Okay, so Hillary Clinton thinks the election outcome will be determined by whether or not her running mate has a national security background, because Donald Trump has pronounced this a law-and-order election. Seriously.
Facing a fall contest against a Republican opponent focused on law and order, Hillary Clinton has narrowed her search for a vice-presidential candidate, telling several potential running mates that she needs a No. 2 who would bring national security experience to the Democratic ticket.
Mrs. Clinton’s shortlist includes James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander of NATO, and Senator Tim Kaine, a former Virginia governor who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She is widely expected to present her choice at a rally in Miami on Saturday, according to people involved
— Hillary Clinton Is Said to Seek National Security Experience for Vice Presidential Pick, Amy Chozick, New York Times, today
Oh. Brother.
This, folks, is what’s wrong with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee for president. I ask you folks: How many of you think the folks who’ve been downsized from, say, their well-paying blue-collar jobs in the Rust Belt will determine their vote based on whether or not Clinton’s running mate has national security experience, because Donald Trump has pronounced this a law-and-order election?
Seriously. Vote on this in the Comments thread.
Setting aside for moment that her supposed big selling point is the breadth of her government experience, and particularly her national security, and that most people don’t recognize that presidents normally have several national security advisors and that all that’s really necessary is that the president have a, y’know, brain and a semblance of mental stability, the fact that Clinton is so, so easily spooked into triangulation-and-toughness mode is genuinely scary.
So I’ll repeat here what I wrote yesterday:
One of my pet peeves about Hillary Clinton is how mindless—how autopilot-y—her political instincts are. I wrote recently, and had written earlier, about her factually off attempt last summer to pander to current and aspiring small-business owners by promising that she could have the federal government streamline the time it takes to start a business and cut down on regulations on small businesses. The federal government plays virtually no role in the regulation of small businesses—local and state governments regulate most small businesses—and the role that government at any level plays in business startup time is a matter of about a week for most businesses.
But hiding in plain sight were things she could have mentioned about the role that the federal government could play in things of critical importance to small business owners of various types. And some things that, thanks to Dems, it already does. Specific regulation of the financial services industry, for example—such as the Durbin Amendment, a form of antitrust regulation of Visa and Mastercard concerning business fees for credit and ATM card transactions, enacted by the Dem.-controlled Congress in 2009—has mattered a lot, and should be strengthened. And other antitrust enforcement and proposed legislation, such as to decrease the market chokehold of the major transportation companies and Big Ag, would make a significant difference to small-business owners, including farmers.
Elizabeth Warren talked about this in a highly publicized speech a couple of weeks ago. And Bernie Sanders discussed it often on the campaign trail, including, in Iowa, proposals for antitrust legislation to limit the market power of Big Ag.
Clinton reflexively equates the possibility of Dems attracting white rural and small town residents with triangulation. I myself have long believed that standard-issue triangulation is not the ticket to winning some support in rural and small town areas, but that specific sophisticated policy discussions about nonconventional issues—such as about antitrust regulation—is. Ditto for small-business owners and aspirants.
The rap on Vilsack apparently is that he’s boring. And that he wouldn’t make a good attack dog against Trump.
I don’t think Clinton needs an attack dog, in the conventional sense, as her running mate. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both get extensive media coverage for what they say, and people really listen to and care about their speeches. They’ll play a tremendous dual role in educating the public about the Dem platform—and the Repub one. And Warren can skewer Trump like she was born to do it.
My own choice for VP nominee is Sherrod Brown, whom I’ve been a huge fan of since he appeared on my radar screen during his 2006 Senate campaign; he and Dick Durbin are my favorite senators. Brown would make a wonderful candidate, and would appeal to rural and small town voters precisely because he’s a liberal—in ways that would matter to them. But I share the hesitation about him that Clinton and other Dems have: his seat would be turned over to a Kasich appointee for a while.
And I think his teaming up with Sanders, Warren, Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Baldwin and Jack Reed in a Dem-controlled Senate, along with a couple of new true progressives, would prove historic. Which is what I think Clinton should campaign on.
And, innocently, I added:
As for progressive NeverHillary holdouts, I think they should understand the possibilities that would come from that. And, conversely, from this.
Then I added this:
That crazy thing, though, may not be enough to determine the outcome of this presidential election, after all. And it’s not because, see, Donald Trump has declared this a law-and-order election.
Just when I thought we’d gotten lucky, in that someone within her trust-and-personal-comfort realm who is among her finalists actually could make a difference in the campaign, for the right (no, not that way) reasons, and would make a good president should that situation arise, she reverts to form.
Toughness-and-triangulation forever!
Whatever. …
Clinton will have my vote. But I recognize now my naiveté in expecting her to run a rational, spooked-free campaign. It’s not what she does, because it’s not who she is; whoever she is, it’s not that.
Will this ever stop?
Straw men do not become you, Bev.
From the Times story:
“When asked Monday night about her vice-presidential search, Mrs. Clinton told Charlie Rose of PBS that she was “afflicted with the responsibility gene” and would base her decision on the practical matter of who is best prepared.
“There is nothing more important than my rock-solid conviction that the person I choose could literally get up one day and be the president of the United States,” Mrs. Clinton said.”
Exactly how does Clinton wanting such experience result from Trump’s law and order thing?
Exactly how does Clinton wanting such experience result from Trump’s law and order thing? Exactly this:
“Facing a fall contest against a Republican opponent focused on law and order, Hillary Clinton has narrowed her search for a vice-presidential candidate, telling several potential running mates that she needs a No. 2 who would bring national security experience to the Democratic ticket.”
Chozick was reporting on inside info from Clinton’s campaign.
I AM sort of wondering, though, in light of that comment to Chalrie Rose what, exactly, Clinton thinks James G. Stavridis’s preparation to handle, say, an economic crisis is. Any thoughts?
“Facing a fall contest against a Republican opponent focused on law and order”.
I am gonna need you to show me that this part came directly from the Clinton campaign. I see no reason in the world why such a thing would be said to anyone in the press.
Personally, I could care less who the VP is. The job only has one real purpose. Everything else is just fluff.
Now, if you can benefit in the election from a VP selection that also helps. But at the risk of losing a Senator, particularly a progressive Senator, it sure ain’t worth it, at least not to me.
” … telling several potential running mates that she needs a No. 2 who would bring national security experience to the Democratic ticket.”
So Clinton believes that most people–or at least enough people to possibly change the election outcome–are not like you, in that they do care who the VP is. And she believes, against all actual probabilities, that a retired four star general might be just the ticket.
EM
“i could care less… the job only has one real purpose…”
yeah, i don’t care who might be the next president either.
god knows, we need someone tough on crime
but not bank crime.
And a retired four star general is perfect for that!
“how autopilot-y—her political instincts are….”
That’s because they aren’t her political instincts. It is the script. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the script is not working. But the ‘rub’ is going off script is not an option. The reality of the national security state and the myth of the American Dream are all there is.
Obey the law, work hard and your dreams will come true. Please clap.
I think her political instincts are, “It’s always, and forever will be, the 1980s-2005.” She can’t shake that for more than a day or two at a time, I guess.
“….Clinton thinks James G. Stavridis’s preparation to handle, say, an economic crisis is. Any thoughts?”
I thought Bill was going to run the economy? Problem solved. LOL.
“Clinton will have my vote. But I recognize now my naiveté in expecting her to run a rational, spooked-free campaign. It’s not what she does, because it’s not who she is; whoever she is, it’s not that.
“These. People. Are. Crazy.”
Maybe the real crazy people are the ones who will vote blindly for Hillary thinking she will revert to some type of progressive after the election. Yes, I’m talking about you, Bev.
I would vote for anyone against Donald Trump.
Apparently Trump’s view on the role of the VP is rather different.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-mike-pence_us_578fa289e4b0f180da63defd?section=
Yup. Definitely the candidate to vote for if you want change and don’t want the establishment pols and donors to continue to control things.
Here’s betting that Clinton won’t mention this.
Clinton isn’t a change candidate. Bashing Trump on failing to be interested in change really has no traction given his competition. His campaign is almost 100% cult of personality anyway.
In poll after poll, people choose Trump as the candidate more likely to be bring change. And in one after another man-on-the-street interview, some Trump supporters say they’re supporting him because he’s not establishment and because he doesn’t owe anyone anything–so he’ll bring change.
This is a very salient part of Trump’s support–not the most important, but possibly enough to make a difference in, say, Ohio.
re Question: How many of you think the folks who’ve been downsized from, say, their well-paying blue-collar jobs in the Rust Belt will determine their vote based on whether or not Clinton’s running mate has national security experience, because Donald Trump has pronounced this a law-and-order election?
Seriously. Vote on this in the Comments thread.
Answer: i’ve read that the primaty vote count for Trump in Youngstown OH was about twice the number of registered Republicans in the county
Yep. See my response to J.Goodwin, just above. (Or maybe just below; I’m confused.)
Just above. The thread runs backward in the Reply-to-Comments option we AB writers get to use so that we can respond directly underneath the comment we want to respond to.
Retired admiral? 4 stars and white shoes, in summer unless he was an Aerdaile inb white case brown shoes with kakhis. Ran NATO, a maritime guy running a land mass that goes to China.
Given all the success the US military has since 1945 US don’t need no more experienced losers.
Besides, Clinton has Robert Kagan and his wife since 1983.
How sad that voters wanting change don’t seem to think about what kind of change they want. “Anything’s better than this” is usually wrong.
Well, if she needs someone with National Security experience, she could pick John Kerry. He is the Secretary of State after all.
Oh, wait a minute….
Sorry but after Brussels, Orlando, Istanbul, Nice it isn’t a terrible idea to use the VP slot in a way that augments the sense that security is a top priority. Not winning is a disaster and more Americans are deeply upset over the growing sense of insecurity. ISIS has changed the page and Trump is only acknowledging it.
So let’s see.
So far Clinton has been trashed over her consideration of four different VP candidates(unless I miscounted).
Logic would say that such attacks should come after the candidate is announced, but this is not about logic anymore. This is about the simple truth that Clinton is not Sanders. So volume is more important than quality.
I am going to take my own poll in here:
How many times in your voting life has your vote been based on who the VP candidate is?
For me, that would be zero.
Actually, while it almost never matters, it very well could in this election. Trump’s son, according to a New York Magazine article that J.Goodwin flags above, tried to lure Kasich to agree to be Trump’s running mate by providing the bait that Trump’s VP would be the tacit president. And Trump’s selection of Pence clearly was intended to signal to the big donors that Trump fully intends to implement the standard fiscal and regulatory policies of the Club for Growth.
Somewhat similarly, Clinton’s choice of running mate will signal something important, one way or the other, to the Sanders/Warren-wing voters.
But here’s something else: I read a report yesterday—I can’t remember where, but it was from a mainstream media outlet—that Clinton insiders have used the news media as an important tool in their vetting process, and because of reports about two or three of the finalists, Clinton now has narrowed her list to Kaine or Vilsack. Tom Perez, for example, was one of the ones eliminated, because of something that I think is silly, something about his grandfather and Perez telling only part of the story.
But it’s also highly likely that social media and blogs have had a similar effect. In the comments thread to my angry post about Higgenlooper, someone who surely is from the Clinton campaign angrily said he’d read my post before I posted a muted update, and that the update was “too late” and that “the damage was done.”
But the real damage would have happened had Clinton actually chosen Hickenlooper, who’s synonymous in Colorado with ostentatious bipartisanship—i.e., sticking it to Dems. My post spawned a lengthy Reddit-Denver thread that was not flattering to Hickenlooper. His name hasn’t been mentioned since, and he’s apparently no longer in the running.
So here’ the thing: My post appears to have helped, not harmed, Clinton’s chances in the election. And it removed the possibility of a President Ostentatious Triangulator.
Ditto
C’mon, Bev.
Seriously?
You “removed the possibility of a President Ostentatious Triangulator”? (btw, that triangulation thing is silly).
With a reddit-Denver thread?
I cannot wait until December. Then we can go back to the constant attacks of the Green Lanterns that will make the Green Lanterns during the Obama admin look intelligent(and that’s hard to do).
I can see it now, “if Bernie was president…….(fill in the blank).
EMichael
back a comment or two you said “Logic would say…”
Logic has nothing to do with it. In a political “debate” one party is certainly going to raise questions arising out of nearly any issue that comes up. And certainly a presidential candidate’s choice of running mate “matters”, otherwise the politicians wouldn’t spend so much time trying to pick the person most helpful to the ticket…
Logic don’t mean what you think.
Cob,
My “logic” was that it makes no sense to criticize several VP nominees that are not nominees.
You vet these people mainly because you want no surprises, not so much because of making the ticket attract more voters. More voters are a bonus, but not the main reason for the vetting.
Eagleton comes to mind.
EM
no, “it makes no sense” is almost as bad as “logic would say..”
it makes perfect sense to talk about anything in politics that helps your message.
which is why you are arguing with Beverly about it.
me, i am just arguing about what the meaning of logic is.
Beverly Mann
July 20, 2016 3:58 pm
I would vote for anyone against Donald Trump.
Obviously.