Hillary Clinton is right about one thing – the question is “where do we go now?”
So should she slot in at #2? I’m not convinced that there are a large number of women who supported Hillary who won’t back Obama. It’s more likely that there are quite a few white men around who… etc. Without dissing at all the women who really are concerned about the incredible wave of misogyny (much more culturally acceptable, it seems, than open racism) that hit the Clinton campaign, as with most of what’s gone on, there’s some positioning going on here from Clinton. Positioning for power and influence. Forget superdelegates for a moment – there are a whole host of ex-thises and thats and a sort of “government in exile” from Bill’s time in office who will be looking for gigs come January, if Obama defeats McCain. And Clinton needs to shore up her own power in the Senate and the party – one way the switcheroo from some Democratic establishment types to Obama can be read is an attempt to protect their power against voters, by going with voters. If Obama continues the movement aspect of his campaign, there really is the potential for a huge shakeup of the hierarchies – and it’s those same hierarchies Clinton will be trying to protect. “Bringing the party together” could well be code for locking the people out.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of her current manoeuvring is the suggestions that she’d like to be asked to be Vice-President, but would turn down any such offer. Anyone thinking about this should go and read the history of how LBJ became Veep, because some close to JFK – including Bobby Kennedy – thought that was what was happening when he was offered the job at the 1960 convention. The suggestion that her 17 million voters (or however many there are – there’s a fair bit of misleading going on – counting Michigan, leaving out caucus states, etc) are all at Hillary’s beck and call is false, but it’s also being made to at least preserve her option of effectively forcing Obama to consider her for the ticket.
Let’s leave aside the “balancing the ticket” argument – whichever demographic or swing state you can think of where Hillary might help in November could also be captured by someone else, and the influence of VP candidates is probably over-stated anyway.
The real reason why Clinton shouldn’t be on the ticket is that inevitably it would be a win for dynastic politics and the Bill and Hill crew. I actually don’t think that necessarily would have been the case if she had been nominated (although it may have been) because her election in her own right would have given her a legitimacy she would lack as VP.
You can toss around all sorts of other arguments for and against – though the against ones tend to have more credibility, but not in a knock down way. For instance, she and Obama might not be best buddies, but since when has that been a requirement? And we’re unlikely to see the continuation of Dick Cheney’s Imperial Vice-Presidency, and it’s not that difficult for a President to keep a VP’s influence within very circumscribed bounds – because they’ve got very little institutional power and very little political incentive to break in any way from the President.
I think the best course of action for Hillary would be to follow Katrina Van Den Heuvel’s advice and leverage the gender issue in the campaign into a real crusade to combat structural sexism. If she were to do that, she’d dispel suspicion that the gender card was being played solely for political reasons. But, unfortunately, I rather doubt she will.
That Nation article is really nasty! “She could become a bold leader in the Senate on issues of health, education, women’s rights, civil rights, labor rights and the many issues that impact the lives of women.” So, what has she been doing for the last few years?
“Senator Clinton could deliver a rousing speech that challenges us to examine the structural sexism in our media, culture and politics.” which would be greeted with “Well, she would say that wouldn’t she, poor loser”
“if we’re going to build a strong progressive coalition, and rebuild this nation, we must stand together.” see what Obama drivel has done to the level of what once was an intelligent magazine.
This is good: “Senator Obama to win back these voters… He has already started speaking concretely to women’s issues broadly defined (as they should be): the economy, healthcare, education, ending the war”. So those are ‘women’s issues’, are they?
Hillary would know a lot more about Obama than I do, maybe she wouldn’t mind being VP to his P – I’d take it as a good sign perhaps. But maybe she could do a lot more to further her broad agenda by continuing her work in the Senate – she’ll be even more prominent after that old windbag Kennedy has departed. Obama may achieve nothing in the White House, if he gets there – not much of a record on which to base a prediction.
The best reason I can think of is that my bet on McCain will pay $2.70. LBJ is a solid parallel. They don’t have to love each other, they only have to stop loathing each other long enough to get through a campaign. After that Hillary can be banished to diplomatic sock-draw duties much like any other VP usually is.
Now McCain’s choice is less clear. It will be interesting to see if he follows orthodoxy, or plays a wildcard. If his campaign is smart they won’t choose another crusty establishment politician – especially not from the congress.
Obama doesn’t need Clinton to win in November.
American voters in many swing states will be lining up to boot out their Republican senators. So long as he does not antagonise their voters, Obama stands to win many of those swing states.
Obama, or any other Democrat candidate for president in 2008, will be a huge beneficiary of the revulsion excited in Americans’ minds by the hateful GOP.
Given that this election, especially in its congressional aspects, will be a referendum on common decency, John Edwards would appear to be a better fit for VP than Clinton.
A couple of weeks ago when John Edwards announced he was supporting Obama as a superdelegate, the photo-op of he and Obama together at the podium was widely touted by the pundits as a ‘dress-rehearsal’ for an Obama-Edwards ticket. Kind-of a dry run to see how it plays to the cameras and the voters.
I have to say, it looked pretty good to me.
Well, all that talk has receded now that Hillary’s on the radar. In terms of the telegenics and the policy spectrum, an Obama-Clinton ticket would be McCain’s “worst nightmare”, to borrow one of his catch-phrases.
Hillary and McCain have been on the same side of so many policy issues over the years that she could speak reassuringly to keep wavering voters on the Democratic side. While Obama does the beauty-contest stuff.
Not a good year to be a Republican, even if you’re a “false republican” like McCain (thanks Rush Limbaugh).
Clinton would come to the VP with just too much baggage, specifically Bill, so I can’t see it happening unless campaign debts figure large in Hillary’s stance and if Obama offers some help. Edwards offers as much as Hillary in WASP votes.
McCain needs someone to balance age, geography and someone to counter or match Obama’s ‘change’ (read Washington insider) appeal. Some youngish, eastern, maverick state governor would seem to fill the bill. Romney almost makes the grade.
For Barry to do any good from our perspective he will have to clean out the Vichy Dems. (The Hillbillys are leading Vichy Dems.) So good lucking fuck with that Barry.
One advantage Barry does have is that the greasy turd doesn’t have to lift a finger against the military sector. Creeping Jesus Barry loves anyone in uniform. I can’t believe this fucking arsehole conned me! Fuck him and the shithole he crawled out of – Amerikkka the last empire. God damn America indeed. Wright on.
I think Hillary can’t run again in ‘12, let alone ‘16 as i fear she will be seen as both too old and “yesterday’s woman”
It’s like 1928 – they won’t nominate another woman until we are all old and grey
Mercurius – do you think Edwards could ever get over being the guy with the $400 haircuts? Hardly likely to attract Hillary’s working class vote.
Go Obama!
No no, not Edwards. I think Obama needs someone more established as a moderate and with more genuine experience – not a millionaire trial lawyer. Clinton could theoretically fill that role, but I dont know that Obama is necessarily willing to reconcile with her. Personally I also think that Edwards is too protectionist – but I guess that’s not automatically seen as a downside electorally.
“Go Obama!”
Yes
Information like this has put me off Hillary as VP:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20051127&articleId=1333
Feel free to criticise it.
Some effective points Kim. Personally, I’m tired of being lied to. Reading the spin. The distorted history articles.
The conditions that have led to the Corporate mauling of America & other Nations were partially sown in the Clinton era. I realise that now. Hillary’s desire to bring back Rubin & Greenspan also puts me right off:
In 1999, affirming his career-long interest in markets, Mr. Rubin joined Citigroup. Of note, the supermerger between Travelers Group and Citicorp was facilitated by the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). This legislation was passed under the Clinton administration, days before Rubin’s resignation. Consolidation of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services as practiced by Citigroup under the direction of Rubin, has been implicated in the subprime mortage crisis. Despite criticism for his role in this debacle, Rubin serves as a Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and remains there to this day. He sparked controversy in 2001 when he contacted an acquaintance at the Treasury Department and asked if the department could convince bond-rating agencies not to downgrade the corporate debt of Enron, a debtor of Citigroup. Rubin wanted Enron creditors to lend money to the troubled company for a restructuring of its debt; a collapse of the energy giant might have serious consequences for financial markets and energy distribution. The Treasury official refused. A subsequent congressional staff investigation cleared Rubin of any wrongdoing, but he was still harshly criticized by political opponents.
(wiki pedia)
Too much BAGGAGE Hillary…too much BAGGAGE. Including THAT VOTE.
It saddens me to say so. And no, I’m not related to News Ltd. Just a CRITIC…& FACT SEEKER…who sometimes stumbles. Going to bed now. G’night to the Griffith Uni people…:)…& others.
If it was a referendum on decency then they’d be voting politics out of existence instead of voting on a new player.
If Barry does pick My Little Pony then my $2.70 odds looks like a brilliant deal. I reckon those two would produce a McCain landslide that even Democratic Underground couldn’t imagine was a Rove conspiracy. Obama’s people will already be across polls like this though.
You’re right about congress though – not a good year to be an incumbent there. Not so much for their “hateful” qualities as their self-serving, pork-barreling, weasel ones.
Clinton campaign boss Terry McAuliffe’s drunken late night foray onto the Jon Steary Daily Show 30 minutes after Obama’s acceptance speech would give the Obama team considerable doubt about involving any of the Clintonistas in their campaign or, if the win, their government.
Linked text
Kiss my a**, Obama, indeed. And this guy wants a job in a new Democrat administration.
Twelve months ago, she had all the money, all the superdelegates, the massive political assets of Bill Clinton and veterans of his administration at her disposal – and she blew it. She’s political poison. I agree with Russell, now that Ted Kennedy’s mortality is becoming apparent she can finally carve out a role for herself as a legislator.
Let us drop the whole gender thing – I don’t see anyone getting all giddy over Britain’s first female Prime Minister, and Hillary would be more in that mould.
Chickens coming home to roost, eh Nasking?
I agree she’d be a bad choice. What to do with her is Barack’s first political tough one. (but helping pay off her debt might be useful).
He’s got to keep the Clintons out of the loop without alienating them. Health Secretary or a senior Senate position seem more likely.
Obama won’t get there, Hillary knows it, and she’s making a last ditch effort to make the supers understand it.
Obama’s glass jaw is obvious. Hillary hardly tapped it, and he was out there emoting all over the place. McCain runs a quote from his wife out of context and it’s the end of the world.
How’s he going to cope with REAL criticism, which will come his way if he’s nominated?
I’ve worked with many candidates over the years. The charismatic types are great when things are going their way, but they crumble if it becomes apparent that somebody doesn’t love them. They think making a great speech and getting everyone worked up is actually an achievement.
When they combine this with little or no real experience of politics, it’s even more worrying.
I think Hillary – with a vaster experience than mine – knows this and knows Obama will not make it. Hence her unwillingness to concede.
Hillary as I see it, should step away gracefully from the race to the white house.
I don’t want to see her become vice president as she has a lot of talent. A new job for Hillary would be wonderful, and she does have a lot of experience in state affairs as she was the president’s wife and she did a good job too.
Perhaps at the great distance of Australia American fleas and American lice are indistinguishable from each other.
But as I have suggested elsewhere what we Australians think about the relative virtues of American politicians is of no relevance whatsoever to the outcome of American elections.
I think it can be argued that American voters have perceived, whether correctly or incorrectly, a significant difference between a Democrat flea and a Republican louse.
And as perceptions rule in politics, it suffices for us Australians to acknowledge the likely landslide-generating effects of American perceptions of their politicians in the approaching decimation of the GOP.
Murdocks It’s A Bumma tells it.
Noticed two things on TV reports on Cinton which suggest having Clinton anywhere near the White House would be very foolish for Obama.
1. An un-named Democrat super-delegate said if Clinton was VP Obama would have to double his Secret Service protection.
2.A Clinton supporter who looked far too much like that dreadful woman from Camden with the Aussie flags in her hat said that Obama was “very dangerous.”
From way over here in the Lucky Country Edwards looks a far better bet.
Besides, I went right off Hillary when nuking Iran became one of her foreign policy options. You don’t want some-one that stupid or that dangerous near the White House again. I mean, look what the American Imbecile achieved over eight years.
Ah Veepstakes, like the Melbourne cup only half the horses aren’t even registered. And we don’t know which. And you don’t get to watch the race.
meh.
No way Obama will pick Hillary. He’ll go South, Deep South, and a pick a suitable good ‘ole boy. He needs them southern electoral college votes, and Hillary won’t deliver ‘em for him.
Plus, why would Obama want to saddle himself with Hillary as VP? She’d be out of control from the get-go. And he’d have Bill running rampant as well.
I don’t know, Leniad. To me it’s more like coach-shopping day at Football Australia. You’ve got packets and packets of millionaires’ money, a self-absorbed board with anger management problems, a massive culture of inferiority-cringe, and vast anxiety about whether the underrated team can actually score the necessary goals. Will they pick the beige native-born acting-coach or spend big and get some bloke with a funny accent?
And then on game day, you know it’s all going to come down to dodgy refereeing decisions.
“Chickens coming home to roost, eh Nasking?”
Bit ambiguous Don.
Liam: so you’re saying Hillary is Arnie?
I hadn’t meant to make any kind of comparison, Leniad. But now that you mention it…
As football coaches go, I reckon Clinton would be more of an Alex Ferguson type: experienced and successful, yes, but very scary if crossed. I can quite imagine Hillary throwing a football boot. Obama: Avram? I don’t know.
So Hoges, Obama’s going to wind up with Guus Hiddinck on the ticket, but McCain will take a dive for a dodgy last-minute penalty in the final?
“Obama: Avram? I don’t know.”
As long as hhe ain’t Farina.
Hmmm. I can definitely see McCain finishing up like Central Coast in the A-league final. Favourite going in, but destroyed by superior play, and in the end, shown up as ill-disciplined and unable to cope with pressure.
Obama will need to give Clinton the VP job as there is no serpent’s fang sharper than the tongue of a scorned Hillary. Besides, Obama needs to shore up his female vote and white male working class vote.
Obama might agree to accept Hillary as his running mate so long as she agrees to change her name by deed poll to Sirhan Sirhan.
This would serve to clarify everyone’s agenda.
No way will Hills be Obama’s veep. You can’t run on a “time for a change” platform by putting a Clinton on yer ticket.
“If Barry does pick My Little Pony then my $2.70 odds looks like a brilliant deal.”
Hey Craig Mac,
Can you think of any scenario where your odds don’t improve? If not you should start selling you system on the innernet. I reckon if McCain comes out of the ‘lude induced coma you might be on a winner, then again who knows what a non-sedated presumptive cnadiate is capable of saying.
cheers
Patrick.
I’m going to get modded for only barely relevant nit-picking, but surely the Clintons can’t be termed a dynasty unless Chelsea goes on to a position of political leadership.
But who will McCain pick as his VP? Given McCain will be 72 when (if) elected there would have to be a good chance he wouldn’t see out 4 years in office so the VP would take over. So if Huckabee was the VP it would be reason to be afraid, very afraid. In any case a McCain VP would have the front running to be the Republican candidate in 2012.
It’s all so interesting and weird. You can game this out in all sorts of plausible directions.
This is just a hunch (i.e. not based on any careful analysis), but somehow I get the feeling that things are just gonna keep on going Obama’s way, and he’s going to win in November without it being too much of a fight. If that’s the case, then it almost won’t matter who he picks as v.p., just someone who makes for good photo ops and doesn’t get too much in the way.
But if he did tap Hillary (and if she agreed to it), I think it would suddenly turn the race into the “Hey, No Hard Feelings!” ticket, and the positive vibe it would create might even be worth the extra baggage. Almost like taking a victory lap before the convention, let alone the GE. Hmm, maybe McCain would take one look at that feel-good train and simply walk away and not even bother to run. It probably won’t happen, but I can’t exactly say I saw *anything* coming in American politics since, well, back in 2000.
Also, the truth is that even though he’s run a pretty smart campaign in some ways (and that counts as a sort of dry-run for how you’d actually handle the real office), Obama is still unbelievably inexperienced relative to the demands of the job (to say nothing of the, erm, situation left behind by his brilliant predecessor). Even the comically underqualified George Bush had a lot more relevant experience. He’s going to be in for quite a few surprises once he actually sits behind the desk, and having Hillary and Bill lurking around to show him where the shock absorbers are might not be the craziest idea in the world. I don’t think he needs them to win, but they may have some sort of comfort value.
But then, all of this is pretty nutty. I feel like I’ve been watching a bad, crazy movie for the past eight years, I can’t believe any of it is real.
How about ten years? I’m not so sure the Monica Lewinsky thing was all that real!
“I’m not so sure the Monica Lewinsky thing was all that real!”
Yeah, right? But at least that was craziness with a correct sense of scale: rather small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Bush and his buddies have been screwing things up on a cosmic scale in comparison. That’s the weird thing that’s got me so down (and I’m sure plenty of other people too, and “down” is, well, what an understatement right?) about the Bush years, the sense of these people ripping away at the fabric of history, doing damage that looks like it could be irreversible (we hope not, but good heavens…) in a historical sense. And the weirdest part is how unnecessary it’s all been. They’ve dragged half the planet along with them on some sort of insane historical smash-’em-up car-chase for no good reason. Like that line about method that Martin Sheen says to Marlon Brando.
That’s one of the reasons this election bothers me so: it’s just more of this great big zany-scale ambition, but this time from the Dems, they want to barge in and just push different buttons and pull different levers from the Bush gang, with a sort of crazy “Hey, what does THIS thing do?” abandon. A better thing overall I think would be to just sort of switch to autopilot for a while, until things are less tense. I don’t really want all that much “HOPE” and “CHANGE” and giant excitable slogans, and I certainly don’t want this government making any more history. There seems to be plenty of that stuff, thank you very much: history is usually bad, it’s much better when things are boring. The best thing America could do, for itself and for the world, would be to sit down and shut up for a while. I think.
Ugh, sorry, I’m just feeling sort of sad and glum. Anybody know any good jokes?
For a politician, the trick is to have the sectional interests she represents accepted as the national interest.
Lurking behind Obama’s “bringing the country together” rhetoric is the reality that to a huge extent public policy is a zero sum game. A government is a pump that sucks resources from one sector and pumps them to another sector.
I’m struggling to work out with any precision from Obama’s utterances where he intends to attach the sucker and in which direction he’ll aim the blower.
And of course there’s the whole different problem of whether Obama will be adept enough to get the sucker in the preferred place against the wishes and the political efforts of often entrenched interests.
Katz: “Lurking behind Obama’s “bringing the country together” rhetoric is the reality that to a huge extent public policy is a zero sum game. …there’s the whole different problem of whether Obama will be adept enough to get the sucker in the preferred place against the wishes and the political efforts of often entrenched interests.”
Yeah, true, and it’s part of the reason I think ideologues are so unhelpful in American politics. It’s a lot more practical (and you can actually get meaningful things accomplished) if you don’t always view things as Big Great Ideas and instead break issues into small bite-size problems that can realistically be assessed.
Instead of some grand crazy scheme to provide health care for 300 million people in wildly different circumstances, why not identify a specific under-served population, and go about helping that population. When their problem has been solved, identify the next group, and so on. Universal Health Care? It’d be nice to help say the bottom 15% income group in say 8 or 10 smallish states first. At the end of the day, the actual government administering this gigantic problem would be structurally the same sort of government that couldn’t find the WMDs in Iraq. That oughta give people pause.
I’d be really happy (well, “happy” is stretching things) if Obama assembled a team of people whose habits of mind were closer to a garage mechanic’s than to a theorist’s. I’ll be even happier if his list of Things To Do only has about four things on it, and none of them cosmic in scope.
Obama will look a bit silly if he has Hillary as VP. I would think Obama would go and get one of his own so to speak, either black or white, and a man. We need a clean break from the former president and his wife as there was a lot of controversy during their time in the white house. Obama wants a fresh start and see how he goes.
“Hillary and Bill lurking around to show him where the shock absorbers are might not be the craziest idea in the world.”
Amongst other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul
Maureen Dowd gives her reasons on why the so called “dream ticket” ain’t so dreamy:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
If you haven’t seen it already. I think it’s an extended interview than that on the 7:30 Report. As usual, Kerry O’Brien comes up w/ the goods.
As in longer than the 7:30 Report interview shown on ABC 1. Getting like Britain these days…BBC 1, BBC 2…pretty exciting…provided the ads don’t sneak in too often.
Corporate NAZIs everywhere…but I see the LIGHT of a new day rising. So does Maureen Dowd.
I have to say I’m not too fussed w/ McCain’s offer to do Goldwater/Kennedy style Town Hall meetings…sure they sound good…but the memory of Kennedy’s death just before the meetings were to commence won’t go down well w/ some…including this fella.
They should do it like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 (see Wiki pedia)
w/out the spin, if possible.
I don’t know if picking Edwards would get much for Obama. Edwards lost once already, which makes him old news, and he basically just does a less-good version of the schtick Obama’s already got, so there’s nothing added to the mix.
People keep talking up Jim Webb, but somehow I just don’t see it. I suppose a lot hinges on (although there’s no real way for the Obama camp to know this) whether or not the GOP genuinely intends to back McCain solidly and give Obama a real fight, or whether they’ll just sort of roll over and concede in a desultory way, like in 1996. If they’re not gonna fight then it doesn’t matter who he picks, because Obama, being a sort of rock star, is the whole show. He doesn’t really need any help, unless it turns into a cliff-hanger.
I’d almost like to see him pick whoever is the manager behind his campaign strategy, his Carville/Rove type person. The main objective credit that Obama really has beyond his otherwise thin resume, is the fact that his campaign has been crafty and interesting and made a bunch of surprisingly good calls that were not obvious; and his organization and fund-raising are impressive. That speaks better of him than all the fluff about Hope. Whoever is responsible for doing that work and making those decisions, should be given a serious look.
Of course, who McCain chooses for v.p. is a more interesting question (Hillary again?). Obama’s big strength is his youthful energy and charm, and McCain is a cranky old guy. He needs someone who’ll bring in some charisma and youth, but it can’t be too obvious or else he’ll look like he’s copying the Dems’ brand. (So I actually sort of doubt J.C. Watt would be a good choice, for instance; it looks like horning in. Look how tone-deaf Romney made himself look when he tried to co-opt Obama’s “change” routine.)
Another weird thing is how far away November seems, metaphysically, in the sense that this race began long ago as a referendum on Bush — but he’s kept such a low profile for so long that by the time the GE heats up in earnest, it’ll be an actual referendum on the candidates themselves, Bush being a distant unhappy memory. Character is the one card McCain’s got that might give him an edge over Obama. By the fall they’ll both be in the spotlight and Bush will not be nearby for comparison. It’ll be interesting to see how they both manage to play it.
Or their spouses!
In fact the scenario where my odds blow out is where Obama makes Hill his VP, her supporters are mollified and a unified democratic party votes as one in November. My bet will be looking iffy but still worth a shot at $2.70 (he’s shortened to $2.40 as I type this). BTW, Barry’s offering $1.50 (out from $1.20).
Obama will choose a women as VP and it will not be Hillary.
For that we should all be thankfull.
Obama needs someone safe and experienced – but not so much as to dilute his appeal.
McCain needs someone religious and young – but not too young.
Or even worse, highlight its appeal against a 72 year old.
Here’s a question for the trivia buffs.
When was the last time the two candidates were both current Senators?
Never or a very long time ago?
I’m thinking never. Thinking back, I can’t recall any election in the 20th century when both candidates were sitting Senators.
It’s never happened before that two ordinary Senators have run against each other, but if you consider that the VP is President of the Senate then in 1960 Senator JFK ran against VP Nixon.
I think you’ll find, Martin, there’s some dispute as to whether the VP as President of the Senate is a Senator. When LBJ tried to keep presiding over the Senate Democratic caucus after that election, he was certainly told that he wasn’t any more. Nixon would have been one of the last VPs to take an active role as Senate President – some of his rulings from the chair were significant for the civil rights fight with respect to filibusters. LBJ went off in a huff after he was rebuffed by his former troops, and VPs have generally only appeared in the Senate on the very rare occasions that they have to break a tie and on ceremonial occasions since then.
It’s also interesting that up until Cheney tried to muddy the waters by claiming that he was a specific branch of government himself, opinion had generally shifted towards the VP being part of the executive rather than the legislative branch. LBJ was also arguably the first VP to be given substantive duties within the executive branch.
Might i just ask about an aspect of this VP arrangement that i cannot understand?
Would it be possible for either of the two candidates for the presidency to propose, as their running mate, their partner, for instance?
I think back in the real old days (powdered wig territory) the VP was just the runner-up in the election, which would mean he was actually serving under his enemy’s administration. (Am I right about that? Not sure, but think so.)
It would certainly be entertaining to go back to that system: VP McCain serving under Prez Obama, or vice versa. Who knows, maybe it would actually work pretty well. (I would have loved to see Nixon as JFK’s vice president. Terrrific theater.)
The brothers K loathed LBJ and had him banished from any meaningful duties – unless you count being delivery boy for nasty telegrams to Diem. He wasn’t given substantive duties in civil rights so much as he made them substantive.
Having trawled back through Wikipedia we’ve never had sitting senators as candidates before. Lotsa VPs of course. It’s an interesting browse. Could you ever imagine the USA having an uncontested election again?
No, but it did happen that the losing candidate’s VP got elected as the winning president’s deputy. It was a quirk in the old electoral college – Thomas Jefferson served under John Adams that way.
It’s one of the reasons why a president can’t sack a vice-president. The electoral college votes for the VP – it’s not a presidential appointment.
“When was the last time the two candidates were both current Senators?”
Never. And only two serving Senators have ever won the Presidency: Harding and Kennedy.
I’m unaware of any ‘dispute” about whether the VP is a part of the Executive or Legislative wing of the US government. The VP is part of the Executive Branch and while the VP is the largely ceremonial President of the Senate, s/he is definitely not a Senator.
As Mark says, the VP normally only presides over the Senate in the event of a voting deadlock when s/he may exercise a casting vote. The presiding officer in practice is generally the senior Senator from the majority party.
The convention that VP’s do not take part in the day to day affairs of the Senate was established well before the Civil War, just before LBJ became VP.
Geoff, while the VP certainly isn’t a Senator, there did use to be an opinion around that the VP was part of the legislative branch. I’ve forgotten the name of the book, but there was a classic text on the Senate which discussed this which I looked at a long time ago when I was studying US Politics as an undergrad.
“we’ve never had sitting senators as candidates before.”
You’re right, except perhaps for:
Harding
Kennedy x 2
Kerry
Lieberman
Dodd
Biden
Specter
Brownback
Dole x 2
Alexander
Harkin
Garfield
Byrd
Lugar
Bayh
Hatch
Conkling
and many more that will come to hand once I can be arsed sorting out my goggle search terms.
“I think back in the real old days (powdered wig territory) the VP was just the runner-up in the election,”
Yup, Jefferson and Burr was the classic example of how that arrangement didn’t pan out and why they introduced the 12th Amendment shortly thereafter.
General election candidates, and the point is that we’ve never had two sitting Senators facing off in November.
“and many more that will come to hand once I can be arsed sorting out my goggle search terms.”
I think Mark meant in the Presidential election Nabs, not the primaries……
I think that answers my question!
It is interesting that sitting (and ex) Governors have been more successful than Senators in getting themselves elected President.
Think Roosevelt II, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II.
The argument that Governors make is that, unlike Senators, they know all about running a government. The argument that Senators make is that, unlike Governors, they know all about foreign policy. Until this year, the first argument has been dominant.
Japerz:
(This in relation to nuts’n'bolts administration.)
But there does come a moment of crisis when previous policies and habits of mind must give way to structural constraints.
For example (and this applies to most of the developed world but probably most starkly to the US) western consumerist lifestyles have been predicated on the availability of cheap energy. Make energy significantly more expensive and ineluctably at a certain point quantitative change (how much you can afford to drive a car) adds up to qualitative change (are vast dormatory suburbs economically sustainable. Such a calculus is neither a positive sum game nor a zero sum game. Rather, it is a negative sum game. Many folks will have to adjust in quite profound ways their expectations and their aspirations.
In the long run, markets will allocate the pain and the rewards arising from new conditions. But my guess is that these new conditions will be threatening enough to wide sectors of the voting public to evoke a series of political responses not dissimilar in political and social function to FDR’s New Deal.
People laughed at Jimmy Carter when he made that extraordinary speech in July 1979 endorsing the notion that the US faced “a moral and spiritual crisis”.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm
I was resident in the US at the time and I certainly laughed at Carter. But now i’m more inclined to the notion that Carter was wrong (and not just about the US) but rather he was simply 40 years premature in his warning.
BTW, who still agrees with Carter’s prognostications on this issue?
Even Bush has pled with Americans to get over their addiction to oil.
Precisely why I said “if you consider”
As Geoff and Nabakov say, while we’ve had quite a few Senatorial candidates, only Warren Harding (who defeated Governor Cox) and JFK have been successful.
If you take the tenuous position that the sitting VP may be considered a Senator of sorts then we only add four more: GHW Bush, who defeated Governor Dukakis; Martin Van Buren, who defeated former Senator William Henry Harrison (although the election was a mess and included Whig candidates who were sitting Senators), Thomas Jefferson who defeated NY Congressman Burr (in another odd election) and John Adams who defeated former Secretary of State Jefferson.
There’s a few more whose most recent public office was Senator including Benjamin Harrison, Frankloin Pierce, Andrew Jackson.
Only one sitting federal Representative has been elected President…
Broadening out, Nixon is the only VP who later went on to win a Presidency, beating incumbent VP Humphrey (thus pitting a former President of the Senate against a n incumbent President of the Senate).
The only VPs who have suceeded to the office who have gone on to win an election are Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ. Of these Roosevelt and Coolidge were Governors before assuming the VPship and Truman and LBJ were Senators.
As remarked above, Governorships have been the most successful entree recently including GWBush, Clinton, Carter, FDR, Wilson and Cleveland; Former governor Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt and Coolidge into the VPcy (as above.)
If you meant beyond the primaries Mark, then I stand corrected. Basically I was just looking for an excuse to type “Conkling”, a word I really think should used more often and as a verb too.
Fair enough Nabs! Conkled!
“It Conkled the World.”
Hmm, that could work. Get Roger Corman on the phone.