Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Why Obama Should Pick Hillary

By Lanny Davis, Huffington Post. Posted August 19, 2008.


Poll results show that with Hillary on the ticket, Obama can't lose.
Advertisement

Picking a vice president is obviously Barack Obama's decision to make. He must be comfortable with who he picks. Comfort level between a president and vice president may be the most important factor of all.

So I can only offer my argument, based on some facts and subjective impressions, as to why I believe it would be in Sen. Obama's personal and political interest to select Hillary Rodham Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Not just to enhance his chances of winning -- but, more importantly, to help him be a more effective president.

Let's start with one undisputable fact: Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat who gives Sen. Obama a statistically significant boost in any national poll results.

This is not a criticism of other candidates. This is simply a fact -- a product of Sen. Clinton's nearly 18-month national campaign in all 50 states and the 18 million votes she won. The result was a dramatic increase in her favorable ratings across the spectrum, even among some of her most conservative critics.

In late June, polls conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC and Fox/Opinion Dynamics -- using entirely different samples -- both showed Sen. Clinton giving Sen. Obama a +3% bump, pushing him over 51% for the first time, when the two of them were paired against Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.

Most recently, in nationwide polling on July 22-23, a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll showed a more dramatic bump of +8% with Sen. Clinton as Sen. Obama's vice presidential running mate. In a head-on match, it was Sen. Obama 41% to Sen. McCain's 40% (this was before the intense media coverage of his European trip). But with exactly the same sample, when all voters were presented with the choice of an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. McCain-Romney, the results were Obama-Clinton, 48% (+7%), and McCain-Romney 39% (-1%).

Can Sen. Obama win without Sen. Clinton on the ticket? Yes he can. Majorities favor his views on most of the economic issues. And his European trip was virtually flawless, demonstrating that he can walk, talk and act like a president in foreign affairs and with foreign leaders.

However, with Sen. Clinton on the ticket, I do not believe Sen. Obama can lose. She adds important strength to Sen. Obama's in the key constituencies of women, blue-collar workers, and senior citizens. And, thus, she could tip the balance in such key border states as West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas (not apparently in play for Sen. Obama as of now) as well as in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.

So, considering this data, why not pick Sen. Clinton? Here are the three most repeated negatives that seem to concern sincere supporters of Sen. Obama the most:

*Sen. Clinton is polarizing and will rev up the Republican base.

In fact, the data proves the reverse is true: Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

According to the July 22-23 Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, in an Obama-McCain head-on match-up, Sen. Obama gets just 74% of the Democrats and 6% of the Republicans. With Sen. Clinton as his running mate vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, Sen. Obama's Democratic vote goes up to 86% -- a significant 12% increase. As for Republican voters, rather than getting "revved up" because of Hillary's presence on the ticket, there was no effect at all: The Obama-Clinton ticket gains 3% (from 6% to 9% among Republicans), whereas McCain-Romney gains the same 3% (from 82% to 85%).

So what about independents? An Obama-Clinton ticket appears to gain some strength in this critical swing-voter group. With an Obama-McCain head-on contest, independents are evenly divided, 32%-30%, with Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. But with an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, the independents favor Obama-Clinton 38%-30% -- a statistically significant 6% increase in a crucial voter group.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, hillary clinton, election 2008, vice-president

Lanny Davis is a Washington attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton (1996-98). He was an active supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential nominating contest.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
get stuffed Lanny
Posted by: goatini on Aug 19, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's over for Senator Clinton, O-V-E-R. no amount of your tired @ss flogging her tired @ss is going to work. Dems are sick of the DLC cronies, and the primary results proved it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong!
Posted by: RobNLA on Aug 19, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of Obama's core dislike Hillary and for good reason. She fought a really dirty campaign against a fellow Democrat. Even when she was losing she tried to offer the VP slot to Obama, what a nerve. Then after she loses her cronies try to strong arm Obama into offering her the VP slot right away.

And seriously, why would Obama want Hillary and Bill roaming around the White House undermining his authority?

Finally, Obama has much better choices out there for VP. For example, Biden has some solid foreign policy experience.

Hillary is really done. She'll be lucky to get reelected to the Senate after the damage she has done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Biden is more likely...
Posted by: ejohnson23 on Aug 19, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ObamaBiden08.org has been covering that team up since January 08. I feel like the Obama Biden team is in the cards for America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, Okay.
Posted by: grumble-bum on Aug 19, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, yeah. I guess I hadn't considered what Bill & Hillary Clinton were like to know personally. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us will never have the honor. Instead, we only see how they behave in public. & it's increasingly unattractive.

What a pathetic piece of writing.

Y'know, earlier this year, I seriously fell for a coworker. We flirted around & went out for a coffee date, at which time she revealed that, in fact, she didn't like me in quite the fashion I desired (or men in general, particularly). That really sucked. I was confused & disappointed.

I spent a very short period of time trying to gauge whether I should bother "convincing" her otherwise, & then got back to the work at hand; namely, just being myself, & attempting to maintain a comfortable coexistence at our mutual workplace.

In other words, I took it (in large part) "like a man", even though it wasn't what I wanted. Sometimes I didn't do this as well as I could have, but ultimately we parted on good terms.

I sure as hell didn't have my cronies write sniveling, groveling opinion pieces on my behalf, promising that if she just got to know me, I promised to be a good guy & her bestest friend. Really, really.

We already know the Clintons, "personally" be damned. We didn't like or trust what we knew, & we made our choices accordingly.

Get over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dream ticket
Posted by: sharonsherling on Aug 19, 2008 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has to pick Hillary to win. Every man knows they need a strong woman behind them to succeed. Obama picks his grandmother and wife. He's right but in isn't enough. Hillary was the power behind the Clinton presidency in a semi-official position. The time is right now for her more official position. Obama/Clinton would not only be an unbeatable force against McCain. They would be a powerful force for the world to negotiate with. Men around the world and throughout history know the power of women. How better to limit a woman's power then to keep her hair covered? We are all human. Evil exists in us all when we fail to listen to God/the Truth/our Superegos. Fear, arrogance, intimidation, these are all forms of evil. Who will Obama be listening to when he picks his running mate? He will need a strong woman to stand up with him when he is ultimately make decisions between good and evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dream ticket Posted by: djnoll
» RE: dream ticket Posted by: d_arnold
Lanny Davis schilling for Hilary: Big Surprise
Posted by: chomsky on Aug 19, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me you're overlooking just how many people she's alienated over the last 30 years. I know that I, for one, will vote write-in for another candidate if she's on the ticket, and I can safely say the vast majority of people I know feel the same. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, would make a fine choice for VP, as 1) he's proven himself efficient, well-reasoned, and knowledgeable, with vast foreign policy experience, and 2) adding him to the ticket would cinch the Latino vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For Lanny Davis
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 19, 2008 6:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throughout the Democratic primary both campaigns, Clinton’s and Obama’s, took turns firing shots at one another usually through surrogates or campaign “supporters.” One of Hillary Clinton’s more vicious weapons came in the form of longtime confidant, and Democratic insider, Lanny Davis. Davis never missed an opportunity to take a swipe at Obama, or the media for whom he claimed “were in the tank for Obama.”

Below is a video that Josh Marshall from TalkingPointsMemo.com put together. It basically highlights Lanny’s more “colorful moments” that took place during the North Carolina and Indiana Primary results roll out on CNN. The piece is appropriately titled, “Lanny’s pi√®ce de r√©sistance“:

linked text

Sore Loser Lanny was thought to be first choice as Hillary's VP. Explains why he's furious. They really thought Hillary was going to be the nominee, no question about it. They ran a terrible campaign and don't want to take responsibility. This is Lanny's latest tactic. If noting else he has moxie. I seriously doubt the accuracy of the polls he is presenting. It is somewhat bothersome because it is pretty certain The Clintons know about what he is doing and might even encourage him with a wink and a nod.

But, putting all that aside, which Hillary would run with Obama?

Crying Hillary

Black church lady Hillary

Angry in your face Hillary

Laughing bug-eyed Hillary

Denying Hillary.

Conciliatory Hillary

Stand by her Bubba Hillary

Sarcastic Hillary

Suffering feminist Hillary

It's my turn Hillary

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree.
Posted by: rickiey on Aug 19, 2008 9:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I'm the swing demographic. Ya know, the ones that vote their conscience, not any party. Which is why I'm an ardent Obama supporter. It's also why I'll vote McCain if Obama chooses Hillary as VP.

Let's start with one undisputable fact: Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat who gives Sen. Obama a statistically significant boost in any national poll results.

And lets start with another undisputable fact: Sen Clinton is the ONLY democrat who convinces otherwise "democrat or bust" voters to vote republican.

In fact, the data proves the reverse is true: Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

YOUR data disagrees. My data shows that 86% of the "other than lifelong democrat faithful" that support Obama will cross BACK over the aisle if he picks Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I disagree. Posted by: d_arnold
I am on the other side of the Atlantic ocean and have therefore a lesser right to call opinion on US
Posted by: Squarehead on Aug 20, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted earlier:

I know I am on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, and have therefore a lesser right to call opinion on US politics, but it seems to me that far and away the best Vice President that Barack Obama could choose is James Webb, Senator for Virginia.

He ticks the boxes that are McCain's (so- called) 'strengths' He has military service experience, (completely commendable), has governmental experience, would attract the military vote and not to put too fine a point on it, he is 'White'. The residual racism within US life has to be confronted. And it is probably not too 'residual'.


Can I say that I have ~ 40 years of experience in elections, (uaually on the left, sane, losing side, in a conflict of sectarian passions), and I know a good bet when I see it.

Hilary Clinton DOES NOT look good to me, in terms of attracting support. She polarises people; mostly unjustly, having been the focus for so many 'attack' ads, since 1996. She was an easy target for the Rovian shits. But unjust or not, that is the way it has panned out.

Meanwhile, Webb, has exactly the profile to defuse McCain. His military service was MORE admirable, no mud to throw there, his demoographic could hardly be more 'conservative, White', all in a good way. There has been a certain amount of comment on Obama not paying attention to the 'Irish' demographic. Again, Webb ticks that box; although his 'Irishness' is Ulster-Scot, that can do the job, nowadays.

I have seen other posters suggesting that he simply jumped into the Democratic party, opportunistically. I find that VERY far from the truth. I first noticed him about a year and a half before his election, wherein he was the no-hope contender aginst the sitting Republican. (The 'maccaca guy'. Such is the fleeting quality of fame; can't even remember his name. Great) He (Webb) ran a tough, long slog campaign, for apparently completely principled reasons, of opposition to the Iraq war and especially to this administration's running of it.

He has backbone. When the crap hits the fan, he is going to be useful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama/Clinton ticket doesn't make sense from a branding perspective
Posted by: elo8 on Aug 20, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polls may have shown that an Obama ticket has a much better edge over McCain when Clinton is on it-but the polls I have seen compare the Obama-Clinton ticket to a McCain-Romeny ticket...too many variables at play to be decisive..or even very elucidating.

Before these polls, however, back in May, Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor'), who has (a blog on branding) did a post arguing against the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket--positing that from a branding perspective, it makes no sense, and actually wouldn't be a good move for Clinton's brand, either.

"Because of the length of this primary fight, brand identity and loyalty to brand have become central. What this means is that a kind of brand mutual exclusivity has set in."

Not sure if I agree or if this idea still holds at this point, but it is a compelling argument - (and one that I at least think goes a long way toward explaining Obama's hesitation to choose Clinton as his running mate.)

Link to the full post

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TODAY ON THE 'NEWSVINE SITE'
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 20, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A letter to Caroline Kennedy from Michael Moore. I have no opinion here, but the letter is worth a read. Moore is a very impressive guy when he wants to be. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama and Hilary a must.
Posted by: Tony D on Aug 20, 2008 10:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without hilary as VP the Democrats are doomed to failure. The writing is on the wall. Believe it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Race Is Close
Posted by: Southern Gal on Aug 21, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several polls place Obama and McCain in a statistical dead heat. Obama supporters thought that this campaign would be a blow out for Obama. People who lambusted Hillary for her centrist positions are now excusing Obama for his about faces on FISA, free trade, public financing of campaigns and faith based initiatives, because they say he needs to go center to win. Hillary has strong support among older women, blue collar, working class and senior citizens. She got 18 million votes in the Democrat primary. She has been vetted and she can help Obama win this election. None of the candidates mentioned so far for Vice President carry the support that Hillary has already won. Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're using a poll by FOX?
Posted by: cjones21 on Aug 22, 2008 2:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. He uses a Fox (faux) poll as his first talking point

2. He doesn't speak to the lies and half-truths Hillary lowered herself to using against Obama during her campaign - at least that's when *I* lost all respect for her. Justify that?

3. This article was taken from the WSJ, which has been publishing Karl Rove pieces as anonymous op ed articles...people look for yourself, you'll notice that the most sinister, subtly negatively spun, anti-Obama op ed pieces have no author name.

'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Grand Illusion
Posted by: robert.noll on Aug 22, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is so cute that you still believe that the Dems and Reps are two different parties. They are the two halves of the Corporate Party. As they say at the track, if the mob owns all the horses it really doesn't matter who wins. According to Albert Einstein, who some consider to be pretty smart, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. If you really want to see change you need to quit supporting the illusion and vote independently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]