After several conversations with enthusiastic Hillary supporters who think she should get the VP slot, let me go out on a limb here and say this: I have as good a chance of being Obama's VP candidate as Hillary does. It isn't going to happen, not now, not ever. Get over it.
Profile
Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
- eddie on Goldberg vs Parker
- tacitus on Goldberg vs Parker
- Skemono on Justices to Consider Cert Petition on Citizenship
- Ian Gould on Justices to Consider Cert Petition on Citizenship
- Lurkbot on Goldberg vs Parker
- Leni on Justices to Consider Cert Petition on Citizenship
- sus on Justices to Consider Cert Petition on Citizenship
- DingoJack on God Files Amicus Brief in Prop 8 Case
- julian on Goldberg vs Parker
- Julian on More Abuse of Asset Forfeiture Laws
Recent Posts
- Goldberg vs Parker
- More Abuse of Asset Forfeiture Laws
- Justices to Consider Cert Petition on Citizenship
- Bad Possible Obama Pick
- Indiana School Release Program Challenged
- I Get Email
- Worldnutdaily's Latest Looney
- Defending Traditional Marriage
- God Files Amicus Brief in Prop 8 Case
- The National Review Gets Its Freedom
Blogroll
Science Blogs
- The Panda's Thumb
- Carl Zimmer
- The Austringer
- Evolution Blog
- De Rerum Natura
- Evolving Thoughts
- Preposterous Universe
- Butterflies and Wheels
- John Lynch
- Unscrewing the Inscrutable
- NCSE's Legal Blog
- Red State Rabble
- Thoughts From Kansas
- Appellate Blog
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Jack Balkin
- Legal Theory Blog
- ACS Blog
- Reason and Liberty
- Overlawyered
- Supreme Court Times
- Positive Liberty
- Reason's Hit and Run
- Andrew Sullivan
- Talking Points Memo
- Daily Kos
- Media Matters
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Classical Values
- Virginia Postrel
- Jim Anderson
- Strange Doctrines
- John Scalzi
- The Pryhills
- Temperantia
- Rev. Spork
- Electric Commentary
- Two Aarons
- Farkleberries
- Paul Phillips
- Henry Neufeld
- Talk.Origins
- Talk.Reason
- Antievolution.org
- National Center for Science Education
- Talk.Design
- Michigan Citizens for Science
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
Other Information
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Pilot Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.
Ed's Audio and Video
YearlyKos 2007
Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement
Audio of Greg Raymer Interview
E-mail Policy
Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.
My Ecosystem Details
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Cal State Relents on Quaker Oath | Main | Don't Beam Him Up »
Obama-Clinton Ticket? Not a Chance
Category: Politics
Posted on: June 8, 2008 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Comments
Ugh, after how she conducted her campaign, I'd be disappointed if Obama offered her the VP slot.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 8, 2008 9:57 AM
The best chance for Hillary to get on the ticket is for her to wait, have the Republicans reveal the dirt on Obama and his wife and then he pulls out. This way she will be on top and grab Richardson for the VP.
Posted by: seattlerod | June 8, 2008 10:11 AM
I suspect that Senator Clinton doesn't really want to be the vice presidential candidate (what's in it for her; if Senator Obama loses, she would be blamed; if he wins and serves two terms, she will be too old to run in 2016). I would guess that she told Senator Obama at their meeting that, it he offered her the slot, she would accept but that she preferred that he not make the offer.
Posted by: SLC | June 8, 2008 10:23 AM
To nominate her would be a strategic blunder for the Democrats:
On the one hand, you give the Republicans the ability to use everything they used against each other. Every little quip she said about Obama, every response he shot back; everything for the last three months for the next five months. Obama/Clinton wouldn't need to be Swift-boated, they'd be handing McCain a virtual death-ray of negative campaign material.
On the other hand, it would virtually guarantee that the Obama/Clinton ticket would fail to gain a single southern state. Republicans have gotten away with it, but Democrats have needed to have someone from the South to be successful since Roosevelt, who only managed it during his 3rd term (he had Garner from Texas and Truman from Missouri before that. Two "Yankee Big City Libruls?" They wouldn't have a chance in the south (not that they're going to get the Klan/Neo-Confederate/Bible thumping vote anyway).
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 8, 2008 11:05 AM
Living in a district that went for Obama over Hillary 75 to 25% I've so far gotten away with not running into "enthusiastic Hillary supporters" and I am happier for it.
Posted by: yoshi | June 8, 2008 11:25 AM
I admittedly am fairly ignorant of the mechanics of the political process, so could you explain why exactly you don't consider an Obama/Clinton possible? Is it a matter of political suicide, or has the relationship between the two been irreparably damaged throughout the course of this very long campaign?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 8, 2008 11:38 AM
Ed--you have a better chance of being the VP. There are many reasons why she wouldn't make a good VP.
But the most important reason not to select her is because she brings Bill. You were spot on when you wrote (two months ago?) that Bill was subconsciously undermining his wife. Bill's ego could not handle being second fiddle to VP Clinton. He would act out like a little kid and say all sorts of stupid stuff.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | June 8, 2008 11:56 AM
I'll bet anything that it's going to be Jim Webb.
Posted by: FishyFred | June 8, 2008 12:21 PM
What dirt is this? You sound like someone from , convinced that Obama is an evil baby-eater and is just itching to screw up.
Posted by: FishyFred | June 8, 2008 12:23 PM
It's going to be Bill Richardson.
Posted by: wheyghey | June 8, 2008 12:36 PM
Webb's a good guess. I'd prefer Richardson (hell, I'd prefer him at the top of the ticket), but I'm not sure Obama's going to pick him. (Please not Edwards.)
Posted by: Dave M | June 8, 2008 12:43 PM
He could satisfy all the criteria: southern, female, and bipartisan, by picking Condi. :)
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 8, 2008 12:51 PM
Obama should offer Clinton a position as Attorney General, much more fitting for her than the VP slot.
Or she could go for Senate majority leader.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2008 1:19 PM
Dave M: Edwards ruled himself out several weeks ago.
Sadie: Not that the VP pick matters that much, but ideally the goal is to balance the ticket both regionally and ideologically. If you can also appeal to one or more of the party's core constituent groups, so much the better.
Obama's biggest need is for someone who is more moderate on policy, and particularly strong on foreign affairs. He could use support in the south, mountain west, and midwest outside of Illinois. Hispanic voters also seem to be a problem. Hillary doesn't really bring any of that, but she does bring Bill. No dice.
So there are three scenarios that make sense: Bill Richardson to appeal to Hispanics and the west; Jim Webb to appeal to the south and bring foreign policy experience (Bonus: He's a former Republican); and Evan Bayh to appeal to the midwest and Hillary supporters (he was her national Co-chair). I would be very surprised if the VP did not come from this group or someone similar (Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, etc).
Posted by: kehrsam | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM
I was reading some comments over at a very pro Hillary site, taylormarsh.com. (I'd never even heard of her before a couple of weeks ago, but I guess she's a radio talk show host somewhere.) While Marsh is reluctantly going to back Obama, some of her readers' comments about Obama have ranged from the deranged to the downright disgusting.
Probably the lowest I've seen what about that rumor (false as it turned out, yet again) that Obama was playing golf while Hillary was giving her concession speech. They were equating his actions to that of OJ Simpson playing golf two days after the murders of his wife and friend.
I can't think of a more poisonous characterization, and it shows that much of the resentment of these people is all about Obama's race, even though they would never admit it. The "inadequate black man" quote is another).
Now I realize that we're talking a small minority of Hillary supporters who probably aren't even Democrats to begin with (or don't understand what it means to be a Democrat), so putting Clinton on the ticket isn't going to be necessary to win over most of her supporters, assuming Clinton continues to play nice.
I suspect what Obama will do is make some concessions to Hillary on the health care front and promise that she will be the driving force behind the legislation in some capacity or other after the election.
Posted by: tacitus | June 8, 2008 1:43 PM
You're all overlooking something.
Hillary would be perfect as a VP candidate and then VP. Why?
She's the perfect hedge against some right-wing lunatic assassinating Obama. Because the last thing that right-wing lunatic would want to do is put a Clinton back into the presidency.
Posted by: Miguelito | June 8, 2008 1:56 PM
Richardson is no light-weight when it comes to foreign policy either; I seem to remember he helped to negotiate a peace treaty somewhere. Given Obama's dismal showing with Hispanics, how crucial that vote is in many western states, and Richardson's consistent support, I figure it'll likely to to him.
Posted by: Julian | June 8, 2008 3:12 PM
My prediction is that, if Obama offers Clinton anything at all, it won't be attorney general. Rather, it will be head of Health and Human Services. That way, Clinton would be able to push her health care agenda in a more powerful way than she ever could in the Senate.
How's that for going out on a limb? Of course, we'll never know if I was right unless Obama wins. ;-)
Posted by: Orac | June 8, 2008 3:36 PM
If Democrats are going to succeed politically, the polarizing comments just have to stop. Hillary would have made a fine president, and it would have heralded a new era in American history to see a woman in office. Her husband is a master politician, and the comments/jokes about his charisma and continued public life are off topic, unfunny, and un-Democratic.
By the same token, it will herald a new era in American history to see Obama in office.
We want Hillary supporters to rally behind Obama, so let's bring them into the fold, not continue to criticize a candidate who has already conceded defeat.
Let's see some party loyalty here for a change.
Posted by: Will | June 8, 2008 4:04 PM
I assumed Edwards was holding off on endorsement to see who was going to get the nomination so he could try to get the VP slot. All of that aside, it's amazing to look at the diversity the Democrats will throw into the race while the GOP is still "just a bunch of old white guys" ;)
Posted by: Brando | June 8, 2008 4:32 PM
It would be political suicide for Obama to select Hillary as VP. But, as someone else on an e-mail list I belong to said: This election is for the Democrats to lose. And I think Obama is well aware of this, so I really don't think a Obama/Clinton candidacy is viable at all. But who knows? Maybe the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot again.
I would kind of like to see Edwards in the VP spot, but since he says he is not interested, I'm not sure who I'd like to see. Richardson would be perfectly good, and there are doubtless others out there I haven't thought of.
As for Hillary, how about a Supreme Court post? Or a Cabinet post, both of which have been suggested elsewhere.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 8, 2008 5:12 PM
The best chance for Hillary to get on the ticket is for her to wait, have the Republicans reveal the dirt on Obama and his wife and then he pulls out. - seattlerod
That would be the video of him smoking crack with Osama bin Laden?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 8, 2008 5:39 PM
Actually, the latest polls show that Obama isn't doing "dismally" with the Hispanics. He's now barely behind where Clinton was when she was still in the race. That's why people should not pay attention to the "18 million strong army" comments Clinton likes to make. The vast majority of that 18 million will vote for Obama over McCain anyway, and of the small (but vocal) minority who say that they never vote for Obama many would never have voted for him under any circumstances.
So we're left with a group who are deeply disappointed by Clinton's loss (and remembering how I felt when Kerry lost in 2004, even though I wasn't a huge Kerry fan, I can understand how bad it feels) but assuming Clinton is true to her word and continues to actively support Obama, they will come around when the disappointment recedes in time.
Posted by: tacitus | June 8, 2008 8:49 PM
I was initially a Richardson supporter, and have no doubt he'd be a great choice on the grounds of experience, intelligence, and ability to step in to the Presidency if necessary. But politically he'd be an impossibilty. Yes, America is 'ready for' a black president. But a 'black-Hispanic' ticket might push too many racial buttons -- and would feed into the scurrilously false rumors that Obama 'has a problem with whites.'
My own choice? Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. If you don't know her, take a look. Her style of governing seems to be very similar to Obama's legislative and campaign style.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | June 9, 2008 1:28 AM
Forget the 17 million who voted for Hillary.
F...em.
Obams is going to lose when the dirt comes out.
Posted by: Grady | June 9, 2008 8:38 AM
Grade n' Seattlerod:
Put up or shut up, hmm?
Are you hallucinating or fantasising?
Posted by: SharonB | June 9, 2008 4:40 PM