Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Dr. J.'s Commentary: Hillary for Veep

So a talented Obama staffer called Hillary Clinton a "monster" and off the campaign she went. The Clinton camp must have breathed a huge sigh of relief not to have to deal with the brilliance of Harvard Professor Samantha Power, an unpaid aide, any more. Well I guess it's a good thing I don't work for the Obama campaign -- for what I am about to say about Hillary in this Commentary would surely have me bumped as well. No, not monster, but Vice President. How could saying that get an Obama staffer bumped? Read on.

Clinton is clearly the Center-Rightist Democratic Leadership Council's candidate in this race. No surprise there. What is a surprise to me is that Barack Obama is not part of a DLC "entry" (that's Standard-Bred horseracing lingo for two horses from the same owner going in the same race and a bet on one means a bet on both). Back in December (The Political Junkies.net, Column No. 172, 12-5-07, "The Presidential Election, 2008: Democratic Considerations"), I thought they were. But no longer. Obama is clearly cut from a different cloth. In U.S. terms, he is clearly center-left. And that is why Clinton and the DLC are so determined to stop him. For he would end the domination of the Democratic Party by its right wing that began with the establishment of the DLC back in the 1980s, with Bill Clinton being a former DLC President.

Everyone knows that Hillary thought she would coast to the nomination. She then thought that somehow she even might be able to win the Presidency, even given her astronomical negatives. If she did, she would very likely continue the fairly cozy "when push comes to shove" relationship that the Democrats have had in all but rhetoric with the Republicans since she and her husband totally mismanaged the Clinton Health Plan launch (I saw the mismanagement from the inside on that one) and lost the Congress to the Republicans in 1994. Obama is a different story. He wants "to bring the country together," but not with pallid compromises. He would present policies as "we are all for this, aren't we? Makes sense doesn't it? How could anyone possibly be against it? Well gee, I guess that anyone who is against A, B, or C really doesn't have the interests of the vast majority of the American people at heart, now do they?" He knows who the enemy is. Very dangerous stuff. If Obama wins the Presidency, the DLC is dead.

So now it comes to pass that Clinton knows that she cannot win the Democratic nomination unless she can do two things. One is to manage to break the party rules, to which her campaign had agreed, and get the Florida and Michigan delegations seated. How about that? The biggest single evil of CheneyBush is that they have consistently refused to abide by the Rule of Law, whether in the Constitution or anywhere else. And Clinton wants to get the Democratic nomination by flouting the rule of law too. If she were to be able to do that, she would, of course, continue the tradition of flouting of the rule of law followed by every occupant of the Oval Office since Reagan (including her husband -- see the Balkans War) whose "distinguished" ranks she wishes to join. The other thing she would need to do is to keep a hold of enough superdelegates so that they could override the preferences of the majority of the voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The super-delegate system was originally set up following the insurgent nomination of George McGovern in 1972 to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. But she would need both. So what to do if she cannot manage them?

Well, what about the party realignment that folks have been taking about for quite some time? The mainstream Republicans, James Baker (representing a significant piece of the oil patch, among other sectors), George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, many Wall-Streeters, et al have much in common in terms of policy with the Clintonite/DLC center-right Democrats. George W. Bush has hardly performed like Baker thought he would when Baker managed to reduce the 2000 election margin to one vote. The Baker/HW Bush Republican wing would love to rid themselves of the Christian Right/Neocon alliance, lead by W ironically enough, which has brought them such pain.

If Jim Baker, a foe of the Christian Fundamentalists and now clearly an HW man, not a W man (see the Iraq Study Group Report), representing the solid Republican Power Elite, is really pulling the strings, a realignment could happen right before our eyes, with the very pliable Gentleman Johnny McCain as their candidate. Baker's thinking on many issues is very close to that of the DLC. He was even ahead of them on the necessity of getting out of Iraq.

Given her recent statements about McCain's great foreign policy leadership abilities (apparently those honed in his five years as a POW in Vietnam, for he has had none since), and running against Obama in tandem with McCain, one must ask, is Hillary Clinton now campaigning for Veep on the McCain ticket, a ticket which could win and could place her in the Oval Office in four years or less?

Yes indeed, that's the Vice-Presidential nomination for Hillary I am speculating about. And if I were an Obama staffer, I would surely have to get bounced for suggesting it out loud. Indeed, both the DLC and the mainstream Republican wing lead by Jim Baker just might go to this length to prevent any real foreign or domestic reforms in the U.S. from occurring. And so might Hillary, just like her husband obviously interested in power for its own sake more than anything else.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for the Web zine The Political Junkies.net; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; and an invited contributor to the Web log The Daily Scare.

 


wouldn't happen

there is no way the republicans would have hillary clinton on their ticket, are you kidding me? the real progressives had to drop out already for the reasons stated in the article and others, but those progressives were kucinich and edwards. obama and clinton are actually almost identical in what they are proposing and are middle of the road -the reason why they are still in - just different in the way they deliver themselves and have a difference in a health care plan. we all need to stop being so histrionic about them. what they will do when in office is the issue now, and they are proposing the same things. chill out!

Permanent Republican Majority

Clinton's strongest appeal is to older "liberal" women who want a woman in the Oval Office no matter what. Obama has energized young people, and given hope to old Progressives, like me. The difference between a Liberal and a Progressive? A liberal thinks you should vote for a woman because she's a woman and for a black because he's black. A Progressive wants the gender/race to become irrelevant. Young people are more open to diversity, more progressive. If Hillary seizes the nomination, they will lose faith in politics, and Karl Rove will get his "permanent Republican majority." "Your old world is rapidly aging. Get out of the new if you can't lend a hand, 'Cause the times, they are a'changing." - Bob Dylan

OH PLEASE GOD LET IT BE TRUE

There is no quicker way for the Republicans to LOSE than putting Hillary on the McCain ticket. Already known as a 1/2 conservative, McCain would be announcing that Hillary is only 1 heartbeat away from being the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... i cannot think of a worse nightmare. my conservative GOP friends would rather cut off their own left nut with a rusty knife than put Hillary within 100 yards of the oval office. As for that 3a.m. call... McCain could take the call himself, considering that at 3 a.m. he is probably up trying to pee.

Open Hearings vs. Cheney's Energy group secret meetings &

Hillary's secretive health care fiasco. That's what Obama should be trumpeting.

OPEN HEARINGS___ - Hammer it in

That's how Obama will make change. Say it at every appearance. Make it a call. Open hearings to which all of you are invited via C-Span and web. You may not want to watch but you can be assured that a lot of "just plain folks" -- especially retired people -- will be watching.

There will not be closed hearings like Cheney's secret energy hearings. And hearings on health care will not be behind closed doors.

Of course, some few hearings or parts of which, such as on military and foreign affairs might have to be closed, but for the most part I am committed to open hearings.

Open Hearings because it's your government.

Can you imagine what hearings on health care, of all interests would be like? Testimony by patients, doctors, nurses, public health people, then the executives of the insurance companies.

"And what is the pay of the CEO? the COO? the board of directors? and how much do you spend on advertising? on PR? on the deniers?" Pharmas; the HMOs and on and on. And always the patients and the relatives of those who lost relatives to denials. And those who can not get insurance. The hospitals going under because of the denials and the uninsured. Some state governors who are intelligent and knowledgeable about their state's financial problems with health care.

It could be as riveting as the Watergate hearings. The networks might pick it up.

And how about John Edwards as chief interlocutor?

Your analysis is spot on! Hooray for a public health frame of mind. I would like to add if hillary steals the nomination, I'm for a new PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

We could take it. I will do it. I won't vote for Clinton or McBush.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” Abraham Lincoln