The Hillary game changer — If he were to surprise the country — and the press — by naming Hillary Clinton as his running mate, he could turn the race upside down. Making the announcement in Springfield this Saturday, drawing from Lincoln’s experience in assembling a “team of rivals” (the glorious book by Doris Kearns Goodwin), would be transformative. No one else would so galvanize the Democrats, bring a fighter to his side, and send a clear message that an Obama administration would bring experience to solving problems both at home and abroad. Has anyone looked what happened to jobs and wages under Bush vs. Clinton? The comparison is startling. And remember that a quarter of Hillary’s voters still haven’t “come home” to the Democratic column.
Margery Eagan writes:
So he picks his vice president today, tomorrow, whenever. None of these contenders will give Obama more than a one-day buzz. I like Joe Biden, despite snide asides that he’s been preparing a 500,000-word acceptance speech since Iowa - and the hair plug jokes. (Is America ready for its First Plugged President? Must Biden be unplugged to lead?) After Obama picks whoever he picks, we’re back to the once soaring candidacy now fallen back to earth.
I know. I’ve been an Obama cheerleader. I’m still trying to muster a respectful thumbs up. But let’s face it: The excitement during the primaries was Obama v. Hillary, not Obama alone. It was Obama vs. Hillary, and what’s loose-cannon Bad Boy Bill up to today? It was Obama, this completely unknown black guy, out-vaunting the vaunted Clinton machine. It was the audacity of his audacity, to steal The Messiah’s favorite word.
The only person who’d bring some excitement back is Hillary herself as veep.
Of course, Obama won't do it. If he loses the election, this decision will be remembered as probably the most important reason why.
Post Script - Poblano does an about face on whether Hillary "can stand up to the attacks," even making some good points I should have made:
I think that if Obama picks Clinton, the Republicans are likely to overplay their hand. One thing that Obama has not really been able to do is to generate some organic level of backlash when he is attacked. This is separate and distinct from the notion of "fighting back"; it is voters stepping in and refereeing the match themselves. Voters recognize that McCain has gone negative but they aren't really punishing him for it -- his favorables haven't moved at all. Why not? I think it has to do with the nature of Obama: he is new, he is confident to the point of being arrogant, and up until recently, he has been leading. To the extent there is any genius in the "celebrity" line of attack, it's that nobody feels much sympathy when celebrities are made fun of (well, except for this guy); it is a sort of sport to try and pierce their bubble.
With Clinton, on the other hand, voters naturally want to come to her defense -- and overzealous attempts to whip the Republican base into a frenzy will be counteracted with outrage from significant numbers of older and working-class women.
It was quite an oversight by me because I noted back in January that many of us completely underestimated the tremendous passion Clinton generated with women voters. And in February, it was my primary argument that a Unity Ticket would be needed no matter who won the nomination.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
