How Would Clinton Fit on the Vice-Presidential Ticket?

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Barack Obama has finally bested Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democratic Party. But no sooner had he won than her supporters began a campaign, on the internet, in newspapers, and on television, to force her onto the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee.

Right to the end, Clinton maintained that she, not Obama, deserved to win – she claimed she had more of the popular vote and had won most of the primaries in major states, including California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Indeed, earlier in the campaign, she had suggested that Obama become her running mate.

So why, despite the animosity between the two rivals during the long, drawn-out primary campaign, might Clinton accept the second spot?

Because it’s a win-win situation.

Obama, by allowing the party bosses to place her on the ticket, would show himself to be a weak person amenable to pressure.

If he managed to win the election, due in large part because of Clinton’s support from women, blue-collar whites, and others -- people who would otherwise not vote for Obama -- then she, not to mention former president Bill Clinton, would be in the driver’s seat.

The Clintons would be dictating policy from the vice-presidential mansion, much as Dick Cheney did with George W. Bush. And Bill Clinton’s rather questionable business dealings since 2001 would erode Obama’s squeaky-clean image and slogan of change.

It would become untenable. As commentator Chris Matthews observed on MSNBC, you can’t have three presidents in the White House.

If Obama lost, it would be because the millions of people who thought he represented change would sit home or even, to prevent a “third Clinton term,” cast their ballot for John McCain. So much of Obama’s vote would actually come from Hillary’s base.

She’d be able to say to the party, “had you reversed this, and selected me as the nominee, we would have won.” Obama, having lost the election, would disappear from the scene, the party would again be in the hands of the Clintons and their entourage – insiders like Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe -- and Hillary Clinton would make another run for the nomination in 2012.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have decided to portray Obama’s spouse Michelle as an angry and unpatriotic black woman. She has been referred to as Barack Obama’s “baby mama,” a colloquial term for an unwed mother (which of course she is not).

The Democrats seem to be retaliating by painting Cindy McCain as a woman with a troubled past, including drug use.

With the U.S. still mired in a war in Iraq and the economy in a terrible state, is this really what the election will be about? I hope all those who were so dedicated to Hillary Clinton, and angry at any instances of sexism against her, will come to the defence of these two women as well.