Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anna Quindlen: For Hillary, a Proposal: Persuade Barack Obama to be your running mate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:59 AM
Original message
Anna Quindlen: For Hillary, a Proposal: Persuade Barack Obama to be your running mate
Newsweek: For Hillary: A Proposal
By Anna Quindlen
July 23, 2007 issue -

TO: HRC
RE: VP

Well, senator, with the "Sopranos"-influenced video gone viral, you managed to convince millions of Americans that you do have a sense of humor. With the continuing massaging of your position on Iraq, you've managed to convince a significant number of liberals that you have a sense of urgency about the war. And with the most recent poll results, you must have a sense of yourself as the front runner.

Now it's time to show that you have a sense of history, a sense that this election is bigger than just one woman's ambitions. Make it your business to persuade Barack Obama to be your running mate.

Conventional thinkers like to make this sound risky, pairing a woman and a black man on the ticket. But it's not as wild as it sounds. The calculus of choosing someone for the second spot is always, first and foremost, whether the choice hurts your chances. The answer here is no. Anyone who would be put off by Obama isn't going to vote for you in the first place.

The second question is what you gain. The way in which that has been interpreted has usually been tediously predictable, and has centered on geographic balance. That's how John Kerry of Massachusetts wound up with Southerner John Edwards.

You have a more inventive and useful role model where this issue is concerned, and, I'm sorry, but it's Bill. You probably get tired of hearing about how good he was at all of this, especially since one key to how good he was, was you. But people forget that he stood the issue of how to choose a running mate on its head. Instead of balance, he and Al Gore were a double threattwo young Southerners with future-forward notions about government. Millennium squared.

But that was nothing compared with the excitement that would ensue if you eschewed your customary caution and asked Obama to join you in creating the first real 21st-century ticket. It's not simply that with one fell swoop you would solidify the two largest blocs of Democratic support, but that the historic nature of the pairing would galvanize the race and make any Republican slate seem so same-old. Every politician likes to talk about a new era. The day the Clinton-Obama ticket is announced would really be one for the history books....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762038/site/newsweek/page...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. yeah, other than the writer's condescending tone, she makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. "...especially since one key to how good he was, was you."
I don't think Anna Quindlen is really being condescending to HRC. Maybe writing with tongue in cheek about old, predictable attitudes held by most everybody, but given the whole of her writing, and this proposal, I don't think that's her purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I think the entire first paragraph is condescending, but let's not lose focus of the main idea...
...that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be quite intriguing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good article from Quindlen. I do think the ticket would be exciting,
and possibly unstoppable--I give it two thumbs up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Novak says this is how the GOP could win in '08
Never underestimate sexism / racism in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah, I'll take advice from that cadaver.
The stupidest thing we could do in O8 would be to adopt a defensive posture and hope that the other side didn't behave like the fuckheads they are.

That worked so well last time. And the time before that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. LOL he and Richard Perle would make a cute couple, no? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. From your mouth to the Dems ears. I pray their campaign people read your post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Novak is an old goat. Who cares what he says?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. The only thing I see as "risky" about this move
is that both folks on the ticket have called IL home. But Obama wasn't born there, so... no biggie.

It's not risky at all, it's kind of a no-brainer really, should HRC win the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. what would make that ticket fun to watch...
...would be how delicately the GOP would have to handle it. EVERY smear would look sexist and racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well, they'd have an out.
I'm sure they'll get a token woman/African-American to run in the Gooper Veep slot, should HRC and Obama become a reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
9. Let Obama persuade Clinton to be his running mate nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. My preference as well...
but we know that ain't gonna happen. HRC wouldn't be Obama's veep, I don't think. (Yes, I wish she'd consider it, if Obama surges ahead down the road.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. No way. She is a much stronger and more intelligent than him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. So intelligent she handed the Iraq War to Bush on a platter
I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Then your case is extremely weak. And so is your knowledge of recent
history.

In October 2002, Hillary and a number of other Dems were faced with the IWR that Bush put before Congress. Among other things, it would have allowed Bush to attack not only in Iraq, but in Iran, anywhere in the Middle East and possibly in the world. Some of the Dems worked with the Repubs to draft a compromise resolution that was limited to Iraq.

Why did they do this? Because Bush was still riding high on his post 9/11 popularity, and new Republican majorities were set to ride in on his coattails in November. The choice that the Dems faced was helping to pass the compromise IWR in October, or to let it go down to defeat -- only to watch the new Republican Senate majority and Bush pass an even broader and more odious IWR in January. Given that choice, enough Dems voted with the Republicans to get the more limited IWR passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. A controversial interpretation, at best
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. -Hillary Clinton

No democrat who voted against the IWR suffered any political consequences. Several of them, in fact, found themselves promoted to important committee chairmanships. So excuse me if I don't buy the load that her perceived political expediency is worth the lives of half a million people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. The politically expedient course wasn't clear. I'm sure she knew she'd take
hits from liberals for her vote.

As for the quotation, she was relying on false information given to her by the Bush administration. She had no separate access to accurate info. Even so, the reality was that if the Dems had voted against the IWR in October 2002, Bush would have gotten an even broader IWR in January 2003 from the new Republican Senate.

And he would have had a green light to enter Iran whenever he wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. If that were the case
Republicans could have simply written a new bill to include Iran and run it through Congress in January.

Hillary has no excuses. While at least Edwards has the guts to call it a mistake, Hillary co-sponsors lame legislation to "rescind" her disastrous mistake. If only she could rescind the unimaginable suffering her decision has helped cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Her decision didn't "cause" anything. Bush would have attacked Iraq
with or without the help of any Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. You're saying that Bush never relied on IWR as justification
for attacking Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. No, I'm saying he didn't need the Oct. IWR, he could have waited for
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 04:10 PM by pnwmom
a January IWR from the Republican controlled Senate. He had the Dems between a rock and a hard place. They could help pass the compromise IWR or they could defeat it -- and face a worse alternative.

Bush has no ethics, but some of the Rethugs still do -- enough that they wouldn't have cooperated with him if he had tried to get them to reneg on the deal with the Dems that was made in October. That's why the Rethugs didn't push through the Bush version in January.

Actually, thinking about it a little more, it probably wasn't a question of ethics, but that the Rethugs knew if they went back on their deal, they'd lose any credibility they might have the next time they might want something from the Dems. So Bush was left with the October compromise IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Your argument is built entirely on hypotheticals
The word "would" appears 5 times in your last four posts. Maybe you're right. All I know is what did happen, and that is that Hillary (and others) handed near-dictatorial warmaking powers to the CIC and we're still paying the price for it.

What "would" have happened, had Senate democrats stood united against IWR? Maybe Republican senators "would" have passed it anyway -- then the blood "would" have been on their hands alone. As it is, there's plenty to go around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. You're right that I was supposing things in the second half of the argument.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 05:10 PM by pnwmom
But the first half was based on what I read when the whole situation was happening. Hillary and the Dems had to base their decisions on hypotheticals. Of course they weren't mind readers -- they couldn't know exactly what would Bush or the Rethugs would do. They had to make their best determination, and other Dems had to too. They didn't all come to the same decision, but I think they all made their decisions in good faith, based on using their best judgment and the only facts they had -- facts that turned out to be false in large part.

P.S. Chuck Hagel came out with some more information about this a few months ago, confirming that Bush's resolution would have given him the green light to go into Iran and anywhere else he chose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. And Sheehan's making the anti-war movement look bad. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. Your case is for simpletons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Gotcha, huh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Nah, you got jack shit, just like Obama
Nice fella, but lacking in so many ways.

Maybe in another decade or so he will gain what he needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Well nice to have you voting Democratic anyway nt
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 12:33 PM by wtmusic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. LOL sense of history
didn't you mean sense of humor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
15. I like them both but this would be a risky ticket.
Rank and file citizens including rank and file Dems do not
necessarily think as Activists and Journalists think.

While I would love to believe there is no prejudice in USA,
my lying eyes tell me differently.

While I almost never agree with the Prince of Darkness,
I fear he is correct. This is the ticket the GOP would love
to run against.

Do I wish things were different?? Heck yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
16. what I don't understand is why
"one woman's ambition" is somehow worse than one man's ambition....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. BINGO!!!! You'd think she was the only senator or candidate who is "ambitious." It's okay for men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Farther down in the article
it says Obama can wait, he's younger (paraphrasing). But what if he's just better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. how can one know if he is just better?
he doesn't have much of a record to base an assessment on. I don't mean that in a negative way, it's just the truth.

And that is where he's going to have to convince people, if he's going to win the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. you're right
His numbers are likely reflecting hesitancy about his experience, and that he's going to have to do some serious convincing.

But IMO Hillary has to do some serious convincing regarding her leadership and her ability to pull in moderate Republicans. Have you noticed how RW media has gone relatively soft on her lately? I see it as a lure into the nomination, after which they will bare fangs. There is a lot of unjustified by very real Hillary-hatred out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
50. it is going to be Hillary's job to bring down her negatives
it's not going to be easy after years of the right wing villifying her. She was able to do it in NY, but the campaign season may not afford her the time needed... still, a lot is going to depend on who the pukes run and what the mood of the country is when election time roles around. None of the Republican candidates look very strong right now, and if the election were held tomorrow, pretty much any Democrat would win, IMO.

I think the trends established in 2006 will continue - there is a growing perception that not just Bush, but the Republicans as a whole have really fucked things up. I'm feeling optomistic that whoever we run, we can overcome the right wing slime machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. Edwards/Obama; Obama/Edwards; Gore and either of them
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:44 AM by peacebird
would be great -

any combination that leaves HRC in the Senate works just fine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. Provocative writing, but this is only the second inning. There's 9 in
a whole game and we have no idea right now if the polls this week will read the same in a couple of months, nevermind late December.

The Iowa caucuses are both fairly near and distantly far.

A lot can happen.

Maybe a writer in December will do a piece urging Governor Bill Richardson to consider Chris Dodd as a running mate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
21. Could Hillary and Barack combine their campaign funds for the general?
I'm wondering would money push them together? They would have a pretty hefty advantage over the Republicans if they got paired up next fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
22. WHY on earth would he accept? He's a legit for the top spot at this point. Stooopid!
Yay Wes Clark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
29. Obama will never be her running mate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. How do you know he won't be her running mate? Are you his mommy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. While I believe both are interested in the top of the ticket, there is
no way to know if either would accept the veep spot.

Lyndon Johnson was by no means a second-banana personality type but for the good of the party accepted JFK's veep nomination.

I could see just about any combination of candidates in all kinds of order for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
32. Mighty presumptuous of Ms. Quindlen
to conclude so early that Hillary will be the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
38. It would be an unstoppable ticket, IMO.
Combine the top two Democratic front-runners would be a no-brainer and IMO a slam dunk victory.

It would be great for Obama because it sets him up for a later Presidential run.

And it would be barrier-breaking on two levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broke Dad Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Hillary is losing here in Iowa, she doesn't need a running mate for Senate
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:37 PM by Broke Dad
The more we see of Hillary in Iowa, the lower her poll numbers. She is now running third to Edwards and Obama.

The Bill Moyers show last Friday on impeachment was an indictment of not only the Bush Administration, but also the Clinton Administration for abuse of executive power and placing presidential indiscretion/illegal acts above the Constitution. Nothing nothing that Hillary has said on the campaign trail repudiates the abuses of presidential power by her husband or the Bush Administration. We do not need another imperial president. Hillary has adopted a "shoot first - ask questions later" approach to the "war" on terrorism. She reminds me of Evita and Bill reminds me of Juan Peron.

I am tired of the Hillary hacks on DU. Go back and read one of Molly Ivin's last columns on why she was NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. Enough of the triangulation. Enough of the taking money from big pharmo and Walmart and Tyson and every other oligopolist in America. Enough of the lying. David Geffen hit the nail on the head. The Clintons are the best liars he has ever seen. Enough of the say anything, promise anything, talk like us, pretend to be one of us, soulless double-crossing. Billary or HilliBill are two of the greatest political minds of our time. Its too bad it is all about them and not about changing the politics of America from big donor driven to real social justice. Hillary Clinton is Richard Nixon in drag.

As a loyal Democrat, I will write in the name of Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg before I vote for Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
40. Someone needs to tell Ann Quindlen the FUCKING election isn't until Feb. 08
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 03:20 PM by bigdarryl
No one has choosen Hillary for the primary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
45. If Obama doesn't take it all - I predict he will be someone's VP in 2008.
They would be a fool not to ask him.

Gobama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC