Thursday, August 23, 2007

Some Cranky Hillary Insiders are Against Obama as Veep

Taken from Political Wire.

According to the latest Evans-Novak Political Report, “important supporters" of Sen. Hillary Clinton "are laying the groundwork for a campaign against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for Vice President on grounds that he adds nothing to the ticket. Prominent names offered as alternatives: Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.”

It's fairly well known that I'm not a fan of Obama, and am a fan of Clinton. I do, however, disagree with these surreptitious 'backers.' Now before all the Obamaites freak out, I do know he's running a real campaign, for the top of the ticket (and so far has said he is not interested in VP). This is just for fun (and for once I'm complimenting him).

In any event, if Hillary is to be the nominee (which it looks increasingly likely she will), I would be quite supportive of her choosing Barack Obama as her running mate. This is not because he's the next candidate in my rankings (he's #4 or #5, depending on my mood), it's because I think it'd be the best ticket for the country and for the Democrats.

Having a woman and an African-American man on the same ticket would not only be revolutionary in terms of diversity, but also in terms of the ability to mobilize the Democratic party. You'll have Clinton's experience and expertise and willingness to get down in the trenches, combined with Obama's sincerity, enthusiasm, and knack for representing 'change' combined together. Yes, I know that there are several arguments why vanilla candidates (not referring to race, referring to amount of intrigue and entertainment) like Warner or Bayh are better choices. I say screw them. I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would have a lot of oomph in not only getting Democratic voters to the polls, not only getting NEW voters to the polls (something I'm very skeptical of in general), but also gaining crossover appeal to Indies and GOPers.

So to the mysterious backers, I say back off!


Kristina said...

In my mind, this is the ideal ticket. Anna Quindlin actually wrote a good column in Newsweek about why this would work, and why we shouldn't fall into the myth of relying on "regional balance."

I think both candidates are so well known on the national level, it would really be good for the Democratic party. Could you imagine how much money they could raise if they joined forces?

Curtis said...

Hopefully, Obama will be president and my following insights will be nothing more than mere mental masturbation.

First, if any one of those red/swing state Dems were to be Clinton's running mate, it would be the dullest ticket in a helluva long time. Can the the Clintonistas really be serious?!? Ted Strickland? Evan Bayh? Mark Warner isn't that bad; however, given that his name was mentioned by people stupid enough to think that Ted Strickland or Evan Bayh would be a good running mate, I'm beginning to question my own judgement on that account.

Secondly, I agree with Kristina. The Political Wire had some interesting polling data that showed that Hillary (by herself) can take states like Missouri and Arkansas in races against Romney and Giulianni. So, yes, the need for regional balance is not necessary.

All the same, I think this kind of bullshit says a lot about Clinton and her backers. They care about winning to a fault--which makes them very prone to overthinking.