"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Friday, September 23, 2005

A Running Mate for Hillary

Back in town just in time to hear the ineffable Diane Feinstein do her finest Barbara Boxer imitation, complaining that Judge Roberts failed to pass the Oprah test, to wit, an explanation of his legal doctrine from the perspective of a father, husband, and son and/or eternal victim. Or something. Can she possibly be that dumb? Yes, she faces a reelection campaign next year, but she's effectively a shoo-in, given how very weak the Republican bench is in California, and given the kid gloves with which the media treat her. So what gives? Maybe she really is that dumb, which would explain a lot.

Anyway, this got me to thinking a bit about females in politics and the fair Hillary in particular. Hillary announced that she would vote against Roberts; obviously her vote in favor of the Iraq military campaign has created some nervousness with respect to the leftist base of the Party. So we can expect Hillary to do whatever is needed to keep the base of the Party---the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, the government unions, the abortion crowd, the protectionists, ad nauseam---happy. So I still believe that in the end she will be the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency in '08.

Let's assume for discussion purposes that I'm correct. Whom will she pick as her running mate? It is clear to me that she could not pick another female. But what man with political aspirations would want to be her running mate? Number twos are just that: second fiddles, and the enormous difficulty faced by VPs and former VPs in terms of getting elected to the Presidency is evidence of that. In other words, it seems to me that any man running with her is going to be---please forgive the crude verbiage---castrated politically. So she might have to opt for some elder statesman. I have no idea whom that might be. But it's going to take some fast talking to convince me that being her running mate, even under the assumption that she wins the election, would be a political winner. And then there is the geographic balance problem, her obvious problems in the south, etc. Sure, she'll find someone. But I wonder if, a la George McGovern and Sargent Shriver in 1972, it will number 23 on her list.

6 comments:

Hunter Baker said...

She'll have to go young, I think. LBJ was more experienced and prominent than JFK and he suffered terribly as the VP. The lesson has been learned. She'll pick up some young white male for the job. The ideal person would be Hispanic Bill Richardson (Gov. New Mexico), but he would never do it. He's got his own aspirations for the big job.

Tom Van Dyke said...

A fine post, Dr. Z.

I was active in California politics briefly as the president of the Pasadena Young Republicans.

We suck here. We deserve to lose every election. Between the nauseating country-club set and the religious maniacs, the Gingrich Revolution never got here.

Our bench isn't thin, it has no legs atall atall. Totally mysterious that Diane Feinstein, one of the few Democrats that I have spoken well of, is even remotely fearful of the GOP.

A primary challenge from the left must be her only consideration.


As for Hillary's running mate---Barack Obama is too green.

Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), also black and who even voted for Dubya's tax cuts, is a reasonable man and an even more reasonable choice.

Whites will be impressed by his temperance; blacks will go to the mat for him.

Hillary and Harold are demographically undefeatable unless the GOP actually rousts up some talent. That would mean stooping to McCain or Guiliani, and it might take both.

I'm unaware of any inspiring conservative out there, and absent a crap opponent like Gore or Kerry, the GOP won't be able to muddle through again with a Dubya-type like George Allen.

(Hunter---I think if you judge Bill Richardson's opportunism on the immigration issue, this dude will do anything. A safer and more accomplished choice as Hillary's beard.)

Hunter Baker said...

I think our big mistake has been to believe W. was Ronald Reagan without the elegance of speech. We were wrong. He's significantly less than that. It's still much better than the alternative, but basically another safe GOP establishment choice.

mindflame said...

I wish they would forget about Hillary all together. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN)is a Democrat I can deal with. It would be shocking if Hillary won regardless of her VP, she has so many enemies and is making such an open appeal for more federal power, she will I belive get out the vote, the Republican vote that is.

James Elliott said...

Feinstein is indeed shoring herself up against a challenger from the left, not the right. Her post-9/11 politicking has much enraged the likes of her hometown, San Francisco. We'd gladly vote in a legitimate and inspirng challenger. My guess, however, is that this is her last race, and that we'll be seeing a Senator Gavin Newsom as her handpicked replacement.

Which would be AWESOME, by the way.

connie deady said...

[i]So we can expect Hillary to do whatever is needed to keep the base of the Party---the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, the government unions, the abortion crowd, the protectionists, ad nauseam---happy. So I still believe that in the end she will be the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency in '08.[/i]
Personally I think the Republicans are more fascinated with Hillary than the Democrats. I'm praying for a governor to come out of nowhere like Bill Ricardson. I gladly plead guilty to the abortion crowd and the trial lawyers, but what are the protectionists - you mean free trade issues?

[i]We suck here. We deserve to lose every election. Between the nauseating country-club set and the religious maniacs, the Gingrich Revolution never got here.[/i]

Well geez, if you guys had sucked in 1982, I'd still be there in California, but for some reason I didn't think Duke would give me a job.

How about them Phillies. :)