Picture of the Day - Let's start a fight today.
Here's a controversial question. If Obama doesn't want to take Hillary Clinton as his VP, have her tactics and pressure for the VP role made it impossible for him to select a different woman as his VP?Would her supporters laud this, or see it as a slight to their candidate, closing the door of opportunity to these other women?
Discuss.
(I think either McCaskill or Sebelius would be good choices.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:00 AM
6 Comments:
Good question. My guess that the most vocal of Hillary's supporters are indeed Hillary supporters. The cult of personality, as you pointed out. While the most vocal, these are probably the minority share of her supporters.
The second group is the gender identity group. These are women, and some men, ~45 and up, who really, really, really, wanted to see a woman in the White House. They love Hillay because first, she's a woman, and (close) second, she's Hillary Clinton.
The third group aren't concerned about gender, but are attracted to the hard-ass, brass knuckles, tough-talkin' politics that the Clintons are so good at. This group believes the only way you can get Democratic policies passed, is to steamroll the GOP. Unilateral governance is preferred to compromising with the Republicans. (which is odd, because Hillary is probably the more politically malleable as seen with her hawkish voting record and pandering during the primaries). They see Hillary as strong and Obama as weak. This is also where you'll find the Appalachian ("I'll never voter for one of those colored people") voters.
I think the pressure from Hillary's supporters is probably on Obama to pick a woman, but it doesn't have to be Hillary. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we're treated to a public announcement that Obama offered Hillary the VP, but that she felt she could be a more effective representative of her supporters by serving in the Senate.
I think Obama will chose a VP who will give him the best advantage against McCain. In the context of the general election, the best strategic candidate could quite possibly NOT be a woman.
By
-epm, at 9:05 AM
That's a pretty deep analysis.
I have a hunch that right now, your second group is really bleeding into your first group, however, as time passes the division will become much more lopsided towards the second.
And I'm pretty sure that we're going to get the Obama offer/Clinton refuse scenario. It's right for Obama, it's right for the party, and it's the most face saving way for Clinton to be refused.
(If she really wanted a stink, she could refuse that deal and make him pick someone else without an offer to her. It would rend the party, though, and I'm not sure that's in her longer term interests.)
My hunch will be that they will use the vetting of Bill Clinton as the lever if they have to. There's no way he's releasing his library and foundation records.
(PS. I like either Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill. Jim Webb cold be a little difficult because he's so ornery, but that also gives him alot of credibility. Reagan naval secretary, so both cross aisle and foreign policy, track record on foreign affairs, etc. Plus Virginia.
McCaskill is swing state Missouri, does well among suburban whites, and I just find her likable. Plus she committed to Obama really, really early is incredibly loyal, on message. Pro and con not a ton of experience, so you do get outsider/new kind of politics, but also not much experience.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:22 AM
Webb. Women and vets will go for it.
By
Anonymous, at 10:44 AM
Regarding my Hillary supporter groups...
I think my second group was ebbing into the first group during the final weeks (months?) of the primary campaign. These are the folks who needed to have the wake for the Clinton campaign and go through the grieving process. I don't think they're anti-obama, per se, and are more pragmatic and issues oriented rather than personality oriented.
VP. I've been going back and forth on Jim Webb. His orneriness and independence can be both and asset and a deficit... Is it a bug or a feature? I like him a lot, but I've no idea how the chemistry of an Obama/Webb ticket would play out -- both internally and publicly.
I think the benefits of picking a VP based on home geography is more superstition than actual affect on the electorate. I think the personalities of the two candidates their their chemistry on stage has more to do with success. Not to mention the ability to the VP to play the "attack dog" of the ticket.
By
-epm, at 11:15 AM
Ron, There's just something authentic about the guy that I respond to.
The one thing is, I don't think he'll necessarily sell his credibility for you. I just have this feeling that down the road you'd have fights with him (closed door.)
...
EPM, Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to say. In the last emotional ending, alot of the subtlety got lost. For example, sexism from the media turned into anger against Obama, but I think that will all settle out with time.
I've never been one of those who thought the Clinton supporters would defect in any large numbers. Her base was democrats not independents, and in the end, most come back to the fold.
...
As for Webb, that's the same question I have. He brings alot, but I could see the same problems.
The main strength I see is that he has credibility with independents where Obama is perceived to be weaker. He reaches into a very different audience, you know?
I've got a picture of Obama and Webb I'm probably going to put up tomorrow or Wed, more discussion on VP's then, I'm sure.
By
mikevotes, at 1:40 PM
re Webb... exactly.
He also balances McCain's armed forces cred. McCain's ONLY claim to relevance as a presidential candidate is his now-tiresome military, "war hero" resumé. Obama can probably hold his own on the issues, but it's hard to counter the POW, band of brothers, stuff McCain's been milking for the past 40 years.
By
-epm, at 2:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home