By Dontre
With all of the political maneuvering going on, it would be wise to consider the ramifications of an Obama-Clinton matchup. Considering that the Illinois senator based his campaign on the politics of “change,” and directly painted the former first lady as an establishment candidate of old Washington, it would be antithetical to his campaign ideals to even think of adding her to the ticket.
For Clinton, playing second string to a man whom she’s called “naïve” in his foreign-policy decisions, and “out of touch” with (her) voters, joining Obama would be a decision undertaken solely because of pressure from the party. For both candidates, the pairing would erode the central tenets of their candidacy, on which they both aggressively campaigned — it’s sure to draw lively criticism from Republicans later.
Furthermore, given their vastly different political styles (Obama, dovish; Hillary, hawkish), it’s almost certain that disagreements will abound as to how to best execute policy decisions. After all, the vice presidency is the most important of the Cabinet positions the president chooses, and should go to someone who shares his vision.
(continued)
The position’s power in the Senate could also pose problems for a team that that is at-odds.
Personally, I would like to see Hillary return to the Senate, where her talents are best utilized. Almost half of registered Democrats liked her vision more than they did Sen. Obama’s, and to chuck it aside and be muted by his would be a disservice to her supporters. On this, I call for her to simply sit back and allow Obama to run the remainder of his campaign, and watch him lose; for if he can’t win against Sen. McCain, whom he likens to the continuation of President George Bush, then he his vision truly is out of touch with the American voters, and he shouldn’t be President. If she were the nominee, she’s pretty sure (as am I!) that she’d beat McCain.
If Obama fails, she can simply remind us all of how he, yet again, failed to “seal the deal” and how she (in 2012) is the candidate who can. And there would be 18 million of us who would say, “I told you so.”
Comments (8)
Are you hoping that Obama loses because you want McCain to be president or do you want Obama to lose because your candidate didn't win the nomination? Four more years of a Republican administration, four more years of a war that never should have been waged in the first place, four more years of tax cuts to the wealthy, four more years of a health care system that doesn't work, all because you want the satisfaction of saying "I told you so."
This is why I hate Democrats.
Goodness, I was with you for a moment. I thought we finally had something to agree on. Hillary should absolutely NOT be on the ticket with Obama, for the reasons you stated and more. Then I got to, "Almost half of registered Democrats liked her vision more than they did Sen. Obama’s," and was recalled to my own reason.
Your closing is flawed. What stats are you using to claim nearly half of registered dems voted for Hil? Perhaps you meant nearly half of those who voted? That's substantiated by the closeness of the race.
Check out this pollster site, http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
According to the many polls, on an Obama/McCain match-up, they are either neck and neck or Obama is ahead by a few points. If you recall, he was down by double digits against Hillary at the start of the primaries. So, I project, in very short order, McCain will be shown not be a strong contender at all. Obama has gotten better and stronger as the campaigning continues.
In my opinion, Obama has already beaten his strongest competitor. It's all hype trying to make McCain out to be the politcal warrior to conquer. And it's sour grapes expecting Obama to fail so Hillary can have a better opportunity in four years.
LaShawnda,
Of the pledged delegate votes, Obama won 1,765 (which represents 52% of Democratic votes) and Hillary won 1,637 (which represents about 48% of Democratic votes). Wikipedia offers a thorough explanation of how the delegates are assigned, as does the New York Times.
Meg, You had three left wing talking points in that quick little blub that are prevalent and rarely questioned.
1. The "rich" get 26% of the benefit but pay 68% of the cost for the federal government
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/who-benefits-fr.html
So when there is a tax cut, it's going to benefit the rich, since they fund the entire government. The left wing meme against "tax cuts for the rich" is misdirection, because they are really against any and all tax cuts. The worst fiscal part of the Bush administration hasn't been tax cuts, but that he's cut taxes while growing spending at a frightening pace.
2. Contrary to what Obama & Clinton says, we're not going to be out of Iraq immediately after Obama gets signed in. And it's not going to change the fact that EVERYONE WAS WRONG (CIA, Russia, France, England) about Iraq having WMD, not just Bush.
3. Our healthcare system works well. Of the ~47 million people who don't have health insurance, 10 million aren't even citizens and 17 million make over $50k a year (half of those make over $75k) and are making the financial decision to not be insured - I have done this in the past. Of the remaining ~20 million, 45% will have insurance within 4 months (CBO). This is consistent with Kaiser Family Foundations findings that there are about 8-9 million terminally uninsured (poor, not covered by a government program).
The big problem with our healthcare system is lack of transparency. It's the only industry where the buyer of the service (me, the patient) is not the one paying for the service (insurance company, government), and where prices aren't known until after the fact. This is why Health Savings Accounts should be pushed aggressively (one of the very few Bush Administration wins).
Meg,
If you read my post carefully, my words are, and I (re)quote: If Obama fails, she can simply remind us all of how he, yet again, failed to “seal the deal” and how she (in 2012) is the candidate who can. And there would be 18 million of us who would say, “I told you so.”
I am under the impression that if Barack Obama can't make the nation see that Senator John McCain is bad for us, then he has terribly misjudged our need for "change," and only really has a chorus with a particular sect of the Democratic party. Given the fact that I think Hillary Clinton would make an EXCELLENT president, I would clearly like to see her restore honour and dignity to this party in the case that Obama fails. And, yes, if he fails, all of her talk of him not being strong enough to face McCain would be a very large I-told-you-so moment, as was Al Gore's post-election Nobel prize (and celebrity) vis-a-vis George Bush's dismal presidency.
Jeff, first of all, don’t ever use my name and “left-wing” in the same sentence again. I have a reputation to uphold, here. To your points:
1. I get the tax thing. We all do. I actually think that taxes should be raised (she said wha??). When you’re at war, taxes should go up. Plus, as you said, we’ve been spending money like it grows on trees. Big spending plus tax cuts don’t add up. My point: If you are going to cut taxes, don’t add insult to injury by giving an unfair cut to the middle class.
2. Oh, wait, you mean the war won’t end precisely on January 21, 2009? Oh, snap, I was sure that it would. (Ooh, I’m snarky today.) Obama promises to bring all combat brigades home within 16 months of his inauguration. Clinton promised to have an exit strategy drafted within her first 60 days in office. I’ll take either.
3. A healthcare system wherein 8.3 million children (as per the census findings in 2005) don’t have health insurance is a healthcare system that does not work. But viva la HSA. I love mine.
Dontre, I've reread your post, very, very carefully this time. To quote you: "On this, I call for her to simply sit back and allow Obama to run the remainder of his campaign, and watch him lose." My comments stand.
Dontre,
I'm not sure about your reply to my comment. No where in your post did you mention delegates. My response was in regards to "registered Democrats" which I assumed alluded to "voters". I know enough about the delegate math to comprehend that Obama won. End of story. End of primaries. That being the case whatever gains she racked up during the race has been voided. I still take issue with your comment that "Almost half of registered Democrats liked her vision more than they did Sen. Obama’s, and to chuck it aside and be muted by his would be a disservice to her supporters." Her vision doesn't matter because she didn't win. Her vision has been chucked aside and muted because she didn't win. The only disservice to her supporters is Sen Clinton's lack of gamemanship and graciousness in losing the race for the nomination.
Question: If I'm watching the final game of a series where Team A has 89 pts and Team B (leader in the series) has 92 pts when the buzzer goes, is there a squabble over who actually won the game? "It's so close! Give me my kudos," cries Team A. Who cares how close it is, 92 pts trumps 89 pts.
"If she were the nominee, she’s pretty sure (as am I!) that she’d beat McCain." Remember the old saying, "If if was a fifth, we'd all be drunk!" There were a lot of if's in Sen. Clinton's campaign. A lot of mistakes and misspeaks,.
Then you wrote: "If Obama fails, she can simply remind us all of how he, yet again, failed to “seal the deal” and how she (in 2012) is the candidate who can."
First of all, when did he first fail to seal the deal? Secondly, Clinton couldn't even triumph over Obama (first term senator with a lot less ties in Washington than your girl and a lot less supporters to start with). So, how does it follow that she could progress to stage 2 if she couldn't successfully complete stage 1?
Just like your candidate of choice, your logic is flawed. No one is doing you or your vote a disservice. Your candidate did not win, therefore she needs to take her ball and go home. And her supporters need to let go of the animosity she instilled in them throughout this process.