76°
forecast

Why Barack and Hillary are not a good pair

Posted by Tsismis' political watchdog Emiliano Fortunato Orencia, Jr.

 

 

     Well we are officially into the dog days of a political campaign and while the mainstream media continues to prognosticate ad nausea over national polls in the summertime (who is really paying attention) over an election that is based on the electoral college (hello?) and "paris/britney ads" all the while providing us with the same tired coverage day after day...., August is here and the Democratic and Republican Conventions are just around the corner. Both of these events may just be overblown infomercials with all of the light trimmings of substance but it marks the excitement of the real political contest warming up and reaching its apex at the debates (3 have been proposed) between the two candidates right before a historic election. Oh, by the way, the other exciting thing which occurs is likely before each convention and that is the much hyped and overly-anticipated selection of the vice-president for each of the candidates.

 

     The Vice-President of the United States of America sounds and looks like it would be a position of power but only recently during the tenures of Al Gore and Dick Cheney has the second-in-command taken on more than a ceremonial and less a policy influenced place in the West Wing. Political pundits also have theories about the science in selecting this person: will the selection help lock up one of those swing states or the state from whence the selection came; does he/she add the much-needed gravitas to a policy area which the candidate lacks such as foreign policy expertise; will the veep be attractive to a demographic such as the Hispanic or Jewish vote; or is he/she simply someone that the nominee likes and feels comfortable governing with? These are all relevant interrogatories and embedded in the variety of choices which I think Obama may make but likely will not and should not include the Clintons in his final decision. Here are my top six reasons for not choosing the Clintons with a look at better possibilities:

 

1. The Drama Factor:

    Based on the precision of Obama's campaign machine and its relatively drama-free ride albeit with the few standard bumps (e.g. Rev Wright or the "bitter" remarks), it appears, just on general principle that Obama wants a vice-president who will provide support and consultation with room for dissent but without the potential wild ups and downs of choosing Hillary Clinton. Let's face it, if you choose Hillary, then you're bringing Bill also in large measure. It will be a co-vice-presidency which was not talked much about in the Democratic primaries because Obama did not want to "go negative" but the Republican infrastructure will not hesitate in tooling up and pointing that out. In fact, nothing will get the juices flowing from what appears to be a lethargic Republican constituency than having not one but two Clintons trying to make a return trip, although a slanted one to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Despite Hillary's repeated proclamations during the primary, "The public has a long track record of me and I can handle all of my own baggage", can be rebutted by the fact that most of her baggage is attached to and, at times, covered up by the former President Bill Clinton. If the media continues to go down this road of "guilt by association", then there will be plenty of questions which reprise past hits like Monica Lewinsky, Travelgate, Whitewater, questionable pardons, financing of a particular Presidential library, etc. to go around that may stunt any attempts of Obama trying to get America to get acquainted with his biography and message. The Clinton brand has a lot of upside but it brings past, present and very likely future histrionics that Obama has shown to veer away from.

 

2. Hillary's experience rating is overrated:

    Hillary Clinton's contention of "35 years of experience and ready on Day One" are not responsive to her actual curriculum vitae which surely will be challenged by the Republicans. She has been counting her natural time beyond college, none of it specific to political or elected office experience and her mantle as First Lady in which she had no substantive role after the implosion of health care early in the first term. She actually has less elected office experience than Obama and despite Washington insiders sniping at Obama's "Beltway experience", the general public likely sees this as a positive in this climate of change politics. If Obama's experience is going to be hammered away at by a "perceptively experienced hand" in John McCain, then I would argue that he needs someone with time in foreign policy or governing a state, a la a Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Sam Nunn. Remember, this election will seat a president who is a former senator for the first time since 1960. Senators do not manage large entities and their voting records are mired in contradiction because of the many earmarks that get attached to the various bills voted on. This makes governors more attractive as they manage a microcosm of federal government in their states. Former and current governors of Virginia, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine (an early surrogate for Obama) would be fine choices.

 

3. One more time: "It's the economy, stupid."

   According to the polls, the economy particularly accentuated by rising fuel costs is going to be the preeminent issue in November and Hillary does not bring the kind of weight on this issue that businessmen like Mark Warner or Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City would bring to the table. Bloombergs also checks off a few other bullets for Obama because he helps shore up the Jewish vote in places like Florida, Ohio and New Jersey and his selection would embrace Obama's message of change by reaching across the aisle to someone who was once in the GOP and recently switched to Independent. Bloomberg also brings executive experience from running the largest city in America. Warner's nomination brings parallel youth and freshness to the ticket thereby emphasizing the "new direction" and his ascendancy to state politics was marked by his success as a businessman.

 

4. Iraq and foreign policy will be in the shadow of a 2008 presidency:

     As things get steamier in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, China and North Korea, not to mention that little scuffle in Iraq, someone with former military experience would give an Obama administration instant credibility to the "security moms". Thus, names like former Allied Commander and Clinton surrogate, Wesley Clark would bring immediate gravitas as well as former General and Mideast Envoy Anthony Zinni or another former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, James Jones. A vice-presidency with Hillary Clinton does not resolve this conundrum. I would favor announcing one of the above or someone with like experience as a Secretary of Defense, in addition to Secretary of State with the selection of the vice-president. This was suggested by the late Tim Russert and by announcing the "big four", it would reinforce to America that Obama is not running the country by himself and will ensure the electorate that his policies will not be outside of the mainstream.

 

5. Clinton does not bring 18 million votes:

     Yes, Hillary did garner roughly 18 million votes in the primary but her electoral reach was probably maxed out and relegated to the base of the Democratic party. She is not attractive to swing or Republican voters and the fact that she was able gain the advantage of "Reagan Democrats" was likely a vote against Obama as opposed to one supporting her in a general election. Recent polls (which can be sketchy, particularly in July or August of this election especially) show that most of the Clinton voters have switched support to the Democratic nominee which makes perfect sense despite all of the media politicos who constantly failed to see that perspective and so talk that Clinton automatically gives Obama states like Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania is also flawed analysis just because she won two of those states in the primaries.  Generally, in hard-fought primaries, voters side with a candidate but in the end, they likely will support the party's nominee especially when the the other side is offering a candidate so diametrically different on many of the issues.  That was the case here and the Clinton infrastructure was a formidable hurdle for all the challengers. 

 

     Fact is, if she is on the ticket, Obama's numbers will likely go down in the red or purple states which he appears viable right now such as Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa. Obama's map is larger and wider without Clinton on the ticket and his range has more potential than her typical Democratic map would offer. At the end of the day, voters choose from the top of the ticket and history has prevailed on this theory.

 

6. It's a "change" politics year:

     More than any year since 1980 has the public wanted change in our political landscape to effect real progress. Obama's messages of "yes we can" and "change we can believe in" is an inspirational and compelling one which runs counter to the old politics of Bush and Clinton. He has spoken at various times of turning the corner on these min-dynastic regimes which have seen a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1980 and he makes the argument that they are part of the problem in Washington which has led to ultra-partisanship and a stalemate on issues which effect regular and every-day Americans. Selecting Hillary Clinton undermines this message which likely made him the attractive nominee that he is today. New and fresh faces and ideas are abound in the Democratic party this year in the likes of Kaine, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and former Governor and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

 

     As one political pundit once said, "A nominee for the presidency, if not the incumbent, runs on words and promises alone. His only quasi-presidential decision is that of selecting a running mate." That is Barack Obama's challenge as we head down the back stretch and it might mark the start of when the race for the White House really started.

 

 

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.


Toolbox