Biden As VP in 2012?
That is the question considered by Bill Keller in yesterday’s the NYT OpEd page.
Keller uses his real estate to make the case for ditching Joe Biden as VP and making Hillary Clinton President Obama’s running mate. It is an interesting argument, multiple versions of which has been bouncing around for more than a year. The gist:
I know the arguments against this scenario, and we’ll get to those. But the arguments in favor are as simple as one-two-three. One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016. If she sits out politics for the next four years, other Democrats (yes, Governor Cuomo, we see your hand up) will fill the void.
HRC has been spectacularly successful as Secretary of State — IMO, more successful than her two predecessors AND without the PR machines that her predecessors were boosted by. But her success is emblematic of the kinds of successes the Obama Administration has — when they don’t need Congress for much, they are competent and successful (the DOJ would be the exception here, I think). Certainly HRC would be a great VP — but given that the VP is largely the manager of Congressional interactions, it is hard to see what she would bring to that job that is different than Biden’s skills. And progressives who think that she would not do the kind of wheeling and dealing the Biden did — specifically accommodating to get a deal — are delusional. So while I get the electoral calculations of HRC on the ticket, I don’t see her as being any more effective — effective meaning achieving more progressive outcomes — than Biden was. Because getting more progressive outcomes is going to mean a more progressive Congress. Just because HRC shows up as the presiding officer of the Senate won’t mean that the Rs will stop obstructing everything coming down the pike.
Besides, I think changing horses now (notwithstanding the draft scenario Keller details) is a sign of weakness. Queuing up that change should have started this time last year for any credibility or success. HRC (especially given her work at State these past three years) would be a great VP candidate. But choosing her is certainly not about better governing.
What do you think? Should Obama replace Biden as is VP running mate now?
Tags: Vice President Joe Biden
Im a little shaky on my vice presidential history. has a president ever changed his VP and then been re-elected? I’m interested in what Biden has done other than keep that bucket of piss warm. He’s been close to invisible lately. I dunno, I always had hoped he would wind up sec of state.
For political purposes the move would help inspire the Democratic electorate. As far as governing, it’d be a demotion for HRC (though she would once again be the anointed nominee for President come 2016)
I’m not sure how I feel about Biden as Sec. Of State.
I think it is a good move that will not happen. There is precedent. Franklin Roosevelt had three VPs. John Nance Garner of Texas, Henry Agard Wallace from Iowa, and Harry Truman from some state.
BTW, I once thought H. Clinton would be too polarizing, but the Republicans have shown that they will be polarized no matter what.
Dang, Jason just beat me on the FDR stuff.
Ford tried to do something similar. Nelson Rockefeller was appointed his VP after Ford became president. But for the ’76 elections, Ford went with Bob Dole as his running mate.
As for VP history, FDR ran with 3 different VPs.
Jackson, Lincoln and Grant also changed VP’s.
I don’t think this is a winning strategy because (1) Biden and Obama work well together – better than most executive tandems; (2) Biden is a hell of a campaigner; and (3) if Hillary wants to become president, the path will be clearer if she runs as a non-VP, whether or not the second term is regarded as successful. Hubert and Gore were disadvantaged in the general by being VP’s. HRC will get the nomination if she wants it, whether or not she drives license tag 2.
Great points.
Nothing would say to the plutocracy, ‘You have nothing to fear from us’ more than putting Hillary on the ticket.
The Clintons made that pact between the D’s and the devil. While Biden isn’t exactly Elizabeth Warren, at least the symbolism isn’t there like it would be with HRC.
Bygones. Being angry at Democrats for the pact with the devil Wall is like begin angry at the Whigs for embracing Henry Clay’s “American System.”
If by Biden you mean Joe Biden, the scrappy blue-collar guy from
ScrantonDelaware, who fights for the little guy, puts more cops on the street, and defends women from violence, then by all means keep him on the ticket.But if by Biden you mean Joe Biden, the “Senator from MBNA,” the sponsor of the bill that repealed consumer bankruptcy protections that helped launch and deepen the recession; the Old Man Of The Senate who helped assure the tax cuts for the rich would be extended, and that there would be no public option, then bring on Hillary. Or somebody from the Democratic wing.
If Obama does run with a new VP, it is scary how many conservadems there are that he might pick. I’ll take Hillary, thankyouverymuch.
Jettison the bum! And Truman was from Missouri, I believe.
FDR is an outlier. Obama is no FDR.
Biden is not the problem. Biden has been out of the spotlight for most non politcal types for the last year. (Meaning gaffe free)
I, for one, would like to see Obama do something FDR-ish like tax reform perhaps. Totally renovating the tax code would be a game changer for this country. Closing loopholes and deductions and simplifying tax code as a whole could be a catalyst to get the economy back to firing on all cylinders. It would also be a populist message that would play well with everyone and put the Rs on the the defensive.
But that would mean Obama would have to stake out territory and stick to it and we all know that isnt going to happen.
HRC is doing a great job as Sec. of State and is probably enjoying all of the authority without having to deal with R’s in congress.
blah, blah, blah… Oh, why not put in Buddy Roemer? Why not put in Bill Bradley: Why not put in Al Gore? Why not put in Charles Schumer? Why not put in Barney Frank? Why not put in Beau Biden?
This is just a media distraction whose intent is to distract, water down, distort, and move conversation away from where it needs to go…
Where everyones focus needs to go: is that Republican policies do not work and never had and never will and that the only way this nation will get out of the doldrums the Republicans put us into, is to get rid of all Republicans….
That is the message that needs to get out and get hammered over and over and over until the least knowledgeable American understands it…
Any thing else is treasonable because it takes away the focus from the greatest affliction America has ever had… The Republican Party of the United States of American.
The only good things republicans have going for them it that they are good in bed.
You mean Biden the Clown who supported the Iraq war and recently said that “The Taliban, per se, is not our enemy?”
His foreign policy creds are creations of a fawning media.
“Totally renovating the tax code would be a game changer for this country. Closing loopholes and deductions and simplifying tax code…”
The tax reform we need is to finally let the damned Bush tax cuts expire. Simple enough?
Want something simpler? Raise the wage base for Social Security tax.
Please don’t lend support to the crazy “tax reform” idea out there that closing a few loopholes will justify another round of massive tax cuts for the rich. Which is a Democratic idea, by the way.
“The only good things republicans have going for them it that they are good in bed.”
Once again, kavips does the research so we don’t have to. He just keeps giving and giving…
Kavips is right, and it needs repeating. The greatest affliction America has ever had is the The Republican Party of the United States of American.
No one seems to recall that Hillary has said outright that after Obama’s first term is over, she is retiring from government and will put her energies into some of Bill’s endeavors and to her extending family. I happen to take her at her word!
And yes, kavips is definitely correct.