@okie,
In some ways Hillary would have been a better pick for VP than Biden, but not in other respects.
Obama/Clinton would have made for a more exciting ticket than Obama/Biden, simply in terms of historical novelty, and also because Clinton generates strong emotions, both pro and con. And the media would have been speculating about tensions between the two, the Clinton-haters would have come out of the woodwork armed with smears, and all kinds of irrelevant nonsense would have dominated the discussion. It would have been more exciting in terms of media hype. Also you would have had two candidates with very strong and enthusiatic supporters within the Democratic party
But, the point isn't just to have exciting campaigns, it's really about electing the best people for the job. It's about what happens after the campaign.
As much as I wanted the ticket to be Clinton/Obama, I don't think Obama/Clinton would have worked well in reality, after the election, if they won.
If I were Obama, and I won the presidency, the last thing I would want to deal with would be the constant presence of Bill Clinton hovering in the background, and throwing his two cents in. I think one of Hillary's biggest liability's during her campaign turned out to be her husband. He should have kept his mouth shut, or simply served to support her, but he didn't do that. She is clearly her own woman, and she can deal with her husband. As president, it would have been an advantage for her to have a former president by her side, simply for the benefit of his experience and opinion, and she would have found an appropriate formal role for him. If she were vice president, however, I think the presence of Bill Clinton would have been much more problematic--for Obama. Also, I'm not convinced she would have wanted to be VP. She can actually have a more important role if she simply remains in the Senate. She is now a major national and international figure in her own right, and she doesn't need to be VP, her future is very bright. I really never expected her to be on the ticket as VP.
I find what's going on with the "Palin phenomenon" truly baffling. On the basis of one major speech, which she did not write herself, this unknown woman is attracting huge crowds and disproportionate media attention, and she is overshadowing the man who is actually running for president at the top of the ticket. Why? What is the rational basis for the adulation--or is there no
rational basis for it?
During the primaries, Obama seemed to rise quickly from relative political obscurity on the national level, and he began attracting huge crowds and generating lots of excitement. But Obama had national recognition before the primaries began. He had delivered a great speech at the DNC in 2004, and he had authored several best-selling books, and lots of people knew him through his books. The excitement he generated was based on his ideas and the sorts of things he was saying and communicating to people. He was not an unknown quantity.
Palin is an unknown quantity--in terms of her political views and her understanding of complex issues on both the national and international level. We know she's female, has 5 kids, is socially conservative, is very religious, likes to hunt and eat moose, has a spunky, folksy style, was the mayor of a tiny town, and has been governor of a sparsely populated state for two years. Anything there to generate mega-excitement and huge crowds? Well, she's a fresh face and voice, an ex-beauty contestant, and she's still a very attractive woman who wears tight skirts. Is that it? That helps, but it still doesn't explain the hoopla.
Is this American Idol or a presidential race?
The woman has yet to open her mouth in an unscripted interview or speech. She has yet to prove that she understands anything besides what's good for Alaska.
Perhaps Palin will turn out to be a good choice
after the voters get to actually know what she thinks, how she thinks, and whether she can demonstrate she is up to doing the second highest job in the land.
But, at this point, she is still a pending blind date for voters. To decide they love her, and want to marry her by making her their VP, before even having had that first date--where you get to actually listen to her, in her own words---is completely irrational. If your child came home and said they wanted to marry someone they hadn't met, had only seen from afar, but had heard great things about, you would tell them they were being crazy, irresponsible, and lacking judgment.
Well, I'm telling all love-smitten Palin fans, who think she will be a great VP, you are being crazy, irresponsible, and lacking judgment. You have to get to know her--everything about her that you can--before you decide she will be an adequate VP or possible president. Stop cheering punch lines, and start demanding that she answer tough questions--any and all tough questions.
All of the hysteria and hoopla about Palin indicates what's wrong with our current media-driven campaign process, not what's good about it. It reflects spin, style, and image-creation, and not substance or fitness for office. It suggests that voters use something other than their brains when they make the most crucial choices for our country. It does not reflect well on the maturity or intelligence of the American people.
Is this American Idol or a presidential race?