A Personal Reflection on Why Obama Should Not Choose HRC as his VP
The question that dominates the news tonight, as it will undoubtedly dominate the news tomorrow and the day after that, and perhaps longer, is whether Obama should make HRC his vice president. She has clearly signaled her desire to be so, and her surrogates have suggested that for Obama to do otherwise risks alienating her legions of supporters. Put to one side whether this is correct; we have no way of knowing. The more significant reality is this: at the very time when Obama should finally be free to make make his case to the American public for why he should be president, he is engaged in another diversionary and distracting fight with her for the public's attention.
I have known and admired the Clintons for decades and I have no doubt that Hillary could do an excellent job as Vice President. But this current spectacle illustrates why he should not choose her. Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters at claiming the public limelight even at the expense of larger public purpose. Media attention puts her unflagging ambition center stage and his unbridled (although sometimes misdirected) charm on full display. Were Obama to make her his Vice President, she would turn the tables and make him her President, just as she has turned the tables this week and transformed his remarkable victory into her audacious dare.
I have known and admired the Clintons for decades and I have no doubt that Hillary could do an excellent job as Vice President. But this current spectacle illustrates why he should not choose her. Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters at claiming the public limelight even at the expense of larger public purpose. Media attention puts her unflagging ambition center stage and his unbridled (although sometimes misdirected) charm on full display. Were Obama to make her his Vice President, she would turn the tables and make him her President, just as she has turned the tables this week and transformed his remarkable victory into her audacious dare.
posted by Robert Reich | 1:10 AM
74 Comments:
I absolutely agree with your statements. HRC will undoubtedly disrupt Obama's upcoming race and potentially his presidential office if elected. But I wonder how strong an Obama/Clinton ticket is compared to a Obama/Edwards (or any other highly favored democrat) ticket... Clinton might prove to be a difficult match for Obama in office but the fact remains that the combination of the two would be historical in our democracy and should not be dismissed so lightly. I think a lot of American's would take the plunge on such a ticket almost as if they just want to see what happens...
I am so glad you wrote this! I couldn't agree more. Much as I enjoyed seeing Bill Clinton as a man alive in his times, the times have moved on, and I think we all want to move on, leaving the Clinton's behind us. I hope we're going to see a new day for America, starting with Obama's taking the office of President.
I wonder who you think would be a good VP? I think Bill Richardson would be a very good choice.
What is hard to forget is that HRC repeatedly posited that Obama was not ready to be the POTUS.
Strangely, I am keeping my eyes open for the McCain-Clinton ticket to emerge.
Why?
HRC already described herself and McCain as being the best candidates.
Th corporate media would slobber all over this.
Just a thought: suppose the Clintons agreed to Obama's demand that Bill open up his library donor list and open up his finances.
Suppose also that Bill agreed to forgo speaking fees as well..that is they agreed to every single condition.
Then wouldn't the Clintons agreeing to this set the tone as to just who was in charge?
Also, couldn't BHO give HRC autonomy in certain areas, similar to the way that WJC did with Gore?
I find it odd that HRC has chosen to make an appeal for the VP office to the media and not to the "hiring manager" himself. I find it oddly disrespectful of Obama. If this end-around technique is any indication of how she would operate as VP, I would avoid her like the plague.
HRC has earned her place in history and will go on to do great things in her career, just not as VP.
I recently heard Obama referring to the Doris Kearns Goodwin book - Team of Rivals. I bet Hillary will be in the Obama cabinet just as Lincoln brought his rivals into his cabinet. Maybe Defense? or state?
blutown: you hit the nail on the head. When a pre-hire exhibits this many problems, the wise hiring manager should stay away. Far away.
If I ran for President, I'd make Robert Reich my Vice-President; then, I'd resign as President so Robert Reich could be President.
(now imagine this statement as lyrics in a folk song)
Your mind is now fully blown.
although i am a feminist and i would love to see american female president and hope this would change a lot. people woyld start to believe that females can do a lot etc.. i have some doubts whether hilary is the one.. though i dont know much about her - i am a foreigner.. i mean - how much of her popularity does she owe to her husbands affair.. my family from the us they all love hillary for how she suffered etc.. american celebrity is a american famous celebrity and not more than that..
Dr. Reich:
Though I have to agree with your analysis. It does present Obama with a huge dilemma right out of the gates.
We can put to one side the potential alienation of Hillary supporters but not for long. The ultimate objective will be to win in November and it seems slightly cavalier to wait until the day after the election to determine the degree of that alienation.
On the national stage her personna is much stronger than when she was elected to the Senate. If we look to that experience however, she did not come into the Senate seeking to take charge. She came in as a freshman Senator and seemed to accept that her immediate role would be one of learning and building coalitions rather than one of leading. In many respects she exhibits tendencies to be a team player.
Another unknown factor will be the makeup of Congress in 2009. All signs seem to support the premise that Dems will gain significant seats. If that should not happen then a seasoned "bulldog" might not be a bad thing to have on his side. Especially one who has shown an ability to work with the opposition.
Conventional wisdom was moving toward a VP with scads of foreign relations experience. Obama's recent willingness to engage McCain in that venue might suggest that he doesn't think that he has an actual void in that field. At least not a deficiency that can't be solved with a good Sec of State and a strong NSC group.
If he follows the Lincoln model and fills his cabinet with the best and brightest available, disregarding party affiliation, that alone might fill his governance needs and offset his inexperience.
GWB has left him with a plateful of unresolved issues, foreign and domestic. Not since, perhaps, Nixon, has there been so many pressing problems to address. A strong VP can provide significant relief in prioritizing and managing the plethora of problems that will need his immediate attention and hopefully his solutions. There is a whole universe of VP possibilities that meet that criteria; few of them bring along the voting support of half the Dem voters.
Admittedly, Bill Clinton has to raise a huge question mark in a Hillary VP selection. I have to cut him a little slack for his sometimes poor judgment during this primary campaign in that he was not only stumping for a candidate but for his wife. That injects a whole new level of emotion in the process and has lead him to do and say some stupid things. Should she not be chosen chances are he will go back to making money and being somewhat of a worldwide ambassador. There is a possibility, given again the emotional investment, he might be more active in analyzing and criticizing an Obama adminstration. In that case it might be better to have him "on the team" than outside it.
It is an interesting dilemma for Obama. The oft mentioned reason for not choosing Hillary is the negative effect on his "change" message. His strong reliance on changing the Washington way of doing things. Hillary is of the Washington establishment and seems contrary to his message. At the same time many of the likely possibilities carry that same baggage. A brand new face, one with little DC experience or even a lightweight in politics, would appear the better fit for his views but that would leave us with two very inexperienced folks at the helm. While that would not leave McCain with shooting fish in a barrel, it would be akin to shooting fish in a small pond, with a lot of fish food at hand.
I think we also have to look at how Obama handled the much better known, much more experienced, Hillary on the campaign trail. I find it a slim possibility that she would be able to make him her President. Inexperienced he is, Abner Milktoast he is not.
We all hope that Obama can be an effective and true change agent President. To achieve that he first needs to be elected and that may very well be the most important aspect of choosing a VP. McCain is already seeming to shift away from the conservative base and leaning on his maverick history. This makes him attractive to a broader base of voters. How far he can go with that is questionable but his base will be energized a great deal by the liberal leanings of Obama and may turn out in big numbers even if they consider McCain the lesser of two evils. Unless Obama can corral the vast majority of Dem voters his venture might turn into a coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Not sure I would want to be in his shoes at this point. A really hairy decision is awaiting.
anonymous 7:37:
Actually her husband's affair and her handling of it, brought her almost as much disdain as plaudits.
She is far from just a celebrity. She has a very favorable Senate popularity on both sides of the aisle. She has amassed support from 50% of the Dem voters during this primary.
Not to demean him, but the celebrity argument, between the two of them, probably is a more apt description of Obama than Hillary.
Robert said....
"Were Obama to make her his Vice President, she would turn the tables and make him her President, just as she has turned the tables this week and transformed his remarkable victory into her audacious dare".
Spot on.
A Clinton vice presidency would be bad for many reasons. Let me illustrate a few:
Hillbilly has shown once again that they are dishonest and can’t be relied upon to tell people the truth. The campaign reminded us of this with many examples of deceit and outright lying.
Hillary herself showed us that she really isn’t temperamentally suited for the presidency. During the campaign’s most stressful moments, she appeared to crack under the pressure with examples of bad judgment and poor decision making. I can imagine the stresses of being president are simply beyond her ability to successfully cope and adapt. This is really no knock on her as most people would similarly fail in this regard.
She seems to think that because she won “18 million votes” she would be entitled to a co-presidency or “coalition” government. This would diminish Obama’s authority.
She’s a very poor executive. Her campaign is $31 million in debt. She lost. They planned poorly in the caucus states and employed a failed strategy to win. Maybe not all her fault but she either picked her staff or relied upon others to do so. Either way this gives us a look at her poor decision making if she took over as president.
Choosing a woman is probably too much sociological change for voters to digest. Adding a woman to the ticket only adds to the resistance we all have to change. Better put a white guy on the ticket along with Obama. Besides, this may help with some of the racism he’s surely going to face.
We don’t expect our politicians to be selfless altruists, but the Clintons border on the pathologically self-absorbed. Obama has many choices of far better people than this.
Clintonism is a 90’s phenomenon. It’s over. It’s time to move forward with change and fresh ideas. Putting her on the ticket profoundly undercuts what he seems to represent.
Bill Clinton. Think Reverend Wright was a distraction? lol
cr
Hillary who?
(just my snide commentary on her ability to steal the public limelight past this weekend.)
Just as we may have past a point of no return in our lack of attempts to stop global warming, 8 years of conservative GWB may have put us past the point of keeping America the great nation it once was. The only question is; how much suffering will America go through in the coming years? Under another conservative like McCain, the suffering will be like nothing America can even begin to imagine. So we MUST see to it that Obama gets elected.
So the question boils down to; would HRC help Obama get elected (put aside what kind of VP she would make)? Her supporters believed what occurred in Mich. and FL. were acceptable, fair events. They believed HRC when she said McCain and her would make better presidents. These are irrational beliefs. We are dealing with some people who make unreasonable decisions.
I can only conclude that enough would indeed switch to McCain, or stay home to prevent Obama from getting elected. Did anyone believe a Bush second term was possible?
Don't make a decision until the convention and watch the polls in the battleground states to see if the HRC supporters are coming to their senses.
toast:
As usual insightful. Not sure we can wait until the convention. Unlike past years the general election campaign is already off and running approaching full stride.
I do think if Obama were smart, it's for sure the DNC Rules Committee is not, he would come out right away and push for full delegation voting rights for FL and MI. No sense further alienating a large segment of Dem voters.
Polling in the near term might give us an idea of what Hillary's supporters might do, but polls have proven especially unreliable this year. My guess is they will be noncommital until they can feel where the wind is coming from. An ounce of prevention might well prove better than a pound of cure.
Is ironic that the superdelegates decided it for us after all.
HRC could do some damage if she were McCain's VP as Jon Stewart pointed out. That's pretty much McCain's best hope.
That and FUD (my conservative friends have already started to forward emails about how Obama is a Muslim...)
Are you saying it is impossible for Hillary and/or Bill to step outside themselves long enough to realize the damage they are doing to themselves and the party? Or is it that they know exactly what they are doing in tearing the nominee and party apart?
To me, Bill and Hillary are too smart to be burning bridges and shooting themselves in the foot like they are. There has to be a better explanation to make sense of their behavior.
The alienation that Hillary's supporters feel is partly manufactured in the mind of the candidate and partly manufactured by the way the press treated the candidate.
It did NOT come from the way Obama treated Ms. Clinton. He was ALWAYS graceful and admiring of her, even when she wasn't returning the favor.
Why exactly have her supporters mis-directed their "alientation" towards Obama? He didn't make the DNC rules that created the nomination process. He, along with Hillary agreed on the way Florida and Michigan were to be handled. Etc.
Where did he screw her or treat her otherwise unfairly? I just don't get how Hillary supporters are justified in expressing their loss by voting against Obama.
Agreed; Obama would spend his whole term telling Bill to keep his feet off the coffee table.
The fact tha HRC is interested makes me wonder how much Cheney has permanently changed the role of VP. For a sitting Senator to want to be VP makes little sense to me. Especially Senator Clinton, who seems securely hardwired into the NY political powergrid.
Has the VP seat turned into a bureaucratic whip bent on policing executive privilege throughout civil service?
If Obama wins the election, as President he'll have to make many difficult decisions. Getting us out of Iraq will be far more difficult than how to handle Hillary. The Obama campaign has made good decisions so far, and I trust them to make the right one on this.
Now Hillary as VP. Simply a bad idea. There is no up side to it. None. Barack is changing the conversation with his appointment of the 3 member search team (including Caroline Kennedy was a wise choice) and we trust the Obama team will choose wisely.
We have an American democratic form of government, not a parliamentary form of government. The 2 or 3 largest voter getters don't get the chance to form a coalition government. If you win by one vote-you are the winner. Period.
Hillary die hard supporters need to remember that. Besides, with peak oil and the collapse of legitimacy within our financial markets, by October people will not be thinking about Hillary (except of course Bill and Hillary).
I am a lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill twice and don't reqret it. But now I support Obama as our nominee.
anonymous 10:56:
Though not completely valid I would agree with some of your comments. No doubt the press has been just unmerciful in some of their treatment. It is the press that nourished the idea that Hillary felt she was "entitled", that she was "due", it was her "turn". Hillary never said those things and I don't recall any of her staff saying those either.
The problem we face as merely absorbents of the media hype, in whatever form, is that we don't know where they are getting their information. Are they conjuring it up on their own or are they being fed nuance and innuendo? Since there is little gain in killing the messenger, we assume that they are just the messenger and are regurgitating what one camp or another is feeding them. Ergo, we vent our wrath at the opposiing camp.
Obama had not been totally innocent during his campaigning. Recently he has been very gracious when speaking of Hillary. His attitude change seemed to correspond with the realization that numerically she had no chance. Prior to that he was getting his digs in, as was his staff. To the point that he had to rein everyone in because they were beginning to violate his whole premise for hope and change to a kindler, gentler dialogue.
As for the DNC Rules Committee decisions; her forces did go along with the FL decision, they did not go along with the MI decision. Though it would not have amounted to a hill of beans, the Hillary camp was vehemently opposed to allowing Obama all the "uncommitted" vote delegates plus 4 delegates taken away from Hillary. Then they compounded their idiocy by allowing FL and MI only half of their delegate counts. As settled Hillary would have gained 48 delegates, instead she picked up only 24. This intensified the wrath of Hillary supporters.
Throughout the long campaign there was vitriol hurled from both camps. Hillary's was not the only spewer. It was an intense primary, extremely exciting to those of us who are political freaks. The end result was a virtual tie by most reckoning, other than delegate count, and that caused a fever pitch as we moved to the finish line. To their credit both sides had supporters who were very emotionally invested and that by itself meant that whatever the final result there would be strong feelings. Hell, many of Obama's supporters have expressed strong feelings against the Hillary camp and they were on the winning side, what's that all about?
Seldom do the supporters of one candidate easily segue to another candidate unless nudged by their candidate. Most primary campaigns are over in a few short months and the feelings do not reach the fever pitch that occurred in this one. Nor in most primaries do we see two candidates running neck and neck to the very end. Both camps were running a train on an emotional track that was going to result in hurt feelings no matter the winner.
The media added the one final straw by condemning Hillary for not conceding on Tuesday night. A totally absurd posture from the media and just magnified the disappointment of the Hillary supporters. Their only apparent and immediate salvation is to take it out on Obama.
consultant:
I'm glad you clarified at the end your preferred candidate. You had me wondering.
Art A Layman,
I thought I clarified from the beginning who my choice is. In my second paragraph I said, "Now Hillary as VP. Simply a bad idea." What I didn't say is that I've supported Obama from the beginning.
Hillary lost. Period. We don't have a parliamentary form of government. If you follow her line of reasoning, Biden, Richardson, Edwards and all the other Primary candidates could get together and combine their supporters to say they are "owed" something.
That's not how we do politics in America. At least it was until Hillary came along and tried to change the rules.
That's an interesting argument. Basically, you don't want Hillary around because Barack would be unable to assert himself as a leader in the presence of a Vice President who has more dynamism, skill and power at commanding public attention. Shouldn't the leader of the free world be able to command attention? What does it say about his leadership skills that he would be overshadowed by Hillary?
You also seem concerned that Hillary has "unflagging ambition" -- a trait that is normally considered desirable in men and only criticized in women by sexists. Why not criticize Obama for the ambition that led him to enter a Presidential campaign as an underdog? Or do you think Obama's ambition would have led him to quit the race were his situation reversed with HRC? If so, what would that say about Obama's dedication and perseverance? Are you really concerned that this just one more way in which Hillary shows up Barack's lack of leadership skills?
What I can't understand is if Obama is so weak that Clinton will dominate him, why would you want him as President in the first place?
You might want to reconsider your opinion. It reads better as a criticism of Obama's skills than of Hillary as a Vice President.
consultant:
Get over yourself. I was being facetious. It was clear from the start.
Now we all know we don't have parlimentary form of government. We also all know that in the world of power and influence and negotiation you apply any leverage you have to gain advantage. You, as the media, confuse the use of leverage with "owed" or "entitled".
Were this a business negotiation you would be applauding Hillary's skills in applying her resources.
consultant:
Oops! One other thing. If Hillary is, herself, truly negotiating for VP or any other goals, it is precisely how we do politics in this country.
Why exactly have her supporters mis-directed their "alientation" towards Obama?
1. Obama supporters and staffers who made the unprecedented call for Hillary to drop out of the race while it was still a race.
2. Obama supporters and staffers who spread vicious personal attacks when HRC would not drop out of the race months ago.
3. Obama himself who implied working-class Hillary supporters are simpleminded people who cling to religion, guns, and racism.
4. Obama staffers who executed the dirty work, like calling HRC "monstrous" and defaming her to the media in private communications.
5. Obama's wife for numerous swipes at Hillary.
6. And Obama supporters, who long ago were vowing they would NEVER vote for HRC, including saying they would vote for McCain. If you want to know where Hillary supporters got that idea... we got it from the Obama supporters who said they would do that if Hillary didn't drop out and hand the nomination to Obama, long before the race was over.
anonymous 12:53:
Yea, verily!
It's interesting. In this primary campaign, we have a lot of Hillary supporters who are arguing apples and oranges. Let's get basic here. What part of it's over don't you understand?
Personally, I think Hillary would make a great VP for McCain. Then you folks could take your blurred arguments over there. Something the Republicans have mastered since the days of Nixon.
McCain/Clinton 08.
The way Clinton is acting, that may be the big announcement on Saturday!
Add to the above the following:
7. Ironically, as Obama tries to present himself as a candidate of "unity" (sounds too much like "I'm a uniter not a divider"), supporters of Obama have been as divisive as any Karl Rove directed campaign. They have called for Hillary to drop out before the race was over. They threatened to not support Hillary as the nominee if she won. They have been extremely ungracious in victory, as is shown by so many of the anti-Hillary comments above. They have been extremely divisive in their views of what victory means, e.g. see comments from above which view compromise and unity within the Democratic party alone as diminishing Obama's authority -- unity through absolute power by one faction sounds a bit too much like Bush's view of unity.
consultant:
I can understand your desire for seeing it over, all of it. Any lingering could produce doubts. Like maybe Obama losing half of the last 16 or so primaries.
Though it will never happen, you best hope that a McCain/Clinton ticket doesn't occur. If it does I'm afraid Obama will have to take his place in line behind Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, et al.
Gloating is so unbecoming.
Anonymous said.."..they have been extremely ungracious in victory"
Awwwh. Do you want me to kiss it and make it feel better?
Please. Grow up!
Dr. Reich has made a personal, thoughtful statement here about Hillary and the end of the primary campaign, and now some of you want to take that as an opportunity to demonstrate how immature and needy you are. Those are emotional issues. But at least try to get your facts straight. This is not a business deal, a negotiation, it's a political contest with rules that designate a clear winner or loser. That's the way it works folks.
It's going to take a lot of work, but some day, maybe, we'll get back to being a nation of adults.
Thank you for your observations; I believe you are right on target. Since the full opportunity of being the main candidate in '08 is lost to her, she seems determined to harvest whatever she can from the mess. But her behavior shows that even more important to her may be her long-term objectives for 2012 and beyond, and setting herself up to be the main candidate then. It seems that playing the spoiler now is ok with her if it sets herself up well for the next presidential election. If Obama wins '08, does well in his presidency, and runs for re-election in '12, he'd be hard to beat. Much better for her to let McCain win '08 and run as the "candidate of change" in '12 than have to wait until 2016! Unless of course we have another Obama/Clinton fight then. But playing second fiddle to Obama--or anyone, really--is not her thing. She wants the limelight. Her own "win at any cost" strategy, and absolute naked ambition, is what keeps me from supporting a gifted woman I otherwise might admire and support.
consultant:
It is clear that you are not a political "consultant".
Hillary and Obama are not involved in a business deal but they are about to enter into "negotiations" regarding a number of things and Obama knows, even if you don't, that she has significant leverage to "negotiate" her side of those subjects.
You seem terribly naive in the machinations of our political process. This isn't about hanging on or being "owed". It is about achieving goals, whatever they may be, and employing that which Hillary has a great deal of control over, to attain that achievement.
It is a Kabuki Dance that often takes place after a primary season.
Condescension is not becoming either.
This is not a business deal, a negotiation, it's a political contest with rules that designate a clear winner or loser.
Thank you for demonstrating the point I was trying to make above about the irony of Obama's "unity" theme. If you truly think that politics requires a win-lose outcome, you believe in a totalitarian style of politics. We've had too much of this over the last 8 years with Bush.
In the real world, compromise and negotiation is the preferred way to solve political disagreements. In Presidential campaigns, the way to get elected is to build a coalition of factions that will support your candidate. That you see no value in building a coalition with those of the same party who supported HRC makes me wonder why you are even a Democrat if you want to fragment the party.
The irony is so thick.. Unity... but only if one faction can dictate to another.
Echoing one anonymous to many of you other anonymi:
Do you really want a candidate who is not hellbent on winning? The "win at any cost" is simply an emotional appeal to appear to justify your analysis.
Your horrific scenarios of Hillary scuttling the '08 elections to better her '12 ambitions is shameful. Right now she holds some high cards and no one knows how long those high cards will be good. It behooves her to strike while the iron is hot.
Obama has the opportunity to consider her high cards and take advantage of them or chance that he can pull them all out with his trump and render them useless. It is the nature of our political process and one which Obama best learn quickly if he is to succeed in being the President, should he win in November.
All signs would support that he knows this and is readying himself for the game. Fortunately, he appears wiser than many of the posters here.
Art A Layman,
I just hope you are not a student at Cal.
"It is about achieving goals, whatever they may be, and employing that which Hillary has a great deal of control over,"
I guess you are talking about Hillary, the person who came into the Primary season with EVERYTHING on her side, the same Hillary who is now broke, beaten and reduced to using her dwindling number of supporters as bargaining chips to salvage something from her failed campaign. The same Hillary who lost the support of most of her and her husband's closest supporters. That is the Hillary you are talking about. Right?
Yeah, right. Hillary is in a great position.
Buddy, you are a true believer, and that's okay. It doesn't make you right or smart, but it's okay.
Ease back on the throttle, it will be okay. Stop thinking about it and in a few weeks, all of this will make more sense.
consultant:
You sound a lot like George Bush gloating over all the political capital he has to spend. You better hope your candidate isn't as naive about the value of that capital as Bush was.
Anonymous and Art A Layman,
I'm thinking community college, but you didn't finish. Am I right?
People. Grow up! Your arguments sound like the stuff expressed on school yards.
Lets move on to the general and expand the movement around those issues we must address. Issues that have been neglected or aggravated by 35 years of Republican rule.
Energy depletion and our collapsed financial markets are making all of us more aware of how fragile our lives are. Lets focus. We've got big problems to solve.
For those of you who can't handle it, I understand. Continue to listen to your iPods and play with your Gameboys. Let the adults handle this adult stuff.
consultant:
I must assume you've been out of the country for the past few weeks. Hillary finished a lot stronger than Obama did. Given the crazy algorithm of the DNC she couldn't overcome the delegate deficit.
She and Bill did lose the black vote, they aided the loss. Do you really think that once Obama began to look viable that most all the black vote wouldn't have shifted to him anyway? It's not a racist remark. If you were black and for the first time in your life a black candidate looked like he could be successful, would you not vote for him no matter what his policies? It was clear early on that he was not a Jesse Jackson nor an Al Sharpton, not even an Alan Keyes. He was real, with a real chance to turn this nation on its head.
Obama's success is an Amen for them; it's a Hallelujah! God bless em they deserve it and I can't fault any of them for voting for Obama just because he is black.
I can only imagine you in ancient Rome. Instead of leaving after the Christians were killed you would have stuck around to watch the lions eat them.
Dearest Secretary Reich . . .
Have I told you lately how much I love you and why? Please, let me count the ways. This musing is but one of the many reasons I appreciate you as I do.
For me, the issues of Ethics, Economics, the environment, and Clinton egos have all come together at your site today.
I came to your blog for yesterday, I heard you speak on Market Place. Professor Reich, your comments on energy and the escalation of prices were not as the gas tax holiday the former First Lady proposed. Perhaps, that is why they spoke to me. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I, for one, am pleased that the cost of petroleum rises. My hope is the barrels of oil will become so expensive that entrepreneurs and the people will be motivated to finally and fully invest in alternative fuels.
I believe Americans are as persons who eat in excess and do nothing to change their habits until the bulge causes catastrophic health concerns.
An analogy could be made in reference to the Clintons. The two are possibly addicted to fame, fortune, power, the pulsation they feel when engaged with people who stroke their egos? I know not. I only experience that the ethical values this family adopted differ from my own.
You may recall Hillary Clinton consistently asked Americans to "hire" her. She offered her résumé and asked us to consider her qualifications. In an essay penned a month ago, I discussed what I thought was an interesting study. Research reveals employees who appear principled do not necessarily act in a manner consistent with what we, or an employer, values. Apparently, people have different interpretations of right and wrong. Scholars were also examined. For many students the ends justify the means. It seems the same is true of past Presidents and Presidential aspirants.
I invite your reflections on . . .
The Elections and Ethics; Gas and Gratification
You may recall how dismissive Senator Clinton was when she spoke of Economists. First one of her supporters, Robert Menendez expressed his disdain. The following day, the Senator Clinton chimed in. If those who calculate the numbers reject a proposed Clinton policy, such as the gas tax holiday, then she will not give them "credit." Ah, the phrase is slightly altered.
"It's the Economists Stu***!"
Secretary Reich, you may recall how thankful I am for your values. As I shared long ago, the beautiful missive you wrote while working in the Clinton White House will forever be a cherished treasure. I thank you for this recent thought on the possible political future of the Clintons, and, as always for your treatise My Family Leave Act. At least you and I share an understanding of what it means to be ethical.
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org
Robert -
I'm not sure you're aware how personal and petty you sound. Now that Hillary Clinton has lost, this is starting to seem like a vendetta. It was one thing when you were trying to influence people to support your choice, but for god's sake: He won! Let it go.
I agree completely.
I think President Obama should appoint Senator Clinton to the Supreme Court. Such would enable Clinton to shed her propensity to political calculations and to utilize her good instincts and substantial intellect to make real change.
Looks like she may not be the veep after all if Pelosi has her way. Pelosi–the highest Dem in the land (until Obama became the nominee at least)–stated on PBS’s NewsHour a few weeks ago: “I don’t think that would be the ticket that will win for us.” (I write a short bit about it here: http://election2008options.blogspot.com/2008/05/die-dream-team-die.html
Here's a great thought from Harvard's Saguaro Seminar blog (a wonderful blog that reflects on issues of "social capital"):
"In choosing a vice presidential running mate, we hope that Barack will find someone other than Hillary Clinton who can help to reunify the Democratic base of working collar Americans and older Americans. Choosing Hillary only shackles Barack to the scorched earth politics of the past as we witnessed in great quantity from her during the primary season. Moreover, as we often write about in this column, trust is an extremely valuable commodity and hard to repair once breached. And with Hillary as his Vice President, President Barack Obama could scarcely take a business trip without fearing a palace coup during his departure. Whether one’s grist is Shakespearean tragedies or the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, it’s hard to build an effective team around fratricide."
Personally, I think Hillary is way overqualified for the job anyway. I can't imagine why she'd want it. There are plenty of stepping stones to the White House. I don't even think this her best path.
I DO NOT THINK THAT CLINTON SHOULD DROP OUT. There, I said it, I took my stance, now, read my reasoning before you attack me. Clinton should not drop out for three different reasons: Neither candidate has the number needed to be the winner (pledged) - Obama will loose in November to McCain without her, so she should stay for the veep offer - Dimaio is still out there, think about the case law that could create (plus, she still has an argument to the credentials committee).
Thanks
Robert Barga,
http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
(you can continue reading there)
The Oval Office cannot fit three Presidents!
I think Obama should NOT make her VP but SHOULD put HRC on the Supreme Court.
This way, Roberts, Alito and others would have to look at her and listen to her (and not so much us) and there she could protect our civil rights and be in a permanent position that does not really include Bill.
consultant:
I'm thinking community college, but you didn't finish. Am I right?
People. Grow up! Your arguments sound like the stuff expressed on school yards.
Being an ignorant, unedumacated, working class stiff I might not understand, but your opening remark there sounded an awful lot like what I remember from the school yards.
I do apologize though. I didn't realize that a college degree was required to post here before I opened my mouth.
It certainly is clear from the soundness and logic apparent in your statements that you have a college degree. Hell, maybe two or three. I should really learn my place and not bother the intellectuals with all my tripe.
It's just that I'm so upset about Hillary that my shrink suggested venting on the blogs. I thought I'd give it a try. Now being thoroughly put down by your masterful use of the English language and your superior abilities in intellectual argument, I'm even more depressed.
Hopefully I'll get over it all and might be able to join that adult world you talk about so I can help solve some of those problems. I hope that after Obama loses to McCain he will start some community projects where we can all sit around and sing Kumbaya.
I know you won't want to be there. You'll probably be trying to convince McCain that you have all the answers to whatever ails him.
In the meantime as you get engrossed in solving everyone's problems, be sure and listen for the tardy bell so you know when to come in from the playground.
Thank you, Prof. Reich, for writing about this today. I am always happy to read your observations, and am grateful you're blogging to make them available.
I would hate to see HRC as VP because it's just too close to the presidency, which I exerted myself mightily to prevent her coming nearer to than she did. I am grateful that this formidable and multi-talented woman, whose ethical impairments are simply overwhelming, will now have to make herself useful some other way.
Whether she could be a decent VP is not quite the same thing as whether Obama should offer her the job. If the long battle for the nomination has any upside, it is that Obama can only now be perceived as tougher than he was before he fought off HRC; even if she has damaged some of his potential for a victory in November, no one who watched him pursue the nomination can doubt his political talent or his determination. Should he now conciliate her -- as if he wounded her rather than beat her? Absolutely not. And he should avoid the appearance of conciliation, too -- as an exercise in the just use of power. I hope he will lead the party, now that it's his job, on his own terms. I believe that he is genuinely magnanimous, but taking on HRC as VP would enable many people -- her supporters most of all -- to see him as a biddable High-IQ fool. That's who they want him to be, after all. He needs to come into his own -- while the whole world is watching. HRC has no place in how that unfolds.
Whether she would overshadow him is a really interesting question -- but she could not help but try, and the effort would be demeaning to him or to any president. Wherever she goes, she will live in HillaryLand -- half-Nixon, half-Napoleon -- and everyone in her proximity will have to live there too. There's real work to be done by our next president, and the management of Hillary Clinton should not be part of his load.
What became obvious in these primaries is that Hillary is a psychopath. She is nor sly nor intelligent. She is incapable of seeing reality and she also treats everyone else as an idiot.
Her husband truly depends on a high poltical positin of hers to continue his talk-selling business.
So for different reasons they are desperate for power. God forbid that they should have any of the kind!
I hope NY will not re-elect her. She is bad news.
Dr. Reich,
Obama has come from nowhere to being the Democratic nominee for President of the U.S. He's shown intellect, grace, quiet toughness, political acumen, and most importantly, an abilty to connect on a message with what's essentially ailing American society.
So, I don't think he would become a wimp suddenly or be outmatched were Hillary to become his VP. I'm confident he will consider all the factors necessary to come to a wise decision.
As I've said before, this man's Emotional IQ is rather impressive, a quality I consider at least as important as Intellectual IQ ... a quality desperately needed in these times of deep divisions and distrust.
He's a talented bridge builder for constructive change that addresses head-on the profound inequities and imbalances in our social-economic model ... and to reverse the mounting world disrespect and anger about us promulgated so methodically by the Bush Administration.
He will have some long discussions with Hillary to explore all grounds and directions for a team play of some sort in the best interests of our nation -- whether it be as VP or as a possible member of his Cabinet. He will do the same with other possible VP candidates. Objectivity, political realism, human dynamics, and professionalism will mark his search for the right VP candidate... the same professionalism and human touch he's remarkably shown throughout the campaign. After all, by the games rules he defeated a 15-20 year Brand Name called the Clintons from a position of near obscurity. Quite an achievement, to say the least! So he's no "softie."
So, I have every confidence Obama will come to a good decision on this matter that will not result in a stampede of disaffected Hillary fans away from his Presidentoal candidacy. Those he may lose, should he not select Hillary for VP, will be more than offset by the vast numbers of newly registered and energized voters in the 19 t0 35 age range as well as Independents (like me) and some unhappy moderate Republicans.
Unlike many people, I'm quite optimistic Obama will defeat the honorable but out-of-the times and out-of-the-quality-of thinking and change range McCain.
Obama's personal criteria in evaluating VP candidates, where Hillary wlll certainly be at the top of the list, will no doubt reflect a drive to come into his own; to implement his message of Real Change; a determination to cross bridges to repair the internal and external damage done to our nation's state of being by the Bush entourage.
He'll need lots of help and that is why his VP choice is more momentous and critical than many of us may realize. For the problems are immense.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Bob,
I hope you are happy with the orgy of hatred directed towards the Clintons that your blog has elicited.
Perhaps you should stick to areas in which you can make positive contributions instead of adding to the already degraded hate-laced preaching that passes for political commentary these days.
You do your preferred candidate a disservice by implying he is weak and would not be able to get out of HRCs shadow. You also do him a disservice by bringing out the Hillary haters. This only goes to show that talk of a politics of "hope" and "unity" and "change" really means the same old politics with different faces in power.
The comments here also don't help Obama with the "elitist" problem he brought on himself with his comment about working people clinging to guns, religion and racism. We see in this thread, Obama supporters deriding Hillary supporters by accusing them of being uneducated. This is just more elitism from the Obama camp.
Seriously, Bob, stop the hateful crap and get back to making positive contributions to the public political discourse. The Hillary bashing stuff is a waste of your talents and demeans the truly great observations you have and can offer.
Well said Dr. Reich. I agree completely.
The question is, will you consider a role in the Obama administration? I sure hope you will. I've always admired the role you played in Bill Clinton's administration and it's my feeling that you'd do even more for Obama.
The Billary ticket has shown that they don't have the grace or strategic insight to run a campaign, so why would anyone think that they could appropriately manage the Vice Presidency.
Hillary hasn't demonstrated any individual thinking and seems to be riding the old Clinton ticket or echoing the Obama ticket
We need "real" political reform in America, not a gratuitous display of social change that focuses on breaking down racial or gender barriers. We need to get off the black-woman thing and get down to focusing on fundamental changes that this country desperately needs.
What criteria to do they use to pick the VP?
Some considerations include geographic balance, ideological balance, as with Reagan choosing George H.W. Bush, or ideological reinforcement, as with Clinton/Gore or Bush/Cheney.
So if it's balance, that would mean Obama selecting someone white, and McCain selecting someone that's not a crazy old hothead.
Balance doesn't have to mean skin color, but for McCain, yes, you're right.
More here: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/05/faq_the_vice_presidency_6712.php
I agree. I wish she could be VP only because she was the first and only American to threaten the insurance industry and lobbyists years ago. But she does not further change. She is a walking signpost for 'same old, same old' in the way she ran over any and everyone in this battle to be Prez. Obama, on the other hand, is a signpost for real, deep change. For him to go to her for VP would be horrifying, it would say that he isn't capable of change, that he agrees to submit to the old boy network that we all want to shake off. Please, Obama, choose a leader, not HRC.
A few months ago I would have loved to see the "dream ticket". Lately, however, I find Senator Clinton's arrogant, insulting, and overly ambitious behavior unsettling. While I believe her inclusion on an Obama ticket would help elect Senator Obama, I likewise believe other VP contenders could help tip the balance. Beyond the election, I believe Senator Clinton’s inclusion in an Obama administration would be disruptive to his achieving necessary policy and program changes.
Thanks so much, Mr. Reich, for being there, on this issue as on so many others. I hope Mr. Obama asks you to return to government service.
So you believe it would have been impossible for Mrs. Clinton to run her campaign any other way? It was such a tragedy, watching it was so very sad.
So you think Mr. Obama did the right thing last night?
One way or another, we're going to need someone to fill Teddy Kennedy's shoes in the Senate in the not-too-distant future. There aren't a great many candidates, and it seems to me that HRC could lead the pack. And that it would be a good use of her skills.
If Obama's goal is to get elected, choosing Hillary as his Vice President may make sense
If his goal, however, is to be a great president, it does not.
Tom Riddle
I agree that Obama shouldn't put her on the ticket. But largely for reasons of change. Obama's the future, and he can't be saddled with the failures of the past 16 years and same old, same old.
He probably needs to pick a younger Governor from a Southern or Midwestern state if he wants to win. I guess he's left with people like Brian Schweitzer, Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brad Henry. Henry makes a lot of sense in some ways--he's younger than Obama, but in his second term as Governor of Oklahoma. But there are lots of choices, and it is Senator Obama's decision, not mine.
Yu fools, who babble in this doublespeak. Have you not considered the rampant sexism indemic in the Obama campaign ?
Hillary had no choice but to be a rabid cunt.
What did y'all hate most about the Clinton years? The peace or the prosperity?
It's all very well to build air castles about how Obama is going to be a great President, but unless he gives her some space and respect, he's not going to be any president at all. He'll be going back to the Senate, while the same folks who keep sneering "You lost! Get over it!" at the HRC voters will be hearing the same taunts sneered back at them by the new President McCain.
Oh, but I forgot. Destroying the Clintons is far more important than winning elections by winning over her 18 million voters. My mistake.
"Yu fools, who babble in this doublespeak. Have you not considered the rampant sexism indemic in the Obama campaign ?
Hillary had no choice but to be a rabid cunt."
Robert Reich approves of comments like this? Not to mention the misspelling of endemic and the incorrect preposition.
I have to believe this kind of comment is a Republican "Operation Chaos" type troll. I can not believe a supporter of Barry-O would write such a contemptuous, contemptible remark.
Or could he...?
Mkenv, you are right. I was just stirring things up :-) I do respect Robert Reich, however.
Speaking of grammer, "Robert Reich approves of comments like this ?" has incorrect puncutation (sp). It is a statement, not a question. Should have started with the word "Does". Also, I probably should not have used the "C" word, as popularized by Jane Fonda.
Hillary is a dispicable, zero principle person, and the american people were not fooled !
From the Wonkette
Lanny Davis Continues Remarkable Streak Of Douchebaggery
Lanny Davis, the staunch Clinton ally and textbook definition of why our society hates lawyers, has spent the last month or two or sixteen making a fool of himself as he tries to ruin Obama’s chances in November. During the Pennsylvania primary he noted how pathetic a candidate Obama is; he comically melted down on national teevee during the Indiana primary, while explaining how Obama’s lead is illegitimate; he fueled the rage Clinton backers were fake-feeling by chastising Obama for mentioning Bill Richardson as a potential VP; he decided it would be fair to give Hillary 77% of Michigan’s delegates, and when that didn’t happen, he ran around the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting like a 12-year-old. After treating Obama and the entire world so fairly, he is now circulating a “petition” for Obama to name Hillary his vice president. Somehow, he will find a way (or four) to sue when Obama doesn’t pick her. [CNN]
Isn't the most important thing to win back the WH first? Well it should be and regardless of what you think about HRC,I can't think of anyone who gets the dems closer to making that a reality, can you?
www.stevenfeinberg.com said...
Mr. Reich -
I'd like Barack Obama to consider you for his V.P.
Why?
It's the economy again silly. Even Iraq is tied to the economy. I think you are a great advocate for sensible economic decisions tied to public policy, have a gift of facts and framing of arguments, and can provide Obama with solid advice for today as well as tomorrow kitchen table concerns.
Would you take it if offered?
- Steven Feinberg,
author, The Advantage-Makers:
How exceptional leaders win by creating opportunities others don't
9:29 PM
Hehe, in this post you seem to not like Hill very much.
I agree that she shouldn't be his veep. Remember that guy in the apprentice that picked Omarosa for the final task? Don't you pick Hillary.
While she's a resource for some things - doing political battle, surviving political crap, walking political tightrope, errr - I think carries a bad aura (of overcompromising, unnecessary false choices) that Obama doesn't have.
Obama is refreshing, Hillary is stifling. Keep her on the fringes or keep her out. Hopefully she can stay busy in service...Sorry.
That said, it's soooo time for a chic. Almost 250 years and not once ever?
Thank you very much for this information.
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
If you are cheap wow gold trying any unknown cheats to earn gold, you would cheapest wow gold face some problem and your account will be black out. So don't try to wow gold cheap find cheats instead try to wow7gold follow the guideline of world of warcraft. These tips could euwowgoldwork as gold cheat and can help a lot to earn gold and money. World of Warcraft is the most exiting online game and while Playing the game most of the players struggle ogpal to earn a lot of gold.
Most of the players World Of Warcraft Goldtry search cheat code for this game to earn gold. This article will help xowow you a lot to earn more and more gold.The best way to earn gold in this online game is by going through the guidelines wow gold for saleand other information about wowgold4europethe game that are available on the internet .
WoW shares many wow gold of its features with previously launched games. Essentially, you battle with wow gold cheap monsters and traverse the countryside, by yourself or as a buy cheap wow gold team, find challenging tasks, and go on to higher aoc gold levels as you gain skill and experience. In the course of your journey, you will be gaining new powers that are increased as your skill rating goes up. All the same, in terms of its features and quality, that is a ture stroy for this.WoW is far ahead of all other games of the genre the Wow Gold game undoubtedly is in a league of its own and cheapest wow gold playing it is another experience altogether.
Even though WoW is a Cheap Wow Gold rather complicated game, the controls and interface are done in warhammer gold such a way that you don't feel the complexity. A good feature of the game is that it buy gold wow does not put off people with lengthy manuals. The instructions WOW GOLD cannot be simpler and the pop up tips can help you start playing the game World Of Warcraft Gold immediately. If on the other hand, you need a detailed manual, the instructions are there for you to access. Buy wow gold in this site,good for you, BUY WOW GOLD.
Post a Comment
<< Home