 |
Obama Can’t Lose |
 |
In today’s Newsweek, Anna Quindlen urges Hillary Clinton to make Obama her running mate:
It’s not simply that with one fell swoop you would solidify the two largest blocs of Democratic support, but that the historic nature of the pairing would galvanize the race and make any Republican slate seem so same-old. Every politician likes to talk about a new era. The day the Clinton-Obama ticket is announced would really be one for the history books.
While Quindlen’s words are inspiring, her implication that Obama can no longer hope to be the nominee himself is clearly premature, even absurd. His record-sized crowds, skill at fundraising, and unique energy all combine to make him a force to be reckoned with - and one that Clinton can not yet count on vanquishing.
The deeper implication of Quindlen’s essay, however unintentional it might be, is to show that Obama cannot really lose in this election cycle, no matter what the outcome is, unless some terrible private scandal comes to light. Either he wins the nomination and comes out as a superstar - and probably, I believe, he would win the presidency as well. Or he is chosen as another candidate’s running mate, and regardless of whether that candidate wins the presidency, Obama’s prestige is ensured. Or, if worst comes to worst, he isn’t chosen as nominee for president or vice-president. So what? He still got his name out there, still did amazingly well, and still sets himself up perfectly for 2012 or 2016.
For Clinton, this is likely her one shot at the presidency before she is eclipsed by younger politicians. And for Edwards, two defeats in a row would likely marginalize him as a serious candidate for the future. But Obama could turn a “loss” in this election cycle into a publicity victory for the future. If the young, fresh Obama loses now, who could fault him? He could quit today and he will have already made history. Then, he could come back as a more mature, seasoned Obama next time around and have a gang of supporters ready to campaign for him all over again.
But I still think he’s got a great shot for this time around. Why is Anna Quindlen so quick to suggest, before a single primary, that Obama should be safely packaged away as a running mate? Perhaps because she’s afraid of what many Clinton supporters are afraid of - that their “front runner” will sooner or later hit a plateau and become incapable of generating further support, while Obama will continue to reach new audiences up til and through November 08.
This may be well what comes to pass, but I still think it would be a shame. Obama would be a better president, and he is ultimately more electable too.
Anna Quindlen must of been high when she wrote this.
“Conventional thinkers like to make this sound risky, pairing a woman and a black man on the ticket. But it’s not as wild as it sounds”
I’m a Righty, so naturally I don’r favor either one.
And not all people are as open minded as some of the Seminals readers.I would be willing to bet that Democrats could see the conflicts of interest coming their way if these two were to team up.
And to think that Obama would take a back seat to a white woman is not going to go over well with black voters. Anyone ever seen ” Driving Miss Daisey ?”
I can see the political cartoons now.
Bad idea.
Even if Clinton is the nominee, which I don’t think will happen, I doubt anyone working for her campaign would pick Senator Obama as a running mate mostly because he would completely overshadow her. Also, from the article as well, Quindlen’s idea of two northern candidates because the equivalent of the Clinton/Gore 2 southerner strategy is absolutely absurd. If Clinton becomes the nominee and she were to pick a “northerner” it would have to be, someone from a so-called “Red-State.” Someone like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. That provides more balance, regional stability, and still keeps Clinton the center of attention. If you want an out of touch Democratic ticket then be my guest to nominate a New York transplant and a Chicagoan, the country won’t buy it and it’s vulnerable to an attack even against a fellow New Yorker who picks some random southern Governor no ones ever heard of. Quindlen has always beat the Clinton drum as some sort of feminist cure for the country’s ills, but she’s lost sight of real leading female candidates throughout the country as she stands in awe of the democratic party “establishment.” The fact that she packs it in and calls it day before any votes have been cast make her suspect in my book. Clinton feels she deserves the presidency, and some people think she does too, which is exactly why she shouldn’t be President.
Why a Clinton/Obama ticket? Why not an Obama/Clinton ticket? Obama has the energy and the skill to pull off an election, and Clinton has already demonstrated her skill at manipulating the system. So long as it doesn’t turn into a Bush/Cheney administration, I think it would probably work far better.
Bush/Cheny is one reason
Michael said;
“Why a Clinton/Obama ticket? Why not an Obama/Clinton ticket?”
They still won’t or can’t work togrther.
I actually think it might be a possibility, but it depends on who wins the primary of course. All the posturing right now about them not getting along is just that, posturing. That’s how you run in the primary, and once the primary is decided, we’ll see a shift back towards the center on all levels.
Never happen,
I’ll tell you why I think so.
Hillaty is to arrogant to take a back seat to Obama. In addition,and on the flip side, the black community that would more than likely hold a majority of votes for Obama would not take kindly to what would look like Obama riding in the back of the bus
Michael, I like the way you put it - except that I think Obama could do better for a running mate than Hillary!
I think both Ish and Quindlen are high on something…and it isn’t common sense. Both candidates (Clinton and Obama) would be losers as the Democratic nominee in 2008, and a Clinton-Obama ticket would be the best thing to happen to Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Obama’s Muslim past will be taken apart by the Republican right as well as groups like as the Swift Boat Veterans…The Democrats need to get their head out of the sand and elect and electable candidate if they want to retake the White House in 2008.
The two are already at each others throat, along with a few other dem candidates. Their fighting amongst themselves with a year and a half to go is just a sign of things to come.
The party had better learn how to deliver one message in general. This is why they lost the last two elections. They have fallen into the attack mentallity and cant seem to break free of it, even in their own circle.
Congress did not win because of any message they had, or faith from the people. They won because Americans are growing weary of the war and figured ” what other choice do we have?” And then the congress let the Americans down on that one too. Six things in six months ? Well?
This congress cant get out of its own way.
When Bush still holds more populatity than them, the Dems should really look around.
In the primary, the candidates go at each other. That’s just how it works. Once the primary is done, then the message swings back towards the center. However, Democratic voters should think about electability. The candidate they nominate doesn’t really have to resonate with the American right, they wouldn’t vote democratic anyway. But it does need to hit some key independent issues, and I think the war and healthcare might be at the top of those lists.
Its idealism.
Oh, wouldnt it be nice if the first black and the first woman hit the oval office at the same time ?
AHHHH ! The total vision of the executive couple that represents total civility, Cliton and Obama, wouldnt that be nice ?
But can they govern ?
Or will this upcoming election be a vanity statement on behalf of liberals ?
We need a president that will rip radical Islam a new one, not a statement.