Interesting piece that looks at her possible picks.
"While the nomination fight is still fluid, Hillary Clinton is confident enough of victory that she has described a vision of a running mate and objectives for the search, according to campaign advisers and more than a dozen Democrats close to the campaign or the Clintons.
"She does not have a front-runner in mind, they said, but she is intrigued by several contenders and scenarios."
"Among the names under discussion by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and campaign advisers: Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, former governors from the key state of Virginia; Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who represents both a more liberal wing of the party and a swing state; former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a prominent African-American Democrat; and Thomas E. Perez, President Barack Obama’s labor secretary and a Hispanic civil rights lawyer."
"But Hillary Clinton is also open to a woman, campaign advisers said. One obvious possibility is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is hugely popular among progressive Democrats, though she has not been helpful to Clinton’s campaign, declining to endorse the former secretary of state."
"Still, Warren has not been ruled out, according to the campaign advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the confidential search process."
It seems to me that Warren is unlikely for a couple of reasons:
"Clinton has offered general guidance as her team begins the search: She cares less about ideological and personal compatibility than about picking a winner, someone who can dominate the vice-presidential debate and convince Americans that Clinton is their best choice."
"She also wants a partner who is unquestionably qualified for the presidency and would help create the strongest contrast with the Republican ticket, which could be dogged by questions about Donald Trump’s fitness for the presidency or Sen. Ted Cruz’s unbending conservatism, according to those interviewed. And she wants someone who could be an effective attack dog against either candidate."
Makes sense, though this might mitigate against Castro or Perez.
"Advisers to Clinton said she was in the unique position of having firsthand expertise at the vetting and selection process: She was deeply involved in Bill Clinton’s search in 1992 that resulted in the selection of Al Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, with whom she later clashed at times. She supported Bill Clinton putting another young Southern moderate on the ticket, which was seen as a bold choice at the time — and which her advisers point to as evidence that she may be unconventional if she is nominated."
"Her experience with Gore colors her perspective in two ways, according to Democrats who have spoken to her about the vice presidency."
"She knows that if she chooses a younger and ambitious vice president, she will have someone by her side who may be making calculations with an eye toward running for the presidency in 2024. The past two vice presidents, Joe Biden and Dick Cheney, were widely seen as devoted to their jobs; they appreciated and sought power, but given their ages, they were not determined to seek their bosses’ job in the future. Clinton, 68, likes that fact, Democrats say, and has to decide if she wants a rising star or a seasoned hand who is not interested in the presidency, like Bill Nelson, 73, a senator from another key state, Florida."
I have to say that of any of the names I've heard, Bill Nelson is the one name I don't like. He balances her out in no way, either ideologically, in terms of diversity, or even age as he's older than her.
My sense is that she needs someone considerably younger. To nominate a white male older than herself who doesn't exactly have the image of a progressive I think would be a mistake.
I agree she doesn't need to cater to the progressives but Bill Nelson is someone they'd absolutely hate. There's a big difference between catering and nominating someone they don't hate. What is Nelson most known for?
The Cornhusker Kickback in ACA.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82621-obama-healthcare-plan-nixes-ben-nelsons-cornhusker-kickback-deal
I didn't think there was anything wrong with what Nelson did-we've come to rue the elimination of all earmarks, etc, as it's just slowed down the wheels of governance to an absolute crawl.
Still, Hillary hardly needs a VP candidate for which her team will immediately have to start defending. You want someone to create positive buzz. I don't see how Nelson does that. She doesn't need him to win Florida.
As for experience, remember, she's in the opposite position of Obama in 2008 or George W. Bush in 2000. Both of them suffered from concerns that they were not up to the job, were not ready, didn't have the experience and gravitas. Both were relatively young and brand new to Washington.
They needed old hands to assure the public that they would be ready on day one. Hillary has the opposite problem: she is the old hand. So she could use someone who is an infusion of youth, etc.
"I'd give pretty heavy odds to Tim Kaine."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729
"Kaine is experienced but not old, in the party mainstream, speaks Spanish well, from a key state, & doesn't hand the GOP a Senate seat."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729
"While the nomination fight is still fluid, Hillary Clinton is confident enough of victory that she has described a vision of a running mate and objectives for the search, according to campaign advisers and more than a dozen Democrats close to the campaign or the Clintons.
"She does not have a front-runner in mind, they said, but she is intrigued by several contenders and scenarios."
"Among the names under discussion by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and campaign advisers: Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, former governors from the key state of Virginia; Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who represents both a more liberal wing of the party and a swing state; former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a prominent African-American Democrat; and Thomas E. Perez, President Barack Obama’s labor secretary and a Hispanic civil rights lawyer."
"But Hillary Clinton is also open to a woman, campaign advisers said. One obvious possibility is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is hugely popular among progressive Democrats, though she has not been helpful to Clinton’s campaign, declining to endorse the former secretary of state."
"Still, Warren has not been ruled out, according to the campaign advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the confidential search process."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/23/clinton/w7kU7j2HqgD6JTH2Abo9EL/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter
It seems to me that Warren is unlikely for a couple of reasons:
1. Hillary is saying publicly she's open to a woman and probably wants to at least be able to say she vetted a female candidate. But my guess is ultimately they'll decide she is making enough history herself to need an all female ticket. The idea is usually to balance out the ticket-though, to be sure, Al Gore, who's choice Hil had a lot to do with, was a kind of double down, another Southern moderate to go with Bill.
2. Warren is too ideological. In the VP you need someone who understands that they're public position now has to be the President's position. I just feel like Warren believes so strongly in her tough on Wall St. banks message, she'd have a hard time biting her tongue if there was something she disagreed with the Administration on.
As for Deval Patrick, the trouble with him is he was fairly cool to her throughout the primary. He didn't endorse her or really say much of anything particularly positive about her.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/deval-patrick-the-man-who-isnt-running-for-president#.ljKJ07OD1
Overall it seems to me she wants someone who checks at least one of these two boxes in terms of balancing out her ticket:
1. Ideally, she wants someone who adds to the diversity of the ticket. She is making history as the first female POTUS. Still as an older white person she would benefit from having a younger person of color to balance the ticket out. In this vein, Julian Castro and Thomas Perez are both excellent picks.
2. If she has a white male, then she wants to find someone who has a liberal reputation, someone liked by the progressives. Sherrod Brown or Timothy Kaine.
In addition, she wants someone younger, I strongly believe.
Hillary herself has these concerns:
"Clinton has offered general guidance as her team begins the search: She cares less about ideological and personal compatibility than about picking a winner, someone who can dominate the vice-presidential debate and convince Americans that Clinton is their best choice."
"She also wants a partner who is unquestionably qualified for the presidency and would help create the strongest contrast with the Republican ticket, which could be dogged by questions about Donald Trump’s fitness for the presidency or Sen. Ted Cruz’s unbending conservatism, according to those interviewed. And she wants someone who could be an effective attack dog against either candidate."
Makes sense, though this might mitigate against Castro or Perez.
"Advisers to Clinton said she was in the unique position of having firsthand expertise at the vetting and selection process: She was deeply involved in Bill Clinton’s search in 1992 that resulted in the selection of Al Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, with whom she later clashed at times. She supported Bill Clinton putting another young Southern moderate on the ticket, which was seen as a bold choice at the time — and which her advisers point to as evidence that she may be unconventional if she is nominated."
"Her experience with Gore colors her perspective in two ways, according to Democrats who have spoken to her about the vice presidency."
"She knows that if she chooses a younger and ambitious vice president, she will have someone by her side who may be making calculations with an eye toward running for the presidency in 2024. The past two vice presidents, Joe Biden and Dick Cheney, were widely seen as devoted to their jobs; they appreciated and sought power, but given their ages, they were not determined to seek their bosses’ job in the future. Clinton, 68, likes that fact, Democrats say, and has to decide if she wants a rising star or a seasoned hand who is not interested in the presidency, like Bill Nelson, 73, a senator from another key state, Florida."
I have to say that of any of the names I've heard, Bill Nelson is the one name I don't like. He balances her out in no way, either ideologically, in terms of diversity, or even age as he's older than her.
My sense is that she needs someone considerably younger. To nominate a white male older than herself who doesn't exactly have the image of a progressive I think would be a mistake.
I agree she doesn't need to cater to the progressives but Bill Nelson is someone they'd absolutely hate. There's a big difference between catering and nominating someone they don't hate. What is Nelson most known for?
The Cornhusker Kickback in ACA.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82621-obama-healthcare-plan-nixes-ben-nelsons-cornhusker-kickback-deal
I didn't think there was anything wrong with what Nelson did-we've come to rue the elimination of all earmarks, etc, as it's just slowed down the wheels of governance to an absolute crawl.
Still, Hillary hardly needs a VP candidate for which her team will immediately have to start defending. You want someone to create positive buzz. I don't see how Nelson does that. She doesn't need him to win Florida.
As for experience, remember, she's in the opposite position of Obama in 2008 or George W. Bush in 2000. Both of them suffered from concerns that they were not up to the job, were not ready, didn't have the experience and gravitas. Both were relatively young and brand new to Washington.
They needed old hands to assure the public that they would be ready on day one. Hillary has the opposite problem: she is the old hand. So she could use someone who is an infusion of youth, etc.
But I'm not sure how much a Julian Castro would be a good attack dog-he might be. I don't know enough about him to know if he will or not.
Yglesias makes a decent case for Tim Kaine.
"I'd give pretty heavy odds to Tim Kaine."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729
"Kaine is experienced but not old, in the party mainstream, speaks Spanish well, from a key state, & doesn't hand the GOP a Senate seat."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723879686774857729
All of this is true. I just wish Kaine were Hispanic, to be honest. If he were, he'd literally be the perfect candidate, as I believe he has a decent reputation as a liberal. At least he speaks Spanish...
P.S. This Daily KOS piece from a year ago talked up Kaine. Though it said he is seen by some as dull and uninspiring and not a good attack dog.
P.S. This Daily KOS piece from a year ago talked up Kaine. Though it said he is seen by some as dull and uninspiring and not a good attack dog.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/11/1377100/-Tim-Kaine-for-veep-in-2016-A-safe-choice-The-safest-choice
If that's the case, then why not go with Julian Castro or Thomas Perez?
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723880029231439872
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/723880029231439872
No comments:
Post a Comment