The Woes of a Hillarack Grrl: Like, Why Can't We Have Both??

tags: , , , ,

Image: NYTimes.

This picture represents my fantasy: I see a great presidency resulting from the combination of two intelligent and passionate minds together: two people who discuss things between themselves (and with others) before making important decisions -- unlike the typical relationship between a president and vice president in this country, where the president more or less ignores the vice president. But Hillary and Barack are not like all those others that came before them, so why shouldn't they set up a presidency that is unlike what others have modeled for them?

I know, I know, neither Obama nor Clinton want to play second fiddle to each other but honestly, as a former Kucinich (well, sorta) supporter, I cannot choose between the two. I sat here all Tuesday night watching the Super Tuesday elections returns, and I am so pleased to see an intelligent and articulate woman do so well in a presidential race, and I am so pleased to see a passionate and articulate (half) black man do so well in a presidential race, but I cannot choose between them! Neither one is a complete reflection of those things that I think are most important, and I strongly disagree with both of them in several different areas, but they both are so much better -- together -- than McCain or those twin waiting disasters represented by Romney and Huckabee (which makes me wonder what either of them would do if those horrible heathen North Koreans bomb NYC on a Sunday?). So I wanna know, What can't we have BOTH Clinton and Obama? I mean, scientific data show that more minds working on the same problems tend to result in better decisions than one lone mind, so I think it is better to have a combination of Hillary and Barack, along with Bill and Michelle, along with their advisors, making policy decisions, instead of relying on one testosterone-poisoned individual's religious rantings to guide this nation's future.

I wish Clinton and Obama would stop ripping at each other and join forces, because I CAN'T CHOOSE between them! I think that both of them, together, would be truly amazing and I want to see what they would do.

More like this

If voters were to select the most qualified candidate by judging every applicant on reasonably valid predictors of performance (even if the predictor is just a measure of similarity to their own political beliefs), it is statistically unlikely that the person so selected would also just happen to be a family member of a former president.

I disagree, Mike. One qualification of a good President is being comfortable with the behind-the-scenes operations (and wheelings and dealings) of the Whitehouse. A former President's wife may have insight into "how things get done" in a way that someone who has only been a State Governor does not. That's not to say every presidential wife would have such insight, but one that is deeply involved in politics herself likely would.

Also, I don't think our current president really ignores the VP. It seems to me that Cheney is idea VP material - he flourishes working behind the scenes. It would probably be more difficult for candidates like Clinton and Obama who like being in charge.

Also, I don't think our current president really ignores the VP.

I was under the distinct impression that it was the other way around...

I like some of Clinton's positions more than Obama's, but either one would be much better than any Republican in the race. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, I think she would have a very hard time beating McCain in the general election because of the irrational but deep hatred of Clinton brewed up over the last 11 or 12 years by the poisonous rantings of the right-wing talking heads. And, by the way, in the US there is no such thing as "half black." Any hint of black ancestry makes a person black (whatever that means) in the eyes of white (whatever that means) Americans. I voted for Obama and was happy to see that many others in my region did, not only blacks but many whites as well.

CNN showed some post-vote results from California where a large majority of hispanics and Asians apparently voted for Clinton over Obama. I wonder what that means.

If the eventual winner doesn't pick the other as a running mate, neither of them deserves the vote.

Vice President Clinton?

Can't see Mrs Clinton accepting that role :o)

Just assuming that Mrs Clinton wins the nomination and then the election could Mr Clinton be VP?

By Chris' Wills (not verified) on 06 Feb 2008 #permalink

Clinton would be foolish not to run with Obama even as VP.

A Clinton-Clinton ticket? That would piss off the Repubs to no end. They'd drag out every filthy trick they could find in their bag.

Is it even legal to have an ex-Pres run as a VP?

A Clinton/Obama team could well be the first step in sewing up the Whitehouse for the next sixteen years for the Dems.

A really smart nominee, however, would pick someone from the other major party as their VP with the agreement that when that VP ran for president, he/she would pick their VP from the other party in return. Bye-Bi-Partisanship.

I agree completely. It was a tough choice for me at the polling place yesterday night. I sat for fifteen minutes with my ballot, still unable to decide between Hillary and Barack. I could have gone either way, but I had to choose.

What this country needs is a black lesbian hispanic in the White House.

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 06 Feb 2008 #permalink

I prefer Obama's policies, and he is an exceptional orator, but his base is young voters and I don't want to bet that young voters will stay interested for the next 9 months. I mean, the writer's strike will have ended by then.

I spent most of yesterday thinking about how much I would like a Clinton/Obama ticket. Obama gets the experience elderly voters demand, and Clinton gets her shot at dragging the US into the 20th century.

RyanG: I agree on the Clinton/Obama ticket. I think, sans that option, that Obama has a better chance against McCain for reasons mentioned above.
But, yeah, I think after eight years of having a president slaughter the English language, it would be nice to have a president whose State of the Union address would be like aural prozac.

Ian: Cross-party VPs would be paralytic: When the Constitution was first written, the VP was the second-place finisher in the election. They changed that real fast after the first time they actually had to deal with a divided Oval Office. Also, a defining feature of the "current troubles" is that the Republicans simply cannot be trusted, much less to release power for a promise.

Hillary as VP to Obama? That might be the one thing that could set the RWLs off worse than Hil as Prez.... This powerful woman, that they fear so much,, after conceding the presidency... would be "working directly under" a black man who's not even her husband! Can you imagine the slashfic the loonies would be coming out with?

By David Harmon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2008 #permalink

An Obama-Clinton campaign could be extremely effective. Traditionally, the Presidential candidate plays high-minded while the VP candidate goes for the jugular, and that plays to their strengths. A Clinton-Obama ticket would have to deliberately change those roles.

I don't get a say in choosing the candidate because the Oregon primaries aren't until mid May. But who knows? Maybe it will drag on long enough for us to cast a relevant vote.

Just as well that I don't get to vote, because I can't make up my mind. I like them both and will support either. But what I really, really want to see is a Clinton-Obama ticket. What I'm worried might happen is Clinton-Richardson. (That's what my friend, a super delegate from another state has been saying since last summer.) We would lose all the energy that Obama has brought to the process as the newbies get discouraged and turn away.

I agree 100% this would be a dream ticket to the white house either way. If not this I wouldn't mind if Edwards was in the second spot with either one of them. No matter I will vote Democratic come November as we cannot have another 4/8 years of the republicans, if we did the country would really be down the crapper then

By Ex Partiate (not verified) on 07 Feb 2008 #permalink

Inspiration at the top of the ticket, with a VP who has the blueprints to the corridors of power, in DC and both coasts. (She could be his Cheney, but without the whole sulfrous stench of evil thing.)

It would bring together two huge bases of support in the most direct and actualizing way. Massive coattails for congressional candidates. Senate super-majority, anyone? Maybe by 2012?

HRC knows if Obama takes it all, she will likely not have another shot; she's 69 in 2016. (If Obama is POTUS, and blows it by 2012, she and many Dems would politically expire in that shockwave.)

A woman as VP is also historic. This would give the Democrats two historic firsts. (Especially after the GOP got first woman and first AA, on SCOTUS).

HRC is outstandingly capable and smart. She will still be working for people no matter what happens this year. There's no better place (save one) for her to pursue her life's goals, than as VP in a transformational administration.

She brings quite a Rolodex to the general campaign.
She brings Bill to the campaign. Now McCain would feel Bill's sharp elbows.

Bill Clinton is a beloved world figure, and an asset to any administration he works for. Which he would certainly have reason to do, in an Obama/Clinton administration.

Now, I know there may be all kinds of reasons, known only to the intimate insiders, why this could or could not happen. But until Barack starts posting on this topic, here, nobody here knows any of that shit.

Running as VP on a ticket with Hillary, Obama would be automatically marginalized -- far more than the average VP -- by Bill Clinton. And I can't see her settling for the VP spot at all, but if she did, once again, Obama would be saddled with Bill, who can be a major pain in the ass.

When Bill Clinton's second term was over, Don Imus put it perfectly describing their crazed hogging of limelight: "We will NEVER be rid of these people. Never. Next it will be her. Then, it will be the daughter. We'll all die of old age and they will still be in our faces."

Hillary Clinton is super smart, but she elevates "opportunism" to an art form. I'm sick of her and Bill. Chelsea's aces with me.

Give me Obama-Gore 2008!

By Apphouse50 (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink

Greetings to a fellow Hillerack! These two people are absoulte (if you can excuse the expression) stud ducks. We win in every sense of the word with eithr (or both) of them. Our mission is to defeat the Noise Machine, whether from the right or from the candidates sometimes misguided supporters. We need 'em both, now and for the future.

By bodiddley (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink

Obama/Gore won't happen. Absolutely no friggin' way Gore would be a VP again. The reverse was my dream ticket, until reality reared it's ugly head. (I still dream of a brokered convention somehow leading to that resolution, but...)

Here's what I think needs to happen, FWIW: Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama as the ticket and eventual POTUS/VP. John Edwards as AG, to clean up the disgusting mess at Justice and get that department going in the right direction - helping working people and upholding the actual law, not figuring out ways to skirt it.

And here's the kicker: Bill Clinton gets the very first Supreme Court opening. Man, the sound of wingnuts' heads exploding everywhere would be deafening. Oh, what fun.

I still say the perfect job for Bill Clinton in this day and age would be Sec. Gen. of the UN, but that will never happen.

And a new cabinet post for Mr. Gore - Climate Change Czar. Let's get the Manhattan Project (or Apollo Project, if you prefer) for alternative energy and greenhouse gas reduction going, folks.

and FWIW, I don't think Bill Clinton will be the problem that some do. He's no idiot, and he wants what's best for this country.

The reason why is watergate, filegate, vince foster, monica, dubai ports, recent oil deals....The Clintons are sleazy.

I remember having to defend a sluty president, and parse the difference between personal and professional life. He made me look bad and you.

Now, we want to pretend none of that happened. You want to pretend there are not millions of people still licking their wounds waiting for another shot at the Clintons.

You are lost.

Labradog, when did LBJ become a Republican?

Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American on the Supreme Court.

By expatjourno (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink

The Clintons cannot be trusted, they're greedy, grasping. Nobody remembers she signed an agreement - along with the other candidates - not to campaign on Fla or Mich, then broke her signed oath and did it anyway? Trustworthiness is always an issue with the Clintons... I don't even need to bring up the Bill as Pres years. I was an Edwards man but since the only true progressive candidate is out of the race I have to go with Obama. And Hillary would NEVER share power (outshone) or be VP, and she's too bitter to pick Obama - she may pick JE but I hope she turns her down. Like wise, I cannot imagine Obama offering VP to HC, she couldn't stand to be #2.

By splatterboy (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink

A really smart nominee, however, would pick someone from the other major party as their VP with the agreement that when that VP ran for president, he/she would pick their VP from the other party in return. Bye-Bi-Partisanship.

This could be a smart idea if the two parties were like Austria's conservatives and Austria's Social Democrats (but see comment 12). However, the Democrats are conservative, and the Republicans are batshit crazy... Think a little about what you are saying.

I still say the perfect job for Bill Clinton in this day and age would be Sec. Gen. of the UN, but that will never happen.


The reason why is watergate, filegate, vince foster, monica, dubai ports, recent oil deals....The Clintons are sleazy.


Watergate is Nixon. Selling the ports to Dubai is Captain Unelected. Monica is nobody's business except hers, Bill Clinton's, and Hillary Clinton's.

There is something sleazy about Bill Clinton, and that's that he's the best Republican president you people have ever had...

You want to pretend there are not millions of people still licking their wounds waiting for another shot at the Clintons.

Can't they all go cheney themselves? I mean... just a question.

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink

Hillary Clinton will lose to the Republicans. There are even enough liberals who hate her and the conservatives really hate her. If Obama doesn't win, I'm not voting for her, and I'm not alone. I'd appreciate a woman President, but Hillary isn't even feminist enough for me. She let her husband embarrass her for the sake of political expediency. She's got big pharms on her side. More of the same.

The Clintons are part of a machine - do we really want 24 years of Bush/Clinton dynasties? That's scary. Look at their records - Obama has done much more with his Senate votes besides being against the war from the beginning.

Clintons = same old thing
Obama = integrity and new blood

By Vote Obama (not verified) on 09 Feb 2008 #permalink