Hillary No Mate For Obama

Loyalty is the first quality a presidential candidate seeks in a vice-president


by Lisa Van Dusen

The bewilderingly resilient idea that Hillary Clinton, after the draining, divisive psychodrama of the past year, would be an attractive choice of running mate for Barack Obama is like the premise for a new political reality show; Survivor D.C.: White House from Hell.

The first quality a presidential candidate seeks in a vice-presidential candidate is loyalty. Washington is a tough, tough town and there is no place tougher than the White House, which, after every post-inaugural honeymoon, becomes by necessity an us-versus-them fortress against incoming fire from Congress, K Street lobbyists and, sometimes, depending on whom you've handed the keys to, the vice-president's office in the neighbouring Old Executive Office Building.

Imagine Obama working on health care legislation while Clinton works the phones from the Old EOB and her husband works the phones from the VP's residence at the Naval Observatory. A tut-tutting, smoothly second-guessing tag team madly protecting its legacy of the '90s from any unwanted showing-up while relentlessly spinning the groundwork for 2012, propelled by both their shared grudge at being robbed of the White House this time and their shared determination to secure it for the next time.

MESSAGE

Obama has run his campaign on the premise the country doesn't need another third-term presidency, either a third Clinton term with Hillary or a third Bush term with John McCain. Why would he torpedo that message by taking on all the old Clinton baggage and all the new GOP opposition research that comes with it?

The only people more enthusiastic about this scenario than Clinton supporters are Republicans. Republican pundits and politicians can barely contain their glee at the prospect of watching Hillary lose the nomination and then having her on the ticket anyway.

For the Clintons, the advantages of a spot on the ticket are obvious. Aside from its tactical advantages, it would give them the legitimacy of Air Force Two from which to re-establish their bruised brand and put in the legwork for 2012 at public expense.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39% of Americans, which means 60% of American don't trust her. If a majority of Americans don't trust her, why would they consign Obama to four years in captivity with her?

And that's if he wins. The more likely scenario, and the other benefit for the Clintons, would be that Hillary on the ticket would guarantee a loss for him while exorcising all the Republican anti-Clinton smears so they'll have nothing left to throw at her in four years.

OBAMA-EDWARDS

Watching Obama and John Edwards on stage together in Michigan the other night was like watching a newer, prettier, biracial, north-south version of the Bill Clinton-Al Gore dream team of 1992. Edwards is a southern white guy with a good mind, a solid following, a great wife who voted for Hillary and a solid record on fighting poverty from his role as director of the University of North Carolina poverty centre. He's also, as a candidate who ran twice for president and once for vice-president without making any memorable major verbal gaffes, solidly road tested.

In the 44 years since Lyndon Johnson bravely passed the Civil Rights Act against warnings that it would lose the Democratic Party the south forever, the only Democrats who've been able to win the south were southerners, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. In both 1992 and 1996, Clinton, even as a native son and former southern governor, won just four of the 11 Southern states.

In 2000 (Gore, despite his Tennessee roots, was never able to twang his way past his privileged D.C. upbringing) and 2004, the Republicans, with the help of southern evangelical Christians, shut out the Democrats completely. Having a genuine southerner on the ticket is, arguably, a strategic necessity.

The great political maxim that you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer often makes brilliant strategic sense. But it was originally uttered by Sun Tzu 2,500 years ago, and Sun Tzu never met the Clintons.