I don’t understand why is anyone suggesting that Obama need Hillary to be on the VP slot….
The simple reason why putting Hillary on the ticket is redundancy: The pro-choice group will fight tirelessly for Obama, because they cannot afford to let John Mccain appoint another conservative justice into the supreme court. Ie, Hillary is not needed for Obama to be solidly supported by female voters, because he is strongly pro-choice and Mccain pro-life.
Kos explains away other reasonings for Hillary to be picked as VP:
As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn’t a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won’t outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let’s face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama’s core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He’s been a disgrace.
Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There’s no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.
What about her positives? She doesn’t deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn’t add “experience” to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There’s the “unify the party” thing, but that’s overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn’t support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain’s enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they’d never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.
And then there’s demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let’s not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women’s movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, “In our lifetimes”. It’s inspiring for African Americans as Clinton’s chances were for women.
In that regard, Obama has two strong choices — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While I said above that vice presidential candidates don’t bring geography with them, Richardson actually would deliver New Mexico since it’s probably the most evenly matched state in the union. Bush beat Kerry by less than a percentage point in 2004, or 7,000 votes. And Richardson’s strong cred in the Latino community would improve Obama’s chances in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. In fact, I’d camp him out in those states. Furthermore, his foreign policy credibility is unparalleled in Democratic politics, bolstering one of Obama’s perceived weaknesses.
It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She’s a former head of the Democratic Governor’s Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation’s Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation’s five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state’s Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of “reach out” politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.
And don’t worry, she had a bad night during her 2008 state of the union address rebuttal. She’s a much better communicator and campaigner than that appearance would indicate.
One added bonus — I can’t think of anyone else who would be a better fit than these two, regardless of race or sex. I know some people like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, but he’s sort of a maverick, and wouldn’t do the “subservient to the presidential nominee” thing too well. He’s a true alpha male, and will be a fantastic senator and maybe someday a top-of-the-ticket guy. I obviously like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he’s focused on his big plans in Montana, and is currently running for reelection. I like that he’s building up his state’s Democratic Party, and would rather he continue focusing on that for the moment (and so would him, as far as I can tell). Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine? A compelling possibility who I would slot third in line. His resume is much thiner than Richardson or Sebelius. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland? Also wouldn’t be a bad choice, but he cast his lot with Clinton, and that sort of thing matters in decisions like this one. Same with Wes Clark. I like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and she has been a tireless surrogate for Obama, but we’d lose a Senate seat and it would be nice to get some executive experience on the ticket. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is compelling as well (I can’t think of any negatives).
There are other compelling names, all of who I would choose before Hillary Clinton. Remember, the goal here is to win the White House and have the most effective government possible, not to salve the bruised egos of an American political dynasty.