, though I'd like there to be a better VP candidate out there for the "change" ticket, I don't see one that'll reassure Americans that "change" doesn't mean change for the worse.
Because, damn it, she's just better than the rest of the VP candidates, even with uncontainable, unmanageable, utterly incorrigible Bill toted along behind her.
A quick run down of top VP candidates.
EVAN BAYH. He could bring Indiana, I suppose, but at the cost of making this ticket seem too slick, too polished, too removed from most Americans' lives. Bayh is a career politician who's the son of a career politician who happens to be to the right of Hillary. Hillary beats him in excitement, in passion, in articulateness, in debate skills, and she'd be a far, far better attack dog, especially given her apparent warmth toward McCain as a person. And Bayh and Hillary both had the same position on the war, so no advantage to Bayh there.
JOE BIDEN. He brings foreign policy credentials and a great bulldog VP role, but I'd wager most Americans see Hillary as just as seasoned in foreign policy, and she'd be a yet better bulldog. With a few notable exceptions during a brutal year-long campaign, she consistently stayed on message (even when the message might have been wrong). Biden is a great attack dog, but there's little of Clinton's self-control and laser-like honing of message. He's all over the map, as uncontrollable as post-Presidency Bill. And his career in Washington far predates Hillary's, making him the quintessential Washington insider. He also leaves Obama open to the "wind-bag ticket" charge: here are two men who just looooove to hear themselves talk. Also: choosing Biden is an obvious Obama move to cover a perceived weakness. He's saying, "hey, I need help with gravitas on foreign policy." Choosing Hillary doesn't send that same message, though it accomplishes the same goal. And both Biden and Hillary supported the war, so there's little advantage to Biden on that issue, other than the fierceness of his critique since. I'd put Hillary a few points ahead of Biden: she'd bring in working class women and the elderly, and that could put Florida and a few states in play.
TIM KAINE. An early favorite of mine, I'm thinking that Americans need more reassurance in the ticket than a relative novice to the political scene. I love Kaine's enthusiasm, and I think his politics could have helped bring some evangelicals and Catholics to Obama, and he could have delivered Virginia (I don't think Hillary helps much there), but Obama has to cover his flank if he's going to convince Americans to trust in his leadership in a ridiculously unstable world. The same goes for Sebelius. A Clinton on the ticket would bring both economic and foreign policy reassurance.
Those are the big three. Obama could pick Clark, in another great head-fake, but given Wes jr.'s charges, I don't see it happening, and frankly, though I like Clark a great deal, I think he comes across as somehow too aloof, too intellectual, a little too arrogant to properly balance Obama's own tendencies in those directions.
So, barring a Jack Reed or Mark Warner, I don't see a way to generate the kind of excitement that the Obama brand needs now. Kaine and Sebelius would have done it, but in the post-Georgia world, they won't be selected. Biden and Bayh won't do it, since they're as insider Washington as Hillary. If you're going to go with a Washington insider, why not make it someone with bite and focus?
So send Bill to do peace corps work some place in Africa which lacks media, or even electricity, and maybe, just maybe we can get by without a sideshow. And have Geraldine Ferraro accompany him.
But as for Hillary, there's no more focused attack-dog, no more passionate advocate of working class women, no more reassuring candidate for the elderly, no more energizing presence, no more exciting VP candidate. She's tough, she's a fierce and seasoned fighter, and I'd like her on our side. If Kennedy and Johnson could swallow their pride, there's no reason why Obama and Clinton can't.
Obama/Clinton = McCain buzzsaw.
This nation needs an Obama victory in a bad way.
Imagine. Imagine the party in Denver.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 111 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
