5/21/16
Yours truly was tempted to start this post with “Now that
the nominees of the two major parties have been decided….” However, given the near other-worldliness of
this election season, perhaps it is unsafe to assume that GOP and the Democrats have
decided on their standard-bearers.
Given what has transgressed so far in this campaign, anything can
happen. While it is a reasonable, and only
a reasonable, certainty that Donald Trump
will bear the Republican standard, one suspects that there might be more, but
still not much, suspense of the Democratic side. That is grist for another mill.
Whether or not the tops of the tickets have been decided,
the political punditocracy and other assorted political junkies have taken to
speculating regarding the second spots on the tickets. While
I find this largely a pointless exercise because the guesses are usually wrong
and really don’t matter anyway, we may, and only may, be running out of other
things to talk about until the conventions have been put to a merciful
end. So why not join in the fun?
Peggy Noonan,
who is among my favorite and most respected columnists, put forth the case in
this morning’s Wall Street Journal (“Clinton-Sander: Maybe That’s the Ticket, 5/21-5/22/16, page
A11) for Bernie Sanders to be the
man whose most important task over the next four years will be inquiring after
the president’s health. Ms. Noonan
cited party unity and nipping any efforts of the Trump camp to poach Sanders
supporters (an effort, by the way, which has great potential despite the
punditocracy’s out-of-hand dismissal.
The punditocracy has gotten everything else wrong this election season
(See NOBODY SAW THIS TRUMP THING COMING, RIGHT? WELL…SOMEBODY DID…, 5/4/16); why should
anyone be surprised that it is dropping the ball on this one as well?) as
reasons that it might make sense for Mrs. Clinton to choose Mr. Sanders as her
running mate. Ms. Noonan also cited
desperation on the part of Mrs. Clinton, which is perhaps the best of all
reasons she might ask Mr. Sanders to join her on what would be the oldest
ticket in American history.
Yours truly, however, has a better idea, and a more likely
outcome, for Mrs. Clinton’s veep deliberations. My advice, and prediction, or about as close
as I come to prediction, has its roots in a post from October of last year, WILL HILLARY BE WILD AND CRAZY…LIKE BILL ? In that post, I argued that Bill Clinton did something bold by
breaking all the rules regarding veep selection and choosing virtual carbon
copy Al Gore to join him on the 1992
Democratic ticket…and it worked. Might
Hillary, I asked, so something equally unconventional and select a woman
running mate, producing the first all-woman major party ticket in American
history? I’m more convinced that she
will do just that by selecting Senator Elizabeth
Warren as her running mate.
Why Elizabeth Warren?
·
Mr. Trump was clearly wrong when he stated that
the only thing that Mrs. Clinton has going for her is the “woman card” and that she wouldn’t even be considered for the Democratic
nomination if she were a man. Few
people have more impressive public sector resumes than Mrs. Clinton. But one would be a fool to deny that the “woman
card” is among the strongest cards in her hand. Why not strengthen that hand a bit by doubling
down?
·
Ms. Warren’s selection for the ticket will accomplish
the same things a Sander selection would accomplish: she’d keep the loon-toon (er, sorry, “progressive”)
wing of the party in the Democratic camp and would reinforce the fiction that
Mrs. Clinton is not one who plays footsy with Wall Street and other bogeymen of the left. A Warren selection, and especially an early
Warren selection, would thus much of the remaining air out of Mr. Sanders’
sails.
·
Ms. Warren, at 66, is two years younger than
Mrs. Clinton and eight years younger than Mr. Sanders. These aren’t big differences, and this
reason pales in comparison to the above two, but on what would increasingly
look like a geriatric ticket, a few years might help.
You were probably expecting me to cite as a fourth reason for
choosing Ms. Warren instead of Mr. Sanders the Clintons’ distaste for making
nice with people who have made their lives difficult by standing in the way of
their ambitions. While it is tempting
to make this argument, it is far too glib.
The Clintons may indeed be as ruthless as people make them out to be
and, beneath the smiles and the feigned graciousness, probably seethe at Mr.
Sanders for spoiling Mrs. Clinton’s
coronation. However, the same could
have been said regarding the Clintons’ feelings toward then Senator Barack Obama in 2008, but they managed
to forgive, but probably not forget, because there was something in it for them. With
the Clintons, ambition and self-interest trump all, even personal pique at
people who have interfered with their sense of manifest entitlement. This, by the way, describes all
politicians, but the Clintons practice their art with more aplomb than most
politicians. More properly, one of the Clintons practices his art
with more aplomb than most politicians.
So while I don’t like to make predictions, I will at least
say that it would make a lot more sense for Mrs. Clinton to select Ms. Warren,
rather than Mr. Sanders, as her running mate.
Mrs. Clinton gets at least a two-fer, and maybe a three- or a four-fer,
by doing so.
No comments:
Post a Comment