After Barack Obama secured the Presidential nomination for the Democrats, there was a movement to have Hillary Clinton run beside him as veep. Obama ultimately went with Joe Biden, instead naming Clinton Secretary of State. Now, a Washington Post columnist is suggesting that perhaps it’s time for a swap in duties.
Sally Quinn feels that Clinton has risen above the potential obstacles that might have impacted Obama’s decision to go with Biden:
Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.
The logistics are actually not as complicated as you might think. In fact, Quinn outlines a pretty decent strategy for Democrats.
Now consider Hillary the Democratic campaigner. She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents, but importantly, she would neutralize the effect of Sarah Palin. Whatever Palin came up with, Hillary could best her — and the Tea Party crowd as well. The Republicans would lose their “year of the woman” argument. And based on experience alone, Hillary is far more qualified to be president than any of the Republicans being considered today, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Palin.Clinton is also young enough to be the Democratic nominee at the end of an Obama second term; she will be in her late 60s in 2016 but still younger than Ronald Reagan was when he was inaugurated in 1981 (just shy of 70) and younger than John McCain, who was 72 when he ran in 2008. Most important, were she vice president and Obama were for some reason not able to fulfill his term, she would be ready to step in.
There are things about Hillary Clinton that I don’t love, but she is on an infinitely high pedestal in my mind when placed next to the infamous Ms. Palin. I mean, is it kind of a cheap trick using a woman to counterbalance another woman? Hell, yeah … but it might well work. Oh, and Hillary Clinton is at least qualified.
But what about the poor old “lame duck” (so to speak)? How would Joe Biden feel about this?
Joe Biden has been rehabilitated. A recent profile in The Post portrayed him as a successful and intelligent man whose foreign policy advice is valued by the president. The gaffe-prone former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to have worked out the kinks. Clearly, he is aware that he is no longer an independent voice but, rather, a representative of the president. But Biden has no intention of running for president in six years. His passion is foreign policy. He would have been an ideal choice for secretary of state had he not been Obama’s running mate. And those who know him have said that secretary of state is his dream job.
Honestly, I think this sounds pretty win/win. Biden would be in his foreign policy glory, Clinton would have her foot right on Sarah Palin be in one of the most powerful positions in the world, and the Democrats have a game plan for the next election.
So what would you think of a Clinton/Biden swap, with Hillary becoming Vice-President (and unquestionable heir apparent) and Biden making verbal slips all over the world as Secretary of State?
I like Hill,always have. But believe me,she isn’t more qualified than Pawlenty or Romney! Actually all three of them are more qualified than Obama.
I really like Hilary more and more every day. She is so composed, and I honestly only think people deride her as a bitch because she’s not afraid of them and not afraid to be strong. I would love for her to be VP.
Our Secretary of State is an excellent Secretary of State, so she should be replaced? Best. Logic. Ever.
If another position was considered more important than SoS, and your excellent SoS would also be excellent at the other position, then yes, it could definitely justify replacing her to move her somewhere she’s needed.
Or if you did have two people, and both seem to be good at one job, but one would be better for another job, then it could be logical to move the one that can, even if they were also good at the first job.
It’s not a matter of ‘she’s good so let’s replace her’.
The SoS’s duties are so very different from the VP’s! In fact, I’d say that the SoS actually does more work and is more important than the VP. Nobody who has ever been VP in the last 200 years at least has had much good to say about their usefulness. It’s a lot of sitting in the Senate being bored & attending functions that the President doesn’t want to. The list of VPs who did not make it to the Oval Office is far, far longer than the list of ones who have, and to me it makes no rational sense to lift a skilled diplomat and SoS out of the position to the position of VP. This strikes me as a decision arising out of the most superficial level of feminism, the same that would require 50/50 gender ratios in every place of employment.
I don’t know what is what. I’m just suggesting that IF the VP was considered more important, then it would work. Or IF Biden was considered equally good at being SoS, but Clinton a better VP, then it would make sense.
I don’t actually know all that much about any of the specifics.
I agree though, that there’s extra questioning whether they just want a female VP. To me, it read that Biden was considered a poor VP, but possibly a good SoS, while Clinton could do either, so it might work out altogether.
I just don’t understand how someone who is “bad” as VP (I haven’t really seen anything that pegs Biden as a poor VP, other than people just sort of whining vaguely about him) could be any good at all at a more demanding job.
I think Hillary Clinton has done an excellent job as SoS, but I know she would also do an excellent job as VP of the United States. I’m also happy with Biden as VP (although I wasn’t at first, I was for Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.)).
JorgeMacD noted above that it doesn’t make much sense to ‘fix what isn’t broken,’ so to speak, which is a good point as well, but something must be done to knock Sarah Palin down where she belongs. Her politics are dangerous and her platform of opinions and ideals is absolutely ridiculous. I shudder to think at what would happen to the country if Palin were to hold some position of power.
If you think making Hilary Clinton Vice President of these United States is going to do anything about Sarah Palin, then you need to go make yourself a sign that says “STOP FED ENCROACHMENT’S, END TAXIZATION” because that activity seems more on your intellectual level than using a computer–I’m sorry, “lightnin’ box.”
Rude. You don’t know me at all, and your comment was uncalled for. Instead of opening discussion about the pros and cons of Clinton as VP, you presume to know my level of intellect and then insult it.
Stupid is as stupid does
How is that remotely called for?
If a VP matters in a presidential race, and if Clinton is likely to help boost the ticket, then yes, putting her in would help the team win. If Palin was to be run on the other side, then it would help her lose.
You could suggest that the premises are not there, so it makes no difference, but there’s no need to be childish about it.
How on Earth would putting up Hilary take votes from people who think it’s a good idea to vote for Sarah?
The ‘anything that’s a woman’ vote, but I agree that is small.
I think you make a good point that the people who support Palin wouldn’t consider voting democratic, and that the moderates wouldn’t consider voting Palin.
And if you’d suggested that there probably wasn’t much overlap, that would have been entirely reasonable. But you just yelled stupid instead of conversing. And that doesn’t help anything.
If Hilary was on the ballot in 2012, it would take away the Republicans’ ability to scream “WE’RE PRO-WOMAN, SEE THIS WOMAN THAT IS OUR NOMINEE!!1! SHE’S A WOMAN SO VOTE FOR HER AND BE PRO-WOMAN AND BETTER THAN THOSE ANTI-WOMAN DEMOCRATS!” Caps lock entirely included. At the very least, both the dems and republicans could do that, so at least it would be mutually annoying.
There is absolutely no reason to be rude. Go fuck a goat.
For the curious:
14 out of 47 VPs have ever also been President. Of those, 4 (Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson) succeeded to the office after assassination of the sitting President. 4 more succeeded to the office after the non-assassination death of the sitting President (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Calvin Coolidge, and Hentry Truman). Gerald Ford succeeded to the office after Nixon resigned–and he was only VP because he was moved up from Secretary of State after Agnew resigned. Nixon was VP, but was elected President after having been out of office for a term. That leaves just 4 VPs, out of 47, who made the jump right from sitting VP to being elected President. It’s not the fabulous Presidential platform people seem to think it is–just ask our old pal Al.
Us conservatives are more concerned with Hillary on the Democratic ticket than any other liberal. Hillary is your best bet.