When you go for a job interview to be the manager of Wendy’s, do you take the call-back if they want you to be a fry cook instead?
Or, if your career goal is world domination, do you settle for being the sidekick?
So, is it really a good idea for Hillary Clinton to consider the vice-presidential slot if it’s offered?
I think it’s unlikely it will be offered unless there is some deal struck where Barack Obama says, “I’ll offer it, Hillary, if you promise to turn it down.” It’s just pretty hard to imagine an Obama/Clinton ticket because even if Clinton tries to play the “good” VP, the media will be covering her just as much — if not more — than a President Obama.
And I just have a feeling that Michelle Obama won’t be so happy about Hillary hanging around the West Wing, either. Chris Rock thinks Michelle already has plans for that space!
But there’s another reason I don’t think she should be vice-president — with the exception of our current vice-president, the role of the VP is to be a helpmate, of sorts. Someone to carry out someone else’s agenda. I would really rather not see the woman who almost won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States be the helper.
If Hillary’s goal is really to promote universal health for everyone (rather than Obama’s plan) and promote issues important to women, she’s got a much bigger platform in the Senate than as the person who stands behind the President.
After all, she’s already seen that movie.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
A few months back, I thought that Senate Majority Leader would be a great place for her, but it seems that Harry Reid has a lock on that right now.
I would like to see her in a leadership role with regard to shepherding the health care agenda through — whether that’s a cabinet post, or some sort of high-profile Senate leadership role, it would be a great place for her.
I don’t think that VP is an effective use of her time, whether or not it would reach across the current divides for election purposes. She deserves the respect that comes with the voices who supported her, and that respect should be rewarded with the ability to get stuff done.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
She will have more power in the Senate than in the VP job. Still, I would like to see Obama offer the position to a woman, but I doubt the country is ready for THAT much change.
It irritates me that the talking heads are accusing her of scheming and being a sore loser to boot when she is only leveraging her status like a man in her position would have done.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see a working First Lady with her own career? What a positive image that would be.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I’m with you my girl. I also think it will look very “old politics” to try to pull her in; to me it just does not compute. David Broder today has some other reasons too, that have to do with Obama returning to a more powerful image, which Broder says he has lost somewhat, by NOT letting himself be pushed into it as JFK was with LBJ (speaking of movies we’ve already seen….)
June 5th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hillary will have a place in Obama’s administration if (I hope he does) he wins. The VP spot seems to be what Clinton is gunning for now but only time will tell. I think choosing her for VP is too obvious.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I don’t know. I’m very bi-polar on this issue. One minute I think it’s brilliant, the other these issues you mention surface again.
I just don’t know. All I do know, all I’ve ever known is that a Dem must be in the White House when I take my kid to school on January 21, 2008. Whatever gets us there has my full support.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’d really rather see her in the cabinet or back in the Senate where she can do some good. Attorney General, perhaps, or Secretary of Education. I’d love to see her attack and revise the No Child Left Behind law. Really, people, she’ll go stir crazy as VP.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I think Hillary as Veep is unlikely–I imagine she saw that job up close and personal during Gore’s tenure, and isn’t that into it. There are other women who are from strategic states–Clare McCaskill or Kathleen Sibelius spring to mind–but I tend to agree with anniegirl that that that might be too much change to hope for.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I agree with you 100%! GREAT post! I love reading your blogs… ! You rock!
- Audrey
June 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I’m with you. SO not a good idea for so many reasons. I think she could do so much for health care in this country. She always had the best plan.