|
Clinton and Obama are both formidable candidates and excellent politicians, but I don't think they would compliment each other very well.
Obama as a VP would basically put him in a position to waste his talents for 4 or 8 years, and might sully his political future. Obama would have to toe the line to CLinton-ism, which is not his biggest strength. He would either end up having to aggressively defend triangulation and anything goes-style politics, or he would have to fight Clinton-ism from the inside and create more discord. IN either case, I think his political future is bright as he currently is, not as he would be as Clinton's scorched Earth hitman. He doesn't need the Clinton brand to succeed.
Ditto with Clinton. CLinton's biggest strength is her ability to dig in her heels, grit her teeth and fight on the Republican playing field. Obama would have a different approach as president, and Clinton's biggest strength would be completely wasted as VP. She would be expected to hold her fire while Obama tries to achieve consensus. She doesn't need the Obama brand to succeed (obviously, since she made it this far).
I think that the losing candidate would be better served to decline the VP spot (or any other spot in the administration for that matter) so they can stay in the Senate and directly represent their constituencies. I would expect the winner to offer the VP slot to the runner up, but I suspect that both campaigns have a similar view to mine. The VP offer will probably be for public consumption, but the campaigns probably scratched each other off the short list around the time Bill Clinton started talking shit in South Carolina. That, in my opinion, is the risk you run when you play scorched Earth political games in your own party. The dream ticket is a big winner this fall, but I don't see it happening.
Just my opinion, obviously, but I'd be open to consider arguments in favor of the dream ticket. Am I missing something?
|