Just a short thought I was discussing with some other clerks the other day. Given the near even split Senators Clinton and Obama are pulling from the Democratic caucuses, wouldn't it make sense for them to run on a joint ticket? I would think that if Clinton wins the nomination, she would give some thought to appointing Obama as VP (rather than say, her husband). Given the ability for the vice president to stay out of harms way (for the most part) politically, it would allow Obama to continue staying relatively neutral on hot-button issues. Of course, the counter to that is that he implicitly adopts whatever the president would stand for.
On the other hand, I don't think Sen. Clinton would be a vice president if Obama won the ticket for a number of reasons, least of which I am going to say is her age. She's in this to win it, not be second best. Given Senator Obama's positions, however, I think he's in more of a win-win position, and he may be more receptive toward a joint ticket if those circumstances present themselves. I would be shocked if either appointed Edwards to the position, but stranger things have happened.
For the Republicans, I can't imagine any of the current quartet who could theoretically win this (although I suppose it's really down to Huckabee or Romney at this point) against either Clinton or Obama. The real question is how fast the Republicans will unite behind the victor and try and reposition the part against the winds of change that are starting to blow (and will continue to blow harder as November approaches).
So, a couple predictions in advance of Super Tuesday:
Patriots 19-0 (but don't bet the line).
If Clinton emerges as the Democratic nomination, Obama will not decline an offer to be VP. Cries of "Obama 2016" will emerge.
The public will become aware and subsequently leary of having this country run by two families since 1992.
If Obama wins, Clinton will disappear into senatorial obscurity. Bill Clinton will entertain the notion of being vice president.
A young republican will emerge in the next 6 years who will rejuvenate the party in a similar fashion as Senator Obama.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A united democratic ticket?
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think what gets me about this primary process, other than the media's saturation of it, is that it seems that former President Clinton is essentially getting two bites at an apple that he can't constitutionally chomp at. At least the media is starting to pick up on this, at least to some degree. See Chill Bill and Hillary Clinton Defends Husband's Role in Campaign.
As someone who talks with other liberals about this subject daily, I can tell you we are way more afraid of running against McCain than Romney or Huckabee. I think the Republicans underestimate him all the time. Although I think he could lose his independent appeal instantly by talking about bombing Iran again.
I don't think Clinton would win if she gets the nomination, and Obama wouldn't be her VP. She wouldn't ask him, and he wouldn't accept. If they do run together, I think it will be less of a successful ticket because they obviously hate each other.
I think out of all the Republicans, McCain is the most qualified, but I highly doubt he's going to get the ticket. If it does go to either Romney or Huckabee, I would be surprised if either of them could beat whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
Right now, I think that the Democrats (and most non-incumbents) are going to do a near-clean sweep, and frankly, I'm surprised the Republicans seem to be so nonchalant about it.
You're right, if Clinton wins she's not going to put Obama as her VP. I think she could be silly enough to put Bill as, but I don't think the party would let her make such a ridiculous move. You're probably also right that even if Obama wins, he probably wouldn't use her as a VP choice either.
Do you think she's going to wind up winning the nomination though? I just wonder who would have won if Al Gore had jumped into the mix.
Yeah, Al Gore is like the best political rehabilitation I have ever witnessed, definitely. But the thing with Gore is that everyone likes him now b/c he doesn't have to be a politician. He speaks truth to power instead of making promises he can't keep. And some libs are mad at Gore still for 2000, or they say, hey your ideas are great, why didn't you do anything about this stuff back when you had power?
Maybe the Clintons are genuinely more loved than I realize, and I just have a biased view about them b/c I am from the South. People in the South hate the Clintons a lot, even Democrats. They seem like the ultimate sellouts. But she's winning now, right? I just see a lot of Dems staying home during the general election because they can't bring themselves to vote for her.
The Republicans are definitely at a disadvantage right now, but the election itself is helping to heal some wounds because it takes the spotlight off Bush and Cheney for awhile.
I think if she wins the primaries, which I still think she will be edged out, the exit polls in November will be similar to the way they were in 2004. Didn't the majority of people who voted for John Kerry vote not for John Kerry but because he wasn't George Bush? I just wonder if the Republican nominee will wind up getting the same benefit.
As much as I am for change, I am pretty positive that I would not vote for Hillary Clinton - not because I don't think a woman could be president, but because I think there is a possibility that she would wind up being a puppet of her husband, who has already served his constitutional limit. As I've stated many times, it's time for a new family dynasty to take over for a few years. Maybe this is too hard line of a stance, but that's where I'm sitting now.
Post a Comment