WILL HILLARY BE WILD AND CRAZY…LIKE BILL?

10/16/15

Hillary Clinton has been a shoo-in for the 2016 Democratic nomination ever since, oh, about December, 2008.   There have been a few doubts, and legitimate doubts, expressed about her ability to wrest the nomination from, well, no one.  But even those of us who have urged caution in making predictions about such an outcome in 2016 have never seriously thought that she wouldn’t get the Dem nomination.  

There still remains the chance that something comes out of the e-mail investigations, the Benghazi caper, or perhaps some other tantalizing set of embarrassing circumstances into which Hillary has thrust herself that could derail her express train to (at least) November.   However, while one can never be sure, one suspects that anything that will come out has probably already come out.   And even if that is too sanguine a view of Hillary’s situation, Kevin McCarthy’s incredibly obtuse statements about the Benghazi committee provide the Clinton machine plenty of ammo to employ against anything that should arise between now and the convention…or the election.

A Joe Biden candidacy?   After last Tuesday’s debate, Mr. Biden has no reason to run.   He was there to pick up the pieces when Hillary fell apart.   Given the poise and near utter domination she showed in the debate (admittedly against a pack of lilliputians), Hillary isn’t going to fall apart, barring, again, the Republican witch hunt’s striking gold.   How can I call the Republican efforts a witch hunt?   Ask Kevin McCarthy.  But I digress.

So let’s assume that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.  And, truth be told, she should be; much like Richard Nixon in 1968, she is the obvious choice of her party.  No one in her party (or in the other party, for that matter) has her experience, background, or proven track record in “public service.”   Just as was the case with Mr. Nixon, if the American people were interviewing someone for this job, they would hire Hillary Rodham Clinton for the big job on Pennsylvania Avenue.  That didn’t turn out so well, but see my 9/8/15 piece, SOMETHING(S) ABOUT HILLARY.

The problem is that once we concede that the race for the Democratic nomination is over, there is nothing to discuss except….

Will Hillary Rodham Clinton do something wild and crazy…just like her husband Bill?  Before you answer that question, get your mind out of the gutter!   I am talking not about Bill’s excellent adventures on the quasi-amorous front; I am talking about the selection of a running mate.

When Bill Clinton got the Democratic nomination in 1992, he shocked the political world by selecting Al Gore as his running mate.  That was wild and crazy.   Why?

The conventional wisdom then, before then, and even now was and is that the vice-presidential nominee should balance the ticket.   If the nominee is a relative conservative, he should select a relative liberal as his running mate, or vice-versa.  (e.g., Carter/Mondale, GW Bush/Quayle)  If the nominee is a young man, he should select an older man with more experience as his running mate and vice-versa.  (e.g., Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush)  If the nominee is Southerner, he should pick a northerner as his running mate, and vice-versa (e.g., Johnson/Humphrey, Kennedy/Johnson).  

Then along came Bill Clinton, a young relatively conservative southerner who picked Al Gore a young, relatively conservative (at least at the time) southerner as his running mate.   Most political pros thought the selection of Al Gore for the second spot on the ’92 Democratic ticket was crazy.  Where, after all, was the balance in the ticket?  Like most political things Bill Clinton did, and does, though, the Gore selection turned out to be brilliant.   Gore reinforced the image of youth and new Democratic thinking that Mr. Clinton wanted to implant in the American voters’ minds.  That Messrs. Clinton and Gore were cut from the same political cloth turned out to be a big positive for the Democrats, and for Mr. Clinton, in 1992.

So what could Hillary do to match her husband’s reasoned audacity?   How about picking a woman as her running mate?   That would surely come out of left field and would, if one thinks about it, enhance the chances that we would be treated, or subjected, to a second Clinton presidency.

Is this a prediction?   Yours truly is too old and wise to be making predictions about elections and the direction of the stock market.   But I haven’t heard anyone mention a Democratic ticket with two women on it, so I wanted to be the first, as far as I know, to suggest the possibility.   And, given that one of Mrs. Clinton’s most frequently offered rationales for her presidency is that “It’s our turn,” this would be terrific reinforcer of that message.

Don’t ask for names; I don’t have any yet beyond the obvious Elizabeth Warren.   But there are plenty of Democratic women out there with the qualifications to be vice-president, or president, for that matter, especially given how low the bar has been set in this realm; look at the current occupant of the White House and his predecessor.

Hillary should do something bold and courageous, wild and unpredictable, and select a woman as her running mate.   Who that is would be relatively inconsequential next to the statement such a selection would make.