Hillary Clinton for Vice President. If this were to come to pass, I might consider voting for President Obama in 2012. It’s the only thing at this point that would give me the desire to vote for him.
http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385
Having Hillary Clinton in the room could be what we need to get real change to happen.
Please share widely!
She voted for wars, the bankruptcy bill, Patriot Act, etc.
She’d probably hire great people to surround her. People like Lanny Davis.
Her husband was having surgery that day, so she was not in the Senate chamber. Her Iraq War vote was the wrong way.
Her advocacy for children’s health (S-CHIP), for a public option as part of Health Care Reform, and for including mental health funding as part of HCR do count toward her being in favor of positive change.
My bad!
Thanks for the correction.
She wasted no time in making the Dept of State as LGBG family-friendly as legally possible when she got into office. Next, she added an LGBT category to the Dept of State’s country profiles and reported conditions for LGBT people living in or visiting foreign countries along with the standard info.
Early in December, CLinton gave a historical 30 minute speech at the UN about LGBT human rights. This was a first in American history and it was a game-changer. It couldn’t have happened without Obama’s approval, and it couldn’t have happened without her earnest interest.
Simply put, Clinton has been an LGBT rights lion and deserves recognition for that.
She has also been a longtime coward (like her husband, and like Obama) on equal marriage. She’s also a strong hawk and overseen a State Department heavily involved with what we are doing around the globe (i.e. illegal wars).
but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
It’s a great idea, no doubt in my mind. But Obama’s ego is too titanic for it to happen.
I’m not sure about the alleged size of Obama’s ego. He seems to be able to be spun by his advisers, or even overruled – not the mark of a large ego. I’d say he’s ‘leadable’ to a fault, actually.
has a small, medium or even large ego. It’s measured in XXL and above.
…. then I’m not convinced about the size of his ego relative to other Presidents (and candidates).
it seems to me that she did work hard to try to change bills and make them more progressive, however, in the end she will support bad legislation. This particular argument, though, reminds me of all the bickering we did over the Affordable Care Act, and how inadequate it was and even dangerous it was, but in the end, those of us who wanted “no” votes were slammed for standing in the way of progress. We were told that even this little step forward would be a significant success and that Medicare didn’t happen in one vote and that all of this stuff evolves over time and we have to take baby steps to get there. Remember????
but it sure would wake up the base if he did. It’s not that I don’t like Joe Biden. I do like Joe Biden but I rarely here his voice out there. Hillary, on the other hand, is very outspoken and will surely be heard.
I just have not been feeling like reviewing my writing lately to correct mistakes. Please forgive, the need to be heard is still alive and well.
I’d have to see real data showing this makes a difference electorally speaking, and I am not sure it would yield different policy results. A lot of Obama’s people are the people Hillary would’ve picked. That said, I think she has a lot more political courage than the President and I posted as much two or three months ago when I suggested she might’ve done a better job. She has done a superb job as Secretary of State and that has convinced a lot of ex-Hillary haters like me that she was more than capable of the Presidency and more importantly being her own person and forging her own path. Taking that position on was brilliant since it untethered her from Bills shadow and the shadow of being a VP under Obama.
I think we can make a good argument that had Hillary been VP four years ago she would be where Biden is today-an irrelevant though occasionally heard voice in the corridors of power. He certainly wields a lot less influence than he did as a Senator. LBJ, Humphrey, and Gore encountered the same problem. I think he underestimated Obama’s independence and overestimated his liberalism when he signed up four years ago, and apparently he was offered State and declined so not sure where Reich is coming from with that. I think getting on the ticket might be a good move for Obama but I don’t think it would help her at all. Her record stands independently of his for the most part, becoming VP will taint her foreign policy successes with the mediocrity of his domestic agenda and possibly drag her down when he is a lame duck. That said I will agree with Reich that Hillary 2016 is our best chance for maintaining the White House, our bench is very weak (Warner, O’Malley, Hickenlooper, Bennett, Gillibrand, maybe Deval, maybe Schumer, maybe Lynch in NH) and a lot less exciting than the Huntsman-Rubio-Christie horsenrace already underway. Its her last shot and she should take it-shes earned it.
and she could step into the background never to be seen again. But that’s not how she behaved as first lady and I really can’t see her taking too much of a back seat as VP either. She would probably push her way into the middle of things to the point that the media would find it newsworthy. While that may be controversial and cause her some harsh words in some corners, it’s who she is and it’s what we need. We need that fighting voice in the middle of things and we need it right now.
Clinton has been a superb secretary of state. Unlike many recent ones who are forgotten and often hidden, Clinton is taken seriously in many world capitals. She’s not some nobody used to give “intellectual heft” to a weak administration, or a political afterthought — she’s a power in America in her own right and foreign interests know that.
Clinton navigated America through the Arab Spring as smoothly as Obama’s prevaricating incompetence would allow. She has handled the Burma evolution masterfully, and wrote a Foreign Policy article on the Pacific pivot that shows up in foreign affairs literature on a weekly basis.
As I said, Obama doesn’t have the boldness or confidence to make her VP, and the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a waste. I can’t imagine John Kerry doing half the job she is. It’s tough to move forward when you spend time staring into a mirror.
Can David bring back old school ratings so I can give that a 5? She is in Seward and Acheson territory. Foggy Bottom loves her and she is responsible for undoing the Bush damage. Also why is Burma getting no coverage?
decision, which is part of the problem that I have with President Obama. I can’t see any potential for real change coming from him after the next election because he is so status quo about everything now. So afraid to be daring and take risks. So afraid to lose that independent center that is supposedly the heart of America, not realizing that he has already lost them. He needs to do something bold and daring.
…. everything old is new again… cue another messiah, same as the old messiah.
I hate it when someone tries to minimize the expectations we have of our president by saying we are looking for a messiah. I mean really, I’m not looking for someone to perform godly miracles.
Completely, totally, heart-attack seriously.
Stop kidding yourself. A miracle is exactly what you are looking for… For when you say thus:
What other conclusion can I draw?
I did say, and do say, you are looking for a messiah: the one person that will solve all the problems with which we are currently beset: the singular entity to complete the puzzle of our democracy; the one unassailable, unstoppable, completely overwhelming choice that will make all other choices paie in comparison… You’re looking for a messiah and you’re lying to yourself if you say otherwise: Your entire post is a wish for a miracle: a hope that all we have to do is to appoint the proper person and thus the miraculuos occurance of “getting real change to happen”… and, I might add, thus avoid some real work. Sigh.
(the part about making Biden SOS, I mean).
Considering there’s already an Obama-Biden campaign ramping up and opening offices and stuff for the 2012 election – which is now less than a year away – I’d say this choice seems to be already made.
but it sure feels nice to hope a little. I feel as devastated today as I felt when Bush was president. Those tax cuts for the wealthy have predictably trickled down to increased regressive property taxes for those of us who have left behind the prospect of increased personal wealth and are perhaps not teetering on the edge of the cliff but with every year find ourselves a few feet closer to it. Without hope, life would just suck and that cliff in the distance would be even more ominous than it already is.
I’ll never understand why, whenever Hillary is mentioned for any job, thousands of political people rush forward to say how great she’d be, how she’s the ONLY choice they can get excited about.
She was a shocking choice for Secretary of State, and has been a pleasant surprise, but nearly everything else in her career has been an exercise in caution. Joe “Clean and Articulate” Biden was a shocking choice as Vice President, and he has been a pleasant surprise.
The Obama-Biden ticket won handily in 2008, and Biden has done nothing to damage the President’s reelection. Why do Clinton people want to mess with this? Why do Clinton people exist? I honestly have nothing against Hillary, except this — she inspires some truly logic-twisting loyalty. She’s done far less for us than she could have. Period.
People are willing to hate her thoroughly, especially when they are surrounded by people who are of the same opinion and steadfastly support each other in having it (although they couldn’t tell you why they hate her even if you gave them weeks to think about it). It’s very hard to break through and change their mind. But you can break through when you talk in your own circle of people, your family, friends, etc. It can take months and even years, but it can be done.
Obama-Biden ran on Hope and Change in 2008. They can’t in all honesty believe they are going to be able to do that again. If they win, it will be because a conservative libertarian runs as a third party candidate. They will win by chance, not by determined support from the majority of voters.
I said nothing about people who hate her, though that might be worth thinking about it if the talk gets serious. I certainly don’t hate Hillary, but everything people find frustrating about Obama, his willingness to pre-compromise on issues, is worse in Hillary and Bill.
I don’t think Obama-Biden will run on hope and change. They have a pretty decent record to run on.
I think all three are where they need to be and really trading places would be like comparing apples and oranges to some extent. Clinton doesn’t have the ability to fade into a number 2 spot and needs to have her own domain control, it made sense as First Lady, made sense as Senator, makes even more sense as Secretary of State. She needs to be her own woman and that position offers her autonomy she can’t have as a VP. Biden is suited to fading in the background and being an elder statesman and a third foreign policy voice for the President and thats a fine place to be. He is also Obama’s ambassador to working class ethnic (predominately Catholic) whites and has been underutilized in that capacity.
The ideology does not matter, its the boldness that does and this is Obama’s greatest failure as a President, as a leader, and arguably as a man and an area where ironically the woman who went through the crucible of right wing attacks and conspiracies would’ve been more prepared to parry the blows with a few jabs of her own and fight. She’d have been just as centrist, but a better fighter. As a number two she’d relish the role of attack dog, but I think she would end up either overshadowing or being overshadowed. You just can’t have co-Presidents on the campaign trail, and her leadership abilities would outweigh his and make him look like the timid partner instead of the head of the ticket. I do think he can take lessons from her and Bill on how to run to the middle while simultaneously running as a populist. That would be potent.
afraid to be beaten on by the right-wing. She’s not foolish enough to think she can compromise with the GOP.
…is her age. Secretary Clinton is 64 – considering this, is anyone looking ahead AND doing the math? Not saying age should be a factor, necessarily, but if she continues as SOS, who knows…maybe retirement or other endeavors are in her plans.
Coincidentally, a neighbor and I discussed this only last week – the opportunity for a Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton ticket should’ve been hammered out years ago by the DNC, and perhaps could have avoided (in the end) such an ugly, expensive, and exhausting campaign.
I think those who do not like Hillary (past her politics) is either because they don’t care for Bill, or, for her demeanor. The woman has a strong personality and some are threatened by that. Their loss – she’s an intelligent, no-bologna senior public servant, respected for her efforts. Not a bad spot to be in…
Since I can remember, the VP’s role seemed designated as a quasi-ambassadorship, and other than the last VP strong-arming and pulling strings, I’m not sure being the quiet colleague is such a bad thing. Biden is an experienced, affable man who appears to connect with his generation of Dems and beyond – definitely not a flaw.
As Chair Wasserman Schultz advocates for electing and re-electing Dems, she must also be looking way ahead with other senior members to preserve and cultivate seats. Such plans should not be relegated to seemingly two or four-year benchmarks, but 6, 8, 10…
the first time around? When Obama was a State Senator?
And why should the DNC be “coordinating” nominees at all? Isn’t that the job of the voters in Democratic Primaries?
Finally, it doesn’t seem to me that the long, drawn-out and occasionally (but not often) bitter primary hurt anyone at all. Obama coasted in the General and Hillary got a great position in the government.
Not a bad move. Her foreign policy is definitely more hawkish than Obama’s, and tax increases would be off the table.
It’s a scary world when progressives would support someone who can (arguably) be said to be more hawkish than Barack Obama.
We’ve completely lost our way on war and peace.
I’m a righty.
.
I am voting for Obama no matter his Vice-Presidential running mate, but I would be more enthusiastic about the campaign if it were Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Maybe she would bring in those blue collar voters she won over during the 2008 Presidential Primary when she won Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, among others.
I would be surprised if it was offered and shocked if she agreed. My guess is that she would rather be a full time grandmother than a Vice Presidential candidate.
I’m trying to think back to 2008 to remember how both were portrayed.
Funny what a little time in the spotlight can do to one’s public opionion number.
and toward Obama was the war vote. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and President Obama made a speech against the war. That was the entire deciding factor. I remember it most specifically being discussed on the Huffington Post and pushed by Arianna Huffington herself. It was after that decision to step out publicly to throw all of her influence in support of the Obama campaign that the base started to tear Clinton to shreds. It was a horrifying experience to be a determined Clinton supporter during that time. It was impossible to have a reasonable discussion with Obama supporters. Still, Clinton rose above it all and carried on with confidence and strength. I can’t even tell you much she inspired me during that time; her words remain posted on my computer desk even now: “Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. When you stumble, keep faith. When you’re knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can’t or shouldn’t go on.” Those words inspire me to keep fighting for good government, in spite of how difficult it is and how futile it seems. I was so angry at Arianna Huffington for leading the charge to crush Hillary Clinton, and for making the Huffington Post the go to place to do it. I have little respect for her now because of it.
Thanks Arianna Huffington I’ll never forget it.
Let’s not forget that Hillary had more total votes in the collective primaries than Obama did. She lost because Obama ran a savvier campaign, taking the smaller states that are often ignored by huge margins and ensuring he lost the ‘big’ states by no more than 10%.
He was even more organized in caucus states, absolutely dominating them, even winning the Texas delegate count while simultaneously losing the primary there, because he cleaned up in the Texas caucus votes (yes, Texas has a primary *and a caucus* — which is even more stupid than having a caucus instead of a primary).
There are probably hundreds of reasons (political, tactical, personal and policy-based) that contributed to Obama’s primary win in 2008.
That said, I think liveandletlive is right that an over-emphasis on “fixing” the Iraq War (at the expense of both important domestic policy and other vital foreign policy issues) was essential to Obama’s victory.
When the race begin (in Summer 2007), Clinton was far ahead in the polls with a 20-25% point lead. The argument back then was focused on “experience” with Clinton the obvious choice given that criteria (remember the “3 Am phone call ad?). Polls showed potential voters favored Clinton to handle the economy, terrorism, the Iraq war and especially other foreign policy (remember the insipid “debate” over meeting with hostile foreign leaders “unconditionally”?).
Meanwhile, in Iraq in the summer of 2007, we were in the midst of Bush’s “surge” announced at the January State of the Union and leading to the deployment of almost 4,000 more troops a month in the first five months of the year. The Administration’s PR campaign for the Iraq War was in it’s highest gear, which left a majority of even Democrats both hesitant to criticize the effort and in a true State of Fear.
Fast-forward, then, to Spring 2008 and the Obama comeback. Sure, he ran a great (probably the superior) campaign but I agree with the contention that shifting tides on the Iraq War played a big part in Clinton’s free-fall.
It was clear by then that the much-touted surge had only a minimal impact on “conditions on the ground.” Check out this April 2008 poll (See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/106309/iraq-war-attitudes-politically-polarized.aspx ). This poll shows Democrats dismayed (47% say the surge made no difference with 37% saying it is making things *worse*) and now ready to end the War (81% in support of a “timetable” for withdrawal).
Meanwhile Clinton had been highly critical of the Iraq War and supported a phased withdrawal from Iraq as early as 2005. She opposed the “surge” nearly immediately in early 2007 was already calling for a shift in focus to Afghanistan. Though her public positioning and long-held views on Iraq matched nearly perfectly with a large majority of Democratic primary voters, incredibly, Obama and his supporter’s were successful in spinning the debate to focus almost exclusively on the initial decision to start the War and especially on the Senate authorization vote that provided the only real contrast in Obama v Clinton on the Iraq War. (See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_clinton_t_1.html ). Obama’s Super Bowl ad was about “change” but it stared with him literally yelling “we want to end this war”. As if Clinton didn’t.
That was the success of the Obama/Huffington strategy. Clinton was always considered more experienced and a stronger opponent to McCain, lead in every poll on her perceived ability to handle the economy (the #1 issue in most polls) and had foreign policy views nearly identical to Obama. The Obama and Clinton position on what to do about the Iraq War at that time were nearly indistinguishable.
But Obama was perceived as “more against the War” than Clinton. And I agree with liveandletlive that this made a crucial difference in the 2008 primary.
“When the phone rings at 3 a.m. … “
hurt her, especially with Obama able to sell himself as anti-war, but I was only pointing out the fact that it didn’t cost her the election. It didn’t turn the populace against Hillary and Obama never won because he was the bigger vote getter. He wasn’t. He won because he had a better organized campaign that didn’t ignore any states and was planning for a 50 state primary battle from day 1.
If the war vote Hillary made was such a big deal, Obama would have won the race much quicker and Hillary never would have received more total votes than Obama did.