Hillary for VP!!!

*

A correspondent has been annoying me for what seems like months about the fantasy some people have that Obama's best chance to be re-elected involves putting Joe Biden out to stud and selecting Hillary Clinton to run in his place. I ran out of patience even faster than I usually do about things, after explaining my view that a political strategy must involve some actual strategy. A presidential political strategy must not only have a grand objective, but it also must have an accurate and concrete idea about handling the obstacles to achieving that objective.

Today my correspondent sent a link to this op-ed column on the topic by former Times executive editor Bill Keller, which proposes that it's time for this dumb idea to ascend from the musty precincts of "the blogs" and be taken seriously... because, for some reason. He says the arguments in favor of it "are as simple as one-two-three":

One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016.

Simple for simpletons (not counting my correspondent, who is just enthralled with his own wishful thinking). Now, over the years I've gotten a clear impression that many commentators think Bill Keller is quite the simpleton. So I googled "bill keller stupidity," and I found this point-by-point rebuttal by Alex Pareene at Salon:

One: What? Prove it, maybe? Two: Haha what, again? Congress will get ungridlocked if the president switches vice presidents? To a Clinton? Three: OK, but what if Obama/Clinton loses? And if Obama wins again wouldn’t any Democrat be at a disadvantage in 2016 due to historical trends anyway, making it a “safer” bet to not be his running mate, assuming she actually wants to be president still, which is not at all a given?

One-two-three!!! See? Anyone can play!

[I'll interject a thought here about "Two". I don't think most people appreciate why "the Clinton brand" is disliked by many on the left and insanely despised by everyone on the right.]

If you're either interested in or sick of the absurd storyline that Hillary Clinton will ride in, chickenfight-wise, on the shoulders of her peckerwood husband to save Obama's electoral hash this year, I suggest that you read the whole Keller op-ed first, and then Pareene's piece. Pareene's rebuttal goes beyond the easy mockery of Keller to discuss some inconvenient truths that Hillary fans gloss over. Such as the fact that there is no evidence-based argument to support their fantasy.

So Hillary Clinton won the Gallup "beauty contest" of most-admired women in the US: what do you think that is worth to Obama in terms of either electoral or popular votes? Likewise for the concrete advantages conferred to Obama through Hillary's application of campaign warmth and female body parts? Show your work.