Dear God, no… this could go on forever! Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton and the charms of a joint ticket… March 5, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Politics.trackback
Hmmm… so perhaps Limbaugh was listened to by the dittoheads after all. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio. That’s pretty good on one level. She stemmed the tide agin her quite adeptly. Still, that was some tide considering that her poll ratings were in double digits until the very recent past. One wonders whether she could have held it to the same result had the primaries been held a bit later. Texas – in particular – was a nail biting 51% to 47%.
Whether this means diddley squat is a fair question. Obama remains ahead with 1,477 to Clinton’s 1,391. And perhaps that is what prompted Clinton to reach out the most tentative of suggestions on CBS when asked:
whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
Yes, of course. But Ohio isn’t the deciding vote in this process. Not even close. And perhaps this too is a pitch to Obama to do the right thing should he come in ahead of her if we go to the super delegates.
Of course, whether Clinton would play second fiddle in an Obama administration is an interesting question. If I was her I’d be thinking about it very very seriously indeed from both angles. This is perhaps her one shot at the top job. A President Obama would be more than young enough to contest a second term which would leave a vice-President Clinton unlikely to go for the Presidential nomination in 2016. And yet this is the path to almost guaranteed executive power (or at least some executive power). An Obama/Clinton ticket might be well nigh unbeatable (or it might not, – apologies the linking system in wordpress is on the blink….http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/03/no_end_in_sight.html…in some interesting comments on this thread on the Guardian site people point to a harder edged ’security’ ticket being a better bet… shiver… Clark/Obama… no thanks guys). But the pragmatic aspects of it might be impossible to arrange. That they’re centrist is undeniable, but… they’re both remarkably effective and clearly intelligent and in the real world of US politics they’re the closest thing that we’re going to get to ‘left’ candidates with a chance of winning. This is a bad thing, but it’s also the reality. Better that than another four years of the Republicans.
And where next?
Wyoming, which holds its caucuses on Saturday, followed by the Mississippi primary on Tuesday. Obama is expected to have an advantage in both states, which together will award a total of 45 delegates.
Two senior members of Clinton’s team, Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, yesterday said they expected Obama to win both, given the states’ demographics. But they expressed confidence that Clinton would take the next big prize, Pennsylvania, on April 22 – the last of the mega-states in the race.
The two candidates are expected to engage in a fierce battle for the state’s 158 delegates.
April 22nd? That’s weeks away. But here’s a thought. The Republicans were arguing that this was terribly bad for the Democrats the longer this process is dragged out. Which is certainly true if it went to the super-delegates and the outcome was, say, Obama winning the primaries but the super-delegates pushing Clinton across the finish line. But on the other hand if this can be wrapped up with any sort of civility the engagement and enthusiasm, and still reasonably level headed engagement, might reap dividends in terms of an energised Democratic base ready to take on McCain. The Republicans are in no position to speak. The civil war within their ranks has begun to dissipate as noted yesterday, but it’s not gone away entirely. Huckabee dropped out of the race after a fine insurgent campaign reminiscent of nothing so much as the original McCain tilt at the job in 2000. What a shame he’s a Republican, and social conservative, and an evangelical. Otherwise he’d be … well…okay. And today McCain is set to be endorsed by GW Bush. Hmmm… through gritted teeth, or will McCain’s late arrival at the Bush Iraq war station mean all is forgiven and forgotten?
Still, are people going to turn off? It hasn’t happened yet. People like a contest. But… I suspect people would also like it to be done and dusted say by April. That’s a thought for both of the Democratic candidates to consider.
Hillary Clinton’s Dirty Dubai Money:
http://salcostello.blogspot.com
A strangely compulsive website you’ve got there Sal…
Not a chance in hell that she’ll accept the number two slot. Let’s face it, she’ll be 69 on election day in 2016. She knows that she’ll never be President if Obama wins the nomination. She’ll either be top of the ticket or she’ll head off and make a half-hearted effort to see Obama elected knowing that a McCain win in November is her last hope.
As I said below, her ambitions and the party’s are out of sync and I see no reason to expect her to do what’s best for the party before it’s clear that she’ll never get to be President.
Eagle,
What do you reckon the chances on the reverse ticket? Clinton/ Obama? – hard to see how she can win the nomination without some blood being spilt, which means Obama’s unlikely to be offered – or to accept – the VP slot; on the other hand, if she does win, and he still wants to be president someday…..
That’s the conundrum. Would he take that runner up prize in the hope of better?
I think Obama would accept. At the very least he certainly wouldn’t want someone else in the VP slot looking presidential.
If Clinton fails, I suspect she’ll return to the Senate with no presidential expectations for the future, whether Obama goes on to win in November or not. The party has been fairly unforgiving of losers in recent years (although if Obama loses I think he’ll get another shot if he wants it) and at her age and in her situation, she knows it’s now or never. And she doesn’t make any sense as a VP choice for Obama, from his perspective or hers, unless she is forced out, and in such a way that it makes large numbers of her supporters angry.
If she loses in Pennsylvania, she should give up and I think she will.
Do you think though that she will actually lose Pennsylvania?
What do you reckon the chances on the reverse ticket? Clinton/ Obama?
I think Hillary will offer the VP slot to Obama. Sure. No problem. Whether he’d accept is another thing, but if he did that would be the only way to avoid a serious split in the party if she’s the nominee.
I personally think Obama would be better served by running for (and winning) the Governorship of Illinois.
PamDirac,
I really can’t see her losing Pennsylvania now, can you? If she loses Pennsylvania I doubt she’ll get the nomination. If she wins there, however, then there will have to be replays in Michigan and Florida. She will need to win one of those. In fact, I think he’ll need to show he can win a key November battleground state.
He’s cleaning up in those states that either he won’t win in November anyway (Georgia, Nebraska, etc.) . Of the states where you can see a tight Rep vs Dem contest in November, Obama has won Illinois (his state) and Wisconsin. That’s it.
Your point about Obama not wanting anyone else in the VP slot looking presidential is a good one. I’m not sure being the VP is all that great. I think that Obama’s national name would stand to him and he’d be better served running as a Governor rather than the VP. Hard to say – I guess that would depend on how visible Clinton’s VP is and how successful her administration is.
So does that mean that in electoral terms Clinton is better than Obama? This is mighty confusing…
Obama making his former party rival VP…hmm. Can
anyone remember that happening in US politics before?
On an unrelated issue, Politics.ie is down and the website
says it won’t be back till Monday at least.
I didn’t express myself clearly. I meant to say that if she loses in Pennsylvania, she should quit and I think she would quit. Right now the state looks good for her and although I expect things will tighten as the primary approaches she stands a good chance to win it. And that means, as Eagle notes, that doubts are going to remain about Obama’s viability in the big states. On the other hand, Obama has the lead overall. (He’s always had the lead. At no time in the course of this race has Clinton led, I’m pretty sure. No matter what the rules are about the role of superdelegates, seems to me it might be really hard to explain to the public why Obama doesn’t get the nod, especially if he maintains his lead in the popular vote.)
***I’m not sure being the VP is all that great.***
It wouldn’t be that great, and there’s also the Bill factor in this instance, but then it never is, unless you’re Dick Cheney. And it’s true that Michelle Obama has said more than once that her hubby will not run again, with the implication that this is a one time only opportunity for the American people, so if they don’t vote for him now he is lost to them forever. (Whenever she says things like this she reminds me of those guys on TV trying to sell you Ginsu knives at 12:00 a.m. Call now before it’s too late! This offer expires in 30 minutes!) But if Clinton runs and wins with say, Wesley Clark, who is unlikely to get locked in the White House cellar for four or eight years, that could be a problem for Obama in future.
***Whether he’d accept is another thing, but if he did that would be the only way to avoid a serious split in the party if she’s the nominee.***
Yes. She wouldn’t want to offer it to him, and he wouldn’t want to take it, but they may be stuck with each other.
The point-counterpoint in this link sums up the arguments for both sides nicely, I think.
http://theamericanscene.com/2008/03/05/moral-claims
Whoever gets the Democrat nomination the VP candidate will be a white southern male.
Obama making his former party rival VP…hmm. Can
anyone remember that happening in US politics before?
Yes. Kerry and Edwards in 2004; Reagan & Bush 1980;
Starkadder
I meant to say that there are more going back in time. Johnson made an attempt to get the nomination at the convention in 1960 despite not running in the primaries. That didn’t make him & Kennedy friends, but they ran on the same ticket.
PamDirac
I love that analogy to the Ginsu.
So does that mean that in electoral terms Clinton is better than Obama? This is mighty confusing…
WBS,
That’s the $64,000 question for the Dems right now. Who’s more likely to win. I don’t think anyone has a clear idea on this right now. Obama’s more exciting, newer, fresher, more uplifting, BUT Clinton is more centrist, pragmatic, tenacious and experienced. Unfortunately for the Democrats the primary season is not providing them with an answer as to which is more appealing right now.
I’d like to say Obama has a better chance, but I suspect the answer is Clinton. I was looking at the exit polls from Ohio and 12% of those people who voted for Clinton said race was important. That’s disappointing, but I doubt that went unnoticed by the Clinton team. They’ll be speaking in euphemism (too urban-focused, etc.), but nonetheless that fact may make her more electable in the key states.
By the way, I’ve been thinking about the Florida & Michigan issue and I think the best move for Obama would be to drop his objection to those delegates being seated. Here’s why.
He has nothing to gain from a re-vote there and a lot to lose. If he lets Hillary get those delegates I still think he’ll have more heading into the convention, so the story remains essentially the same. His argument is that he’ll have more delegates and have won more states. And, right now if you exclude the popular vote in those states – which he can argue should be done – he’s won more votes in total as well.
But, if he loses those two states in the run-up to the convention that puts a big cloud over him. Better to get that out of the way and look to finish strong after Pennsylvania votes.
Those are mightily persuasive arguments Eagle. It’s weird, I can’t quite work out which candidate would go the distance. Although from this remove that’s hardly surprising.
Thats for the info about Johnson and Bush, Eagle.
WBS, any thoughts on the P.ie crash? There are rumours
circulating that it was hacked into.
It’s all really uncharted territory in so many ways this time – leaving aside the gender and race of the two frontrunners, a quick look reveals that there hasn’t been a situation like this -for either party – where there isn’t a clear frontrunner after super Tuesday since the system changed in ‘76 and Jimmy Carter took full advantage; only Mondale and Hart in ‘84 comes anywhere close.
Another interesting feature looking back is to be reminded that, 30 years ago, George Wallace ran for the democratic nomination and in ‘84, David Duke did; nice sometimes to know that some things have changed forever ……
Oh wow, Starkadder, I hadn’t even noticed, too busy with other stuff at mo. When did it go down?
God, David Duke, a name to (not) conjure with… it is unprecedented though sonofstan, isn’t it? Either way it’s genuinely going to be a shift. Not on ideological grounds, but certainly on social grounds.Or indeed it already is…
Sonofstan,
The Dems did this to themselves. If they had stuck with the winner-take-all primaries of years past Clinton would already be the nominee. These proportional delegate rules are what have given Obama the life to get to where he is. That and Clinton’s inability to win the (less democratic) caucuses.
Eagle,
Of course you’re right – had really grasped that the system had changed, though as soon as you mention it, I realise that it used to be otherwise.
Interesting piece here from Robert Creamer opposing the ‘big state myth’ – it’s obviously partisan, but it does make some interesting points.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html
WBS, the Politics.ie website says its down for some unscheduled
maintenance & won’t be back till Monday.
sonofstan,
Thanks for that link. Interesting stuff. In many ways it seems almost like an impossibility that McCain might win considering that his party is taking heat for: an unpopular war, the tanking economy and the loss of a city.
Yet, I don’t think it’s impossible to see him winning in November. I half expect that if he wins the electoral map will look different than it has in a while. I could imagine McCain losing Ohio & WV, but winning California. I’d like to see some polling before I go any further on that, but I think it’s possible.
If McCain has a hope in California it’s greater in a head-to-head with Obama than with Clinton. I think.
Hmmm… unscheduled maintenance… How unfortunate…
Funnily enough looking at McCain I could see him winning.
and…..Eoghan Harris has said that McCain is going to win
agus been an ceart ag Eoghan i gconai
Oiche Maith
Say it ain’t so Nollaig…