Will Obama Give Hillary the VP Nod?

Baldwin's lesbian, so that pretty much undercuts her chances. Plus she's liberal as all get-out. But purely in terms of personality type, as a woman, I think she could go far.

But that's getting back into type, and away from my main point, which is that *I* -- and I'd venture to say most of the people you've castigated here for being thoughtlessly anti-Hillary -- have no particular problem with the concept of a woman winning. Not about archetypes or spin or whatever, just have some problems with what Hillary has actually said and done.

Not huge problems, either. I will be thrilled to pieces if Obama manages to get the nomination, but if he doesn't, and Hillary does, I'd most likely vote for her.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Assuming an Obama win, it does bring up the interesting question of who he might choose as VP candidate. I think Lieberman is likely out. The campaign will have access to all the usual polling and focus group techniques to help winnow the possibles but I'm not even sure who might be placed on that list. Experience will be helpful but only if it isn't readily associated with 'the past' or 'the establishment'. Bayh? Edwards? Richardson?

Traditionally, a vp candidate is chosen to create regional balance on a ticket and to help win the vp's home state. Of course, Clinton ignored regional balance when he chose Gore as his running-mate, and Edwards didn't move North Carolina over to the Democratic side of the ledger in 2004, so these rules aren't ironclad.

I'd say Evan Bayh would be a good choice for vp except for two factors: (1) he comes from Indiana, right next door to Illinois (so much for regional balance); and (2) it's unlikely (although not outside the realm of possibility) that he could win Indiana for the Democratic ticket.

I doubt Obama would pick Edwards, both because he doesn't want his vp choice to overshadow him and because Edwards has already proven that he is not much of an asset as a running-mate (and I doubt very much that Edwards would accept second-spot on a ticket again).

Richardson would actually make a very logical choice for running-mate. He has the kind of executive experience that Obama lacks. He comes from a western state that is "in play," and the Democrats need to do well in the west to compensate for the fact that they don't do well at all in the south. And Richardson is Hispanic, which is an increasingly vital constituency for the party. The only downside to choosing Richardson is that the Democratic Party, I think, wants Richardson to run for the senate seat that is being vacated by Pete Domenici. Richardson would be practically a shoo-in for that job, while other potential candidates are less likely to pick up that seat for the Democrats.

I think Obama would be well-advised to consider a woman for the position, both to appease disappointed Clinton supporters and to cement the Democratic hold on the women's vote. Jeanne Shaheen of NH might have been a good choice, but she's running for the senate this year. Barbara Boxer might be good, but the Democrats already have California's electoral votes locked up, so there's no advantage to choosing a running mate from that state. Jennifer Granholm would provide an advantage in keeping Michigan blue, but she suffers from an insurmountable handicap -- she was born in Canada.

I dunno. Maybe Pat Paulsen is still available. Oh wait, he's been dead for over ten years. Never mind.

0 Replies

I thought about Richardson too, could happen. He has a lot of experience. But I'm not sure about the black/Latino ticket aspect. Super-cool in some ways, but risky in others. And I'm not sure if he'd be necessary to draw the Latino community to Obama's ticket.

I still think old, experienced, white male is most likely for all of the balance reasons you mention, just not sure of who.

I agree that Edwards is unlikely.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Richardson would actually make a very logical choice for running-mate. He has the kind of executive experience that Obama lacks.

This is a good point--and i believe that it is true that former Governors still have a better track record than Senators in presidential races, which i have always assumed is a result of that executive experience.

However, VPs usually don't do anything. So i am curious to know whether you suggest that Richardson would be an asset were Obama elected, or are saying that Richardson would be an asset to the campaign because of his perceived executive competence.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Sure.

Angela Merkel seems interesting.

Yep. She doesnt get any of the flak Hillary gets.

"Sego" (Segolene Royal). Sure she got some of the "scary ambitious woman" flak as well, but she also got lots of positive media coverage and public feedback, at least until her election victory. And even when she lost, she did better than her Socialist predecessors had done since '88.

Mary Robinson.

Michelle Bachelet.

Gro Harlem Brundtland.

President Vike-Freiberga of Latvia.

Here in Hungary, Speaker of the Parliament Katalin Szili is the most popular politician of the governing Socialist Party. In fact, three of Hungary's four most popular political figures are women.

Look, some women politicians end up portrayed as cold, calculating, ruthless bitches. Some dont. Most fall somewhere in the middle. Overall, women face a big advantage of course, and they will get this kind of attack a lot more quickly than men. But it does make an important difference whom we're talking about. Thatcher, Winnie Mandela - sometimes the reputation doesnt need any hyping. Merkel, Robinson, Freiberga - some women don't get tainted much with the image, even as they become the most powerful, or one of the most powerful, people in their country. Just because they are remote enough from it personality-wise.

Hillary is no Winnie Mandela of course, but yes, whereabouts she ends up on this scale is also a function of who she is.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This is a good point--and i believe that it is true that former Governors still have a better track record than Senators in presidential races, which i have always assumed is a result of that executive experience.

However, VPs usually don't do anything. So i am curious to know whether you suggest that Richardson would be an asset were Obama elected, or are saying that Richardson would be an asset to the campaign because of his perceived executive competence.

Both, but I'm looking more at the political calculations in choosing a running mate who would help in the election, rather than post-election. I agree, though, that vp's typically don't do a whole lot while in office (Dick Cheney being the notable exception).

I would just add that the last time two sitting senators were elected as running-mates was in 1960, and that was a pretty close call. And before that, the last time two senators ran and won as running-mates was ... well, I don't think it ever happened before.

0 Replies

I'd have to check to be sure, but i believe 1960 was the only time that two sitting Senators won an election. In fact, i believe that it is correct that for the first half of our history, very few Senators ran at all.

Washington--never a Senator
Adams--never a Senator
Jefferson--never a Senator
Madison--never a Senator
Monroe--never a Senator
J Q Adams--never a Senator
Jackson--Senator from Tennessee (not sitting when elected to the Presidency)
Van Buren--never a Senator
Harrison--Senator from Ohio (not sitting when elected to the Presidency)
Tyler--Senator from Virginia (not sitting when elected Vice President to W H Harrison)
Polk--never a Senator
Taylor--held no political office until elected President
Fillmore--never a Senator
Pierce--Senator from New Hampshire (not sitting when elected to the Presidency)
Buchanan--Senator from Pennsylvania (not sitting when elected to the Presidency)
Lincoln--never a Senator
Johnson--Senator from Tennessee (appointed military governor of Tennessee by Lincoln, before being elected Vice President)
Grant--held no political office until elected President
Hayes--never a Senator
Garfield--never a Senator
Arthur--held no elective political office until elected as Garfield's Vice President
Cleveland--never a Senator

That covers the first half of our history--and including more Senators than i had thought. Governors and "military heroes" did far better than Senators. None of those who were Senators were sitting when elected.

0 Replies

I was going through this thread and came across this:

nimh wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
not a "what he said" here, but a "what he didn't do"... which is that he didn't bother to vote for or against the labeling of the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization last week.

that's disappointing.

Yes, I thought that was disappointing too, though I dont think that au1929 minded.

On the other hand, at least he didnt actually vote for it - like Hillary did.

Just wanted to note for the record that he issued this press release the day of the vote:

Quote:

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html

From the comments on Politico, can't vouch for them:

Quote:

Ok.... sure. But why wasn't he able to vote today?

Quote:

Will: The vote was scheduled to happen last night and then Reid pulled it, saying it would not be on the calendar for the foreseeable future. Apparently the foreseeable future is not much before noon eastern the next day. Obama was in NH campaigning.

0 Replies

okay BM

0 Replies

Moving my post from the Obama thread here since we're talking about it here too:

Quote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Other thoughts: Who will be the choices for VP? (Is that why Biden ran?)

These thoughts were on my mind as I tossed and turned last night unable to sleep because I was too excited about the win.

At what point do candidates seriously begin contemplating their choices for VP?

Who is on his short list?

Should Obama do as Bush did and appoint someone no one will want to see as President to protect himself from assassination/impeachment? If so, who might that person be and still contribute to an Obama win in the general election?

Wouldn't it be great if Obama's VP were a minority woman? Who is on the radar for such a possibility? Wonder if Barbara Lee is on the list.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Sure.

Angela Merkel seems interesting.

Yep. She doesnt get any of the flak Hillary gets.

"Sego" (Segolene Royal). Sure she got some of the "scary ambitious woman" flak as well, but she also got lots of positive media coverage and public feedback, at least until her election victory. And even when she lost, she did better than her Socialist predecessors had done since '88.

Mary Robinson.

Michelle Bachelet.

Gro Harlem Brundtland.

President Vike-Freiberga of Latvia.

Here in Hungary, Speaker of the Parliament Katalin Szili is the most popular politician of the governing Socialist Party. In fact, three of Hungary's four most popular political figures are women.

Look, some women politicians end up portrayed as cold, calculating, ruthless bitches. Some dont. Most fall somewhere in the middle. Overall, women face a big advantage of course, and they will get this kind of attack a lot more quickly than men. But it does make an important difference whom we're talking about. Thatcher, Winnie Mandela - sometimes the reputation doesnt need any hyping. Merkel, Robinson, Freiberga - some women don't get tainted much with the image, even as they become the most powerful, or one of the most powerful, people in their country. Just because they are remote enough from it personality-wise.

Hillary is no Winnie Mandela of course, but yes, whereabouts she ends up on this scale is also a function of who she is.

nimh

I don't know if you can draw illuminating parallels between the US and many european cultures in this matter. For example, we know how predictable and ubiquitous are PR strategies from the right (in the US) to very purposefully feminize Dem candidates. To what relative degree does this happen in Europe (outside of Italy, perhaps).

Perhaps there is a correlation that might be drawn out between this "feminine = weakness" meme and militarist societies...I hadn't really considered that before. How do women do, as regards high or highest office, in Russia? Thatcher clearly found it advantageous to accent her testicular bona fides with the Falklands. One Brit writer wrote a very funny bit on Thatcher's handlers needing to keep watch to prevent her from entering mens' washrooms.

0 Replies

I don't know either, which is why I asked>
Biden was the first name that came to mind.
Edwards: You know what I think about him (:wink:).
Hillary: Too much minority.

I'm thinking it has a lot to do with who he'll be up against. Against McCain: he'd better stay fairly central or risk losing some independents and cross-overs. A religious nut for an opponent however, I think would grant him great latitude to reciprocate by going much further Left. Maybe even Feingold

Bulletproofing? Again, I think Biden. No rightwing nut caps Obama to get Biden.

Blatham: While many people probably didn't support Al Sharpton because he's black; plenty just didn't think he was the right guy. No racism quantification is possible from examining his political career. I think Hillary is a dull clod, when standing anywhere near her husband's shadow. Does this opinion make me sexist?

0 Replies

bill wrote

Quote:

Blatham: While many people probably didn't support Al Sharpton because he's black; plenty just didn't think he was the right guy. No racism quantification is possible from examining his political career. I think Hillary is a dull clod, when standing anywhere near her husband's shadow. Does this opinion make me sexist?

The Sharpton analogy is a good one. Of course I couldn't validly argue that criticism of Hillary arises out of only sexist presumptions. She's unique as Sharpton is unique.

But, next to Bill, most everyone looks something of "dull clod". And 'dullness' does not account for the visceral reactions she can produce in Americans.

Take some of the words and metaphors commonly used in descriptions of her. "Cold" or "cold fish", for example. How many men or male candidates ever have such descriptors applied to them? "Voice like fingernails on a chalkboard". "Bitch". These are all terms and ideas which reference her gender.

Gender surely isn't all that is in play here. But gender IS in play here.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

How do women do, as regards high or highest office, in Russia?

Horribly.

Then again, Bachelet got elected in Chile and that's a macho enough country I suppose.

0 Replies

Cold and calculating seem to go hand in hand, right? How many of her male counterparts have had the juicy details of their famous wife's extracurricular sex lives become front page news while they feigned surprise and forgiveness and clung to a marriage (that couldn't be any more about convenience if there was a beef jerky dispensing slurpy machine installed at the foot of their bed) presumably because it offers a better shot at political expediency? She is one "cold fish".

Again, there is certainly some sexism going on (I'm not 100% immune to it myself), but there is NO justification for you to ascribe Obama's rise or Hillary's recent hiccup to it.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Bachelet got elected in Chile and that's a macho enough country I suppose.

A few years ago I dug profoundly into a international poll on values, and the results were astonishing.
The countries were ranked on two levels: "survival versus postmodern values" and "tradition versus legal values".
The first one is about what matters more to people: strictly economic wellbeing or "quality of life" (vacations, spare time, participation within the community, etc). The second one is about who tells people what to do: tradition -and this could mean churches, too- or the legal binding.

As one might imagine, the postmodern-legal societies are in Northern Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands. Germany is very high in the "legal" axis, but not so much in the "postmodern" one.
China is very high in the "legal" axis" but totally "survival" prone.
Most Eastern European countries are somewhat behind China, but end in the same segment.

Now here comes the interesting stuff: Strongly Catholic European countries (Poland, Ireland), richer Latin American Countries (Mexico, Chile and Argentina) AND the United States end up around the same spots. Middle of the road between "tradition" and "law". The US is just a little on the side of "postmodern values" and Poland is on the side of "survival".
Some Catholic European countries like Spain, Italy and France (and Canada) were between the US and the Northern European countries.

Countries like Kenya or India, and Muslim countries ranked highest in "tradition" and everyone, but India, leaned highly on "survival".

All this is to say that the US is culturally closer to its Latin American neighbors than you could imagine. Closer than most Americans imagine. And farther away from Europe than they suspect.

(If I can remember, I'll fetch the source book: it's at home)

0 Replies

I am interested in hearing concrete proof from ANYONE of the terms of the Clinton marriage... besides a Clinton themselves.

Or anyone's marriage for that matter,

Speculation isw just that and nothing more.

0 Replies

Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.

0 Replies

bill said

Quote:

Cold and calculating seem to go hand in hand, right?

It's simply silly to assume that any modern campaign is not 'calculating'. Look at the trajectory of McCain's calculated moves to morph away from, for example, his statements on the destructive nature of the religious right in his party. Or Romney. Or Giuliani's 9/11 mantra. Etc. Take Rove (please). Polls and focus groups account for huge expenditures in every major campaign AND in the present WH. How many times have you seen "cold" attached to Rove?

Quote:

Again, there is certainly some sexism going on (I'm not 100% immune to it myself), but there is NO justification for you to ascribe Obama's rise or Hillary's recent hiccup to it.

No, there wouldn't be. But that isn't an argument I've advanced.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

nimh wrote:

Bachelet got elected in Chile and that's a macho enough country I suppose.

A few years ago I dug profoundly into a international poll on values, and the results were astonishing.
The countries were ranked on two levels: "survival versus postmodern values" and "tradition versus legal values".
The first one is about what matters more to people: strictly economic wellbeing or "quality of life" (vacations, spare time, participation within the community, etc). The second one is about who tells people what to do: tradition -and this could mean churches, too- or the legal binding.

As one might imagine, the postmodern-legal societies are in Northern Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands. Germany is very high in the "legal" axis, but not so much in the "postmodern" one.
China is very high in the "legal" axis" but totally "survival" prone.
Most Eastern European countries are somewhat behind China, but end in the same segment.

Now here comes the interesting stuff: Strongly Catholic European countries (Poland, Ireland), richer Latin American Countries (Mexico, Chile and Argentina) AND the United States end up around the same spots. Middle of the road between "tradition" and "law". The US is just a little on the side of "postmodern values" and Poland is on the side of "survival".
Some Catholic European countries like Spain, Italy and France (and Canada) were between the US and the Northern European countries.

Countries like Kenya or India, and Muslim countries ranked highest in "tradition" and everyone, but India, leaned highly on "survival".

All this is to say that the US is culturally closer to its Latin American neighbors than you could imagine. Closer than most Americans imagine. And farther away from Europe than they suspect.

(If I can remember, I'll fetch the source book: it's at home)

fbaezer

Wow. That's very interesting. Lovely way to approach a bunch of questions.

Tell me... how significant is gender (in the manner of the dispute we are engaged in here) in Mexican politics? Secondly, from your perspective, do you grant some or much credit to my arguments that notions of Hillary here in the US are informed by gender biases - abetted or strengthened by long term political attacks which utilize negative gender ideas and which arise (at least in part) from an acute ideological rejection of feminism?

0 Replies

Will Obama Give Hillary the VP Nod?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know