After Hillary Clinton’s terrific speech in DC yesterday, in which she suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama, it may be a while until speculation about her joining the Democratic ticket dies down. But in the meantime, Kevin raises a point that I’ve been mulling over.
[W]hat makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama’s VP? I just don’t see it. On a social level, it’s hard to picture someone of Hillary’s age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don’t seem to like each other much.
Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she’d be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama’s shadow.
I think that’s right, for the right reasons, but I’d add just one thing: when the President doesn’t especially care for the Vice President, the VP job can be pretty miserable.
Over the last 16 years, we’ve come to think of the Vice Presidency as being a great gig. The VP has power and influence, a key seat at the decision-making table, and is something akin to a presidential partner. Forget John Nance Garner and that “warm bucket of spit” stuff, being the #2 person in the executive branch is pretty sweet.
But it didn’t use to be, and it doesn’t have to be.
Put it this way: the VP has as much influence as the President decides to give him or her. If the President wants the Vice President to spend four (or eight) years going to ribbon-cutting ceremonies, then it’s an boring, mundane job. If the President wants to make the Vice President something of a co-chief executive (cough, cough, Cheney, cough), then it’s a great job.
And now apply this to Obama and Clinton. I think Kevin’s right about the nature of their relationship. I don’t know either of them personally, but my sense is they’re cordial towards one another, but have spent the last year and a half as fairly bitter rivals. Forget warmth and geniality, these two probably don’t necessarily trust one another a whole lot.
Now, I know what many of you are thinking: but JFK didn’t like Johnson! And Reagan didn’t like H.W. Bush! That’s true, and they made successful tickets anyway.
But what these responses miss is that Kennedy didn’t give Johnson anything good to do. And Reagan treated H.W. Bush like “the help.” No real power, no real influence, no policy initiatives to speak of. Just wait in the corner. Don’t call me, I’ll call you. You get to be heir apparent, but not until I’m ready.
If the President doesn’t like the Vice President, the Vice Presidency is hardly worth having. On the other hand, Clinton is a very successful senator, with influence and the respect of her colleagues. It’s easy to imagine Clinton taking the lead in the chamber, partnering with an Obama administration on major policies, most notably on healthcare. My sense of Clinton personally is that she actually enjoys the work — showing leadership in hearings, introducing legislation, working out compromises, etc. She is, in other words, an excellent legislator.
So why get stuck in the Naval Observatory without much to do?