Virgo
In a transparent attempt to diminish the public standing of Barack Obama, the Clintons have started aggressively talking up the notion of a “dream ticket” with Clinton in the top-spot and Obama as the VP candidate. As Obama aptly noted, “I don't know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place.”
My purpose in bringing up the subject isn’t to highlight the pathetic audacity of Clinton arguing that the leading candidate ought to be put in the number-two slot, but rather to consider the not-so-obvious implications of such a notion.
For starters, let’s consider the idea of the “dream ticket” (i.e. Clinton-Obama) and also its reverse (i.e. Obama-Clinton). While the Clintons are surely right that if Hillary were the nominee, adding Obama in the number-two spot would add immeasurably to the appeal of the ticket, what would happen in the reverse case?
I would argue that if Obama becomes the nominee, Clinton is the last person in the world who he should consider for VP if he wants to maximize his chances of winning. Whereas Obama as a VP candidate would add immensely to the appeal of the overall ticket, the opposite is most definitely not the case. Adding Clinton to an Obama candidacy would do little to add to the core constituency, while bringing along the fact that nearly half of the country detests Clinton. I believe an Obama/Pee Wee Herman ticket would outperform an Obama/Clinton ticket.
COMMENTS (3)
RATE THIS STORY
There are reports today that Vanessa Hudgens has been...
I thought covering the Democratic National Convention in my hometown would be a breeze....
Comments
Re: Clinton’s VP Gambit
By Brandon, March 10, 2008 at 22:05Wow - you really don't like Hillary. Fair enough, neither do I.
But you seem pretty into this whole thing so I'd like to ask you a question if I may - in all seriousness. Let's say Obama gets the nom. Do you really believe he'll be able to win those states of the electoral college that Kerry couldn't? Put differently, how can Barack Obama - an even more liberal choice than Kerry, persuade voters that went with Bush, twice. I mean Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Now back in the days of Democrat success, Clinton (Bill) was able to get pieces of the south because of his southern origins (Ark.) I'm afraid Obama won't have that advantage and the Dems will, yet again, get pummeled everywhere south of DC.
What states, specifically, do you see Obama taking from the Republicans that Kerry was unable to carry last time?
I think that the Democrats are ripping themselves apart. I think McCain is loving every moment of this hard-fought primary, and I think it'll take a miracle not to get a third Republican term in the executive... albeit a less powerful one given the Democrat-complexion of the house and senate.
Re: Clinton’s VP Gambit
By Josh Sidman, March 11, 2008 at 12:27Hey Brandon,
Frankly, I'm not an expert on the ins-and-outs of state-by-state electoral politics. I simply cling to the hope that once the situation in this country gets bad enough, people will wise up and stop voting for murderers like Bush & McCain. As for what rationale there is for hoping that Obama can win states that Kerry couldn't, all I can point to is the four disastrous years which have elapsed since then. Frankly, the fact that America re-elected Bush on '04 made me seriously question whether I belong in this country. I'm not quite willing to throw in the towel just yet, and I cling to the hope that the American people are not vicious killers, they're just uninformed. Well, they're certainly better informed now that they were four years ago, and I'm hoping that this will be enough to put Obama over the top. As a resident of a "red state" (Tennessee), my feeling is that the hard-core conservative base is far more disillusioned now than they were in 2004. This isn't to say that they're going to vote for Obama, but I doubt they'll come out for McCain in the same numbers that they did for Bush. At this point, I believe that Obama would beat McCain by a wide margin, but I agree with you that an ugly primary battle does increase the likelihood of another four years of a Republican presidency.
Regards,
Josh
Re: Clinton’s VP Gambit
By Melkor, March 11, 2008 at 09:17Actually Brandon, Clinton’s success in the first election had more to do with a legitimate third party candidate running against him and Bush Sr. The conservative vote was divided and Willie won the day. Relative peace and a booming economy were enough to persuade Americans the second time around. Nader’s impact will not be nearly as significant as Mr. Perot’s; however, any votes for Nader will be at least a 2 to 1 democratic loss. I make this claim because I do agree with Ralph on this point – there is no distinction between the two major political parties – each are beholden to special interest groups and corporate hacks. This (Nader’s) message SHOULD appeal to Americans who actually desire change (rather than just spew the word over and over again, signifying absolutely nothing). This plays into your premise though, and the question begs repeating – which states will the dem’s pick up this time around?
Ohio is a distinct possibility. The epiphenomenal economic impact of NAFTA and other trade agreements have made Ohio the new Michigan – and many dem’s will tell you that Kerry did in fact win Ohio (or at least would have but-not-for republican underhanded tactics) anyway. In such a close state like this, the Nader impact may be felt around the world, literally. If in the wash statisticians determine that Obama would have won a big state if Nader had not been on the ticket, well, it will be a good time to watch the spin-doctor-wind-bags on CNN and MSNBC.
The trouble with an Obama candidacy will be in the formal election. He is using colourful language to assess the blame regarding what he claims is a failed trade policy instituted by Bill (and by proximity, Hillary). The trouble brewing here is that Obama’s aids have been in contact with Canadian players and officials assuring them not to worry, the campaign rhetoric will not reflect Obama’s policy (I was told this by a very credible source, I have no idea if the same conversations are being held with other nations). But this should come as no surprise and this point (I think) gets missed – the two big parties are so devoted to their money supply that literally no one has a chance unless they can pass the litmus test – can the dude (or chick) raise money and protect our interests. I make this claim because during each convention, somebody is delivering a speech during which time the press is telling us that this person would be an excellent candidate for President the next time around (Bill for Dukakis, Gore for Bill, Kerry for Gore, Obama for Kerry) and to look for them. Then, that person always seems to win. Why are they always right? Answer – it is a predetermined club, and only players may play.
Politics is fun purely on an entertainment level. It is NASCAR with more corporate sponsorship but without the tire wear (not to worry, plenty of fossil fuel will be consumed in both sports). To affect the change that America requires would involve a new revolution, or God forbid, a Nader term.