Would Clinton Want to be VP?

Like Robert Farley, I have my doubts:

But here's my question; why would Clinton want to be Vice President? Wouldn't Senate Majority Leader (and I suspect this could be arranged) be a more powerful position? Wouldn't she have more influence over policymaking there than in the Vice President's office? I mean this question in all seriousness; Clinton seems to be indicating that she'd like the spot, but I'm befuddled as to why she'd take it, much less fight for it. I suppose that it sets her up for another run in 2016, or perhaps more importantly precludes the emergence of a Vice Presidential rival that year, but marginal improvement on her chances in eight years would seem small recompense for the powerlessness of the VP slot. Let's remember that Vice Presidents have exactly as much power as the President gives them, and if it's true that Obama really doesn't want Hillary (and I wouldn't credit such assertions too heavily at this point), then he certainly isn't likely to grant her much power in his administration.

I don't think her odds at the Senate leadership are really all that good (too much fighting with Obama-endorsing senior members at this point) but certainly if I were Hillary Clinton I would want nothing to do with the vice presidency. If Obama becomes president, she's an unusually high-profile senator for as long as she wants to be, one whose national following and large donor base can let her exercise a lot of influence in congress. And if Obama loses to John McCain, she can run again in 2012 and say she told us so.

My suspicion is that hints from the Clinton camp of interest in a unity ticket have more to do with the desires of the campaign staff for a better crack at executive branch jobs in an Obama administration. After all, Hillary has a solid fallback job as a Senator, that's not true for everyone on the team.

Comments

If Obama loses to McCain she'll be blamed for it by large segments of the Democratic voters and she must understand that.

If Obama was Bush the VP slot would be very powerful, but he's not so it's unlikely that it would be all that fulfilling to Clinton.

Senator is a good job. Especially one in the majority party with a President Obama who will appease her by assisting her legislation. Heh.

Posted by Jay | May 16, 2008 11:48 AM

"but certainly if I were Hillary Clinton I would want nothing to do with the vice presidency."

All that shows is you don't understand Hillary Clinton's motivations. You wouldn't want to be vice president because you care about influencing public policy. Hillary Clinton on the other hand would want to be vice president because pretty much all she cares about is being president either in 2012, 2016, or earlier should something tragic happen to President Obama.

Posted by Ron | May 16, 2008 11:48 AM

Here chances of being majority leader are pretty slim. We didn't really think of her taking this veep thing seriously until it became clear that a lot of her democratic senate colleagues don't think much of her as a party leader. The senate job is now too small for her, and she doesn't have anywhere else to go. Governor of NY, maybe?

Posted by Helter | May 16, 2008 11:49 AM

The only attraction I can see to her taking the VP slot is that it would be an indication that all the effort and money she has spent, and all the compromises she has made (including as a Senator), to get to this point were not entirely wasted.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 11:51 AM

Senate Majority Leader (and I suspect this could be arranged)

Why do people keep saying this? Besides the fact that many of her colleagues obviously dislike her, it's not like Harry Reid or Dick Durbin or Chris Dodd would just get out of the way for her.

Posted by mark f | May 16, 2008 11:52 AM

She doesn't want to be VP, she wants to make it known she turned it down.

It would be humiliating not be asked, but more humiliating to serve.

Posted by KevDog | May 16, 2008 11:53 AM

Ya have to be over 35 to be a VP I reckon. Otherwise, I'd volunteer myself for the position.

Posted by DAS | May 16, 2008 11:55 AM

I think Clinton has the potential for a Senate career that looks a bit like Ted Kennedy's, including the dashed presidential aspirations. She will remain a national political figure, and a lightning rod. She will always attract top political talent and can operate a quasi-machine on the Hill, Hillaryland at what she may always view as the wrong end of the avenue. She has been well-respected by colleagues and demonstrated a capacity to work both sides of the aisle on specific issues. After a couple of decades of work....she may end up where Kennedy is, grudgingly respected as a major figure in the history of the Senate and the republic even by political enemies.

I don't think she gets there by becoming majority leader, which is a damn stinker of a job.

Posted by David Sousa | May 16, 2008 11:56 AM

No way would she take VP--how does that help her? She wants the White House, not the Naval Observatory. Tying herself to Obama means, if they were to win in 2008, that the earliest she could try again for herself would be 2016, and honestly, that's too late for her. She can't run on the ticket and secretly hope they lose so she could get another crack in 2012.

Senate Majority Leader is out, too. Harry Reid might not be so accomodating, and in any case, Dick Durbin is waiting in the wings as Assistant Majority Leader. Why would Obama help Hillary leapfrog over his fellow Illinoisan? The HELP Committee chairmanship? Kennedy has that one. Governor of NY? Patterson might have something to say about that, and in any case, she's not a real NYer. The NY State Democrats really don't owe her that much. In fact, just the opposite.

Now that I look at it, I really don't see many good options for her.

Posted by Claudius | May 16, 2008 12:00 PM

My suspicion is that hints from the Clinton camp of interest in a unity ticket have more to do with the desires of the campaign staff for a better crack at executive branch jobs in an Obama administration.

Which is pretty much what we don't want to happen. Her staff--her faction--is the objectionable part of Clinton.

it's not like Harry Reid or Dick Durbin or Chris Dodd would just get out of the way for her.

I thought that, in the past, Reid suggested that he would.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2008 12:01 PM

We have three possibilities:

1. Obama doesn't offer her VP
2. Obama offers VP, Hillary turns it down
3. Obama offers VP, Hillary accepts

Which is the best outcome in terms of getting Obama elected. I think its 2. I suspect 3 might be a better outcome than 1, but I'm not sure.

Posted by Jim W | May 16, 2008 12:02 PM

If Obama doesn't win this time, Hillary will get a lot of the blame. She'll have been the one who stocked the fires of racism for so long. She'll have been the one who dragged the campaign on for too long. Saying 'I told you so' is more likely to get you punched in the face than to make you seem like a credible leader. Mark my words, if Obama loses, we'll be nominating white men for a good long time to come. Nobody is going to feel like rolling the dice on another minority of a woman.

Posted by Soullite | May 16, 2008 12:03 PM

And if Obama loses to John McCain, she can run again in 2012 and say she told us so.

Losers of the primary battle in the Democratic party don't have a good history of making a better showing the second time around. Look up your history. If she can't win now, when she was the presumptive nominee when she announced she was running, why would she have any better luck in 2012, in the small chance that Obama isn't elected later this year? Half of the party wouldn't vote for her now, do you think that percentage is going to get bigger or smaller if the Democrats lose in November?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Obama really needs to say 'my VP will not be Dick Cheney' as part of his message for the general election. Having Hillary Clinton (and by extension, Bill) on the ticket does not do that. Someone like Brian Schweitzer of Montana would do that.

(That's aside from the deep-seated anti-Clinton feeling in states where Obama wants to make a challenge. They haven't done polling yet of a 'dream ticket' matched against McCain, but I suspect Obama suffers out west for it.)

Anyway, Senator is a good fucking job: it's a job for life in the right state, not term-limited, you have six years between elections to take positions that aren't electorally expedient. The only reason a Senate committee chair is regarded as less powerful than a low-end cabinet position is that the executive has expanded and the legislative branch has tended to piss its pants.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 12:06 PM

There's also the Cheney factor, i.e. Cheney's shit the bid for future VP's to such an extent that they will revert to their traditional role of attending funerals and nodding in agreement during NSC meetings. Because of Cheney, all presidential candidates will now have to implicitly rebuke their running mates by promising that they will not have the control over policy that Cheney seized. Hillary Clinton as vice president would demand a lead role in policymaking, might sign off on decisions without Obama's knowledge, etc., which would result in her own significant power center. Cheney has shown us just how much damage one megalomaniacal VP can do when given free rein.

Posted by A.B. | May 16, 2008 12:11 PM

Matt, you're right on all counts, although I'm not sure that Clinton really even is interested in the job. I suspect she wants it to be known that she was offered and politely declined, because that would appease some of her followers (I'm one of them, though I don't care about whether she's offered or not), and because she's human and therefore vain enough to want to be asked. But you've raised the key issue, which is that the vampiresque livelihoods of several hundred people (most of whom have access to the media) is riding on her being Vice President.

Posted by Rich | May 16, 2008 12:14 PM

Historically, no one ever turns down the VP nod, with three exceptions:

- Already been POTUS
- Has to cross Party lines
- Thinks the ticket is definitely doomed in November

We've got none of those three exceptions in play this year, so of course she'll accept it if offered. It's simply a better gig than Senate Majority Leadership if you want to be President some day.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2008 12:18 PM

Two words: Vince Foster.

Posted by Gentle Reader | May 16, 2008 12:21 PM

To build on David Sousa's point, she shouldn't want to be Senate majority leader. Dole, Frist, Lott, Daschle, Reid-- the people who care most about politics, on both sides, wind up hating you. It's not a great role for people with presidential ambitions.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 16, 2008 12:23 PM

you have six years between elections to take positions that aren't electorally expedient Er, when was the last time she took a position in the senate that wasn't electorally expedient? Comparisons to Kennedy are off the mark for much the same reason.

Posted by John Haber | May 16, 2008 12:24 PM

I think if they really want option #2 (Obama offers, she turns it down) without risking option #3 (Obama offers, Hillary accepts), Obama needs to sort of pre-offer the job to her. Say, "Hey, I know this unity ticket thing has appeal to people, so I'd like to be able to say we pursued it, but you don't really want the Veep job, do you?" And then they appear in public together and Hillary says she's decided to remain in the Senate.

The feasibility of that kinda depends on who Obama *really* wants as Veep, or what sort of concessions Hillary wants to play nice, but I think that can be worked out.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 16, 2008 12:25 PM

The 12 Amendment, paraphrased: Making the second place in a presidential election into the VP is a really bad idea, and isn't any fun for the Pres or VP. Don't do it.

Posted by Shock Mouse | May 16, 2008 12:25 PM

Rich, I'm going to try to work "vampiresque" into everyday conversation as much as possible.

The best thing to do is once Obama seals the nomination (likely after Oregon or PR, we he could get like a 30-point blowout and still get enough delegates to claim victory) is to offer it to her with the understanding she doesn't want it. She can make a feminist statement of it if she wants also in that she wasn't in this to just end up playing second to another man. This has to be handled with tact and grace.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

I like the Kos explanation for the current VP push... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/18494/3250

Posted by Lukeness | May 16, 2008 12:35 PM

We have three possibilities:

1. Obama doesn't offer her VP
2. Obama offers VP, Hillary turns it down
3. Obama offers VP, Hillary accepts

Which is the best outcome in terms of getting Obama elected. I think its 2. I suspect 3 might be a better outcome than 1, but I'm not sure.

I'd like to dissent from the view that Obama should offer Hillary the VP slot--as some sort of grace note for her supporters--so that she can turn him down. That is politically daft.

Clinton's rejection would weaken Obama right out of the gate for the Fall. It would suggest (and be covered as) a greater rift in the party than actually exists. And it would cripple the future career of whoever actually does take the VP slot.

The VP offer is a huge deal symbolically. It cannot be cast aside lightly or without cost, and it should not be used as a balm for anyone's vanity.

Posted by southpaw | May 16, 2008 12:35 PM

1) Hillary is not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

2) If Obama is elected, Hillary is not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2012. If Obama is not elected, accepting the VP slot probably enhances her ability to get the nomination in 2012 as there will be a presumption that she did all she could to help the ticket.

3) If Obama is elected and serves two terms, his VP will be the presumptive nominee in 2016. If Hillary is not the VP, that will be a problem for Hillary. If Obama is elected, but does not serve two terms, as of today, Hillary is the presumptive nominee in 2016, regardless of whether she was VP.

Basically, accepting the VP nomination enhances Hillary's probability of being president in all potential circumstances. That's why she wants it.

I don't think Obama should offer her the VP slot, but he can't offer it to her and have it be turned down. He is bigger than her. She is not entitled to have her ego stroked with a VP offer by the Democratic nominee for President. It's time for Hillary and her supporters to stop holding the party hostage and to decide if they want to be a part of the Democratic party of if they want to be part of the cult of Hillary.

Posted by bill | May 16, 2008 12:41 PM

If Obama wins two terms with Clinton as VP, she will likely be too old by 2016 to run again and stand a good chance of winning (especially if those 8 years involved a lot of administration infighting that split the party in half). This is just about it for her. Herbert Humphrey, Tsongas, etc. weren't a bunch of idiot losers just because they never got to be president. The same goes for Al Gore. She has a chance to make a name for herself Ted Kennedy-style in the Senate and maybe have one of the office buildings changed to her name. Really, falling back onto having one of the sweetest gigs in American politics instead of the bucket of warm spit isn't that bad a deal.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2008 12:43 PM

David Sousa took the Ted Kennedy comparison right out of my mouth. Uncle Teddy's career stands as a pretty convincing counter-argument to the idea that Hillary is now somehow "too big" to be a Senator. The Senate has hosted plenty of king-size political figures over the years.

Of course, relatively few of them became (or wanted to become) majority or minority leaders, and for good reason. Leadership is a sweet gig in the House but on the Senate side it's a chore somewhat analagous to the NBA coach trying to control a bunch of guys who are richer and more valuable than him. Besides which, it seems like the trend these days is to fill those posts with non-entities who have little lightning-rod potential (witness the shuffling out of the suddenly controversial Trent Lott in favor of the barely existant Bill Frist).

Posted by Jake H. | May 16, 2008 12:47 PM

You forgetting one major fact: If Obama wins he will have a democratic house and senate. This has the feel of a watershed democratic year in which the Democratic Party will be able to create a policy table the like of FDR. If Obama is a successful president, his VP will have the Obama brand and be the defacto democratic nominee.

If he loses: Clinton will have worked her heart out and closed the rift in the party. So she won't bear the blunt of the blame; much like (depsite grumbling) 2004 wasn't held against Edwards and this could have been his year if not for Obama/Clinton.

So VP is, on the face of it, a win-win proposition. The problem is the very facets that made her a problem as a nominee (the baggage) make her a problem as VP.

Posted by Rhoda | May 16, 2008 12:49 PM

Hillary won't demand or accept the veep nod.

She will, however, demand and accept an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Oracle | May 16, 2008 12:53 PM

If Obama picks Hillary as his VP, than his promise of uniting the party will be true. If Obama does not pick Hillary, he will anger 17 million people who voted for Clinton (51% of the people voting democrat this year) which could cost him and the democrats the win against McCain - and Obama would be blaimed for losing the election because he did not pick Hillary as his VP.

Posted by JON | May 16, 2008 1:08 PM

the powerlessness of the VP slot.

Too bad that powerlessness didn't stop Truman and LBJ from sending thousands of American soldiers to kill and die halfway around the world.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 16, 2008 1:16 PM

If Obama asks Clinton to run for Vice President he should call her at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Posted by Robert Campbell | May 16, 2008 1:18 PM

Seeing the Clinton staff out in the cold, just in itself, makes this a good political year. Winning the Presidency will be gravy.

Posted by John Emerson | May 16, 2008 1:22 PM

Obama would be blaimed for losing the election because he did not pick Hillary as his VP.

And in another hypothetical, the pick alienates supporters out west, but doesn't seal the deal in the east, because it turns out that Appalachian Democrats really do vote like Republicans in the presidential election, especially when a black man is at the top of the Democratic ticket.

I want a different map from 2004, and a different kind of ground campaign. I also want to see Terry McAuliffe shut the fuck up between now and 2009.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 1:38 PM

I don't think it will end up being Hillary. As a courtesy, her name will be on the leaked short list, but I don't think the Obama camp likes the Unity ticket idea or trusts Hillary. I'm sure they'll vet many Hillary surrogates, maybe even take one, and I think Richardson will be rejected (as he should be for other reasons), but I'll be very surprised ultimately if it's a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Posted by Madorsky | May 16, 2008 1:42 PM

The majority of people voting in Democratic primaries this year voted for Hillary Clinton. Whether Michigan and Florida's results are counted or not, those voters still expressed their preference. Primary results over the past 4 months have shown that Clinton and Obama command roughly equal blocs of Democratic supporters that continue to be loyal to each with few exceptions.

Barack Obama is set to become the Democratic nominee with the least support in the party in the modern era. The idea that Clinton deserves no consideration for the Veep slot, or another key role, just shows the arrogance of some of the Obama people.

Posted by Tim K | May 16, 2008 1:43 PM

The idea that Clinton deserves no consideration for the Veep slot, or another key role, just shows the arrogance of some of the Obama people.

Who said that? This entire thread is devoted to consideration of Clinton in the VP slot. Some people are considering it and think it's a good idea. Some think there are better choices. Some are considering whether she'd even want the VP job. Some are considering offering it to her even if she doesn't want it. But she's certainly not being left out of the discussion.

Posted by southpaw | May 16, 2008 1:48 PM

If Obama asks Clinton to run for Vice President he should call her at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Hilarious!

Anyways, while I think its unlikely that Obama will run with another Senator, I think Joe Biden would be a good choice. He leans a bit more to the right, he's popular with older Democrats, gives the ticket some foreign policy chops, and he's very comfortingly white.

Oracle's idea of Hillary (or Bill) on the Supreme Court is interesting. I don't think there's any evidence pointing to that but its good skylarking.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 1:49 PM

southpaw:

Obviously the tone of many comments here is to the effect that Clinton doesn't deserve it and shouldn't be asked. That's what I was referring to.

If the positions were reversed most Clinton supporters (including myself) would be advocating for him being picked.

Posted by Tim K | May 16, 2008 1:54 PM

Obama should pick up Geoff Garin from Hillary. He is the author of Hillary's appeal to the working class. If she had done this from the beginning, she would be cruising to the nomination now.

Obama could use a guy like Garin.

Posted by Mister Go | May 16, 2008 2:07 PM

If Obama asks Clinton to run for Vice President he should call her at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Yes! And then ask à la Blazing Saddles "Where all the white women at???"

Posted by Peter K. | May 16, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama should pick up Geoff Garin from Hillary. He is the author of Hillary's appeal to the working class. If she had done this from the beginning, she would be cruising to the nomination now.

Obama could use a guy like Garin.

Posted by Mister Go | May 16, 2008 2:08 PM

Hillary doesn't want to be a Senator, Governor, or Supreme Court Justice. Those jobs all suck.

IMHO, if she doesn't demand and take the Vice Presidency, she has NO political future.

Posted by Econobuzz | May 16, 2008 2:13 PM

Is the VP slot a merit badge? Nobody deserves it. You pick the person who will most help the ticket win. It's not some kind of victory lap for coming in second in the race for the nomination.

If picking Hillary gave Obama the best chance to win the election, I would advocate picking her. I don't happen to think that is the case and I don't think Obama is in any way required to pay his respects to her by offering her the slot. To the victor goes the spoils.

Posted by bill | May 16, 2008 2:13 PM

Obama should, and probably will, pick someone who reinforces his new branding of the Democratic Party.

And if we rewound the clock to 2000 and Clinton decided to be the sort of political figure that would reinforce that brand instead of the sort of political figure she actually has become, she might well have been a good pick. Of course, in that counterfactual world she might well have won the nomination and made this issue moot.

In any event, through a series of decisions she has made, both before and during this contest, she has become associated with the sort of Democratic political brand that Obama has sought to replace. Hence, she would be a bad choice.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 2:34 PM

Harry Reid said earlier this week that he has no intention of relinquising his position willingly -- and that there are a host of Senators who lost their bids for the presidency and have come back to the Senate not expecting mountains to move for them.

I think it's a bit ridiculous to think that the Senate is going to accomodate her in any way. Consider her just another would-be president and let her do the job of making policy that she claims to be so adept at.

Posted by CHoward | May 16, 2008 2:54 PM

Supreme Court then Bill runs for the Senate seat.

Posted by Felipe | May 16, 2008 3:20 PM

Do Obama and his supporters really think he can win the general with only those who voted for him in the primaries? Do these supporters honestly believe their own continuous strum and drang on this thread and similar ones that to belittle Sen. Clinton actually inspires her supporters to go out and VOTE for Obama in the fall? From what I've read on this thread today, Obama is not on MY short list of presidential candidates. Idiots like "Soulite" above blaming Clinton for "racism" and, then, PRE-blaming her if Obama loses in the fall. That's not just ludicrous, it's scandalously ignorant.
Take heed: You can't get him in office with only the voters who cast in the primary. Also, the lightly veiled sexist smarm is not helping your guy in the least. And to Claudius, Gov. Paterson (you misspelled his name) does not want that job, and has said so. The New York governorship IS something Sen. Clinton might consider. It would give her the executive cred she needs to come back in 2012 after McCain's lackluster first term.

Posted by haviland smith | May 16, 2008 3:32 PM

DTM:

What exactly does this "new brand" of the Democratic party consist of in your mind?

Posted by Tim K | May 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Foreign policy and leadership would be Obama's. Hillary as VP offers a dedicated fighter for domestic policy/programs. This is her life work and legacy. If Obama were to offer her VP under these conditions, but with his ultimate control, this could work.

Posted by JAB | May 16, 2008 3:34 PM

Assuming Obama doesn't want to pick Clinton as running mate, & that Clinton's staying in the race only to create pressure to add her to the ticket, here's a strategy for Obama: After the Oregon primary, Obama should announce that he's crossed 50% of pledged delegates and that, regardless of whether or not Clinton stays in the race, he's going to start acting as the presumptive nominee and that he will launch his veep selection process starting immediately in the interest of getting to the convention with a well-developed ticket. This creates the following quandary for Clinton:
Case A) Clinton stays in the race after this announcement. If she does so, she's effectively ruling herself out of the veepstakes, so Obama's free to go ahead and pick someone else without pissing off the Clinton supporters
Case B) Clinton ends her campaign. If she does so, this frees Obama again and keeps this campaign from extending into June or, worse, August.

WDYT?

Posted by ANC | May 16, 2008 3:44 PM

he will anger 17 million people who voted for Clinton (51% of the people voting democrat this year)
Tim K has another version. Guys, if she'd gotten 51% of the vote she would be ahead. I get that Clinton supporters are spreading this meme far and wide this week, but it doesn't hold up.

Posted by Deborah | May 16, 2008 3:55 PM

This 51 year old NYC liberal Democrat sees no room for Senator Clinton on the ticket. It's stupid to argue that there's two Democratic parties. Come November anyone that has half a brain and loves this country will be voting out the Republicans. I'd like to add a little NYC perspective to the conversation. It was always assumed that Senator Clinton would be a Senator from New York for as long as she liked. I'm not sure that all of us in NYC (her base) feel that way anymore. Just an observation folks, save your angst for the Repiglicans, Peace

Posted by Willy T Patriot | May 16, 2008 4:21 PM

Deborah:

More people have voted for Hillary Clinton than for Barack Obama. The fact that the DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates is impertinent to the fact that over two million Democrats voted in those primaries in record turnouts. I can accept that counting Michigan might be unfair since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot (because he removed it), but Florida was fair.

Posted by Tim K | May 16, 2008 4:39 PM

Tim, that's only if you don't count several caucus states, and give Clinton all the votes in Michigan. Since she's not Stalin, no one buys that.

Posted by mad6798j | May 16, 2008 4:49 PM

Becoming the first woman in national office would ensure Hillary a place in history even if she never becomes President. Who remembers Senate majority leaders of the past? And in any case, we already have the first woman leader of a chamber of Congress.

I think the place in history thing would make the Veep job attractive to Hillary even if her eventually parlaying it into the presidency is a long shot.

Posted by Virginia | May 16, 2008 4:50 PM

I hate to say it but the facts are that it won't matter who Obama selects as VP and Hillary Clinton would most certainly turn him down. But a vast majority of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama in the general. So discuss amongst yourselves as much as you like.

Posted by Deor | May 16, 2008 5:14 PM

"My suspicion is that hints from the Clinton camp ... have more to do with the desires of the campaign staff for a better crack at executive branch jobs in an Obama administration."

Only Al Gore, and perhaps Hillary Clinton, it seems, ever viewed the vice president's slot, as a precursor to the presidency. Its happened how many times (twice?) in the history of the republic. My own observation is, that no one outside Hillary's immediate staff have any use for the NY Senator: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | May 16, 2008 5:54 PM

HRC as VP will serve to scatter the independent and cross over Republican voters who do see BO as a nominee they can support. It goes squarely against BOs main theme of change. Those HRC supporters who are voting preference but aligned with the platform will still pull the Democratic lever in November. The arch-supporters who are so polarized against BO won't likely vote McCain either...they'll simply abstain. Those losses will be made up for by the independents and disillusioned Republicans. The true baggage (old, vetted, known or new) that attends HRC and First Hubby have not resurfaced in this primary campaign--the MSM has given her a free pass on her checkered past while pouncing on irrelevant YouTube outtakes of crazed pastors. For all their faults, the Republicans know how to hunt Clintons. This ultimately is also why the "automatic" delegates are not buying HRCs desperate bids to overlay the Electoral map--her presence on a national ticket will degenerate the fall campaign....and raise the only real chance that the Dems would not take the White House. I'm fairly certain that you don't run a candidate for any office whose negatives are second only to GWB.

Posted by joepdx | May 16, 2008 6:01 PM

If Obama asks Clinton to run for Vice President he should call her at 3 o'clock in the morning.

That's a good time to call her. According to her ads, she'll be up at her desk, cheerful, and in "full drag" (Paglia).

Posted by Ban Johnson | May 16, 2008 6:36 PM

Tim K: More people have voted for Hillary Clinton than for Barack Obama.... I can accept that counting Michigan might be unfair since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot (because he removed it), but Florida was fair.

Well, if you accept that, and include Florida but not Michigan, she's not ahead.

Also, the popular vote totals do not include Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine because those states do not report them. How is that fair? It's just dishonest to make the argument that you have made.

Posted by fp | May 16, 2008 7:01 PM

Tim K,

First, Clinton did not participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

Second, on the subject of Obama's branding of the Democratic Party, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. But if you want something shorter, I suggest you check this out:

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/

Particularly the last part, starting with, "The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job," through the end.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 9:29 PM

Here is Matt demonstrating cluelessness and a total lack of experience in the real world yet again.

What part of "reverse Dick Cheney" don't you get, Matt?

Some clown said this here the other day - that Hillary could do as much damage as a "private citizen".

Who was in the bunker on 9/11, Matt? A private citizen? A senator? Or the VP?

Who's in the line of succession, Matt? And you don't even have to be talking about whether Clinton would have Obama assassinated - although if Hinckley and Bush don't come to mind, your knowledge of history is limited to less than twenty years - which doesn't surprise me.

In case you forget, the VP ALSO becomes President "upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president." Read those last two conditions - and then consider what Hillary and Bill might try to cook up to make either of those a reality.

Would Hillary want to be in a position to influence those last two? What do you think, Matt?

Wikipedia also says this:

"In recent years, the vice presidency has frequently been used to launch bids for the presidency. Of the 13 presidential elections from 1956 to 2004, nine featured the incumbent president; the other four (1960, 1968, 1988, 2000) all featured the incumbent vice president. Former vice presidents also ran, in 1984 (Walter Mondale), and in 1968 (Richard Nixon, against the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey)."

Just for the additional "experience" claim that Clinton is known to use without justification from her days as First Lady, obviously having been Vice President would be a major boost to that claim - much more than merely being a powerful Senator.

There are plenty of "powerful Senators" who run for President. Being the incumbent VP after having been a powerful Senator would seem to be better.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 9:45 PM

The thing about Hillary Clinton, she's more interested in the perception of power, she digs the title. She's a poser, and likes it that way.

Posted by CC | May 16, 2008 11:43 PM

Tim K is an idiot who cares more about Israel than the US, so ignore him. He'll argue anything just as long as a nominee closer to crazy Likud positions (which are actually unpopular in Israel itself, where even a big number of Likud supporters want direct talks with Hamas), so just know he isn't arguing in good faith.

"But a vast majority of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama in the general. So discuss amongst yourselves as much as you like.

Posted by Deor | May 16, 2008 5:14 PM"

According to the polling, a majority of Clinton supporters say that they will support Obama. It's only 28% right now that say they won't. However, during the primary also raises the value of lying to scare the other campaign into dropping out or scare the other campaign's supporters into switching over. McCain supporters said the same thing during the 2000 GOP primary about not voting for Bush, but these same supporters ended up voting for him.

Posted by Reality Man | May 17, 2008 3:08 AM

I suspect that she wants to be VP because she wants to A). Be a Dick Cheney figure, and B). Because the VP gets to ride around in fucking Air Force 2.

So what if all she gets to do is go to second rate events and funerals? She would get to fly to them in a souped up 747. This woman has shown no real interest in good public policy since 2000, so power isn't really her motivation. The perks of the executive branch, I suspect, really are.

Posted by andrew | May 17, 2008 6:03 AM

If anyone thinks that either one of these candidates can win without Michigan and Florida you are saddenly mistaken. Howard Dean has screwed up the Democratic chances of winning the White House. In addition those that have stroke the division in the Democratic party, ie, the press and the republicans have a plan that many are not seeing. Some blame Clinton and some blame Obama, however it is the republicans, and the press that have picked the Democratic primary winner, for a reason. The only way for us to win in November is to have a unity ticket. Hillary has 17 million voters, and Obama has 17 million voters. If they are, who they say they are, then they will come together for the good of the nation. Remember Bush was Reagan's arch enemy, calling his economic plan voodoo economics. They were on different sides of the abortion issue, but they came together to take back the White House, and Bush went on to become President after Reagan.
Look at the history of the country, and remember they are running to be President of the United States, not President of the High School Student Body. This is high stakes, and we Democratics better start thinking about getting back the White House rather than those issues that have nothing do to with improving OUR country.
Just my opinion.

Posted by Robert | May 17, 2008 10:16 AM

Let me offer 2 reasons Hillary might want Vice President.
1. First, everyone in this blog is equating a more substantive VP--as opposed to cermemonial-- with Dick Cheney. A more apt comparison would be Al Gore in the Clinton administration. He had several substantive portfolios for which he took the lead. His foreign policy advisor, Leon Fuerth, was extremely active in the main foreign policy meetings. There is no reason why Obama might not assign her similar topics.
2. Second, there is the historical value of being the first woman VP. In essence, that would demonstrate it is no longer a question of if a woman will someday become President, but who and when. Moses delivered the Israelis from Egypt but didn't make it to the promised land. Is he regarded any less kindly in the Bible or history?

Posted by Ray | May 17, 2008 11:13 AM

The thing is, she may turn it down because the ticket is pretty much doomed in November. there will NOT be a President Obama.

Posted by brian | May 17, 2008 12:03 PM

The thing is, she may turn it down because the ticket is pretty much doomed in November. there will NOT be a President Obama.

Posted by brian | May 17, 2008 12:04 PM

Brian
You are right without Hillary on the ticket there will be a President McCain.

Posted by Robert | May 17, 2008 12:16 PM

Brian
You are right without Hillary on the ticket there will be a President McCain.

Posted by Robert | May 17, 2008 12:17 PM

Hillary's got $20 million reasons to want to run as VP in the GE. If she runs in the GE, she gets access to the millions in her GE fund. If she drops out now and settles for a senate seat, she's screwed and has to write off the ginormous debt she's run up in the past 3 months.

Posted by Cast Flatley | May 17, 2008 12:59 PM

"The only way for us to win in November is to have a unity ticket. Hillary has 17 million voters, and Obama has 17 million voters. If they are, who they say they are, then they will come together for the good of the nation."

It's interesting that a lot of her supporters say they would support McCain over her anyway. A year ago, the media was talking about how she was having trouble connecting with white working class males. Overnight the media decided that she was a champion of the working class because white Applachian working class people were one of the two only key demographics whose support she didn't lose to Obama. When you get down to it, her only real core supporters are white women without a college degree. When you get white working-class men who voted for her alone in a room with only other men, they often admit that they were really voting for Bill. Her support in reality is rather shallow.

Posted by Reality Man | May 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Reality man is totally delusional. I am a black woman supporter of senator and I have an M.D. and a Phd

Posted by haviland smith | May 17, 2008 7:09 PM

Reality man is totally delusional. I am a black woman supporter of senator and I have an M.D. and a Phd

Posted by haviland smith | May 17, 2008 7:09 PM

"If Obama doesn't win this time, Hillary will get a lot of the blame." No - 50% of the blame would be on Obama and his lack of experience and lack of judgement. 50% would be on the media for their bias and not vetting him in the first place, for their gender-biased coverage, and for not giving reasoned analysis as to how the small state and caucus victories would not stack up against as well as Hillary's in the General Election. Yeah the public will get the leader they deserve for their idol worship.

Posted by Jake | May 17, 2008 9:49 PM

Reality Man needs to get a grip on reality. I am a non-white man with a college degree and I support Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Ken | May 18, 2008 5:59 PM

Some of you are really daffy! HRC wants no part of the VP, if Obama is the nominee because Obama doesn't have a prayer in the world of winning the GE. Where do his votes come from that would allow him to win? We'll have to wait and see who the sacrificial lamb is going to be - the one who goes down the drink with Obama. Anyway, for HRC to endorse Obama, maybe campaign for him a little bit, and at least ask her supporters to vote for him, a deal will have to be made. If HRC wants to be Majority Leader, then it will be arranged during these negotiations. And who's going to stand in the way? Durbin? HA! He'll be told to sit down and be quiet: the Dem Party has bigger fish to fry, mainly trying to win the GE and HRC will be a major player - more than Dick Durbin! As for all this nonsense that her fellow Senators don't like her and will blame her when Obama loses the GE, get real. Obama is THE most unqualified candidate to try for the nomination so, if anything, he NEVER should have been running this time around at all. Because of him and the flaws we know about and those yet to be discovered, there'll be a Republican in the WH in January.

Posted by CaliforniaGirl | May 18, 2008 7:16 PM

Would people think that Obama will pick another inexperience candidate like himself? Most likely, he will pick a candidate with experience. Experience, by definition, means that this person has had to be part of the Washington’s crowd for some time. So, why is this ok for the party instead of asking Clinton?

If Obama picks another Washington politician instead of Clinton then it clearly demonstrates that he only wants to surround himself with less qualified people; if he has more confidence in himself then he should pick the obvious candidate that half of the democrats has voted soundly as the best qualified presidential candidate.

Posted by vote4thebest | May 19, 2008 5:52 PM

If Hilary and Obama ran together that would give us a democrat for president.
If Obama or Hilary run separately then McCain wins and the democratic party will have to bide its time and complain for four more years about the bad choices and policies of the Republican party.

The only way the Democrats win is with an Obama Clinton ticket.

Posted by gene | May 22, 2008 2:37 AM

If Hilary and Obama ran together that would give us a democrat for president.
If Obama or Hilary run separately then McCain wins and the democratic party will have to bide its time and complain for four more years about the bad choices and policies of the Republican party.

The only way the Democrats win is with an Obama Clinton ticket.

Posted by gene | May 22, 2008 2:38 AM

Don't overlook the fact that Clinton has this strong desire to become the first woman president. She also has many followers who in spite of all her disadvantages still vote for her for precisely that reason. In terms of societal progress, becoming the first woman VP would also be a considerable accomplishment. Unfortunately, you don't get one Clinton without the other (or the other two now that Chelsea plays a part). So Obama would have to cope with a VP squad instead of a single VP.

The Cheney-factor can also be seen from a different angle. Cheney ran away with the power, but what about using the situation to change the attitude about the vice presidency in general? Couldn't we get a lot more done with a really competent vice president?

Posted by Cynthia | May 22, 2008 5:41 AM

Millions of women and blue collars will vote for McCain in November. Obama promised us unity, and instead he gave us a civil war. It's not about the issues anymore - it's personal. Welcome to identity politics. Obama will lose in November, and it's his own fault, not Hillary's. If the far-left would like to play this game again in 2012, bring it on.

Posted by Jane | May 22, 2008 1:19 PM

Millions of women and blue collars will vote for McCain in November. Obama promised us unity, and instead he gave us a civil war. It's not about the issues anymore - it's personal. Welcome to identity politics. Obama will lose in November, and it's his own fault, not Hillary's. If the far-left would like to play this game again in 2012, bring it on.

Posted by Jane | May 22, 2008 1:22 PM

I will gladly vote for McCain in November. And yes, I know it will be Bush's third term. And yes, I know he will appoint judges that will try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Well, I don't care. Since young women supported Obama, they shouldn't mind going to Canada for their abortions. In the end, emotion always beats logic. Never forget that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Posted by Beth | May 22, 2008 1:33 PM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html is why Clinton won't be chosen!

Posted by Zero | May 23, 2008 1:03 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html is why Clinton won't be chosen!

Posted by Zero | May 23, 2008 1:03 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html is why Clinton won't be chosen!

Posted by Zero | May 23, 2008 1:03 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html is why Clinton won't be chosen as VP!

Posted by Zero | May 23, 2008 1:04 AM

she wants to be vp so she can have him killed like she did her other friends. than she will meet her agenda-president

Posted by blueeyesite | May 24, 2008 8:10 AM