I had heard rumblings of this earlier this weekend, that Clinton would start making overtures about Obama being the VP nominee with her the top name on the ticket. I say "Dear God, No..." for a few reasons: first, the one thing that might make me vote Democrat this year is Obama at the top of the ticket. The one thing that will make me run, not walk, and pull that lever for McCain will be having Clinton at the top of the ticket. I brought this same point up in another thread; I can't conceive of any possible universe in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton, and having Obama as the VP will not sway my decision.
The second reason: I see this as a play made from a position of weakness on the part of Clinton. She's been consistently losing the delegate count post-New Hampshire; she knows it, Obama knows it, and I know it. She's now got to win something like 60% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Does anyone think that's possible? I don't. She's in a weak position, and will likely get weaker.
I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid on Obama; I don't think he's the greates thing since sliced bread, but for him to even entertain this overture is a monumental waste of time and energy, and I believe he should get the word out, that this is a non-starter. It could be like that scene in "A Bridge Too Far", when the British airborne commander, at Arnhem, is asked by a white-flag carrying German soldier if he would like to discuss surrender terms, replies "We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else?" -- "I'd like to talk with you about your offer of being the Vice President, but I can't right now."
The final reason I think this is a bad idea for Obama to even consider is that, if he were to be the VP nominee, I think he'd risk being tainted by the nearly inevitable anti-Clinton attacks during the general election. I just think he'd be "guilty by association" if he tried to run for the Presidency again, in the future (meaning, running as an incumbent VP succeeding Clinton, or as the John Edwards of 2012).
That being said, there's still a long time to the election. Who knows what will happen...maybe Clinton will be decisively beaten; maybe there will be a brokered convention for the Democrats; maybe Obama does accept this move; and maybe the horse will learn to sing.
We'll see...
HG
I think it's a clever play by Hillary.
With her playing up the possibility of making Obama her VP, she's going after however many Democrats there are who want both Clinton and Obama on the ticket. With Obama refusing to consider it, and not making similar gestures about making Clinton his VP, for these folks - if this is an important consideration for them - their only hope of a "Dream Ticket" is to vote for HRC in the upcoming contests.
Obama's not had a very good week. Strategically and tactically, it just feels like Clinton is running circles around him. We'll know more tomorrow night, of course.
Regarding your "feels like Clinton is running circles around [Obama]" comment, I'd like to direct your attention to this rather interesting write-up in a liberal/progressive blog I ran across a few weeks ago, and have found different and enjoyable. Obsidian Wings had two recent posts about Clinton's claim of "experience" in foreign affairs. The poster, hilzoy, is the editor/creater/top dog at the blog, and goes over picks apart Clinton's claim of "experience": Hillary Clinton and Rwanda, and Crossing the Threshold II. In summation, Clinton is grossly inflating her "experience" claim. More importantly, with the resignation of Samantha Powers from Obama's campaign (something I can understand while finding completely ridiculous and an over-reaction given the specifics of Powers' comment), the Rwanda story, while old in the political/news cycle, could possibly start making the rounds again, and with Powers gone from Obama's campaign, there goes arguably the most effective weapon Obama had to neutralize Clinton's claims on the Rwanda subject.
Who was it that said he'd rather be lucky, than good?
HG
"In summation, Clinton is grossly inflating her "experience" claim."
Of course she is. And it appears, at least to me, to be working.
Obama's campaign was clearly the better operation from, say, Summer 2007 through Iowa. Since then, it's largely been a wash, and that's reflected in the close delegate totals. For the last week or ten days, though, it just feels like the Obama wave has broken, and he's been misfirind while she controls the agenda. At least, that's how it feels to me at the moment.
Everything has been in such a constant state of flux this year, that it can also change again just as quickly in the other direction.
McCain should offer the VP to Obama..OR Hillary(whomever loses the Dem Nom.).. haha.. THERE'S an unbeatable ticket!!!
I don't condone this, but am I the ONLY one hearing thoughts that Obama stands a good chance of assassination, if elected?!?!?!..
That'd be truly a sad state of affairs!!! AND I DON'T MEAN JUST POLITICALLY, cuz I support McCain (cuz I have no where else to go).. But it saddens me to hear such things, and I hope that would never happen!!!!
As much as I DONT want Obama or Hilary to win, I think Obama is the better choice, only because he (I HOPE) he doesn't have as many "hands to wash"! AND (*cough* get rid of NAFTA).
BUT that being said... I HOPE McCain wins, and Obama MIGHT center his focus on CLEANING UP ILLINOIS!!!!
IF that man (Obama) could CLEAN up Illinois, ie balance the budget(I know, not his job NOW, but if he ran for Governor, OR YA KNOW,,, JUST EXUDED SOME INFLUENCE OVER STATE POLITCS), AND could get us back on track ( without taxing the crap out of us) (again, NOT LIKELY) BUT, if that happened... I'd vote for him over Ronald Reagan ( yes I know he's dead) but you know what I mean.
IP Said: Obama's not had a very good week. Strategically and tactically, it just feels like Clinton is running circles around him. We'll know more tomorrow night, of course.
When you look at what really matters, i.e. delegate count, Obama had a fine week. He just didn't increase his margin as much as he had done in previous weeks.
According to The Green Papers, the net result in pledged delegates from last week (TX, OH, RI, VT, WY) was C +193, O +189. So -4 in pledged delegates. Add to that the data from Democratic Convention Watch, where Obama picked up 12 superdelegate endorsements from 3/3 to 3/9, and Clinton picked up 4.
So the week netted Obama +4 total delegates. Not nearly as well as he had done previously, but he can "run out the clock" at this point.
"Not nearly as well as he had done previously, but he can "run out the clock" at this point."
If he tries to "run out the clock" at this point, I think he'll lose, because the pledged delegate count isn't going to be the deciding factor.
Superdelegates are going to choose the nominee, and if HRC finishes strongly (due to Obama "running out the clock") and Obama's campaign keeps stumbling, then that gives the superdelegates an excuse to go to Hillary.
It's no longer just the pledged delegate count, as neither can get enough pledged delegates to win outright. It's about pressure and momentum and who the media is supporting and backroom deals and policy promises and whole lot of other factors.
If the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates, I will no longer be a Democrat, and I will not be the only one who feels that way. The histrionics at that point will make Grant Park feel like a Sunday School picnic.
IP: it seems like you believe that, come Denver, the unpledged delegates will desert Obama in droves. Why?
If you look at the Democratic Convention Watch site I linked above, you'll see that Clinton's unpledged delegate lead is below 40, and Obama's pledged delegate lead is 142. There are 342 unpledged delegates who have not formally endorsed, and 588 pledged delegates yet to be awarded.
I guess I just don't see what you see - I see a convention in Denver where the combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates puts Obama over the 2,025 delegates.
"IP: it seems like you believe that, come Denver, the unpledged delegates will desert Obama in droves. Why?"
I believe that it could happen, if Clinton finishes strongly and Obama continues to stumble.
"I see a convention in Denver where the combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates puts Obama over the 2,025 delegates."
I think that's the most likely outcome, too. But it's not a certainty, and Obama running out the clock is going to hurt him more than it helps.
Obama needs three major facts on his side when he makes his argument to the Party (if it comes to that):
- Most total votes.
- Won the most states.
- Most overall delegates.
That's the end game. If he doesn't have even one of those three then he could be in real trouble. Which is what makes the Michigan and Florida numbers so important.
If it comes down to the Democratic establishment (ie: superdelegates) choosing Clinton over the guy who has more delegates, states and votes, then there will be a walkout, and the Democratic Party may indeed end (which would indeed be "Change we can believe in!"). Clinton knows that. So her entire strategy is going to emphasize the Michigan and Florida votes. That is probably her only chance to catch him in overall votes or delegates.
Anonymous wrote at 11:25 am - Won the most states.
Done. Senator Obama has already won the popular vote in:
AL AK CT CO DC DE GA HI ID IL IA KS LA ME MD MN MO ND NE SC UT VT VA WA WI WY
That's 26 of the 51 US states/territories with electoral votes. (PR, GU, and the USVI have no electoral votes)
Obama also won Democrats Abroad and the USVI.
By comparison, Senator Clinton has won the popular vote in 13 states.
AR AZ CA MA NV NH NM NY NJ OH OK RI TN
I leave TX off this list because it is not clear who collected more delegates or who had more total preference as a result of the two-step system. I omit MI and FL as the primary process there is still under debate.
Nonetheless, 26 is more than half of 51, so at least one of those conditions is satisfied. As for "Most overall delegates", well, that's the sticking point for both of them, nee?
Sounds like Obama's not too impressed and he pointed out that it didn't make sense for the candidate currently in second place to offer the VP slot to the front-runner.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/03/10/news/doc47d58b7cba2d3678257896.txt
If the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates, I will no longer be a Democrat, and I will not be the only one who feels that way
If the superdelegates don't have the power to overrule the pledged delegates, what is the point of having them?
"If the superdelegates don't have the power to overrule the pledged delegates, what is the point of having them?"
That's an excellent question. I think that they were originally created as part of a compromise, a sort of deferential nod to the people who had traditionally controlled the delegate selection process before the reforms of the early seventies.
There seems to also have been an element of panic among these historic power brokers, a sense that the original rules reforms may have gone too far, and a desire to try to prevent candidates in the mold of McGovern or Carter from arising again.
Because they are entirely ex officio, however, there is way too much of a back room stench about them for a party that calls itself Democratic. I have no objection to creating a limited number of honorary seats at the convention out of respect, but if they countermand the clearly expressed will of the voters, then we have a serious problem.
On March 11th, 2008 at 03:43 AM, Kevin Sandefur said: "I have no objection to creating a limited number of honorary seats at the convention out of respect, but if they countermand the clearly expressed will of the voters, then we have a serious problem."
If the superdelegates were eliminated, what would you (or anyone else, actually) do to primary/caucus system to account for the superdelegates no longer being a part of it? Keep a few honorary superdelegates, and just forget the rest (keeping everything the same, essentially)? Keep the proportional awarding of delegates, but up the total? Dump the proportional system, go to winner-take-all, but change the number of delegates available to the winners?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts...
HG
so, Kevin, you would prefer the GOP system? :-)
"so, Kevin, you would prefer the GOP system? :-)"
LOL. No thanks. I like winner take all contests even less. In fact, I think it's long past time we did away with the Electoral College and used straight up actual votes in the general, just like every other elected office in this country.
As to History Guy's questions about how I would change it, I don't think my ideas would ever pass. I think there are probably way too many delegates altogether, but the obvious reason for having that many is to build a sense of ownership and participation between the local parties and the national committee. It's an excuse to "party," as it were, and party building is all about finding ways to promote enthusiasm for the ticket in every part of the union. It may not be exactly grass roots, but it's probably as close as one can reasonably come for any nationwide event or process.
That being the case, I do think that there are too many superdelegates in relation to the overall total. Here again, though, you face the question of whether to scale down the honorary slots or boost the elected ones way past the point of logistical practicality. The simple truth is that if the number of superdelegate slots were reduced, most of those people who don't make the cut would just end up filing for the elected delegate spots on the ballot, thereby further reducing the chances for regular grassroots activists to participate.
The only possible up side to that is that perhaps these lower tier luminaries would be forced to be more thoughtful about who they publicly supported, since it would impact on their chances to attend. I'm not sure if that is enough to outweigh the harm of squeezing out the opportunities to reward people who actually do a lot of the work.
Perhaps the best answer is to create some kind of truly honorary-only, non-voting status for some of the muckie-mucks. Give them some other organizational or ceremonial roles to play at the convention. That way they can still share in the fun, but not be tempted to steal the nomination.
I could completely understand why Illinois Republicans of all people would be betting on the only possibly for the Democrats to fail to gain the presidency--Clinton gets pissed and just burns down the whole party.
The thing is, I don't think people will allow it to happen. I think people know that is exactly what the result would be and quite frankly, I think it even reduces Clinton's current chance of winning down to next to nothing.
But maybe that's my own wishful thinking.
What is clear, is that we sure have two crappy parties as our only real options..;.
Also, I would like to extend Gordy a generous invitation to be my assistant in administration of this website.
Xian-It seems like so much of a pain he might take you up on that.
"Also, I would like to extend Gordy a generous invitation to be my assistant in administration of this website."
Heh.