Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?

May 16, 2008 3:12 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

A fascinating column has posted on Real Clear Politics by Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign and therefore knows a thing or two about conventions and delegates.

Beckel's (quite far-fetched) argument: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can force her way onto Sen. Barack Obama's ticket -- or, at least threaten to do so, to essentially force Obama to choose her.

The reason? Something we forget in this age of conventions-as-coronations: Technically, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention casts separate votes for president and vice president. In modern history, this has been a technicality, since the presidential nominee has simply had his choice rubber-stamped -- but as Beckel points out, it doesn't have to be this way.

He imagines a conversation between a superdelegate (one who might have gotten a job in the Clinton administration) and former President Bill Clinton.

Says the former president: "I know Obama has enough votes to win, but I wanted you to know Hillary has decided to run for vice president at the convention. You know there are two roll call votes at the convention: first president then for vice president. I know you are voting for Obama for president. Fine, but I want your commitment to vote for Hillary for vice president."

Highly unlikely to happen? Yes. The cause of party self-destruction, if Obama goes into the convention with his own choice for vice president, someone who isn't named "Clinton"? Almost certainly. Enough to damage the Clinton brand permanently? Very possibly.

But if you're inside the Clinton campaign, trying to game-plan ways to convince Obama to choose your boss in case she wants the No. 2 job, this strikes me as something that could be part of the argument.

Writes Beckel: "If Hillary Clinton wants the vice presidential nomination, and her loyal delegates demand it, and the Clinton machine puts its full weight behind it, she will be on the ticket. Count on it."

-- Rick Klein

May 16, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (271)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

rhbate, I just don't understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don't just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.

Posted by: lisa | May 18, 2008 12:49:06 AM
__________________

Again, let me say that I agree with you completely. Someone posted you saying that it was implausible that a differently composed court would overturn Roe v. Wade. Total nonsense. Practically of the Southern states plus many others including Utah and Nevada.

Additionally, there are other problematic areas that would result in a significant set-back of liberal issues. So stick to your guns. If McCain was in a position to nominate judges to the supreme court you can bet they'll be imitations of Roberts, Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: rhbate | May 18, 2008 12:57:26 AM

"In the worst case scenario, and it is really implausible, Roe is overturned. That does not mean that abortion is constitutionally prohibited at all. All that means is that the state may then regulate if it so chooses."

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:19:39 PM
_________________

You are correct as far as you go, but there are quite a few states that would ban abortions if they had the opportunity. To name just a few, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi; in fact all of Southern states and quite a few others.

Posted by: rhbate | May 18, 2008 12:49:22 AM

rhbate, I just don't understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don't just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.

Posted by: lisa | May 18, 2008 12:49:06 AM

Lisa:

Don't be fooled. I saw Obama's wife make a campaign speech and the subject of abortion rights came up. She said that, under no circumstances would her husband nominate any judge opposed to Roe v. Wade. She said that if she thought for one moment he would even think about overturning Roe v. Wade she would not be out campaigning on his behalf. Plus, she said (smiling) she would kick his butt if she thought it was the remotest possibility. I believe her.

Posted by: rhbate | May 18, 2008 12:41:47 AM

countallthevotes I am not talking about Roe v Wade. I am talking about the Supreme Court in general. There are a lot of issues out there. I want more research on stem cells. And with a republican in the white house the court will turn conservative. It's already borderline. It does not matter if the dems are in control in the house and senate, they will have to compromise with the pres just like they did with Bush. You are really fooling yourself if you think it won't happen.

Posted by: lisa | May 18, 2008 12:31:44 AM

The Supreme Court is my biggest fear with a republican winning. I will vote for a dem no matter what.

Posted by: lisa | May 17, 2008 10:57:31 PM
________________

I think somehow we might have crossed our wires. The fact of the matter is that I am in complete agreement with you.

Posted by: rhbate | May 18, 2008 12:28:01 AM

Lisa,

Do you know anything of the Supreme Court? Have you read any legal opinions? Did you know that about a third of those nominated have never been confirmed? Do you realize that we will have control of the Senate and that Bork will never happen?

Do you know Prof. Kmiec is on Obama's short list for the Supreme court and that he is definitely anti-abortion. Did you know that Prof. Kmiec recently endorsed Obama over McCain? Let me get you some statements of Obama and Kmiec:

For those unfamiliar wiht Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic and definitely anti-abortion. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune.
IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama's positon on abortion as:

As he [Obama] writes, “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Note, one COULD view Obama's personal position on abortion as influencing his "present" votes on a woman's right to choose while an IL state senator.

Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
“[B]ut here’s the question: Does Obama’s thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step? I am inclined to think so . . .”

Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:47:40 PM

countallthevotes, you have no idea what will happen with the Supreme Court. You seem to think that all will be fine. But you really don't know, none of us do. I'm not willing to take that chance. It is balanced right now for the most part but I think 2 will retire within the next term. It won't be balanced after that. So we will have them for life. You may be able to live with that but I can't.


Posted by: lisa | May 17, 2008 11:37:51 PM

JOdy Platt,

Hold your horses!! It ain't over by a long shot! Note, Kentucky and PR. Note, FL and MI. NOBAMA for me. it ain't over until the lady in the pants suit says it it.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:26:13 PM

Lisa,

We have been very fortunate with Supreme Court Justices nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents. Some deemed "conservative" often do surprise. Note, David Souter!! Even J. Scalia has heartened many a criminal defendant.

What we should be looking for is balance and outstanding legal scholarship. It is court, not a political party, you know.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:23:44 PM

Perhaps it would help if some of you understood the separation of powers clause in the United States Constitution and the limitations of the Executive vis a vis the Supreme Court. Then talk about Roe v. Wade. This is pathetic.

No president can set aside Roe v. Wade!! What planet are you from??

Roe v. Wade has been around a long time. There has been infinite opportunites to overturn it. It has not happened. The president can only nominate a person for the Supreme Court. The President cannot just appoint. Recall the Bork hearings. Recall what happened to Bork. The President nominates with the advice and consent of the senate. There are hearings. That is how it is done. President can only do this if there is a vacancy on the supreme court, as in when a SC justice dies or retires.

In the worst case scenario, and it is really implausible, Roe is overturned. That does not mean that abortion is constitutionally prohibited at all. All that means is that the state may then regulate if it so chooses.

Does anyone really think that, in this day and age, their state will prohibit abortions?? This is not the '60's. It will never happen.

Get a grip and stop trying to scare people into supporitng Obama. That is pathetic!!!

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:19:39 PM

rhbate, it's not even about Roe v Wade. I keep asking this of Hillary supporters and I haven't received an answer yet. You can vote Obama out in 4 years but the Supreme Court justices are there until they retire. Even with a democratic congress they will eventually have to agree on a justice and look at who we got with Bush. And McCain said that he will appoint conservative judges. The Supreme Court is my biggest fear with a republican winning. I will vote for a dem no matter what.

Posted by: lisa | May 17, 2008 10:57:31 PM

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS - TAKE NOTICE

-----------ROE v. WADE-----------

Two of the current justices of the United States Supreme Court will probably retire within the next four years. One is 75 and the other is 84. This will give the new president the ability to nominate two new justices. If McCain is elected you can be sure the new justices will be just like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas: willing to overturn ROE v. WADE. So think when you vote!!!

Posted by: rhbate | May 17, 2008 10:31:28 PM

I am an avid Clinton supporter who has donated quite a bit to her campaign. I am quiet livid with the way the Democratic party leaders have acted but still realize that there is nothing worse then putting McCain in power. I wont let my ego or pride come before my country's interest. I will hold my nose and vote of BO in November.

Posted by: Jody Platt | May 17, 2008 10:10:10 PM

She ran an ad in Oregon that's very nice. Of course she still runs as president. A blog commentator, said the problem is that in some people think the nomination is sealed and that they don't have to vote anymore.Spread words around that primaries are still held.

Posted by: jane | May 17, 2008 8:42:03 PM

Hello!

The last time I looked, HILLARY was still running for President!

Even though the press has given her minimum "space" she IS making her candidacy known.

I would hope that she would never be the waterboy for B O because that would be a thankless spot for a brilliant woman.

Let him find someone else to clean up after all the boo boos BOBO will be making.

Meantime, she has my support and confidence!

Posted by: questioner | May 17, 2008 7:24:56 PM

Get to the real issues instead of your petty speculations about things that you don't know about. Get to think on your own and stop being robots repeating the arguments that take you nowhere. Can you BO supporters answer simple questions? Why your inspirational leader, advertises his own persona as if he is a godly creature? Why according to the DNC rules so many delegates are needed but none of them has reached the required number, and yet she has been asked to step down? Sure BO has the advantage but the race is so tight, so why not let all the voters have their say? Why the string of endorsements of Kerry and Mc Govern, Kennedy etc... supposedly help BO to attract voters to his side so he can seal the nomination didn't work out that way? Why you supporters repeat like robots the same words as your inspirational leader : fearmongering, divisive, words that he easily uses when he doesn't want to answer some questions. Why doesn't he want to debate anymore? Why you always project negative talk and speculations instead of doing real thinking and get to understand what is at stake in this election? Answer those questions and maybe you will get HC supporters to line up behind your messiah idol.

Posted by: jane | May 17, 2008 3:30:50 PM

Spread the news:

The Hillary '08 or McCain '08 supporters have started;


Posted by: londonwelsh | May 17, 2008 2:24:45 PM

Hillary should say screw you to Bill. He is the one who caused her the most harm - in previous years and in this election season.

I know a loto of people like the revenge vote idea of having Bill back in the Whitehouse.

I'd like to have the people in Silicon Valley who gave us the boom in the 1990s back. We have sold them all out to foreign interests through our bankrupt trade deals. Ask any kid if electrical engineering sounds like a good career.

Posted by: disambiguates | May 17, 2008 2:07:50 PM

I wish Hillary would say "Screw you" to Obama and all the jerks in Democratic Party that treated her like crap.

I know her political goals won't allow that. I won't be able to watch on the night she has to praise Obama at the convention.

But there is nothing even Hillary can say to change my opinion of Obama.


It's Hillary or McCain for me.

Posted by: cindy in nc | May 17, 2008 1:35:12 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS