Veep Pledge 2008
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, HillarySo the race goes on. And on. Also, on. Seven weeks until Pennyslvania. Seven weeks for Hillary and Barack to slap each other around.
Not a good thing for Democrats. We’re going to need Pennsylvania in the general, so a seven week mud-wrestling match is not going to be helpful. I have a proposal. Because, as my regular readers know, I am all about helping.
I propose that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both announce now that whoever prevails, they will choose the other as their running mate.
Why is this a good thing? First because it will limit the attacks and the incivility. It will force the debate onto substantive issues. Pennsylvania would get a rational discussion of issues by two very smart people, rather than a contest of sneers and subtle slurs.
Secondly, it’s what all Democrats want. The fact is we like both these candidates. We want them both. Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. Most Democrats can live with either.
A simple pledge that takes all the negatives out of this race, preserves party unity, keeps media focus on the Democratic side of the race, allows fundraising to go on apace, and leaves Republicans unsure of quite how to run against them.
This is the message Howard Dean and the uncommitted Super D’s need to deliver to Barack and Hillary: you’re going to be in this together, united, even while you jostle for the top spot.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Interesting angle, but I worry that Clinton’s political ambition would get in the way of her accepting second chair to a less-experienced competitor. Strategically, long-term, Obama could benefit greatly from being VP–in 4 or 8 years, there would be no issue with his lack of executive experience.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:14 am
#1 FAULTY LOGIC – What do you mean, “it’s what all Democrats want?” “We like both these candidates?” That’s like suggesting that because half the people at a party are vegans, and the other half are meat-eaters, you can make everyone happy by serving up a big bowl of beef & broccoli stir-fry.
#2 FLIP-FLOP DYNASTY Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Obama is raking in big votes because people want this to end!
#3 … AND NOW, BACK TO EMPTY PARTISANSHIP! What happened to all the excitement about Chuck Hagel? Bloomberg? I would rather see Obama, quite frankly, stick this out for 7 weeks and nail it in Pennsylvania, than to give in to the veep–either accepting Hillary, or taking the post himself.
#4 “I, John McCain, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute…”
Let Hillary anywhere near the nomination, and you know this will happen. Not that that’s a bad thing, ’cause I’ve always respected McCain. But seriously, think about it…
March 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Agnostick:
Wrong, dude.
1) Polls show the vast majority of Dems like both candidates. There’s very little rancor.
2) I don’t think 1% of the votes have had to do with the dynasty question.
3) Obama’s not going to win PA. PA is OH, all over again, and even more blue collar.
4) Nope. This economy is increasingly about the economy. By November (barring some new terrorist attack) it will be all about the economy, and McCain’s got nothing on economy. Either Barack or Hillary will beat McCain.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Agno:
One other point: Obama hit Hillary over the head with everything he’s got. She’s still standing. Whatever it takes to kill her, he hasn’t got it. I’m a Barack supporter, but he is in trouble, don’t kid yourself.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Subsequently we all know that Barak Obama cannot hold up under this pressure. Especially during this next 7 weeks he is going to have to really start explaining himself. More is going to come out over his relationship to the slum lord.
His church will come into focus. In other words the press will start digging, looking for news. What they find will be disturbing.
In other words Justin your proposal simply smacks of……Please oh please lets not look at what lies beneath the surface of Barak Obama. Lets just trust that he will do what he says despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary.
Barak Obama needs a free ride. Its not going to happen and that has the Obama supporters terrified right now.
The next 7 weeks will tear away the layers of happy speeches and reveal a man who is lacking in substance other then basic far left talking points with a few bones thrown at the opposition to make himself appear moderate.
If he cannot weather this storm. If he cannot stand the heat that is fixing to come his way then he simply will prove what we all suspect. He is not ready to be president of the United States. He is not ready to be Commander in Chief of a nation at war.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Kissinger:
It wasn’t Justin, it was me.
We don’t know whether Obama can take the pressure. I suspect he can and will. He’s a very quick study. And obviously a hell of an organizer.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
But I thought Hillary was trying for the role of McCain’s VP since she’s trying to make the campaign all about experience and put McCain ahead of Obama in that all important (Per her campaign.) qualification in one of her own statements.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
MR,
It is a good idea, and it would be smart for the Dems to do something like this -but…
There is an asymmetry problem. Exile is right - Clinton won’t do it. She has no interest in the VP job. If Obama looks like he is going to take the nomination, she will be more interested in taking Harry Reids role - majority leader in the Senate.
Like I said, I think it is a good idea for the dems, but it only works one way. Obama has to take the VP role, and he really should cut a deal to do it now. He won’t, but he should. Your point about Clinton taking the best hit that Obama could deliver (overspend, big endorsements, better organization), when she was already weakened - and coming out on top - is very very telling.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Justin,
To your point: “Secondly, it’s what all Democrats want. The fact is we like both these candidates. We want them both.” Yea, if you allow Hillary to be #1, cause that’s the only way she’s comin along on this trip, and LOL to Agnostick’s take on that scenario!
I don’t believe it’s gonna swing that far the other way; what happened to the logic that she had to not just win but WIN BIG in both states? Obama still has a good lead with more to come- he’s not dead in the water with this set back, so why would he concede anything at this point. No, it’s not gonna happen, as appealing as it sounds.
And finally, not to worry; McCain’s not goin anywhere. Look what’s on his agenda: an endorsement from Pres. Bush? Wow, stop it! We’re so under impressed it hurts. There’s such a backlash from the last 8 yrs that people just wanna make sure they undo the mess with as much force as they can. Will Barack do that for us?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
MW:
She may have no practical choice. Look, Howard Dean holds a press conference. “I’m calling on both candidates to take this pledge . . . I’m calling on both to put party and country ahead of their own ambitions.” Various uncommitted Super D’s echo the call and vow to oppose whichever candidate harms party unity.
So who plays the skunk at the picnic? Hillary’s behind and needs the Super D’s. So she doesn’t say no. Which means Obama has a very hard time saying no, as well.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Clinton-Obama will be the Democratic ticket. That’s my prediction. In the case that Obama is the presidential nominee, he might choose Hillary in the same pattern of JFK choosing LBJ (younger guy choosing his bitter, more experienced rival). But I’m putting more money on Clinton as the nominee.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
MR:
You do not have unanimity that this is bad for Dems. Kos is saying the battle over the next seven weeks keeps the Dems on the front page, crowding out the Reps. I think Justin quoted a poll yesterday that most Dems want the battle to go on, and by inference do not believe it is damaging to the party. Absent a real hue and cry from the base, I just not see Dean pulling a grandstand play like this. Certainly he and other party leaders will be very active in the background and try to minimize the damage.
But I think we are locked in to another seven weeks of this - It can only be avoided if Obama makes a bold “selfless” move, steps aside and takes the 2nd spot.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
And whatever happened to all the $$$?
All this talk that Clinton’s donors were pretty much “tapped out,” but Obama’s millions were small donations from millions more people?
By implication, doesn’t that mean that Clinton’s war chest is gonna start lightening up a lot sooner than Obama’s?
I’m still holding out for Obama-Bloomberg or Obama-Hagel!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
No, I just don’t see a Republican VP being viable in today’s atmosphere. I can see Hagel as SecDef if he’d take it, though.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Agnostick,
As much as I like the idea, I agree with Jim S - it can’t happen. The VP spot is the premiere pole position for the next presidential cycle. The Dems just cannot hand that off to a Republican or Independent. Hagel SecDef is the best we can hope for.
Also - when Obama outspends Clinton 3 -1 and then loses, it tends to equalize the war chest.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Yes - but don’t forget about the $115 million her campaign “blew” through in December while his campaign set fundraising records, minimized expenses, and conserved. He’s way ahead financialy. Looking at things as they are right now, I would be more inclined to believe Obama has the wherewithall to go the distance financially, Clinton may have no choice but to look for a compromise. Who would you give money too?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Please explain this to me: why would Obama, who is currently ahead in pledged delegates, “step aside” at this point? That’s way beyond selfless. And it makes it look like he only went in to this contest to get the VP spot, and hasn’t been serious this whole time.
If you have a rationale why Obama would do this, please share. And for my sake, please use simple words, so I can understand. Because at the moment I just can’t see any sense to it.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
For party unity.
To cut a deal from a position of strength, and not weakness after he is beaten in PA
Because it would be an unbeatable ticket.
Because he would the first African American Vice President.
Because he remains vulnerable on the experience issue both within the party and in the electorate at large.
Because after 4 or 8 years as VP he would get the Dem nomination just for asking and probably the Presidencas well.
Because it is a way for Dems to control the White House for 16 years.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
- Doing it for “party unity” would definitely be selfless. I’m trying to remember the last time I saw a politician who had enough ego to run for the Presidency at all, and was that selfless.
- It’s not entirely clear to me that he would be in a position of weakness after Pennsylvania. In fact, I can’t quite see a realistic scenario where he is behind in pledged delegates before Puerto Rico. At the earliest.
- Somehow, I don’t see Clinton/Obama as an unbeatable ticket. Why would it be any more unbeatable than Clinton/? And why do I keep encountering people who say: “I’ll vote for Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton” — but never a one who says “I’ll vote for Clinton over McCain, but McCain over Obama”?
- And being the first African-American Vice President is preferable to being the first African-American President just how, exactly? (Sorry if I’m just dense.)
- Obama is vulnerable on experience. But then, so is Clinton. But the solution is to run on change or judgement, rather than focus experience. Which would be right on track for Obama, but require a 180 turn for Clinton.
- Maybe. But a lot can happen in 4 or 8 years. Economics, war, etc. And there is always the possibility that being Clinton’s VP would be about as valuable as a Bush endorsement is likely to be to McCain.
- This assumes the earlier point about Clinton/Obama being an unbeatable ticket. And that Obama would do badly enough to hand the White House back to the Republicans afterwards.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Alot can happen in 4 or 8 years. Just ask President Agnew, President Ford, President Mondale, President Bush 41, President Gore, President Cheney……In otherwords I think he needs to strike while it’s hot, waiting for a step up as Billary’s number 2 would be a last resort I think.