Infinite Wisdom

Hillary Clinton a Bad Choice for VP

With Barack Obama just about assured to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, attention is turning to whom he'll select as his running mate.  Because he might sense a need to assuage the hurt feelings of women who enthusiastically backed Hillary Clinton, Obama may choose the NY Senator to join him on the ticket.  Though at first glance choosing Clinton for the VP slot might seem to make sense, Obama and his team should not overlook persuasive reasons to spurn Clinton and select someone else.

As the primary season has dragged on, it has become evident a weakenss of Obama is his inability to connect with poorer white voters.  His overwhelming losses in Kentucky and West Virginia have glaringly exposed this weakness.  Thus, it isn't unreasonable to conclude Obama should pair up with Clinton in an attempt to mitigate his chief weakness.  Yet, the presence of Clinton on the ticket in no way ensures he'll capture the white blue collar vote.  This is primarily because most voters will choose between the two Presidential candidates on their merits not because of their Vice Presidential selection.  While the media makes a big deal about the VP choice, it has traditionally not been much of a factor in the race unless the VP candidate has a history of being emotionally unstable or a scandal is uncovered.  In other words, a VP selection won't account for winning usually, but a bad choice could derail a campaign.

The main problem with Obama picking his rival for the Vice Presidential slot is it undermines the very essence of his candidacy.  Obama is the likely nominee today because he has convinced enough primary voters he is a new kind of politician who will seek to improve the toxic political environment in Washington.  Because of how polarizing Clinton is, she'd be a liability if Obama really wants to bring this country together.  Also, Obama has gotten far because he's seen as a fresh face that can make a fresh start.  Putting Clinton on the ticket would damage this image Obama's campaign team has meticulously constructed during the primary season.  If Obama wants to be seen primarily as an agent for change and a clear break from the past, then why pick Clinton who may get points for resiliency but can't alter the fact that she is inextricably linked to the past?

While Clinton has shown she is as tough as nails on the campaign trail, she is poorly positioned to help Obama overcome his lack of foreign policy experience.  Though Clinton would strongly disagree, her years as First Lady shouldn't and won't be seen as vast foreign policy experience.  It would be best for Obama to choose someone who is seen as a foreign policy maven, and if this premise is accepted then this would essentially disqualify Clinton.

And what about the need to salve the broken hearts of women who have enthusiastically backed Clinton during the primaries?  There is no doubt Obama needs the votes of women to win.  But, he has several months to win them over.  And I don't see a majority of women flocking in droves to support McCain even if many are disappointed the female candidate fell short.  The bigger concern is a large bloc of female voters don't trek to the polls at all.  Though this is a valid concern after a hard-fought passionate primary season, the antipathy felt towards Bush and the GOP will probably trump any left over grudge women might still have in November because Clinton isn't on the ticket.  The women vote should be there for Obama whether Clinton is his running mate or not.

The most compelling reason to resist putting Clinton on the ticket is what it would mean if Obama were to prevail.  Hillary Clinton doesn't appear to be a person who is a good team player.  With Bill Clinton by her side, there will be too many egos to manage.  The media might love having as controversial a figure as Hillary Clinton in the VP role, but it will be a distraction for Obama that would have many minuses and few pluses.  Even if an argument can be made that Clinton could help Obama win(though I don't buy it), Obama ought to consider how the cohesiveness of his administration might be negatively impacted by having Clinton as VP.  Though the media touts the "dream ticket", Obama would probably rue the day he chose someone who is as nakedly ambitious as Hillary Clinton.

It has been a hard-fought primary.  Hillary Clinton has received positive press for her tenacity as she has soldiered on against increasingly tall odds.  Because she will almost certainly come up a little short in the nomination battle, there are those who'd argue she should be awarded the VP slot.  I couldn't disagree more.  There are enough drawbacks to the selection of Clinton as VP that Obama would be foolish to grant her a spot on the ticket.  The "dream ticket" might be the preferred outcome for the media(and maybe the Clintons too), but it would likely be a nightmarish scenario for Barack Obama.

The Overhyped Iran Threat

For McCain and the Republican Party, the new bogeyman is Iran.  It is now clear McCain(though this comes as no surprise) will attempt to hammer Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience.  That is certainly a good ploy for the Arizona Senator, because it diverts attention away from surging gas prices and a shaky economy.  According to McCain, Barack Obama is demonstrating his naivete by underappreciating the threat posed by Iran.  What should worry voters more than Obama's inexperience is McCain's evident miliaristic impulses.   

Does McCain really believe Iran represents a serious threat for America?   If he does, his judgment must be questioned.  If containment worked on the Soviet Union, why wouldn't it work with Iran which has only a population of seventy million and is surrounded by hostile forces?  Iran is in no position to attack anyone and hasn't for centuries.  Iran is at most a regional power that couldn't plausibly take on Israel, much less pick a fight with America.  One must wonder why America is so preoccupied with Iran, when its annual military spending is at most 1% of what America devotes to military spending.  Irresponsibly, there are those who can't talk about Iran without tossing in a reference to the once feared Soviet Union.  The idea that Iran poses as serious a threat as the Soviet Union once did is absurd.   There is no compelling reason to attack Iran except in the overactive imaginations of John McCain and other war enthusiasts.

If we are to accept the premise that launching an attack on Iran would be sheer madness, then the bellicose words from McCain are worrisome.  He seems too enamored with military might, when diplomacy must be given a chance.  Unless the Iranian regime is seeking its demise, it will not militarily challenge the US.  Shouldn't we spurn a candidate who seems all too ready to utilize military force when it is clearly unnecessary?

So even if McCain isn't about to initiate war with Iran, he stands to gain if he can convince Americans that Iran is a serious threat.  If McCain is successful in overhyping the threat posed by Iran and by doing so making Americans fearful, his chances to win improve.  To have a chance to prevail, McCain will have to make this another election focusing on terrorism and foreign entanglements.    Given his unremarkable domestic agenda, he wouldn't seem to stand a chance to win if when voters step into the voting booth they are thinking about the shaky economy.  Even if McCain's emphasis on Iran elicits a bit of discomfort from voters, discussing that issue is much better for him than getting dragged into a serious discussion about the domestic needs of the country.

The GOP needs to demonize Iran so that national security is a major issue in the campaign.  If the American people fall for this ruse, they'll unwisely elect another hawkish President who will be ill-suited to repair the frayed relations with our allies, and might imprudently stumble into another costly war this country simply can't afford. 

McCain's Muddled Message

There is little doubt the political climate this year isn't favorable for the Republicans.  It is widely expected that barring some unforseen event which triggers a major change in the mood of the electorate the Republicans will have a diminished presence in Congress next year.   Despite the unfavorable political winds, John McCain's candidacy gives the Republicans hope they can retain control of the White House.  What is undeniable about McCain is he has an appealing life story.   Also, he has the reputation of being a maverick, which the media loves.  And unlike the probable Democratic nominee Barack Obama, he can tout years of experience as a US Senator.  McCain does appear to have a legitimate shot to win in the fall, but he'll have to overcome the toxic Republican brand.  McCain and his team will also have to construct and convey a theme that will convince voters McCain isn't just someone with a compelling biography.  

While McCain has a clear advanatage over Obama in the experience department, I would argue Obama has a more thoroughly developed message to convey to voters.  Obama is promising to bring significant change, which most Americans are craving.  The clear message to voters is if they want change, Obama is their candidate.  Now what about McCain?  His message to voters has so far been rather muddled.  McCain doesn't seem to know if he is a reformer or a defender of the status quo.   It would appear McCain is trying to walk a tightrope where he distances himself enough from Bush so voters will perceive him to be someone offering a fresh start, but without a set of bold initiatives that would symbolize a clear break from the Bush years and be threatening to the Conservative base.  McCain's rhetoric suggests there will be little change in Iraq policy or the zealous focus on tax cuts if he were to be elected President.  That doesn't sound much like change.  I'd argue McCain needs to employ a retooled message with a more identifiable theme for the fall campaign, if he wants to win.  Because absent that, he is just a senior member of a discredited political party with an agenda too timid to make much difference.   And if that is how voters perceive McCain, he'll have to rely on Obama comitting political suicide to win. 

Obama an Elitist?

A few weeks ago in San Francisco, Obama described small town people as "bitter", and made the assertion that they are so frustrated by their government's unresponsiveness "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".   These comments have caused a firestorm of criticism directed at Obama because his remarks about small town folk, many assert, demonstrate that Obama is an elitist who is out of touch with ordinary Americans living in small principalities in the nation's heartland.  Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, the charge he is an elitist will resurface since the Republican Party will have little choice but to tear Obama down since what McCain is peddling most Americans don't want.

Do I have to waste the time to convey how ridiculous it is to assert Obama is more of an elitist than Hillary Clinton or John McCain?  Obama's mistake seems to be his willingness to occasionally speak his mind.  This would appear to compare favorably to Senator Clinton who seems to be motivated only by her quest to attain power.  And her law degree obtained at Yale would suggest she isn't any less of an elitist than Obama.  In the case of McCain, his two decades in the debate club for millionaires has almost certainly resulted in a lost connection with ordinary people.  If Obama can be called an elitist because of his recent controversial comments that were an attempt to discuss candidly the frustrations many small town people feel, then what is the appropriate term for someone like McCain who hardly acknowledges the struggles of the poor and powerless at all?  What is truly perverse is that by largely avoiding any discussion regarding the plight of poor Americans, McCain will never have to spend time defending himself against charges he is an elitist.

Though both Kerry and Bush attended Yale, Kerry was the one who was defined as an insufferable elitist.  George W. Bush was seemingly re-elected because apparently Americans felt more comfortable with him than his Massachusetts rival.  It should be noted that while Bush may have been perceived as an ordinary guy, his policies have decidedly favored the already affluent and the well-connected.  As the economic conditions have soured early this year, Bush has stubbornly refused to advocate an extension of unemployment benefits.  During his tenure, the ranks of those without health insurance have increased.  Also, the American dream has become increasingly difficult to attain as college costs have soared.  Instead of facing these challenges, Bush has stuck to a rigid platform of cutting taxes that predominantly benefits the wealthy.  If this is a President who cares about the poor and middle class, he has a funny way of showing it.

Don't be fooled by those who accuse Obama of being an elitist.  Because it is these same people who don't care if the next President does anything to lift up those Americans who are falling further behind with each passing day.