Why Not Both?

DRS112 · 05-22-2008, 05:17 AM

Lexington

Why not both?
May 15th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The dubious case for a Democratic dream team

BACK in March Barack Obama compared the Democratic primary to a “good movie” that has lasted “half an hour too long”. The movie has long since gone bad, and half an hour has dragged into an eternity. Surely it is high time to roll out the Hollywood ending.

And what could be more Hollywood than a dream ticket? This has the support of plenty of senior Democrats such as Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, and Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51% of Democrats, the argument goes, when we could have a dream ticket that has won 100%? A couple of months ago Hillary Clinton signalled that she would be willing to have Mr Obama as her vice-president. Perhaps it is time for her to swallow her pride and take the second spot.

The “dream ticket” would reunite a party that has fractured along lines of race and class. Mrs Clinton would boost her chances of getting the presidency some day (a third of all vice-presidents have gone on to the top job). And Mr Obama would acquire a street-fighter with a proven record of appealing to voters that he finds hard to connect with. There are plenty of examples, including the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980, of bitter rivals turning themselves into successful allies.

The trouble with this argument is that it overstates the benefits of an Obama-Clinton partnership and understates the costs. Mrs Clinton certainly has genuine appeal to female voters, particularly the older and less educated women who were moved by her tears in New Hampshire and have since been enthused by her dogged determination. But most of these voters are hard-core Democrats who are unlikely to defect to John McCain in November. The Democrats' biggest problem is not with white women but with white men—particularly with white working-class men—who have been drifting to the Republican Party for decades. No less than 62% of white men voted for George Bush in 2004. John McCain, a war hero and man's man, has an obvious appeal to this group; that appeal might prove irresistible if the Democrats pair a black man with a white woman.

The Democratic Party has plenty of people who have more genuine appeal to the white working classes than a faux populist such as the Wellesley- and Yale-educated former first lady. Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio, is a former Methodist minister who might help Mr Obama connect with religious voters. The same can be said of Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia and a former missionary. Mr Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, goes down well with the beer-and-football crowd (he moonlights as a commentator for football matches). Unlike Mrs Clinton, these men represent vital swing states. Or there is John Edwards, who has run for veep before, and who has just endorsed Mr Obama.

There are also several others who might do much more than Mrs Clinton to make up for another of Mr Obama's potential weaknesses—his lack of foreign policy and defence experience. Wesley Clark, Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel are all former Vietnam war heroes. Mr Clark is a retired four-star general who once commanded NATO. Mr Hagel, a Republican senator for Nebraska and a former best buddy of Mr McCain, has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war. Mr Webb, a Democratic senator for Virginia, was secretary of the navy under Ronald Reagan. Why choose an armchair warrior who has been reduced to inventing stories about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia when you can choose a genuine warrior instead?

Then there is the downside of the dream ticket. Mr Obama's best selling-point is that he represents “change” and “hope”—a chance to break with the old politics of partisan division and personal destruction and to bring a new spirit of reconciliation to Washington, DC. The Clintons are not only living reminders of the noxious politics of the 1990s. Exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina showed that almost half of voters in the Democratic primary did not regard Mrs Clinton as trustworthy. They also bring a menagerie of old-timers in their wake, from high-paid lobbyists such as Mark Penn, to perennial bloviators like Paul Begala and James Carville.

How not to do it
The dream ticket would also be a formula for a dysfunctional administration. It is hard to imagine Mrs Clinton contenting herself with a purely symbolic role, any more than Dick Cheney has. She spent the early 1990s turning the position of first lady into a virtual co-presidency. She is married to a former president who has lost none of his self-regard. Team Clinton is full of people who have made it clear that they regard the Obamaites as uppity whippersnappers.

Does America really want the vice-president's office to become—or rather remain—a rival power centre to the Oval Office? That could mean going back to the 1990s, when the White House was consumed by palace intrigue between rival factions, each determined to advance their own agendas and do down their rivals. The presidency is difficult enough to run at the best of times, without installing a former first lady and an ex-president in the vice-president's residence.

Mr Obama will find it hard to resist pressure for a shotgun marriage to Mrs Clinton. His terrible result in West Virginia this week underlines once again his weakness with the white working-class. And Mr Obama cannot win the nomination without the support of superdelegates, who are desperate to reunite a divided party. But putting Mrs Clinton on the ticket would produce few benefits that could not be replicated with a carefully chosen alternative vice-president. And at worst it could lay the foundations of a failed presidency.

Rollerball · 05-22-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

Mr Obama will find it hard to resist pressure for a shotgun marriage to Mrs Clinton. His terrible result in West Virginia this week underlines once again his weakness with the white working-class.

This story is working on a lot of shaky premises. Not the least of which is the belief that Obama has a problem with the white working-class.

As this week's contest in Oregon, and other primaries in states such as Wisconsin and Iowa have shown, Obama does NOT have a problem with the white working-class in general, only the Appalachian white working-class. He would never have made it as far as he has without votes from white working-class voters.

It's easy to see how someone might make that mistake, it's all we've been hearing for the past couple weeks from Camp Clinton. It's one of her few remaining straws, and not a very sturdy one at that.

CosmicRocker · 05-22-2008, 06:22 AM

Cheney is not a " rival" - but rather a separate power center to the White House.
"Billary" could do quite well there, advancing the Obama agenda,
unless you somehow believe she would sabotage the Adm.

Why would she sabotage her OWN Adm - if she was a part of it?
She would have a vested interest, in sucess; as it would also put her on tract to nailing down the 2016 nomination -
she would be 68 - not too old.

Making her a part of the Adm, would eliminate any fear of sabotage in the Senate,
and strenghten Obama's hand in Fla. and Ohio., and Pa.

It would also pretty much eliminate Hillary supporters defections to McCain, or sitting it out.
About 1/3 of her supporters say the won't vote for Obama, a VERY high number.
Even if you cut that in half, over 10% still would not back Obama.

Unity,electoral strength, a Bill Clinton as roving ambassador, and Hillary's attention to detail, would complement Obama's lofty goals of hope and change.

The_Heretic · 05-22-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

Mr Obama will find it hard to resist pressure for a shotgun marriage to Mrs Clinton. His terrible result in West Virginia this week underlines once again his weakness with the white working-class.

This part is completely false. It's not white wroking class voters he has a problem with at all. It's the Appalachian racist voters, whom we can do without anyway. They went for Jr. in 2004 [when it was clear he was the worse president in history] and are too irrational to be reasoned with.

I saw write them off in the general election and help them out once Obama's president.

Rollerball · 05-22-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

Cheney is not a " rival" - but rather a separate power center to the White House.
"Billary" could do quite well there, advancing the Obama agenda,
unless you somehow believe she would sabotage the Adm.

Why would she sabotage her OWN Adm - if she was a part of it?
She would have a vested interest, in sucess; as it would also put her on tract to nailing down the 2016 nomination -
she would be 68 - not too old.

Making her a part of the Adm, would eliminate any fear of sabotage in the Senate,
and strenghten Obama's hand in Fla. and Ohio., and Pa.

It would also pretty much eliminate Hillary supporters defections to McCain, or sitting it out.
About 1/3 of her supporters say the won't vote for Obama, a VERY high number.
Even if you cut that in half, over 10% still would not back Obama.

Unity,electoral strength, a Bill Clinton as roving ambassador, and Hillary's attention to detail, would complement Obama's lofty goals of hope and change.

BS
First off the whole idea of a possible sabotage is just stupid. Don't even waste your time addressing that. Whether she's part of the adminstration or not, any type of sabotage would put a noose around her own neck. It's dumb to even suggest that.

Next, there are over 10% that would not vote for Obama even if Jesus Christ were his running mate. So that point holds no water.

Lastly, I lost interest in this post before I got to the flowery utopia of government you describe with Bill Clinton as roving ambassador and so on.... and so it goes...

The_Heretic · 05-22-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerball

BS
First off the whole idea of a possible sabotage is just stupid. Don't even waste your time addressing that. Whether she's part of the adminstration or not, any type of sabotage would put a noose around her own neck. It's dumb to even suggest that.

Next, there are over 10% that would not vote for Obama even if Jesus Christ were his running mate. So that point holds no water.

Lastly, I lost interest in this post before I got to the flowery utopia of government you describe with Bill Clinton as roving ambassador and so on.... and so it goes...

Did you notice he thinks of Obama's administration as being Hillary's own, not that she'd be apart of someone else's? He knows the true nature of the beast and he still supports her. Might as well be a neo-conservative for all he's willing to accept.

CosmicRocker · 05-22-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerball

BS
First off the whole idea of a possible sabotage is just stupid. Don't even waste your time addressing that. Whether she's part of the adminstration or not, any type of sabotage would put a noose around her own neck. It's dumb to even suggest that.

Next, there are over 10% that would not vote for Obama even if Jesus Christ were his running mate. So that point holds no water.

Lastly, I lost interest in this post before I got to the flowery utopia of government you describe with Bill Clinton as roving ambassador and so on.... and so it goes...

LOL. I don't advocate "sabotage", but that seems to be Obama supporters chief reasoning not to bring her into the Adm.

10% is a minimalist figure.
But if Hillary is seen as being " dissed" by Obama, and the way passions run high among both camps, you might be looking at 25%.

I have no dog in this fight, I'm not advocating she get's the VP.
I don't care if Obama get's the Presidency or not -as long as we get an overwhelmingly Dem. Congress, for domestic policies.

Frankly; Obama's ideas of negotiations without pre-conditions is naive, and I'd be just as comfortable with McCain as Commander-in Chief.

But it would unify the party, and as far as Obama supporters are concerned - they need to take that into consideration.

PS. look at today's Quinnapiac polls, that show continued Obama weakness in Ohio, and Fla. -
Hillary would go a long way to pulling in those states.

CosmicRocker · 05-22-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Heretic

Did you notice he thinks of Obama's administration as being Hillary's own, not that she'd be apart of someone else's? He knows the true nature of the beast and he still supports her. Might as well be a eno-conservative for all he's willing to accept.

grow up. I used the example of a strong VP, which would complement Obama's President, not " Hillary's own"
But your fanatical description of the beast blinds you to the assets she could bring.

Like I said, I don't give a rats ass, but i'm trying to be serious here by showing what COULD be a strong Adm.
You prefer to characterize me as an neo-conserve, and her as a beast.

Maybe 1 time you might surprise us, and actually contribute something of worth to a discussion. I'm not holding my breath.

DRS112 · 05-22-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerball

This story is working on a lot of shaky premises. Not the least of which is the belief that Obama has a problem with the white working-class.

As this week's contest in Oregon, and other primaries in states such as Wisconsin and Iowa have shown, Obama does NOT have a problem with the white working-class in general, only the Appalachian white working-class. He would never have made it as far as he has without votes from white working-class voters.

It's easy to see how someone might make that mistake, it's all we've been hearing for the past couple weeks from Camp Clinton. It's one of her few remaining straws, and not a very sturdy one at that.

You read the whole thing and think it's shaky? You do realize that it was against a Hillary-Obama ticket right?

You may disagree with the white working class thing...but it does not mean the notion is without reason....

VKMHVM2 · 05-22-2008, 11:32 AM

Why Not Both?

Obama may want to live to an old age?

05-22-2008, 05:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
DRS112 Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,355 My Mood: Thanks: 72 Thanked 116 Times in 86 Posts	Why Not Both? Lexington Why not both? May 15th 2008 From The Economist print edition The dubious case for a Democratic dream team BACK in March Barack Obama compared the Democratic primary to a “good movie” that has lasted “half an hour too long”. The movie has long since gone bad, and half an hour has dragged into an eternity. Surely it is high time to roll out the Hollywood ending. And what could be more Hollywood than a dream ticket? This has the support of plenty of senior Democrats such as Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, and Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51% of Democrats, the argument goes, when we could have a dream ticket that has won 100%? A couple of months ago Hillary Clinton signalled that she would be willing to have Mr Obama as her vice-president. Perhaps it is time for her to swallow her pride and take the second spot. The “dream ticket” would reunite a party that has fractured along lines of race and class. Mrs Clinton would boost her chances of getting the presidency some day (a third of all vice-presidents have gone on to the top job). And Mr Obama would acquire a street-fighter with a proven record of appealing to voters that he finds hard to connect with. There are plenty of examples, including the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980, of bitter rivals turning themselves into successful allies. The trouble with this argument is that it overstates the benefits of an Obama-Clinton partnership and understates the costs. Mrs Clinton certainly has genuine appeal to female voters, particularly the older and less educated women who were moved by her tears in New Hampshire and have since been enthused by her dogged determination. But most of these voters are hard-core Democrats who are unlikely to defect to John McCain in November. The Democrats' biggest problem is not with white women but with white men—particularly with white working-class men—who have been drifting to the Republican Party for decades. No less than 62% of white men voted for George Bush in 2004. John McCain, a war hero and man's man, has an obvious appeal to this group; that appeal might prove irresistible if the Democrats pair a black man with a white woman. The Democratic Party has plenty of people who have more genuine appeal to the white working classes than a faux populist such as the Wellesley- and Yale-educated former first lady. Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio, is a former Methodist minister who might help Mr Obama connect with religious voters. The same can be said of Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia and a former missionary. Mr Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, goes down well with the beer-and-football crowd (he moonlights as a commentator for football matches). Unlike Mrs Clinton, these men represent vital swing states. Or there is John Edwards, who has run for veep before, and who has just endorsed Mr Obama. There are also several others who might do much more than Mrs Clinton to make up for another of Mr Obama's potential weaknesses—his lack of foreign policy and defence experience. Wesley Clark, Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel are all former Vietnam war heroes. Mr Clark is a retired four-star general who once commanded NATO. Mr Hagel, a Republican senator for Nebraska and a former best buddy of Mr McCain, has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war. Mr Webb, a Democratic senator for Virginia, was secretary of the navy under Ronald Reagan. Why choose an armchair warrior who has been reduced to inventing stories about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia when you can choose a genuine warrior instead? Then there is the downside of the dream ticket. Mr Obama's best selling-point is that he represents “change” and “hope”—a chance to break with the old politics of partisan division and personal destruction and to bring a new spirit of reconciliation to Washington, DC. The Clintons are not only living reminders of the noxious politics of the 1990s. Exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina showed that almost half of voters in the Democratic primary did not regard Mrs Clinton as trustworthy. They also bring a menagerie of old-timers in their wake, from high-paid lobbyists such as Mark Penn, to perennial bloviators like Paul Begala and James Carville. How not to do it The dream ticket would also be a formula for a dysfunctional administration. It is hard to imagine Mrs Clinton contenting herself with a purely symbolic role, any more than Dick Cheney has. She spent the early 1990s turning the position of first lady into a virtual co-presidency. She is married to a former president who has lost none of his self-regard. Team Clinton is full of people who have made it clear that they regard the Obamaites as uppity whippersnappers. Does America really want the vice-president's office to become—or rather remain—a rival power centre to the Oval Office? That could mean going back to the 1990s, when the White House was consumed by palace intrigue between rival factions, each determined to advance their own agendas and do down their rivals. The presidency is difficult enough to run at the best of times, without installing a former first lady and an ex-president in the vice-president's residence. Mr Obama will find it hard to resist pressure for a shotgun marriage to Mrs Clinton. His terrible result in West Virginia this week underlines once again his weakness with the white working-class. And Mr Obama cannot win the nomination without the support of superdelegates, who are desperate to reunite a divided party. But putting Mrs Clinton on the ticket would produce few benefits that could not be replicated with a carefully chosen alternative vice-president. And at worst it could lay the foundations of a failed presidency.
	Top

05-22-2008, 06:22 AM	#3 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,667 My Mood: Thanks: 126 Thanked 96 Times in 76 Posts	Cheney is not a " rival" - but rather a separate power center to the White House. "Billary" could do quite well there, advancing the Obama agenda, unless you somehow believe she would sabotage the Adm. Why would she sabotage her OWN Adm - if she was a part of it? She would have a vested interest, in sucess; as it would also put her on tract to nailing down the 2016 nomination - she would be 68 - not too old. Making her a part of the Adm, would eliminate any fear of sabotage in the Senate, and strenghten Obama's hand in Fla. and Ohio., and Pa. It would also pretty much eliminate Hillary supporters defections to McCain, or sitting it out. About 1/3 of her supporters say the won't vote for Obama, a VERY high number. Even if you cut that in half, over 10% still would not back Obama. Unity,electoral strength, a Bill Clinton as roving ambassador, and Hillary's attention to detail, would complement Obama's lofty goals of hope and change. __________________ Try a little love. and it cant go wrong Get on the right thing My little love, you cant go wrong Get on the right thing .
	Top

05-22-2008, 11:32 AM	#10 (permalink)
VKMHVM2 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,799 My Mood: Thanks: 86 Thanked 62 Times in 49 Posts	Why Not Both? Obama may want to live to an old age? __________________ It's All Here! Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode