Views > June 13, 2008 > Web Only

An Anti-Clinton For VP

By David Sirota

You can’t turn on a television or have a conversation about politics without being accosted by speculation about whether Barack Obama will select Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Will he ask her or won’t he? This is the extent of today’s political debate — personality-focused chatter that goes about as deep as prom-season gossip at a local high school.

The better question is should he or shouldn’t he? This is also easier to answer: No, though not for the reasons you might think.

The conventional reason why Clinton shouldn’t be on the ticket is a purely political one — the theory goes that because she is so despised by Republicans, her name on the ticket could help John McCain consolidate the GOP base behind his candidacy. Little discussed is the fact that putting Clinton on the ticket could directly undermine the mandate of the party’s primary: the rejection not of Hillary Clinton, but of Clintonism itself.

Clinton backers have long said Clintonism is all about moderation, negotiation and smart positioning in the face of Republican extremism. But it really is the politics of capitulation, triangulation and obfuscation in the face of money and power.

Bill Clinton spent his time in the White House working with Republicans to champion trade, telecommunications and financial deregulation — destructive policies specifically crafted to boost corporate profits at the expense of ordinary workers. As a key Clinton administration player, Hillary Clinton promoted many of these policies, and as a senator she has backed abominations like the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill and the war in Iraq.

After realizing that the Democratic primary would be a battle and not a coronation, Clinton desperately tried to obscure this record. The saber-rattling lawmaker who helped lead the country into war presented herself as a steadfast critic of it; the first lady who gave speeches backing NAFTA claimed she never supported it; the senator gracing Fortune magazine’s cover suddenly tried to be a Huey Long populist. With such a clear line from Reaganism to Clintonism to our current national security and economic crises, it was too little too late.

Some say Hillary Clinton’s defeat was the victory of sexism — but Obama faced at least as much racism. No, this resounding defeat goes beyond pernicious -isms and beyond one candidate — it is a fist-pounding rejection of a corrupt ideology.

Now, John McCain is trumpeting his support for NAFTA, deregulation and intensifying the war in Iraq. It is the Arizona senator’s very own kind of Clintonism. That means for Obama to really draw the most effective general-election contrast, the smart vice presidential pick is not Clinton, but an anti-Clinton — and there are many of them.

In the Senate, there is Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill — all economic populists. In the statehouse, there is Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer — a guy who told The New York Times, “I was a critic of Nafta, I was a critic of Cafta and I’ll be a critic of Shafta.” And outside the electoral arena there are people like Anna Burger — a leader of one of the largest labor unions, who was recently hailed by The Wall Street Journal as one of the 50 most influential women in America.

These are icons from potential swing states and swing constituencies whose careers show they can shore up Obama’s weakness among working-class white voters far more effectively than New York’s junior senator. More importantly, they are people who can help Obama draw an outsider-versus-insider, populist-versus-corporatist contrast that reinforces the most powerful message of all: The era of Clintonism is over.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I would hardly call Clinton’s defeat “resounding,” and the assertion that Obama “faced at least as much racism” as Clinton faced sexism is preposterous.

  Racism has become, almost in a good way (almost!), something in the public sphere that is discussed much more than actually engaged in (which is not to suggest that racism is not rampant, merely that public admission of racism has become somewhat taboo).

  Sexism on the other hand, is so casual as to be practically unnoticed. Consider, for example, this from the Huffington Post:

  “Michelle Obama Vs. Cindy McCain: A Study In Styles

  “Every first lady needs to develop a signature style - a look that goes beyond the vagaries of fashion and trends. Cindy is some way towards achieving this. Her clothing consistency is satisfying: always immaculate, with never a hair out of place. But this striving for perfection is also her un-doing: she doesn’t know how to have fun with fashion.

  “Michelle, however, is showing enormous potential. She’s starting to own the puffed sleeve - it works for her on blouses and even on a red tailored suit that she wore recently. But the most obvious clue that Michelle possesses the first lady X-Factor came last month when she addressed a high school. Is that a belted dress or a trench worn flasher-style? Who knows, but it is in these mysterious details that fashion-forward presidential campaigns are made.”

  Hillary Clinton was subjected to endless nasty snipes about her clothes, her makeup, her voice, and even her cleavage. Obama got lapel pins.

  Having said all that, I think you have a point about “Clintonism.”

  Posted by monkyhead on Jun 13, 2008 at 6:45 AM

  Jim Webb should be the VP. He certainly is an economic populist, he wrote a great op-ed not long after his election discussing the widening gap between the haves and have nots. Beyond that, his military credentials give a boost to the ticket for Obama. And finally, he’s from Virginia, a state that would be a great early election day coop if it went blue.

  Hillary indeed represents the past. This election needs to end the Clinton/Bush era. It’s time to move on. If I were Obama, I would offer Hillary a cabinet post such as Health and Human Services. She could probably get more accomplished in health care in that job than as VP anyway. Whether she would want to vacate the Senate is another question.

  Posted by Jon B on Jun 14, 2008 at 7:18 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by David Sirota

• Crony Communist or Businessman?
  
• Saying “No Deal” to This New Deal
  
• Turning a Wall Street Giveaway Into a Rescue for All Americans
  Charting a progressive response to the crisis
• Back in the U.S.S.R.
  
• The $700 Billion Questions
  Wall Street and Washington's wrecking crew aim to get the most expensive free lunch in American history
• No Time For A Minimalist