Obama Doesn't Need the Fusion Ticket
Now that the remaining suspense has been drained from the actual race for the Democratic nomination, we’re on to the next great guessing game: Will Barack Obama be compelled to offer Hillary Clinton the number-two slot?
There’s certainly a strong and highly logical case to be made. Between the two of them, Obama and Clinton will have attracted upward of 36 million votes when all of the primaries are over, with only a few hundred thousand votes separating them. That’s nearly 60 percent of the total number of votes George W. Bush received in the 2004 general election.
Moreover, the Obama and Clinton coalitions are demographically disparate and have been stuck in place for some time. No amount of bad news, it seems, can shake either candidates’ supporters from their devotion. How, then, could Obama as the presidential nominee not at least offer the vice presidency to his rival? It would ensure unity and send the Democrats into the general election with a massive, fervent and quite possibly unbeatable coalition behind them. And conversely, wouldn’t snubbing her needlessly risk the wrath of her legions of rabid backers, many of whom have not been subtle about threatening to back John McCain over Obama?
No one thinks that Obama, in his heart, wants Clinton on his ticket. And he certainly doesn’t want her and her husband in his administration, pursuing their own agendas and threatening to overshadow and undermine him every step of the way. The question, though, is whether he can take a pass on her for VP without severely complicating his general-election chances.
For several reasons, the answer is yes.
First, there’s Clinton herself. She may be thoroughly uninterested in the job and could simply make it clear in the run-up to the convention that, despite her supporters’ ardent wishes that she be offered the spot, she doesn’t want it. That, obviously, would kill the idea and free Obama to do more or less as he pleases.
But even if she were to decide that she wants it, there’s not much she could do in terms of retribution if Obama were to (diplomatically) refuse—not if she wants to retain her viability for a future White House run. This is not small point. From this point forward, with her 2008 prospects all but gone, it’s essential to consider the 2012 factor in all of Clinton’s moves.
The implicit message of her campaign has been that only a Democrat with the Clinton surname is capable of winning a presidential election; all the rest are un-vetted amateurs who will be ravaged by the Republican Attack Machine. She and her husband would never say this publicly, of course, but their actions this campaign strongly suggest that, more or less, they believe it. And if Obama, as they seem to believe he will, succumbs to the G.O.P. this fall, the 2012 nomination will be wide open, and it could be Clinton’s for the taking.
But not if Democrats blame her for Obama’s defeat. The key, then, is for Clinton to be gracious in defeat and to exert herself mightily on Obama’s behalf in the fall, leaving no doubt that she’s a team player. If Obama loses, it will leave Democrats ruing their decision to nominate him over her and inclined to accept her arguments about electability in 2012. But if she were to offer only lukewarm support to Obama or to sit out the fall, Democrats would end up pointing their fingers at her. Unlike many past contests, 2008 is an election Democrats expect to win. For the leader who mucks this up, there will be hell to pay.
In other words, when it comes to bringing the Clintons aboard for the fall, Obama has more leverage than most people realize. Assuming he doesn’t willfully antagonize them, he’ll almost certainly find them agreeable to rolling up their sleeves and pitching in on his behalf once the primaries are over. They’ll be doing it for their own sake much more than his. But the key point is that they’ll be doing it, even if Obama never offers her the vice presidency.
In fact, a case can be made that the Clintons already did this once before, back in 2004, when a John Kerry victory in the general election would have sabotaged Hillary’s plans to run in 2008, perhaps permanently ending her White House ambition. But you never would have known that when, just days before the election, Bill Clinton dramatically re-emerged from his heart surgery recuperation at a massive rally in Philadelphia where he effusively sang Kerry’s praises and rallied his old supporters to the Democratic cause. A Kerry win would have thrown a wrench in the Clintons’ plans, but they knew what they had to do and they did it.
History may also be on Obama’s side if he passes on Clinton as his VP. Once before in the modern era has a nominating contest been as close as the Obama-Clinton race: the 1976 Republican race between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, which wasn’t settled until Reagan came up short in a series of procedural fights at the G.O.P. convention in Kansas City.
In the primaries, Reagan essentially fought Ford to a draw, winning nearly as many delegates as he did and amassing a large and faithful coalition of conservative voters who felt alienated from the Ford White House. Arguably, the case was even stronger in ’76 for Ford to select Reagan as his running mate, since they each represented such ideologically opposite wings.
But Ford did no such thing. But he did seek Reagan’s counsel and Reagan recommended a second-term senator from Kansas named Bob Dole. In a nod to the Reagan forces, Ford picked Dole, knowing that his own preferred choice, Watergate hero William Ruckelshaus, would be anathema to the right.
Dole proved a minor disaster as a running mate, making headlines mainly for his ugly, bare-knuckles rhetoric (World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam were “all Democrat wars” and Jimmy Carter was “southern-fried McGovern”), but party unity wasn’t an issue in the fall. From 33 points behind Jimmy Carter in late August, Ford and Dole rallied and even took the lead in the final pre-election polls. In the end, they fell inches short, but that was the result of last-minute doubts among swing voters about Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon—not mass defections from embittered Reagan loyalists.
Reagan was 65 in 1976, and he knew that he’d get one final shot at the presidency in 1980, whether Ford won or lost (the 22nd Amendment would have kept Ford from running again). But Reagan also knew that causing any trouble for Ford in the fall of ’76, and thus being blamed for electing Carter, would do his long-term ambition no good.
For his own good, Ronald Reagan didn’t make a fuss about not being on the ticket. For her own good, Hillary Clinton probably won’t either.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Welcome to the party...been saying this all along...
"Separated by only a few hundred thousand votes"? "The Clintons did what they had to do, getting behind John Kerry in 2004"? Give us all a break. Barack has begun the welcome process of dismantling the Clinton Machine in 2007-08, beating her by nearly a million popular votes. All honest political observers have been saying for a long time how the Machine screwed Kerry in 2004, barely supporting him and then only last-minute, to open the door for Hillary in 2008. C'mon: we know these things to be true. So do you (or as someone paid to write about politics, we would hope to God you do). So why try to fool us with an article like this?
You're right about one thing, though: NO CLINTON VP "CONSOLATION PRIZE." Barack needs to make one of these great choices instead: KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius – AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano – MO Gov. Claire McAskill – CA Senator Diane Feinstein – NM Gov. Bill Richardson.
The last person any Democrat should want in their administration is Hillary Clinton. She adds nothing, and she's as divisive and unethical as they come. Obama would wake up one morning with a a horse's head in his bed.
Don't add her and just watch Obama lose people like me. I have no problems voting McCain. He is not George Bush and he actually knows what he is doing. I do not need to be inspired by rhethoric to be a proud American - those batteries come included. I want someone who has a plan. Obama without Clinton is like mustard on the bun without any meat.
Claire McAskill for VP. What a great American political story. I never believe in these spouses who take over their loved ones spots, but she is an eminently sensible and well-spoken person who will bring a critical swing state into the equation.
He doesn't need Clinton on the ticket to get her voters on board. I think the best running mate would be Edwards (assuming he would want the job), he appeals to her voters as well and is a young, intelligent guy who could well be a great follow up for Obama in time.
Anybody calling himself/herself a Democrat would not vote for McCain or any other Republican candidate. Not if they are sincere to themselves about who is responsable for the mess the USA is in now. That is after all the GOP and their leadership. The ones switching from Democrat to Republican are either Limbaughs Operation Chaos people or closet Republicans who will only vote Democrat if it suits their republican ideas.
I'm a republican but not a supporter of John McCain. I just can't believe how stupid these democrats are to nominate Obama for their choice. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!! THERE IS NO WAY OBAMA WILL BEAT MCCAIN!!!!!!!! This was your year and now you are going to throw it away over nominating a racist!! WAKE UP IDIOTS!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HILLARY WOULD DESTROY OBAMA'S TICKET. SHE IS TOO SELFISH.
....................................
IF HILLARY WERE RUNNING AS OBAMA'S VP ---- SHE WOULD
SELFISHLY STEAL THE ALL ATTENTION AND THAT WOULD MAKE OBAMA
LOOK TOO WEAK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fusion? More like fission! Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" took all of the joy out of the end of Hillary Clinton by expanding her margin in Texas and keeping her campaign going. Now Sen. Obama is the "beast", and she has the sympathy due to underdog.
Not only that, but it ain't over. Till it's over. It will not be settled until Oregon. If Sen. Clinton can win Oregon, Obama still gets the nomination, but he has no credibility, what with Clinton winning five of six consecutive state primaries.
Not a likely scenario, but not an impossible one either. Contrary to appearances, November looks bleak for either Democrat. The Democratic Party, in the end, is more interested in controlling legislatures than the executive. A lot more officeholders and political jobs in that branch. For 40 years, the voters had the Democrats controlling congress and most of the state legislatures while electing a succession of mostly Republican presidents. Those were the "happy days of yore" for the Democrats, not the Clinton years. Those decades in power on Capitol Hill are the past most Democrats want to restore. And maybe the voters too.
For most Democrats Obama is attractive because he can motivate the base to vote the ticket, not because he can win.
Call this the "Mt. Rushmore" election, starring John McCain as Mt. Rushmore. It is hard to beat Mt. Rushmore.
MNF
Clinton is the black widow, Obama would not be safe enough from Lady Macbeth and her consort MacSlick William Jefferson Big "C", seeking to occupy the throne for the next 16 years, with Baroness Chelsea the presumptive heir, who by 2016 would have occupied the White House for 16 years, incredibly beyond the wildest lunacy of the Constitutional Amendment limiting presidential terms to two. The possibility of Clintons in the white house for 24 years justifies the institution of a monarchy, only this monarch could fire nuclear obliteration upon any challengers. The possibility of Clinton being offered VP is equal to the possibility of Obama paying her $20 million to get out of this contest. Refer to Thomas Edsall yesterday in Huffington Post who consideres this a serious proposition. Who exactly is delusional in this scenario?
So what? You wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Not voting for him is a short-term response to a situation that has long-term implications. Think, for example, of Supreme Court nominations. Do you want McCain nominating more right-wingers who care less about the American people and more about their lifetime appointments?
This is a message to Barack or anyone who might have his ear. Please listen carefully, if u want to win the general election it is yours for the taking only if you do this. You must completely lock up the hispanic vote. Hispanic Americans will not pass on a opportunity to elect the first Hispanic Vice President. With this formula you will be able to do what Reagan did in 1980 a landslide. With this formula you will win Texas,Florida,Arizona,California,New Mexico,Louisiana,New York,Illinois, and all the other core democratic northern states. Please don't mess this up Mr. Obama. You Must pick Bill Ricardson as you Vice president. This is the real Dream Ticket.
Bad Choice! Kathleen Sebelius – AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano – MO
Gov. Claire McAskill – CA Senator Diane Feinstein -- Never them!
The only choice is Bill Richardson for VP!
YOUR INANE CHATTER-
BENEFITS ONLY YOUR PAYCHECK-
WHAT A WASTE OF TIME-
BEEN SAID...
You're truly delusional. You don't realize that as much as you despise Clinton, Clinton supporters despise Obama more -- plus, genuinely believe he has no business being president. If Obama chooses ANYONE OTHER THAN CLINTON, I will vote for McCain. And I don't have to be in the majority on this to make Obama lose. Just 10 or 15 percent of us will be enough to do the trick.
If there isn't a poison pill in this for you and people like Olbermann, Maddow and Tweety, there's no sweetness in it for us. I'd be much happier to see McCain in 08 and Clinton in 12 than Obama now. Had the Republicans nominated a monster like last time, it might have been different, but they didn't.
Without Clinton, Obama loses 38 states. With Clinton, he actually has a shot, despite his weaknesses, his absurd resume, his past associations, the automaton nature of his supporters and the obnoxiousness of the national press.
By the way, nominating that traitor Bill Richardson triggers an automatic McCain vote.
So if Obama loses, it's Clinton's fault? Please. Some of us weren't born yesterday.
Obama is just NOT QUALIFIED to be President.
Fortunately, VOTERS not PUNDITS choose the nominee.
Right now, it is Obama and his supporters who are blocking any Michigan revote or Florida seating for that matter.
WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Obama because "his supporters might get upset". Hillary's supporters WILL GET UPSET as well if she doesn't get a fair shake and that includes the votes she got from Michigan and Florida.
(The media and Howard Dean act as if Obama, by virtue of being black, has a higher claim than Hillary. Listen and you will hear this outrageous bias everywhere.)
If Obama gets his way, it will be all of us who lose since he will have NO chance in November without the support of Michigander and Floridian voters as well as angry voters such as me. We must promise retribution if Howard Dean and the credentials committee refuse to play fair.
Write congress.org and Howard Dean at [www.democrats.org].
Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out and the Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May.
Yet there is still the fact that a substantial number of Hillary voters say they will vote McCain if it comes down to Obama v. McCain. Just because Hillary tells them, however energetically, to do otherwise doesn't mean they actually will. In fact, these voters may think exactly what the writer does, and vote for McCain to set up Hillary in 2012.
If, on the other hand, it becomes an Obama/Clinton ticket he is almost guaranteed to get nearly all of the Hillary voters, as a vote for that ticket will instead be a vote to set up Hillary for the White House in 2016. There will be movitation for Clinton Democrats to vote Obama in that case, where there might be motivation for them to vote McCain if the ticket is absent Hillary.
Shallow analysis by the writer. I'm disappointed in the Observer on this one.
"You're truly delusional. You don't realize that as much as you despise Clinton, Clinton supporters despise Obama more -- plus, genuinely believe he has no business being president. If Obama chooses ANYONE OTHER THAN CLINTON, I will vote for McCain."
Such hatred. What exactly did Obama do to you that made you hate him so much? O, I know what really happened. It is because your choice, Ms Clinton, has poisoned all your minds against him. It is very telling what type of person Hillary Clinton is.
Now, flip it aside, the majority of Obama's supporters WILL vote for Hillary if she wins fair and square. Why? Because Obama does not make his opponents hate her.
My advise: let us rally and beat our real opponents, the Republicans.
GO OBAMA 08!
My take on Obama's VP choice is pretty simple. Although JFK/LBJ pulled it off (barely), two senators on the ticket is the kiss of death. His VP should be a governor. If his major worry is patching things up with Clinton supporters he could pick Rendell; if the worry is a perceived weakness in foreign policy there is Richardson; if he worries about bringing women back in after defeating Sen. Clinton, there is Sebelius. Each of these choices -- along with several others -- would bring some advantage.
You keep telling yourself that Butch. Obama is toast in November. No racists in the white house.
Hillary Clinton comes with a built-in 49% of the electorate that dislike her. The only way Hillary wins is to divide that 49%. Her entire strategy has been to try and beat down her opponents so the half of America that would otherwise vote for her opponent just to keep her out of office won't show up at the polls. I am an independent who initially leaned towards Obama, but now is leaning towards McCain. The one constant for me is that I will not vote for a Clinton ticket no matter which spot she's in. Gov. Sebelius would seem like a good choice as VP. But I bet McCain picks a woman VP before the democrats get around to it.
Kit (not verified) says:
My take on Obama's VP choice is pretty simple. Although JFK/LBJ pulled it off (barely), two senators on the ticket is the kiss of death.
Ummm....Ever hear of Clinton/Gore?
If Hillary is not on the ticket I will vote McCain. Nothing will change my mind. Everytime I hear Obama speak it's like nails on a chalkboard! Believing he didn't hear harsh words from Wright for twenty years would be believable if he had amnesia. But he doesn't and I'm not stupid.
If if Hillary is on the ticket I guess I can stomach the idea and vote for him. But without Hillary I will work my hardest for many months and get as many democrats as I can to vote for McCain. Because I know there are millions out there who will do that.
Regardless if Hillary is in not on the ticket and backs Obama. I will do the complete opposite and not listen to her.
Only Hillary!
An immediate corollary to an Obama presidency is First Lady Michelle Obama.
I understand how you feel. I would rather have McCain (though I would not vote for him) than Clinton. We're in agreement here.
Anyone who votes for McCain because Hillary is not on the ticket is voting to put judges on the Supreme Court who will end Roe vs Wade. If you are voting for McCain then you are voting against a woman's right to choose, the continuation of the war and the continued tanking of the economy. AT LEAST 3 SUMPREME COURT JUDGES ARE IN THEIR 80'S SO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL APPOINT AT LEAST 2 JUDGES TO THE COURT.
Obama does not need that baggage. He needs people with REAL experience.....phoney folk will just take up space and cause additional trouble. Additonally, with all the "stuff" that Bill and Hillary have done/said, many people will be most disappointed if he chose a Hillary for VP just to appease those who feel "her feelings may be hurt". I thing Obama and his people are smarter than that. What a chance he would be taking...together Bill and Hillary would be in a position to "jack Obama up" at the stroke of a pin. At the present time we see vindication at its worst. Bill said it best.
"Such hatred. What exactly did Obama do to you that made you hate him so much? O, I know what really happened. It is because your choice, Ms Clinton, has poisoned all your minds against him. It is very telling what type of person Hillary Clinton is."
***
Keep dreaming. What poisoned the well for Clinton supporters wasn't Clinton but the media goon squad -- Maddow, Olbermann, Tweety, Robinson, Russert -- who have made it impossible to support Obama. The coverage has been so biased and disgusting that there's no way many Clinton supporters could conceive of voting for Obama, no matter what Hillary says. If Hillary is not on the ticket, we just start thinking of '12.
The thing to remember is Bush is leaving office either way. Plus, McCain is actually qualified to be president, while Obama is not. Plus, McCain is ancient and will probably serve one term anyway. Why let the Democratic party destroy itself with a weak, indecisive President Obama when we can wait four years, let the Republicans implode further, and come back in '12 for a realignment election?
Without Hillary, Obama loses 38-40 states. He definitely loses Florida and Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico (unless he picks Richardson), Nevada, West Virginia; and he probably loses Pennsylvania. Without Hillary, you will see Obama campaigning in NY and Califorinia in OCTOBER. I am so looking forward to it, as much as I'm looking forward to Maddow and Olbermann's faces on Election Night.
there is no way obama picks a women that is not clinton. i doubt she would want the vp spot and for obvious reasons it may be a distraction for obama to have her on it. that said, she has earned the right to have some say in some things. things like who does not get the vp spot. no women will be given the vp spot. she and her people will see to that. why would they allow a women to then have national exposure and be a competitor to clinton with her solid female base of support. who ever that idiot is that says claire mcaskil as vp canidate is smoking something. she has one year in the senate, one year. obama's disadvantage is that he doesnt have experince. why would he pick a vp running mate that has even less. it is so mind boggling dumb that i dont know why i even bothered to speak to it. and richardson has been a little damaged by the judas thing weather you like it or not and he was terrible in the primarys, i mean really bad. ed rendel would make a lot of sense.