Articles by the Author
Obama and Clinton - The Ticket to Win It
Hillary Clinton would be the wisest choice for vice president.
By Madeleine M. Kunin
Christian Science Monitor, July 25, 2008
Burlington, VT. - Common wisdom dictates that the vice president should provide balance to the ticket by representing a different part of the country, another set of experiences, or a basketful of electoral votes.
When I served on the committee that advised Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton on choosing a running mate in 1992, he gave us only one piece of guidance: "I want someone who can be president." So all candidates were carefully vetted.
When Governor Clinton met with Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee, the two clicked. Senator Gore was from a neighboring state and another progressive Southern politician. He provided a mere handful of electoral votes. Rather than broadening Clinton's constituency, the two men overlapped and reinforced each other. But Gore added one important dimension – a degree of gravitas aided by his foreign policy experience.
Barack Obama's choice of running mate has to be his alone. What can he learn from 1992?
The presumptive presidential nominee must have trust in his running mate, no matter who he or she is, and that person has to be carefully vetted. The vice presidential candidate does not usually make much difference at the polls. But that may be changing as voters become more aware that the understudy must be ready to take over if needed.
That's why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the wisest choice. Senator Clinton's constituencies – women and working class voters – would bring the finishing touch to Senator Obama's ticket. And as an older, more experienced person, she may also bring a level of gravitas, not unlike what Gore provided for Bill Clinton.
She has the further advantage of having been thoroughly vetted by the media and by some 18 million voters. Within a hair's breadth of winning the nomination herself, she showed that a sizable constituency considered her qualified to be president – the ultimate litmus test for a vice presidential candidate.
Clinton's priorities were extraordinarily similar to Obama's, making it likely they would reinforce each other rather than compete.
The disadvantages ,though, of Clinton as VP are almost as obvious as the advantages: Can she be effective in second place? Can she support his agenda as enthusiastically as she did her own? Some say she represents old politics, contradicting his campaign theme of change. They can't forget some of the tough words she hurled at Obama during the primary battle. Then there is the trust factor. Can Obama and Clinton be at ease with each other, both on stage and off, both on the campaign trail and in the White House?
And then there is the recurring question, "What about Bill?"
Choosing a running mate is the first decision that the presumptive party nominee makes. It gives us a clue about his judgment, his capacity to reach out, and his vision for the country. Voters are keenly interested in the message that this selection sends.
Could it happen between Obama and Clinton in 2008? Their first public meeting with supporters in Unity, N.H., indicated that they could share the limelight amicably. And the country might just be ready for such a nontraditional ticket.
Some voters will, of course, oppose such a ticket because of race or gender or both. But others would be drawn to the polls for the same reason: An opportunity to vote for the first African-American and first woman – making history on two fronts.
There is something about running mates that creates a shared portrait; one that is larger than the sum of their parts. That electricity was apparent when Bill Clinton introduced Gore at the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Ark., in the summer of 1992. A magical chemistry emerged when they were together. They became a dynamic team, representing new leadership.
When I imagine the red, white, and blue balloons floating down from the convention hall ceiling on Obama and Clinton, both raising their arms high in a victory salute, that picture definitely shouts "change!" It would bring symmetry to African-Americans and women, two constituencies who often went their separate ways during the primary.
Clinton and Obama have already established a unique bond, having gone through the same trial by fire, revealing much about who they are – not only to the voters, but to each other.
In order for the union to work, Clinton will have to be offered a clearly defined portfolio of responsibilities.
Obama has campaigned as a politician who is different from the mold. Moving into the general election, he has increasingly revealed that he is also a political pragmatist who wants to win.
If, after he has vetted all the others, he concludes that he can work in partnership with her and that she would increase his likelihood of winning, he should pop the question.
• Madeleine M. Kunin is the former governor of Vermont, former US ambassador to Switzerland, and author of "Pearls, Politics & Power: How Women Can Win and Lead." She served as co-chair for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in Vermont.
Goodbye Charm School: The Case for More Women Leaders
by Madeleine M. Kunin
AlterNet, April 16th, 2008
If we want a more representative and effective government, we should consider backing away from the traditional male style of leadership.
The following excerpt is from the chapter Women & Leadership in Pearls, Politics, and Power by Madeleine M. Kunin (Chelsea Green, 2008), and is reprinted here with permission from the publisher.
Leadership cookbooks that list the ingredients for effective leadership are more popular than ever. Almost every successful CEO has been impelled to divulge his secret formula. Most have bemoaned the lack of leadership "in our time," exemplified by Lee Iacocca's latest book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?:
Had enough? Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff.
Men throughout history have struggled to define leadership, benign and not benign, from Jesus to Hitler, from Aristotle to Machiavelli. Leadership meant male leadership. There was no other, unless we count Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I.
Click here to read the full article.
Who's Ready for a Female President?
by Madeleine M. Kunin
The Washington Post, January 11th, 2008
Download the PDF here.
Statement about women rising to positions of power on the Jewish Women’s Archive.
As I walked into the crowded House Chamber for my inauguration as the first female Governor of Vermont, on January 10, 1985, I felt physically uplifted by the crowd. A group of women from other parts of the country who had traveled to Vermont to see a woman Governor inaugurated were cheering from the balcony. The sound of applause—not just for me but for women rising to a position of power—reverberated through the hall, like the sound of an orchestra.
Click here to read the full article.
Madeleine Kunin's commentaries on VPR
Listen to Madeleine's audio commentaries here.
It's About Time
Blog post on women in political office on Hillary Clinton's Official Campaign site.
A 9-year-old girl was taking a tour through the Vermont Statehouse recently, scanning the portraits of the men. When she came upon mine, she exclaimed, "Finally, a woman. It's about time."
The question the country will answer in the next two years is, "Is it time for a woman president?"
There have been several significant firsts for women recently.
When Harvard announced that its next president would be a woman, Drew Gilpin Faust, the halls of academia were shaken. Only two years ago Harvard was caught in a contentious debate about whether women could be serious scientists, and now a woman is at the helm.
With Nancy Pelosi at the podium, wielding the gavel, all those 9-year-old girls know that the United States Congress is no longer a man's world. Its as if the sign in the tree fort that had been scrawled, "Girls, keep out," had been replaced with, "Women are Welcome."
Click here to read the full article.
A Math Lesson on College Loans
NY Times, June 13th, 2007
THE Department of Education’s proposed new standards for overseeing student loans — a response to the growing scandal involving kickbacks from lending institutions to university student-aid officials — are a step in the right direction. But the department and the Bush administration could go further in making student loans cheaper, less cumbersome and, most important, not susceptible to corruption.
In fact, the method for achieving this is already on the books: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, which omits the middleman and allows the government itself to give loans to students. It needs to be expanded.
Click here to read the full article.
Print this page.
