Krugman: Obama should ask Hillary to become VP

Krugman today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26krugman.html):

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.

This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

It wasn’t the best example to use, but it’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future.

But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency.

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks.

So what comes next?

Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.

But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.

One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight.

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

After thsi primary season, I'll never trust another word the man types.

Whether the notion of Clinton as Obama's veep is a good idea or not, you're not going to win much credibility attacking Krugman (at least outside of GDP, that is).

He became a Hillary shill and a hack this primary season.

If Krugman says it, I question its validity.

He's a hack.

IMO he's not a progressive at all. He's a whore. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Democrats need his voice, he shouldn't have been so outwardly partisan. He may have lost his ability to be a honest voice in the future. too bad, I had liked him.

because (as is often TRUE) Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his policy proposals.

Seems to me that he actually preferred Edwards throughout the year, but his position on Obama hasn't changed very much- and depending on what happens in November, he'll either be proven wrong- or vindicated.

We shall see.

PLENTY of folk will be dissatisfied, even in the world beyond GD:P

I agree that a columnist can go off on an issue and get wrapped up on it and lose perspective. Chomsky is great, and is a lot better even at his worst (claiming the US won the Vietnam War, his insistence re: Pol Pot, 9/11, etc) than Krugman is on HRC and Obama, but everyone has their off days, or topics.

I do disagree, however, with this campaign assessment.

Give him credit where it is earned. On economic issues he is consistently right. And then he turns to another subject and is correct again.

Krugman never goes out on a limb without doing his homework. In this case, a campaign stance is hardly either statistics or calculus.

I'll never trust a word he writes.

I just recall some old adage about throwing babies out with bathwater.

There are good, kind, smart, and true Democratic politicians who realize there is a potential benefit here that simply cannot be overlooked.

One hopes Obama, still a novice in politics in my opinion, will make a good choice -- and until he does, everyone's opinion is acceptable.

The fierce and derogatory language is inappropriate and just diminishes us as the electorate.

Cordially,

Radio Lady Ellen

He's also an economist, not a political strategist, so he's advice on what Obama should do with the ticket is worth about as much as mine is (and I say that Clinton would hurt more than help -- for every Clinton supporting activist who wouldn't vote for a Clintonless ticket, there is an anti-war activist who won't vote for a ticket with her on it, PLUS a potential Bob Barr voter who will vote for McCain).

because they feel he sees the voids in his own experience and knows that knitting up the party will be for the good of us all? Ask yourself how much you hated Hillary Clinton in the period 1992 to 2007. I trust many of you had quite a positive impression of her. I did. The woman has come through fire and is still standing. That's a good trait to have in a Vice President.

Cordially,

Radio Lady

PS. I am not a shill and am speaking solely for myself. Save me your indignation about my reasoning, mental condition, age, race, and gender or position in society.

get a little perspective.

for him to make the offer and it would be equally good form (as well as right) for her to decline the offer.

I doubt she is willing to be the woman who took a back seat to a man after the campaign she has run with all it's "sexist" overtones so I fully expect she would save face by declining.

olive branch offered at this point (even if only as a token) could do more damage than has already been done.

The resentful few in the Clinton camp may never come around but most voters are not so entrenched that a simple gesture would do harm to the Democrats in the GE.

Frankly, I can argue both ways -- she might take it, on the other hand, she might decline. But that's what I've been taught to do in debating. I've been heavily involved in debate since high school and college -- and then spent years as a radio talk show host, working for CBS and independent "fair and balanced" stations -- with program managers who insisted that their "talkmasters" play devil's advocate. You had to be facile enough to argue any or all positions.

Same hot topics now:

Politics
Religion
Sex
Capital punishment
Gun control
Bussing to achieve racial balance (a big issue in Boston)

However, we've advanced a lot now that debate is on the Internet.

For example, what if I recommended going out to the local Olive Garden for dinner?

('Nuf said!)

Obama would never be able to trust Hillary.

Reliable Clinton house organ that he is.

and we can get the Nightmare ticket speculation behind us.

Mr. Krugman, consider writing a children's book. Fantasy suits you well.

Krugman is funny

Put on the ticket the one candidate who most undermines Obama's message of change and the one candidate who singlehandedly will bring out 5,000,000 additional votes for the GOP.

Yeah, that's some brilliant thinking.

I understand that politics is not your forte, you being an economics professor and everything. So let me give you some Econ 101 to put in your smoking pipe. There are nearly 2,000,000 donors to the Obama campaign. We have the ability to deliver $500,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 to fund Obama's victory and victories up and down the ticket in 50 states. Now listen real close Paul. MOST OF US WON'T DONATE ANOTHER NICKEL IF THAT WOMAN IS ON THE TICKET.

He is using a very subtle straw man. He claims that Obama supporters are claiming "that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future." That is not what caused the outrage. The outrage was that she used the possibility as an excuse to stay in the race. As Rachel Maddow said, it was ghoulish. What makes it worse is that the tone of her campaign seems to be encouraging someone to take action against Obama. Her campaign has blamed every mistake, and the ensuing coverage, somehow on Obama and his campaign, even though he has gone out of his way to be especially courteous to her.

Why would Obama want the Clintons anywhere near him?

Why bother? You have nothing to learn from anybody.

Check back in with yourself in 30 years or so.

Actually I can sort of live with that choice, but she keeps giving me reasons to change my mind.

This is one of the more tragic falls of the campaign.

Still calling the assassination moment "maufactured," Krugman? Which cabinet post did Hillary promise you to buy your soul?

And will you be able to leave before she sucks it up with hers?

Hillary is a DLC Trojan Horse.

that Obama won't be taking any advice from a columnist. For anyone to suggest that Obama should include on his ticket a sociopath who repeatedly talks of his death is beyond absurd. Hillary would not help Obama's ticket, she would hurt it. Her negatives are sky high -- and rising, alot of Dems can no longer stomach either her or Bill, their selfish, sociopathic needs serve only themselves, and she would energize the Republican base into voting for a McCain, who they don't even like.

I'm actually a little glad that Billary's Rovian tactics and break from reality have destroyed her chances as VP. This is the silver lining of this Clinton-induced nightmare.

And Krugman should have learned by now how much his opinions in this campaign have hurt his reputation.

pure politics? :shrug:

He loves Hillary's 3 day old dirty drawers. Poor Thang.

She's toxic.

political strategy.

Obama may be a nice guy, but he's not an idiot.

Krugman must be out of his mind--or participating in Hillary's assassination strategy--to say that Obama should bring her on as VP.

he's still hoping that if Hill is the VP nominee he can get it. It ain't happening for either one of them though.

The Clintons are over. We've moved on. I'll be wildly disappointed if Obama kisses her ass on this one.

What do the Clintons have to hide?

Obama can pick his own VP, thanks.

factor to further galvanize the RW against the Dem ticket. Brilliant.

So Obama wouldn't have to just fend off attacks on himself, but also defend the Clintons...their business dealings before and after the WH, the multimillion donations to foundation/library from places like Dubai with their own dubious associations, oh that sort of thing. Not to mention the old RW conspiracy stuff and Lord forbid any more information, real and/or imagined, about the adventures of Bill's zipper. (Hillary has promised us that there are no surpises that can be found in their post WH lives. But years ago she had also had publically proclaimed there was nothing to Bill's relationship with Monica, he was just counseling her. That worked out well, didn't it?)

Oh and of course Bill could be trusted to dim his light and not go off the reservation in any public comments that might cause the Obama campaign concern, since Bill's done such a disciplined job on the stump for Hillary. As a fomer President, he'll just naturally subjugate himself to Barack and his agenda.

Yeah, that would be a dream ticket.....for the Republicans.

and he doesn't seem to realize it.

that's why its frustrating to watch Obama and his supporters on their collision course with destiny.

the idea is to strenghten the ticket - picking Hillary would actually weaken it and please nobody.

Obama won the nomination. He should be able to pick who he wants and who he feels HE can trust.

Now it just infuriates me. Go piss up a rope, Paul, and take the sniper fire-ducking bitch and her fake tears with you.

Bill would be seen suddenly spending a lot of time at the shooting range.