The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has
been floated quite a bit the last few days. But, seriously, is the idea any
good? We asked a few friends of the magazine to weigh in. Here's Michael
Tomasky, editor of Guardian America.
A part of me has lately warmed somewhat to the idea of Barack Obama asking
Hillary Clinton to join him as his running mate. But on balance I still think
he can do better in both substantive and symbolic terms.
The case for the unity ticket is pretty obvious and is implied in the
adjective. Ed
Kilgore made the case well here yesterday, and it's an argument worth
taking seriously, which is why I've come around to it a little. And yet. ...
Actually there are several and yets. Number one: Substantively,
something tells me that Vice President Clinton couldn't work very well with
President Obama. She'd always be thinking, "Well, I'd have done it this
way." She would demand, because of her stature, some kind of major
portfolio. Her track record with major portfolios is other than encouraging.
And if Mr. Clinton as First Husband seemed problematic, what of him padding
around the Naval Observatory? A former president married to a current president
would at least mean that the two were working more or less as a team. A former
president married to a current vice president who really thinks she
should be president creates the potential for way too much mischief that could
undermine the president.
Back around 1999 and 2000, when Rudy Giuliani's aides were floating the idea
that he'd be a superb vice presidential choice for a GOP nominee, Al Sharpton
was asked to comment on the prospect and said something like: Whoever hires
Giuliani as his vice-president better also hire a food-taster. This
wouldn't be that bad. But let me put it this way: If I were Obama, I'd try to
avoid general anesthesia for the duration of my presidency.
Okay, back to politics. One problem is that I think a Clinton choice would be aimed solely at
Democrats. It would be popular among them, but what about non-Democrats? Let's
note something that's been little remarked upon so far this season. People keep
talking about the stunning turnout in these primaries, and, for primaries, this
has surely been the case. About 33 million people have voted.
But how many people voted in the last general election? Around 122 million.
With interest seeming higher this year, and if Obama can indeed register many
new voters, there is every reason to think that 100 million more people
will vote on November 4 than have voted cumulatively over the last 18 weeks.
Hillary on the ticket would clearly go down well among a large majority of the
33 million who've voted. But what about the other 100 million? How would
putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket strike them?
It would depend of course on who they are. She has performed reasonably well
among independents, especially more recently, so maybe this is a false alarm.
But I suspect that by and large, her popularity is limited to Democrats. Which
means I'm not sure she'd help in the traditional way vice presidential
candidates are supposed to help.
And it's possible she could even hurt. If she'd been the nominee, or if she
still somehow manages to become it, we can be certain that many millions of
conservatives would come out to vote against her. They would not do so in
anything like similar numbers if she were merely the bottom half of the ticket.
But some number would. She could serve as a sort of
"tipping-point" of negative motivation for conservatives. That is,
Obama combined with X--Sam Nunn, say; and he's not my candidate, but I mean
that kind of person--would be bad from the conservative point of view. But an
Obama-Clinton ticket would be an out-and-out crisis. Obama has enough of his
own problems.
Finally, I don't think she makes up for Obama's weaknesses
as well as some other possible choices would. His biggest substantive problem
against John McCain is going to involve proving gravitas on national security
and the fight against terrorism. Clinton
has of course taken steps to shore up her national-security credentials over
the years, but she doesn't "signify" national-security toughness in the minds
of swing voters. Additionally, I think I'd very much prefer that his vice presidential
nominee not have supported the war in Iraq. A pro-Iraq war vice-president
could weaken the president's hand domestically in trying to resolve the
situation.
Obama does have solemn work to do in courting and persuading
not the Clintons themselves but her
voters. He will need to be creative and aggressive in reaching out to them
and being genuine to them, and his campaign needs to take this very seriously.
But I think it can be done via avenues other than offering her the
vice-presidency. I have a preferred choice, which I'll reveal with home-field
advantage over at the Guardian when
the time is right. I wouldn't be hostile to his selecting Clinton, but I think it brings more minuses
than pluses.
--Michael Tomasky
*Because of an editing error, this
piece was originally missing the last two paragraphs.
Related
Alan
Wolfe: Using identity politics to move beyond identity politics.
Ed
Kilgore: Obama should ask her, and she should accept.
Mark
Schmitt: The party doesn't need that much repairing.
David A. Bell: Ten reasons not to pick Hillary Clinton as V.P.