Yesterday, after picking up my older daughter from her JV soccer practice, I saw one of my friends mowing his lawn. He had an "Obama" sign out near the street, and so I stopped to talk with him. He is a junior high social studies teacher, who represents the best that public school’s offers. Last year, my daughter gave him an autographed copy of Elizabeth de la Vega’s book, "The US v Bush et al."
We were talking about the upcoming Democratic National Convention, when another car-load of soccer players yelled, "Get out of the road!" in a friendly way, in the manner of teenagers who admire their teacher, and are comfortable joking with him in the last couple of weeks of their summer vacation.
My younger daughter yelled out, "Hey! We’re talking about the election, and that’s more important than what you’re doing!" The teacher grinned and said, "It’ll be fun having you in my classroom."
Like most democrats, we were talking about who Barack Obama’s choice for vice president might be. I think that it has come down to two fully qualified individuals, both of whom will play some role in the Obama administration. I’m sure that most people will disagree with my thinking on this, at least in part. But that’s one of the things that makes this interesting.
Among the many strong candidates for VP, I think that two stand out. I say this with an appreciation that, in modern times, the Office of the vice president has changed significantly from what it was before 1952. The transformation began with Richard Nixon, who from 1953 to 1960, ran the US intelligence operations in Central America. While there were several VPs who served in a more traditional manner, the Cheney vice presidency indicates that the office is very different than it ever was before, and is unlikely to ever revert back. Thus, the democratic candidate for vice president does not only have to be capable of taking on the responsibilities of the Oval Office should tragedy strike, but must be competent to run the modern OVP.
In my opinion, Barack Obama’s selection process was more focused upon this, than simply the "electability" issue. Luckily, we have two candidates who are extremely strong in both areas. Thus, I think that the decision is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden.
The best reasons to select Hillary Clinton are obvious. Our primary was historic, in that the final two candidates were a black man and a woman. The party has changed, and for the better. More, the contest was relatively close, and Senator Clinton is definitely one of the most powerful democratic leaders today.
Obama has been influenced by Doris Kearns Goodwin’s classic book, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." (If you haven’t read it, please do!) Picking Clinton would be a strong move in the manner of Lincoln.
Would Clinton’s being on the ticket "unite" conservative republicans in opposition to the democrats? Yes and no. Certainly, buffoons like Rush Hannity would rant rabidly. Those who think in their way would unite. But, as LBJ knew, one should always count numbers. Not only did Clinton get a huge number of votes in the primary, but her most recent election in New York is important. I’ve counted numbers in this state for decades. Senator Clinton won almost every county in the state, including the conservative upstate regions. She won by far more than RFK or Daniel Patrick Moynihan ever did. The numbers showed that Hillary Clinton earned the votes of a large number of republican women.
Senator Clinton is absolutely capable of uniting democrats, and of serving as VP. I am under the impression that the biggest "problem" that had to be examined had to do with some of former President Clinton’s finances. If this issue was addressed, Clinton may well be the choice; if not, she may serve in a position such as Secretary of State, or perhaps be appointed to the US Supreme Court.
The other choice is, of course, Joseph Biden. Many people believe that despite the fact that the corporate media appears to favor him at this point, he is actually the most likely choice. In my opinion, Clinton and Biden are equally strong, highly qualified choices.
Biden’s credentials are well-known and impressive. He has served as the Chairman of the Senate’s Committees on Foreign Relations and on the Judiciary. The Borgen Project reportedly ranks him in the top 5 leadrs in the US Senate’s history. One thing that sticks out for me is that he worked with Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to stop the Bush-Cheney march to war in Iraq. (See "Hubris," by Isikoff & Corn, pages 127-128.)
At the time, President Bush was furious about Biden’s influence in this area. He went to Senator Trent lott, and told him, "I don’t want a resolution such as this that ties my hands. Derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day." Trent Lott was able to do this by appealing to Democratic House leader Dick Gephardt, who in one of the grossest examples of political opportunism derailed Biden’s bipartisan effort.
There are, of course, areas where progressive and liberal democrats have concerns and disagreements with Biden. But he is a rock-solid choice for VP, who would strengthen the Democratic ticket and who could serve in the OVP very well. And, like Senator Clinton, he would also be a great choice for Secretary of State, if he is not the VP.
I know that it is possible, even likely, that Barack Obama has decided upon a candidate other than Clinton or Biden. It wouldn’t surprise me, and I will fully support whatever decision he makes. The up-coming week will be a fascinating time, and I appreciate that democrats at the grass roots are having the opportunity to watch and participate in this chapter of our nation’s history. I will be having friends over to watch the Democratic National Convention, and look forward to discussing it with friends in the DU community. It’s quite an experience!
Your friend,
H2O Man
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
