Don’t Do It!

Between now and November, the single most important decision that Barack Obama will make is his vice-presidential pick. The decision itself is of little consequence. Although recent vice presidents have played prominent roles, and Dick Cheney has been enormously influential, usually vice presidents have little to do besides attend foreign funerals and break tie votes in the Senate. Nor can you count on a vice-presidential choice to deliver votes. For example, John Edwards did not deliver his home state of North Carolina in 2004. The decision will matter because of what it will tell us about the person making the decision, not about the person chosen. When Jimmy Carter chose Walter Mondale, he was trying to balance his outsider status with a consummate insider. When Ronald Reagan chose George H. W. Bush, he was trying to unite the party and soften his image. When Bill Clinton chose Al Gore – undoubtedly the most significant choice in recent years and a model for Obama to follow – he chose someone very like himself, someone who would serve to reinforce the image of himself Clinton wanted to project: centrist, southern, New Democrat. Gore also delivered some foreign policy chops to the ticket. There are two reasons why Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton. One was on display Tuesday night when Clinton’s defiant "victory speech" was so thoroughly self-centered and inalert to the history of the moment, CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin characterized her performance as one of "deranged narcissism." Clinton’s politics, her appeal to women and white, working class Catholics, might commend her for the post, but with her politics comes her very complicated psychological baggage. And, that of her husband. Is the White House big enough for three people who think they should be president? Would there be a constant dance around the slights, perceived and real, that attend a relationship in which one person’s role is entirely defined by the more powerful partner? Whether or not it would help Obama win in November, picking Clinton would make governing a nightmare. Which means picking her now would undercut the essential premise of Obama’s candidacy: it is time to put good governance ahead of politics. The second reason not to select Clinton is that Obama, like all newcomers to the national stage, needs to appear strong, someone whom Americans can envision as the Commander-in-Chief. Some of Clinton’s supporters are mounting a campaign to force Obama to select her, but such a campaign will actually make it more difficult to put her on the ticket. Obama is still, for much of the country, an unknown quantity, and the last thing he needs is to have his principal spotlight moment highlight him caving to outside pressure. If Clinton’s backers really want her on the ticket, they should sit down and be quiet. Choosing Clinton would be off-message in other ways. Americans are clamoring for change and Obama has ridden that clamor to the nomination. 1976 was the last election in which no one named Bush or Clinton was on the national ticket. In the days and weeks ahead, Clinton will fade from the news: pollsters will stop asking questions about how she might fare against McCain, her press conferences and public appearances will not garner the attention they have previously, while Obama’s every movement will be scrutinized in detail. Voters want a fresh start. Democrats will unite once the dust settles. Obama needs to choose someone who will reinforce what he wants to tell the voters about how he plans to lead the nation as president in the years ahead, not look back to the bruising primary battle that he has finally won. Michael Sean Winters
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.


The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018