We need to keep the Clintons out of the White House. I realize that this statement may sound like blasphemy to my fellow Democrats, but rest assured I am not hating on Bill’s or Hillary’s records.
I say this because several recent editorials, most notably by The New York Times columnist Bill Keller, have argued for a switch on the Obama 2012 ticket: Hillary Clinton as Obama’s running mate, and Joe Biden replacing her as Secretary of State.
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Clinton has been the most admired woman in America for 10 years running, according to Gallup, an objective poll that measures public opinion, beating out Michelle Obama and even Oprah. Clinton’s current approval ratings stand at 64 percent, the highest of any political figure in the country. She was a realistic possibility for the presidential nomination in 2008, and many of her supporters hope that a position as vice-president would make her the heir apparent for the 2016 nomination.
Joe Biden seems to be a natural choice for Secretary of State. He spent years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during which he voted in favor of American intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. He also met with over 150 foreign leaders from 60 countries, according to the Wall Street Journal, and has continued his involvement in foreign affairs as one of the president’s key advisers. As Vice President, he visited Iraq approximately once every two months in 2009-10, and became heavily involved in negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Both Clinton and Biden are qualified for each others’ jobs, but qualification does not mean that they should give up their current positions.
Overall, Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State has been quite successful. Although she has stayed out of the limelight, she has racked up an impressive log of experience in the past four years. She has overseen the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the escalation of tensions with Iran and the slow process of democratic reforms in Myanmar. She spoke up for the rights of homosexuals across the world and helped reestablish diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia, two long-feuding states.
Bill Keller and others argue that an Obama-Clinton ticket would virtually guarantee Obama’s reelection. They claim that Clinton would “reinvigorate” a Democratic base that has become disillusioned with Obama’s inability to get any legislation past House Republicans. But these editorials do not talk about what would happen after November 2012.
I do not believe that an Obama-Clinton ticket would guarantee Obama’s reelection. Bill Keller told NPR’s Neal Conan that putting Clinton on the ticket would “excite a lot of women.” The number of women that would vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman is probably about equal to the number of men who would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman. Such people are probably out there, but their numbers are so negligible that they won’t make a difference either way.
I also do not think that Obama will reinvigorate that “feeling of historic possibility,” as Keller says, that carried him in 2008, even if Clinton is on the ticket. Voters probably realize that vice presidents really don’t do much. They serve as important advisers to the president and can break ties in the Senate (but unfortunately not partisan gridlock). Having Hillary Clinton “a heartbeat away” from becoming the first female president is a rather morbid statement that insults Clinton’s dedicated base: I doubt most of Clinton’s supporters would hope for Obama’s death so that Clinton could step in as president. I believe that they would rather see her as the first elected woman president, and her closeness to the office as vice president really has no standing.
If the Obama camp indeed sees the Clintons, as Bill Keller writes, as representing the “deal-cutting, calculating, schmoozing” side of American politics, then they should also see that those qualities make for a perfect Secretary of State. Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a working-class fellow from Scranton who says the word “f****ing” on live television and has been painted as a stumbling buffoon by American media. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said of his former colleague: “If there were no gaffes, there’d be no Joe. He’s someone you can’t help but like.”
While Biden’s blue-collar American clumsiness may win him fans at home, foreign dignitaries in scrupulously-orchestrated diplomatic meetings may not take so kindly to Secretary of State Biden. This is why it is so important that Biden remain Obama’s vice-president. On the campaign trail, Biden will serve as the often aloof Obama’s connection to working-class America. Biden will serve as a counterweight to the two most likely Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. The latter two are very personally wealthy and have claimed to pay much lower taxes than average Americans. To many voters, Romney and Gingrich represent the slick Washington insiders that no one wants in office anymore.
While Hillary Clinton is not an “empty suit,” as some Republicans have dubbed Romney, she still comes with that baggage of being a political legacy and a Washington resident.
She is not a hokey “street pol,” but an empathetic yet controlled diplomat who has yet to make an international gaffe. Biden’s slips of tongue can be endearing for a vice president, because his role is mostly behind-the-scenes. But they would not be tolerated on the international stage.
And if Hillary is tired after her traveling 237,597 miles as Secretary of State, don’t try to push her into being Obama’s heir simply because she may make a good president. Biden has developed a very successful advisory role for himself while maintaining his blue-collar liberal friendliness, and need not be catapulted into the spotlight simply because he knows his foreign policy.
Biden has thrived as Obama’s second-hand man, and will be useful on the campaign trail. Let Hillary Clinton lead as Secretary of State or as President, where she will be most effective.
Kelsey Allagood can be reached at kelsey.allagood@spartans.ut.edu.
Swapping out Hillary for Biden would only imply instability, and a cheap ploy to have a woman on the ticket. Not saying she isn’t qualified. She definitely is, there’s no doubt about that. But the DNC might be looking too far ahead. By getting Hillary on the ticket, they believe that since America has voted in a president that isn’t a white male, they may be willing to do it again four years down the road. Leave the ticket the way it is. Hillary can run as VP or even President in a few years. Those positions won’t go anywhere. Don’t shake things up.
Mitt Romney is worth a quarter billion dollars and ran a hedge fund and you’re calling Obama an elitist?
A superbly constructed argument. The last sentence says it all.
Voting Republican this year, Obama is nothing but an Elitist. We all voted for Hillary, but the DNC screwed us over.
I agree with Cody. Ill be voting for Dr Jill Stein of the Green Party Unless Hillary is on Obabas ticket. Obama-Biden doesn’t excite me. But a progressive, smart intelligent woman does.
I dont like Obama and, as it stands, I will not be voting for him. BUT if he puts Clinton on the ticket it will be hard not to. You can look at Hillary’s 20 years in Washington either as a liability or as an asset. I view it as the latter