Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
An Anti-Clinton for VP
You can't turn on a television or have a conversation about politics without being accosted by speculation about whether Barack Obama will select Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Will he ask her or won't he? This is the extent of today's political debate -- personality-focused chatter that goes about as deep as prom-season gossip at a local high school.
The better question is should he or shouldn't he? This is also easier to answer: No, though not for the reasons you might think.
The conventional reason why Clinton shouldn't be on the ticket is a purely political one -- the theory goes that because she is so despised by Republicans, her name on the ticket could help John McCain consolidate the GOP base behind his candidacy. Little discussed is the fact that putting Clinton on the ticket could directly undermine the mandate of the party's primary: the rejection not of Hillary Clinton, but of Clintonism itself.
Clinton backers have long said Clintonism is all about moderation, negotiation and smart positioning in the face of Republican extremism. But it really is the politics of capitulation, triangulation and obfuscation in the face of money and power.
Bill Clinton spent his time in the White House working with Republicans to champion trade, telecommunications and financial deregulation -- destructive policies specifically crafted to boost corporate profits at the expense of ordinary workers. As a key Clinton administration player, Hillary Clinton promoted many of these policies, and as a senator she has backed abominations like the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill and the war in Iraq.
After realizing that the Democratic primary would be a battle and not a coronation, Clinton desperately tried to obscure this record. The saber-rattling lawmaker who helped lead the country into war presented herself as a steadfast critic of it; the first lady who gave speeches backing NAFTA claimed she never supported it; the senator gracing Fortune magazine's cover suddenly tried to be a Huey Long populist. With such a clear line from Reaganism to Clintonism to our current national security and economic crises, it was too little too late.
Some say Hillary Clinton's defeat was the victory of sexism -- but Obama faced at least as much racism. No, this resounding defeat goes beyond pernicious isms and beyond one candidate -- it is a fist-pounding rejection of a corrupt ideology.
Now, John McCain is trumpeting his support for NAFTA, deregulation and intensifying the war in Iraq. It is the Arizona senator's very own kind of Clintonism. That means for Obama to really draw the most effective general-election contrast, the smart vice presidential pick is not Clinton, but an anti-Clinton -- and there are many of them.
In the Senate, there is Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill -- all economic populists. In the statehouse, there is Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- a guy who told The New York Times, "I was a critic of NAFTA, I was a critic of CAFTA and I'll be a critic of Shafta." And outside the electoral arena there are people like Anna Burger -- a leader of one of the largest labor unions, who was recently hailed by The Wall Street Journal as one of the 50 most influential women in America.
These are icons from potential swing states and swing constituencies whose careers show they can shore up Obama's weakness among working-class white voters far more effectively than New York's junior senator. More important, they are people who can help Obama draw an outsider-versus-insider, populist-versus-corporatist contrast that reinforces the most powerful message of all: The era of Clintonism is over.
David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
41 Comments so far
Show AllIf Obama wants Bill Clinton crawling in and out of his backside 24/7 . . . go ahead and make HRC his VP choice.
The Hillary fanatics need to get a life.
Don't look for Kucinich on the ticket. Obama isn't as much about change as his sloganeering would have the American public believe.
Is there a special ceremony that needs to be performed to exorcise the Clintons from the Dem party? Anything involving holy water, or wooden stakes or silver bullets that needs to be done. Or maybe just a bucket of water tossed on her so she melts away?
The Dem party needs a lot of work, and more than just this. But a complete exorcism of the Clintons is a much needed first step. I'm not an Obama fan, but that's the one good thing about him getting the nomination is that at least a start.
The pendulum is so far to the right and the bar is set so low that people seem to have forgotten that the Clintons are scoundrels responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. And Madeline Albright said that was a price worth paying for the sanctions. Bill Clinton eviscerated the social safety net with welfare reform while outsourcing jobs with NAFTA. He was as economically conservative as Nixon. I don't understand how Democratic voters can possibly think of Hillary as one of their own. I hope for a female president and/or vice-president someday, but not a Joe Lieberman with ovaries.
Senators have jobs, they should be doing them.
Forget entirely putting any Senator or Congressman on the ticket. They are the problem, not the solution.
..a Joe Lieberman with ovaries...That is so on the money. I think Jim Webb would balance out Obama just fine.
Barack Obama is nothing more than neo-Clintonism with a Black face, with or without a Hillary on board as a VP candidate. The Democratic Party is a corporate funded and sponsored party. It always will be, too.
Does anybody really sincerely think that Obama is a break with this? That is about as naive as thinking that Hillary was some feminist breaking for the presidency. Give us a break!
Just think how stupid this sort of liberal thinking is going to appear if McCain makes 'Condi' his VP candidate. Or a Colin Powell...
I seriously doubt that Obama needs Sirota`s advice or any one else`s to pick his running mate. He had the ability to beat out a whole herd of other presidential contenders, so is probably capable of doing that job.
All we should be worrying about is how to get him elected and a majority of Dems in Congress to help him out. At least with him, there is a chance to roll back the tax cuts to the rich and spread some income around to everyone except a favored few.
As for the occupation, it will be very hard for anyone to bring that to a satisfactory close, but he might do as well as anyone, and certainly better than 100 years McCain will do.
You left out another name for VP: Russ Feingold. That is, provided he can be persuaded to run.
Good grief. When will Obamacans wake up and realise they are being conned. Hating Hillary is not a policy.
Both Clintons are Republican red-headed step children. No more Clintons please.
I know nothing about Obama. I am dead certain McCain, Hillary are bad news. Sorry Old, but that sort of thinking passes for policy in today's market.
Boycott Obama if he (wink wink) like Gore (remember Lieberman?) picks a militarist (Webb, General Clark) or a corporatist of any sex or stripe. He must demonstrate the change he talks about is REAL and on the ticket.
I fear we are again facing the lesser of two evils morass. In light of the fact that both parties receive major corporate financing, is it possible for either of them to field a candidate who is not a corporatist--not, regardless of the rhetoric.
I have read several articles on Obama hoping to find a reason to support him. This is what I have found: he voted for nuclear energy, for the bill to move class action suits out of state courts to federal ones only, and even though he says he is against the war in Iraq, he has continuously voted to fund it.
His money comes from small donors but also much from corporations and Wall St. lobbying law firms--apparently as much as Hillary garnered. Also, the General Dynamics connected Chicago family who has connections to Israeli military production is among his strong corporate supporters.
As for foreign policy, his genuflection before AIPAC was so embarassing. I am sure those jewish people who walked shoulder to shoulder with African Ams. during the civil war demonstrations are not the same type as those in AIPAC. AIPAC supporters would more likely have been among those Israelis who manufactured and sold weapons to the white South African govt.
The last couple of years have made it evident that major portions of Democratic Party policies and actions and progressivism have long parted company. It was a difficult realization to accept from one who had always voted Democrat.
.
I see only one candidate who has total integrity, great knowledge of issues and plicies on all fronts, and has worked indefatigably for the people of this country, and that is a third party candidate. Isn't it about time that we looked at the reality of the situation and made adjustments?
You OBAMA supporters and surrogates have guts to Potray Senator Hillary Clinton in the worst possible way, sometimes even harsher than republicans will potray her and yet you want 18 million voters who supported her campaign to vote for Obama! How ridiculous is it? Just read the Speech he gave On June 3rd at AIPAC Meeting. Did he sound like a candidate of change?
Ralph Nader will sure be a better candidate for now.
That's rich. A Clinton supporter chastising Obama for his AIPAC speech. Excuse me pot, how black is that kettle again?
Funny, when Obama give his victory speech on the evening of June 3rd, he spoke of Hillary in glowing terms, praising her as a wonderful person. His ten minute disartation about Hillary sounded like one offering a Presidential Nomination speech.
Evidently, Obama does not share the biased opinions of most of the bloggers commmenting here, or the author of this article. Therefore, I find most of the posts here to be rather amusing. If he ignores Hillary or turns his back on her, he is blowing his chances of ever living in the White House.
And should he ask her to be his VP running mate, which I seriously doubt she wants, and if she did accept the position and they are elected, Hillary and Bill won't be living in the White House, so no one has to worry about Billy interfering with the teen aged interns.
If he does not select Hillary, he better get his shit together and make damn sure he gets 90% of her 18 million votes, or we'll have McCain giving the orders.
Senator Hillary has lost the primary election. It is Obama who needs to win white house. AIPAC speech on June 3rd by Obama has definitely made his pot very black.Are you proud of his speech? Continue ridiculing Hillary and her 18 millon supporters from the most populous big states and be prepare to lose general election. Choice is yours.
KEM PATRICK June 13th, 2008 10:12 pm
"If he does not select Hillary, he better get his shit together and make damn sure he gets 90% of her 18 million votes, or we'll have McCain giving the orders."
He's going to have to come up with something better than fear of McCain. Not only would that be ineffective, but it would destroy Obama's message of hope, change, unity, and a new type of politics. The lesser evil candidate trying to get people to vote against the greater evil candidate out of fear is old politics at its very worst.
Newscrazy, your 18 million Hillary army has dissipated, unfortunately for those who threaten the rest of us with taking their toys and going home. Obama is already doing much better with women than McCain, and better than Kerry did. So the threat of voting for McCain if Hillary isn't somehow included in the ticket has lost its power.
I certainly hope Hillary isn't on the ticket. She'd do all the work and he would take all the credit.
Why would she want to be VP to a Chicago thug anyway?
I find it amusing how Obama and his surrogates now find Hillary so wonderful, now that they
need her constituency. Aren't there going to be some flowers and chocolate as well?
The Hillary VP chatter is so old and hurts my brain to read - GET OVER IT or in Hillary's own words - "Just don't even go there" One person has won the nomination - talk about who his potential picks are - and give me some reasons why he should or shouldn't do whatever - do some research for crying out loud. The broken record babble about this makes me wish I was a lobbyist for Advil.
I say no to McCain.
I say no to Obama.
I say no to Hillary.
I say yes to demanding justice for war criminal presidents and impeachment.
I say yes to protecting the rule of law.
I say yes to ending the war (it is a bunch of crap that Iraq would fall apart if we withdrew. It has already fallen apart.)
I say yes to third party candidates like Nader, Green Party Cynthis McKinney.
Obama should put HRC on the Supreme court. Her army of unhappy woman would suddenly be made aware of the danger of a McCain presidency. If she stated that this was a preferable alternative to being VP (and it really is) the dems could unite and carry the day. Obama could make it clear she would be first on his short list of Court candidates-and he should get a chance to appoint more than one.
Hey Newscrazy, I don't git the whole bit about Clinton supporters not being willing to vote Obama in the general election. There is very little difference between the positions and records of the two candidates. I mean what is it about Obama that makes so many of her supporters willing to turn on their party?
Go Figure ! Everyday we hear com9ing from Obama's mouuth that he has the same polices as Senator HHillary Clinton.
So You Clinton Haters out there. how do you explainthat Barack iis your choice?
Look Ii doo not want Senator Clinton on this tiicket either. Why? Because Obamais going to lose this election big time and few chosen losing VP's ever get another chance at the presiidentcy.
Senator Clinton will be more effective fighting for all of us in the Senate. yep that includes all you Clinton Haters.
by the way You real Democrat Clinton Haters? aSked yoursdelf this question. Do you Hate Senator Clintoon for any real reasons.or the stuff The Rush Limbaughs kept repeating over and over again all these years?
You know if you keep hearing something over and over again it becomes truth no matte how far fetched.
I am going to start a rumor abour Senator Obama. lets see if it gets repeated.
As a youth Senator Barack Obama actully sold drugs on the street so he could have nicer clothes. By the way out of Obama';s own mouth he has stated he bought drugs off the street as a youth.
Ok you rumor monger start repeating this .
I will bet this street dealing rumor will be picked up and soon it will be as true as you thoughts on how bad the Clintons were.
The DEmocratic party deserves to be defeated from within. It has lost its way and should be destroyed.
Putting a street drug dealer a top it's ticket
Here it is again that charge. I have seen it twice now it must be true.
Did you hear the one abouut Obama being The Manchurian Candidate?
Yet Senator MacCain was the 6 year prisoner of war in a communist country.
Ah but McCain makes good potato products lol
Why of course He owns MacCains lol
Rumors Rumors Everywhere
In the later primaries, HRC stumbled into the mantle of "working class candidate" - or "non-elitist". Quite the incredible, albeit convenient, stretch.
Her vote/positioning on Iraq disaster, on fair trade and on immigration were screw-the-worker quadruple talk.
Strip away the semi-literates, racists, party lemmings and reverse sexists; and their isn't much left of HRCers.
Yeah, let's PLEASE move on.
Personally, I'd like to see Obama pick Jim Webb for the Veep position. Nothing against Hillary, I just think Webb is a good fit. Being from Virginia is also a bit of a bonus.
BobBeaSea June 14th, 2008 8:01 am
Personally, I'd like to see Obama pick Jim Webb for the Veep position. Nothing against Hillary, I just think Webb is a good fit. Being from Virginia is also a bit of a bonus.
Excellent choice! His best as far as I'm concerned. If he had Webb I'd jump on board because I could trust Webb to tell the truth about what Obama was doing.
Who really gives a sh-t. Clinton and Obama are cut from the same cloth. All of the other VP names circulating are right out of the inside the beltway loop. So much for Obama characterizing himself as a new politican doing things differently. What we will get is MORE OF THE SAME we have been getting for the last 16 years.
Whether you love Hillary, Barack, both or neither, how can anyone seriously suggest that Clinton run on the same ticket with Obama? McCain already has a commercial with Hillary saying negative things about Barack. McCain could easily respond when asked about Obama's presidency "Yeah, what she said". In fact she would do better to run with McCain, since, according to her he would make a better president.
Have some of you completely lost your ability to think rationally? The vice president on a ticket can't be caught on tape saying that the other presidential candidate would make a better president than you (the candidate running on the ticket for president). Absolutely ludicrous! Media footage seems to be a thorn for Hillary.
Obama could pick someone who is admired like Hillary (by her supporters), but not carry some of her baggage. She carries some of the same problems as McCain, i.e. you wouldn't want to have someone who voted for the war, because Obama's wouldn't be able to speak to McCain's voting for the war because Hillary did the same. The same could be said for being too long an insider. She's ran on the experience wagon, but it's difficult to spout change (even fake change), when some view you as part of the status quo.
I cringe anytime someone says Hillary Clinton should be Obama's VP choice for running mate. I think she is talented in various ways, smart and tough enough, but can she work well together with Obama for the good of the country? I get a feeling that there's a caustic side to Hillary and a personal need that would get in the way.
Many names have already been bantered around by pundits and journalists, trying to guess who would be a good running mate from the strategic point of view.
In my own research over these many months I have considered even some esoteric information. Why limit myself to just what "they" want us to know via the media or wikipedia?
Part of that esoteric information is biorhythms. It is used to determine the highs, the lows and the critical days in the categories of the Physical, the Emotional, and the Intellectual influences of one's life. It can also be used to compare the compatibilities between two persons. And, so I did that for 27 persons and Barak Obama.
It probably would be a good thing for the VP running mate to be of like mind and intellectually compatible. On the emotional scale, perhaps some balance is better than full compatibility. I'm not sure about this one. Physical is probably for the affinity of lovers, so not an issue here. Anyway, here's the data. I think you'll fine it interesting.
name P E I
Hillary Clinton 60 45 22
John Edwards 18 52 78
Jim Webb 93 100 39
Wes Clark 83 60 92
Kathleen Sibelius 20 30 11
Evan Bayh 100 94 100
Tom Vilsack 99 80 74
Russ Feingold 77 94 73
Blanche Lincoln 25 100 45
Martin O'Malley 90 100 92
Joe Biden 99 100 100
Bill Richardson 89 99 87
Lee Hamilton 83 76 82
Sherrod Brown 62 98 53
Chris Dodd 99 79 73
Tom Daschle 77 98 96
Janet Napolitano 18 100 67
Michael Bloomberg 34 100 3
Phil Bredesen 94 96 97
Ted Strickland 32 94 43
Ed Rendell 90 59 17
Jack Reed 77 99 79
Sam Nunn 68 78 5
Tim Kaine 25 87 99
Chuck Hagel 13 6 87
Bob Casey 83 96 1
Tim Roemer 34 94 58
I have also run some other compatibilities to see if what I know is obvious to me personally checks out, like between me and my friends and family. Then, here are some other compatibilities you might find interesting.
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan 40-99-99
same John McCain 9- 9-99
same Rush Limbaugh 74-99-100
same Donald Rumsfeld 83- 4-91
same Hillary Clinton 69-99-14
same Bill Clinton 76-45-71
same Dick Cheney 70-89-93
same Tony Blair 0- 92- 37
Barak Obama Tony Blair 99-20-67
re: the biorhythms...the numbers are percentage of compatibility. So, Bush and Reagan are
40% Physically compatible
99% Emotionally compitible
99% Intellectually compatible
I'm with those who like Jim Webb. I believe he's the best balance to Obama. But...what would middle America think if the Pres, VP and their wives were on stage together and only one was Caucasian? Senator Webb's wife (an attorney) is Vietnamese. I don't know if it would be "just too much" or not.
At risk of offending everyone, I have a story about biorythms that does not disprove them, but demonstrates what people are willing to believe.
A good friend of mine used the biorhythm plotter on his Tandy/RS Model 1. Being a friendly chap, he would do a forecast for anyone who was interested. I asked him if he found them useful. He explained that they were useful, and together with his horoscope program, he could use it to explain his moods and abilities on a day to day basis, and helped him to put his life in order.
Being the nerdy sort, I had to play with it, and nearly broke his heart by showing it gave a completely different forecast for December 31st than it did for January 1st the next year. It was written in BASIC, so you could see the source code. It used the sine() function in only single precision, which in the context it was used, meant the results were completely meaningless. Although it drew nice curves, the starting points for each year were just random garbage for anyone that was not born recently. The authors had made no effort to check that the answers it gave were plausible.
Had my friend said "No, the results just dont seem to tally with my daily moods and abilities, and I dont know why", then that would have at least validated human judgment and intuition.
Perhaps a badly executed program? In any case, you at least give credence to intuition, one of those esoteric human traits that is often hit or miss. Not all people are in touch with such a source of information, preferring quantitative proof.
Your friend may have told you, realistically, that sometimes it jibes and sometimes it doesn't. That I would understand. So many factors can influence an outcome that is being studied.
I don't happen to think that Mankind has evolved enough to know all there is to know. All those brainiacs who are atheist are so out of touch with their Source that they live in flat worlds. They look and sound intelligent, and they are in a limited fashion.
"jsc June 14th, 2008 8:11 pm
I'm with those who like Jim Webb. I believe he's the best balance to Obama. But…what would middle America think if the Pres, VP and their wives were on stage together and only one was Caucasian? Senatorjsc June 14th, 2008 8:11 pm
I'm with those who like Jim Webb. I believe he's the best balance to Obama. But…what would middle America think if the Pres, VP and their wives were on stage together and only one was Caucasian? Senator Webb's wife (an attorney) is Vietnamese. I don't know if it would be "just too much" or not."
Most of America wouldn't care if Senator Webb's wife is of Vietnamese heritage because they are all Americans. Especially middle class Americans won't care since we come from every country in the world. Now if she were Vietnamese and not an Ameruican citizen.....different deal...no sale.
The only people that seem to make a big deal out of race any more are the small number of racists left (of all colors) and the folks that have a vested interest in racial unrest/victimology/multicuturalism like racist groups (LaRaza/ KKK/ Aryan Nations/BLT groups) politicians, etc.
Most middle class Americans could care less, besides which we come in all colors.
To those that have a vested interest in keeping Americans seperate, promoting racism and bigotry for their own personal gain, power or self satisfaction or hate America ( I keep asking others to not use profanity, so I apologize in advance) They can just go to hell.
Sorry about that, its rude, but sometimes feelings just require a stronger word. I love our country and its citizens and we come in all colors and races, but we are all Americans.
lots of whining tonight
Look you have trouble facing the truth. YOUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on 911. It was a lock step media, Gov deal. Who ever is in place in 09 will walk the way they are told.
I agree with Sirota's piece. At one time I was open to Hillary being on the ticket, but not now, after I have seen the kind of campaign she ran. (If she were to be his VP, I fear the Obama/Clinton administration would be like an endless episode of "I Love Lucy".) And I think Sen. Obama should heed the words of Jesus about not putting new wine in old wineskins. There is a reason he is now the Democratic nominee.
That said, I think previous recent Democratic VP picks have demonstrated the dangers of the ticket being too new. Sen. Biden is a Catholic who impressed Iowa voters and would be a pit bull against the GOP. Sen. Dodd is another Catholic with experience but also significant legislative accomplishments and an attractive young family. I see Tom Daschle as more of a Chief of Staff candidate. (Ditto Michael Bloomberg.) Governor Vilsack might work. Is Gov. Schweitzer Catholic? These last two, perhaps along with Gov. Richardson, would seem to be decent keynote speaker candidates. ("Go West, young man.") I was not very impressed with Gov. Richardson's campaign, as he seemed to be winging it much of the time; but he does have experience.
I am not a HIllary hater. But her skills and passions put her more in the mold of Teddy Kennedy, I think, than JFK. And the many problems and difficulties of her campaign very much called into question her executive and leadership abilities, in my opinion. What would Bobby Kennedy do, were he the nominee today? (BTW, I was glad to see Sen. Obama add Caroline Kennedy to his search team.) In any event, RFK's daughter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Lt. Governor of Rhode Island, I believe, might also be a good keynote speaker.
(PS -- May you rest in peace, Tim Russert. Thanks for your dedication to, and passion for, politics and journalism and family and friendship and faith -- and baseball -- and for your fierce loyalties to your deeply held convictions, values, and principles. My condolences to your friends, colleagues, and family.)
David Sirota is right about not wanting Hilary Rodham Klanton on the ticket with Barak Obama, and this is based on his own experience with practical politics, not some theory.
Sirota is laser sharp in his succinct analysis of what's really going on and what needs to happen going forward in relation to Obama's choice of VP. He also is sadly correct in his observation that the country wallows in sedation by media-driven claptrap about "will he-won't he?"
Can it be that since a dimwitted, ham Hollywood B-lister became CINC, giving the boot to the Fairness Doctrine and greasing the rise of Cable TV Crappola, the presidential election cycle has indeed devolved into the cheesy equivalent of daytime soap opera, almost devoid of serious, sustained focus on issues that have reached critical mass, in favor of simple-minded, dumbed-down storylines designed to fill 24/7 airtime and boost ratings?
The Clintons should be over. They too have managed to fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but thankfully failed in their concerted effort to achieve total fooldom. Good riddance. Pray that Obama takes a cue from Sirota and breaks the moldy mold of the past. Jim Webb for VP!