Hillary’s Grand Exit
Posted by
KTK
Josh Marshall offers a standard on-the-one-hand, on-the-other analysis of the question whether Hillary would or should accept an offer of the VP slot on the Democratic ticket: she’d have to wait 8 long years, and be 69 years old, before she could run for Pres. again, and she may have more influence in the Senate; but it would be an unprecedented achievement and a chance to be right at the center of power once more. He concludes she’d be better off in the Senate, where the Democrats are likely to be the majority and she’ll accrue enough seniority to really get things done.
Most people who accept the vice presidency do so either because they believe it will line them up to succeed to the presidency or because it brings them to a level of power and honor their careers held little prospect of bringing them otherwise. But neither applies to Hillary Clinton. She’s already of the stature and standing to run for president. She’s a genuinely historic figure. And she’s already been heavily involved in a successful two term administration.
Remember too that the recent trend for greater vice presidential involvement in key administration decision-making has brought with it a flat requirement that vice presidents be strictly loyal and politically subservient to the president. Quite simply, the vice presidency is beneath Hillary’s stature. It’s not clear to me why Hillary would want to spend four or eight years in a position that I think would actually diminish her stature for the possibility of running for president again almost a decade from now.
As it goes, it’s not an unreasonable analysis. And, as he notes, there is a serious question whether Obama can overcome the bitterness of the campaign to trust her as VP, or even see her as the best choice. But I think there is a way to swing the deal that would work tremendous benefits for both of them and the country.
In a purely selfless act of patriotism, then, I give you The Dream Team Playbook:
- Obama offers Hillary the VP slot; Hillary congratulates him on a long and successful campaign, then announces she is resigning her campaign immediately and throwing in with Obama.
- Both candidates gracefully agree that the apparent sexist and racist elbow-jabbing during the campaign was just an illusion - the product of hard campaigning and honest discussions during a race that inevitably had racial and gender overtones just because of who they are.
- Both candidates publicly express their respect for each other and strongly urge their supporters to adopt the other candidate as part of the ticket; both call on all their supporters not to abandon the cause because the disfavored candidate is on board, but to adopt their candidate’s own respect and affection for the other and work even harder for the Dream Team.
- Obama privately pledges not to humiliate Hillary and to credit her for substantive contributions on the campaign trail and in office; Hillary privately pledges not to undermine Obama and not to imply there is a “co-presidency”. Both of them believe these pledges because they are both, at bottom, decent people, and in particular Hillary has a long history of working effectively in subsidiary roles.
- Hillary whips Bill into shape, and delivers his agreement to (a) stump hard for the Obama/Hillary ticket, (b) not put his wife forward in contrast to Obama, (c) not put himself forward in contrast to anybody, and (d) remain in touch as the Democratic eminence grise without always hanging around the White House attracting attention.
- Hillary stumps like a fiend for Obama’s platform, making sure that its content and vision are always identified as the ones Obama has been pushing from the beginning. She explicitly adopts the “vision for change” mantra and casts her policy discussions - which are her strength - in the rhetoric of change.
- Obama grants Hillary primary responsibility - not just in the campaign but in the White House - for several major policy initiatives that she particularly values; she endorses his plans and leadership in all other areas. Specifically, Obama publicly adopts Hillary’s healthcare plan a month or so after she becomes the VP candidate, saying that after close discussion with her he sees that it is better in some ways than his and he respects her career-long leadership in that area. He also puts her in charge of military rebuilding and training - but not combat operations - after the Iraq fiasco is resolved. And he upgrades her VP role from merely attending foreign ceremonies to substantive engagement in foreign policy, maybe negotiating with leaders or leading regional initiatives. He makes sure it is known she is in charge of these areas, with his approval, and she makes it known she supports his leadership in those and all other areas. [This has several advantages: it gets Obama gracefully out from under his own flawed healthcare plan; it leverages Hillary’s expertise and experience in areas - healthcare and military planning - where she is well respected and he is not; it creates “zones of influence” that allow Obama to be in overall charge while Hillary also gets recognition for her own leadership, preparatory to 2016.]
- In 2012, Hillary becomes Obama’s #1 fan; the campaign platform is all Obama, all the time, and everything the administration has achieved is credited to him. She just can’t believe how much better a President he has been than anybody even imagined in 2008.
- In 2016, Obama becomes Hillary’s #2 fan (I assume Bill’s still in the picture). She designs her own campaign platform, but Obama supports it unquestioningly, and specifically credits her with the post-Iraq military overhaul, the new national healthcare plan that everybody loves so much, and some foreign-policy initiatives - making it clear that he had delegated authority on those issues and she is the one who brought them all home. Hillary sails to victory in 2016 with two ex-presidents by her side, both extolling her experience and wisdom.
The point to the plan is that neither is humiliated or undermined by the other. The reason that’s a concern - aside from bad feelings resulting from the campaign - is that you have two strong candidates, either of whom could be President, locked in a race one will eventually lose, almost certainly, by less than 2%. But that is the reason they’re the Dream Team: not only could either of them be president, but both of them will have come within 2% of doing so. In the general election, that’s a recipe for a crippled administration, but in the primaries, with the candidates combining forces, that’s unbeatable. And it only gets better as they continue to leverage their relative strengths in office. The only issue is that Obama has got to keep from looking like he’s being overshadowed, which means Hillary has got to play a somewhat subtle game to keep from doing that and also make her own mark. And unfortunately, both of them can be quick to take a slight, and Hillary is not known for lack of ambition. But they can pull it off with effective communication; as I noted above also, Hillary has done it before.
So there you have it, purely in the spirit of the public good. Of course, if the Dream Team wishes to hire me as policy analyst or White House advisor, I could probably make time in my schedule.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think the so-called “dream ticket” would be a remarkably bad idea — and I would think that if Clinton were at the top of the ticket, too. Personally, I’d like to see Obama tap someone like a Russ Feingold for VP, except I’m not sure that seat would be safely Democratic in Russ’ absence.
Comment 5/8/2008
I think there is zero chance of HRC being selected to be VP. Her negatives are far too high, she is the classic Washington insider (which would dilute Obama’s primary message - change), she lacks the experience to offset Obama’s inexperience, and she has pissed off a lot of people during this campaign.
I also think there is almost zero chance she would accept if the position was offered to her. She does, after all, have almost eight years of experience in elected office. Clearly VP is beneath her stature, as Marshall put it.
Comment 5/8/2008
I’m curious, however: Is there an example from modern history of this actually happening? Has there ever been a protracted primary (in either party) in which the #1 (winning) candidate picked the #2 (losing) candidate as a running mate? Further, if this happened, what then happened to that pair in the general?
(I’m pretty sure Edwards was at least third in 2004, but could be wrong about that…)
Comment 5/8/2008
To play devil’s advocate here for a moment, the Twilight Zone, inverted version of this fine post would have Hillary signing on, making nice at first, but as subtly as possible subverting Obama’s campaign. The goal: being able to run again in 2012.
No, I don’t think she would really do it.
As for the dream team idea, it certainly could be made to work and KTK lays out the logical way to go about it. As has been pointed out, in a campaign emphasizing change and a break with the past, having the first lady from the ’90s as No. 2 sounds a discordant note. But HRC can counter that she hardly remained suspended in time after exiting the White House.
The question is, how comfortable would Obama be with this. He might understandably prefer someone without a large, mobilized constituency of his/her own, and with a greater sense of gratitude and loyalty for having been chosen.
Plus, as Ted mentioned, Clinton’s negatives, the worst being a widespread perception she’s not exactly the soul of honesty, is a potentially serious liability.
Comment 5/8/2008
tgirsch, in answer to your question, see John Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson in 1960. Although he felt self-conscious among a bunch of Ivy Leaguers and wealthy New England-type liberals, most of whom were younger than he was, Johnson was a fine campaigner and loyal V.P.
After Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson was not only able to step into the presidency well prepared, he proceeded to move legislation Kennedy had been unable to move. LBJ remains out of favor because of the Vietnam War, but his crowning achievements, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, were watershed achievements that probably no other politician in America could’ve gotten passed.
Comment 5/8/2008
I don’t know why, but when I go to submit a comment, I get an error involving “regex.” The error message is different each time. The latest says:
Regex ID: 163570 (Morris) appears to be an invalid regex string! Please fix it in the Blacklist control panel.
I don’t know who Morris is or why he’s blacklisted, but it ain’t me, and I’ve done nothing to belong in that category.
Comment 5/8/2008
Wasn’t Reagan-Bush 1980 another #1 + #2?
And if by chance S.W. Anderson’s error message means Morris is banned, I say cool.
Comment 5/8/2008
Reagan-Bush (’80) was not protracted, but Bush did have a (very) early lead…
Comment 5/8/2008
Picking a fellow primary candidate as a running mate used to be fairly common. If your question is about the nominee picking the second-place finisher specifically, and after a close race, there are fewer examples to choose from. But there are plenty of examples of awkward pairings in general.
Gore and Lieberman ran against each other in the primaries, then Gore picked Lieberman specifically to distance himself from the President he was at that time still serving. We know how well that turned out.
George H.W. Bush was named VP after famously trashing Reagan’s “supply side” plan as “voodoo economics” and running a pretty hard campaign against him.
Nixon didn’t challenge Eisenhower for the nomination, but Eisenhower was very reluctant to name him VP; Nixon had to fight both to overcome his own bad reputation and Ike’s doubts (nailing both with the absurd “Checkers speech”).
Comment 5/8/2008
This is a test to see if the wimps at leanleft have banned me.
Comment 5/9/2008
tgirsch wrote: Personally, I’d like to see Obama tap someone like a Russ Feingold for VP, except I’m not sure that seat would be safely Democratic in Russ’ absence.”
Speaking from a strictly strategic view, do we really want to vacate a seat in the Senate (or House) with such a slim minority, as you point out? Kathleen Sebelius’s name has come up (though not by Obama). I don’t like her wussing out on the same-sex marriage issue, but she is pro-choice and against capital punishment, so she does show some progressive values. Though not a southern state, Kansas is a state (and from an area) the Dems have had difficulty winning recently. Her moderate image may play well with a greater range of voters.
Comment 5/9/2008
“I don’t like her wussing out on the same-sex marriage issue, but she is pro-choice and against capital punishment, so she does show some progressive values.”
Obama needs to choose the most liberal radical he can find. What the dems need are two ultra-liberals on their ticket. Go for it! That combination would be a sure winner.
Comment 5/9/2008
Yes, Fred, civil rights have always been radically liberal. Damn those faggots for wanting equal protection under the law, and those dirty dirty criminals/women for wanting to live.
Comment 5/10/2008
Go ahead and nominate two ultra-liberal socialists. The country would be better for it. Do you not agree?
Comment 5/10/2008
“Damn those faggots for wanting equal protection under the law,”
My life partner and I have all the civil rights everyone else does. What special rights should we have?
Comment 5/10/2008
Hillary would not make a good V.P. if not just for the fact Obama would be overshadowed by his 2 Veeps, Mr and Mrs.
No, Hillary is no Obama Mama
Comment 5/10/2008
Obama doesn’t need her on his ticket. I seriously just wish that woman would disappear! Obama is capable of doing it all by himself… http://www.obamarocks08.com
Comment 5/13/2008
If Hillary had visited all 57 states like Obama did, she may have won.
Comment 5/13/2008
Not to worry. The Breck Girl has announced his support for Obama. That should help Barack win those extra seven states. BTW, can Obama spell potato? Or is it potatoe?
Comment 5/14/2008