Letters to the Editor

• CTMorling

  [Read the article: Hillary Clinton's bionic quest continues]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I appreciate your assertions. They all make logical sense. And while i genuinely appreacite someone like you who apparently values the thought process, in the general election, we have to think of the population at large, many of whom are not as locgial as you and I are. (We have GW don't we?)

  So here are my thoughts: (and I am an Obama supporter but I like to think I am unbiased and can see things from both perspectives)

  You said: 1) Relationship. They don't like each other very much. This is not a very important reason, but it's a reason.

  I think: True. But they will have to work together after the election, probably pretty closely. I think if we cannot mend bridges withinour own party we have no hope for bringing togeher those with more diverse outlooks and opinions. Mainly Obama (but now Hillary) are calling for bridging gaps and creating unity among Americans. They can BOTH start right here *at home*. (put you money where you mouths are, eh?)

  You said: 2) Bill. Bill Clinton used to be president. If Obama were Clinton's vice-president, he'd be -- at best -- the third most important member of the administration. More likely, there would be cabinet members who would be more important. If Clinton were Obama's vice-president, Bill Clinton's fame would significantly undermine the president.

  I think: If Bill is going to be this much of a problem, then Hillary really has no case for any role in the white house. I think Bill will need to be kept in check and he can be regardless of who is P/VP. I think this problem is better dealt with with Hillary as VP and Bill fame - well, its waning. I admit that keeping his ego in check is a problem regardless but I think its a minor one.

  You said:3) Experience. While Clinton's time in the White House gives her a credible claim to more experience than Obama, neither Clinton nor Obama has a great deal of experience. Both candidates will want a vice-president in the Cheney / Gore / Bush Sr. mold -- an elder statesman/woman with significant experience. Foreign policy experience would be a particular plus.

  I think: agreed except that logic thing. Your argument makes SENSE but i don't think making sense always wins elections. I think the perception of experience is often more relevant than the reality.

  You said 4) Geography. Clinton has strong ties to Arkansas and to Illinois, but she's a New Yorker. Obama has strong ties to Hawaii and -- to a lesser extent -- to Kansas, but he's from Illinois. While Geography isn't a deal breaker, both candidates would prefer a vice-president from a red or purple state. New Mexico, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, or Indiana are probably in the running. (New Mexico and Virginia twice!)

  I think: again I agree. Look, I was thinking Richardson for Obama or even that lady governor from kansas. But these are LOGICAL thoughts. Our problem is that people are so strongly attached and illogical (read many Salon letters lately?) that we really take a huge risk depending on the thinking powers of the public.

  You said: 5) Risk. Clinton has a reputation for being risk averse. If she were to be the nominee, it's likely she would want to put a white man on the ticket.

  I think: See above. She probaly SHOULD put a white man in the ticket. As ShOULD Obama for best results BUT the problem is that we have had huge voter numbers for our two candidates. What's the risk? Obamas people vote for them and Hillary's people vote for them. No risk. Its riskier for Obama to lose Hillarys folks or Hillary to lose Obamas folks.

  6) Negatives. One of the arguements against Clinton as the nominee is the arguement that she energizes the Republican base. Assuming Obama believes this, he is likely to be reluctant to choose Clinton as his running mate.

  I think: She will energize the base. But we have HUGE new registrations and turnouts. I don;t think Hillary's and Obama's turnout numbers combined could be overtaken by even an energized republican electorate.

  Permalink Wednesday, April 23, 2008 01:32 PM