I forgot exactly how many voices it takes to make a trend (Mickey Kaus is the expert on that sort of thing), but I think it's three. If so, I've almost captured one. Dick Morris and David Harsanyi of the Denver Post say that Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton for his running mate. The Wall Street Journal almost says as much, and then sensibly pulls back from the brink. So far as I know, none of them said this before the Biden announcement, which raises interesting questions on other fronts.
This is Harsanyi:
The loquacious Biden entertained the press corps for a handful of primary debates before dropping out; Hillary persuaded 18 million primary voters to support her. So then why not Clinton? If you erode your theme of "change" by choosing a longtime Washington insider, why not pick the one who can unite your party?
This is the WSJ:
Hillary had a stronger case for being put on the ticket than any loser since Ronald Reagan in 1976. Her supporters in Denver this week are making no effort to bury their bitterness that she isn't making the fall run. Yet Mr. Obama knew that making her his running mate would have undermined his ability to govern if he wins. Americans don't want a three-person Presidency.
The WSJ is surely right that having Hill & Bill in the White House is a very disconcerting proposition. VP's are supposed to be firmly under the command of the President, but how could President Obama press his authority? Hillary would have a strong and independent base of support; she would enjoy the presumption of being the next nominee on much more reliable terms than last time; and the Constitution would not allow him to fire her. Or at least he couldn't fire her until four years later, meaning that the civil war would be put off until Obama was about to run for reelection. Maybe the Clintons can behave themselves for one, but Bill for four years? Surely Obama could not have put her on the ticket.
On the other hand there is that old saying about choosing a VP. You should consider only three things: 1) will this choice help you win? 2) Will this choice help you win? And 3) will this choice help you win? Harsanyi's point is that Hillary would have created a unified ticket. Now I argued earlier in the year that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the real dream team, and I still think so. That ticket would have been much more comfortable for all concerned. Hillary gets her crack at the White House, while the young upstart gets in line for the next opening. Obama's supporters would have been disappointed, but I think they would surely have followed him to the polls in November. Obama would have carried none of the baggage that Hillary carried, and his career so far suggests that he has no trouble going along to get along. That would have been well possible if Obama had received, say 40% of the delegates/popular vote.
But at this point an Obama/Clinton ticket wouldn't unify the party at all. Way too many Clinton voters now feel cheated. Putting Hillary on the ticket would only have confirmed their suspicions, just as giving the Clintons two days on the convention floor is now doing. Obama should have been firm: give the Clintons their moment, on the same night, and then get them out of the way. He needs to assert his authority now. He needs to say to Hillary's supporters: I am the nominee. If you want to beat the Republicans, I am the only way that is going to happen. Maybe Hillary voters would swallow their pride and get behind him, and maybe not. But either they do or they don't; and whoever does will be solidly behind him, while whoever refuses won't be purchased by niceness.
Obama isn't playing strong ball just now. He is playing like he only has to run out the clock. Maybe that is in fact true; but with no bounce from the Biden announcement, and McCain pulling ahead today in the Gallop tracking poll, the signs of it aren't obvious.
Recent Comments