|
all three actually. Anyone who becomes VP and is somehow a wonderful alternative to hostile interests creates a presidential security risk- in this day and age in particular. The GOP choices certainly seem to make themselves bulletproof in this regard, perhaps since Teddy roosevelt snuck in via the assassin's bullet.
There is a lot of depth and other affirmations of your basic points regardless of the intent and actions of the Clintons themselves. Over and over on DU people are obsessed with the personal intent and actions of the Clintons when in fact there is a lot more breadth to the problem. That involves how they will re-ignite the GOP media circus just by being there. It involves any dissatisfied party second guessing or casting a wistful eye to the second choice so close at hand. It hobbles any practical use whatsoever that the VP spot can be put to. If moribund like many in the past, its vacuum will be all the more conspicuous, if active then given attention contrary to teamwork and all intention by anyone in the administration. And yes, it comes with the added price of a non-cabinet member like Bill possessing the exact same distraction, detriment attention problem as he would have had as First Husband(which has been granted the worrisome questioning it deserves). In effect Hillary, before her own choice of VP, has become weighed down by the same problems she would bring to Obama's ticket.
Then, there is the tremendous obstacle of commonly accepted criteria for VP candidates, where Hillary raises red flags enough to completely put her out of contention. To forestall all these personal judgments and predictions about negative personality traits and "backstabbing" potential one could brush aside this possibility fairly breezily by the math.
Which leaves us with the one big thing, at the center of which IS Hillary's personal choice and character. Many, though not the top Dems or any in the Obama camp I know of, are urging the "unity ticket" as a good thing to bring the two groups of followers together. Most of these people had a favorable impression of HRC and put the negativity in kinder perspective. There is more than personal animus at work however in the opposition of top Dems to this argument. First, there would not be unity so much as a carryover of the great divide. The negativity thus would be infecting the scars forever. The very biggest problem, Hillary's huge delegate count and remaining influence would not go meekly into the VP slot. Her very grasp and formation of delegates and base has rendered it automatically a rival to the actual Presidential nomination. She would have to work very very hard to undo this abuse of loyalty and transform it to unity. IMHO, that miracle would have to preclude forcing herself into the VP slot or even allowing herself to be considered. If she does not recognize that she herself has made the Catch-22 that has lost her both spots on the ticket, well, then we have a big problem that no small defection among her delegates will settle.
Obama has a similar hard task. First, to disabuse anyone of the notion of the unity ticket conundrum, then to heal the party. He should show strength and consistency no matter what and he has the support, thank heaven, of the party leaders. Being left really no other rational alternatives, the first stage is no problem except for their being no leading shoe in for the VP spot. We have some great unknowns and some great experienced candidates, male and female. Richardson unfortunately is someone who would be booed at during the Convention. To put himself back in contention would require the reformed good graces of the Clintons and a great speech during the early days of the Convention. Biden or Dodd, several governors, etc. Anymore dumb ideas from the media like Hagel or Bloomberg should not even be graced with a response.
The burden should be on Hillary but she has the power personally to hurt the party and Obama and keep her loyal base self-betrayed and even spitefully blind, more responsibility hers when you consider ANY loyal base of any candidate tends to go there by following their candidate's lead. I call that base abuse which crosses party and candidate campaign lines in its consistent display of symptoms and thought patterns(and mindless, self-wounding rage).
So we have the sole argument being unity but one which does not solve the larger problem of cementing the confident role of Obama AND his nervous followers. It is amazing to watch the transformation of some from thin-skinned to thick headed once vulnerability and doubt angrily denied becomes unapproachable power and pride. Hillary's followers, denied and not led even yet toward a facsimile of reasonable reconciliation also need a lot. There is no easy answer either Hillary or Obama can fluff off or find a single answer as has happened in the past. It all devolves on Hillary but Obama is the nominee. A very problematic situation.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
