Friday, March 07, 2008

Job Swaps for Clinton & Obama?

Predictions of a bloodbath at the Democratic convention in Denver seem ever more likely to come true. Robin Lustig has a solution for the Democrats - job swap half way through the term. It's been done before, in Israel when Peres and Shamir agreed to swap jobs at an agreed point in the political cycle. I can't see it happening in the USA any more than here.

It's reported today that Hillary might succeed in her bid to gain the Florida delegates who had been banned from the convention for holding their Primary too early. This would bring her closer to Obama's total. In the end, if it comes down to the Super Delegates they will surely give their votes to the candidate they think is most likely to beat John McCain. Barring any great mishap between now and September, the best bet would have to Obama.


Brian said...

And think how wonderfully the Granita compact worked in this country.

Anonymous said...

Clintons facing $17m fraud trial.


Anonymous said...

Best we root for Clinton then, more people have reason to dislike her than Obama who has a pretty clean sheet; best watch that pushy wife of his tho'!

Anonymous said...

2 thoughts: is it the case that Obama didn't campaign in Florida because their delegates weren't going to be admitted to the convention? If so how can the Democrats justify accepting the result of the non-campaign there?

Second, what is there that's new, which allows those delegates to be counted? Surely something must have changed since the initial decision not to admit them.

Anonymous said...

The job-swap idea is clearly a non-starter. It's been tried here and failed dismally because the two parties never agreed the terms of engagement. It was the sdource of constant tears before bedtime in teh Downing Street kindergarten. Blair, Brown - anyone remember?? If you don't, reaed 'Blair Unbound' (Seldon) which chronicles it all un ghastly detail.

For my money, Clinton represets the old guard in Washington - sleazy, corrupt, inept. Rose Law firm, Whitewater, White House travel office, healthcare reform - the catalogue of this woman's failures and sleaze goes on and on. She's achieved diddly squat as 'Senator' for New York State. Yet she trumpets her 'experience' in the White House as though it was an advantage. She must think that American voters are really stupid.

Obama could still win. But he has yet to demonstrate that he really, really wants thenomination. Wants it enough to come out with all guns blazing at Clinton - like she's beginning to pile the pressure on him. This 'stress-testing' of nomination candidates is what the primaries are really all about - testing whether they're tough enough to withstand the pressures of a general election. Where you can bet your bottom dollar that McCain will go all out to destroy, anihilate, take out, nuke any Democrat candidate. He's a funny choice, semingly the best the GOP has to offer right now.

Obama needs to toughen up, stop stomping outof press conferences ('oohh, did the nasty reporters ask you too many tricky questions then? Diddums') and get real with the electorate. Above all, he needs to pile the dirt on to Clinton - and he'll find there's enough to bury her if he is ruthless about it.

I think it all comes down to which of the Democratic candidates wants it badly enough to do everything they can to win it. At the moment that person is Clinton. God help us.

Otherwise we're in for a further twelve years of Republicn mis-rule - four of McCain, and a further eight for whoever he appoints as VP who will, in the 2012 election, have the advantage of incumbency. That will be a total of twenty years under the GOP. God help America!.

Paul Linford said...

Given that it is no longer possible for either Clinton or Obama to win a majority of delegates, it will come down to the superdelegates and barring an implosion of monumental proportions from either candidate, I think they will have to give it to the candidate with largest number of ordinary delegates.

If they gave it to the candidate with fewer delegates over the head of the candidate with more, it will simply be a gift-horse to McCain. Imagine what the Labour Party would have done to the Tories if, at the end of the 2005 contest, a bunch of Tory men in grey suits had stood up and awarded the contest to Davis.

In this respect, as I have been arguing on, the superdelegates are irrelevant. The nominee will the the one who goes to the convention with the largest number of delegates, and this still looks certain to be Obama.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised at this misreading, Iain. Obama's already going off the boil. He doesn't have any experience of DC, and Americans know that means he wouldn't be able to get any of his programmes through the Congress. Anyway, he's beginning to curdle. Also, he was caught out double dealing over the rust belt, telling the voters in Ohio that he would renegotiate the NAFTA, then telling the Canadian Prime Minister he was only kidding. Hillary has the best chance of beating McCain. Watch Obama's support leach away over the next few months.

BOF2BS said...

Betfair odds currently:

Obama 11/4 on

Clinton 3/1 ish against

Hilly, at least as per CNN,has more super delegates support than OB and only 400 ish of the 800 have provisionally declared so far.

There's also Michigan.

And an OB mistake/howler is long overdue.

Yak40 said...

Job swap would never work. For Hillary it's all or nothing.

Every candidate except her withdrew from the Michigan primary - she was the only name on the ballot so she "won"; Michigan was they were barred for the same reasons as FloriDUH, so guess what the latest tactic is - yup, Hillary's camp want the Michigan delegates assigned to her ! Bleats of "disenfranchisement" of course.

Both parties are looking at fraud trials for some of their fundraisers, Rezko & Peter Paul, which could shed some interesting details along the way. The Hillary camp has already weathered the Hsiu affair.

Yak40 said...

Obama needs to toughen up, stop stomping outof press conferences ('oohh, did the nasty reporters ask you too many tricky questions then? Diddums') ... Above all, he needs to pile the dirt on to Clinton

Obama came out of Chicago, you can bet there's a few bony things in his closet as well :)

Anonymous said...

I found the full story yesterday on

Man in a Shed said...

Switching administrations two years in is asking for trouble and is unworable.

Getting a public agreement to serve one term on the other hand might work. The question for Obama would then be whether to be vice President or keep his distance to avoid the car wreck of a Hilary Presidency.

Of course the other career move for Obama might be to be McCain's VP .... ;-). A much better and surer chance of promotion there.

Anonymous said...

British interests are in US foreign policy. I'd rather McCain than either of them (not that he's without drawbacks, notably buying into the global warming fraud.) Failing a Republican win (more likely than many people think): Hillary is a vile, power-mad cow, but she does understand the real world to some extent. I don't think her protectionist rhetoric wold be implemented as dangerously as Obama's, and I don't think she would scuttle from Iraq - or not quite so precipitately, anyway. Unless, of course, the pollsters told her to.

Yak40 said...

More Obama and Rezko.

For those interested in the election, a good site showing links and polls etc is Real Clear Politics.

Anonymous said...

Part of Obama's appeal is that he hasn't been in DC for too long. It will be Pelosi's job to decide on legislation and get it passed. All Obama needs is a good working relationship with Pelosi that the shrill Clinton can't mange and to exercise the same impressive judgement he used to pass bipartisan legislation.

He didn't double deal on NAFTA at all. In fact the it was Clinton. Read all about it LINK There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton is better placed to beat McCain. Just look at the recent SurveyUSA nationwide poll. And since when did anyone believe Clinton can beat McCain on national security especially considering they both voted for Iraq and the Kyle-Lieberman bill for war in Iran and have very similar voting records on national security. Clinton can't possibly win without successfully performing the mother of all dirty tricks and at the same time burning the Democratic party to the ground.

Anonymous said...

Both parties are looking at fraud trials for some of their fundraisers, Rezko & Peter Paul,

That's incorrect. Clinton is named as a defendant for committing fraud. Obama isn't expected to play any part in the Rezko trial and is not accused of any criminal activity.

Anonymous said...

Chris Bowers from Open Left points out:

"Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election.

Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton.

In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states."

Markos Moulitsas from Daily Kos also analyzed the results, and noted that:

"It's amazing how many non-swing states will suddenly be, well, swing states this year, like Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Some of these states become competitive depending on the candidate, like Arkansas and Tennessee for Clinton, and just about everything west of the Mississippi for Obama.

… In all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming."

"From the beginning, Barack has understood the importance of competing in every state, and we've built a broad base of support across the country. The result is a clear advantage in November's race, with a real possibility of redrawing the electoral map."

Anonymous said...

Clinton won the primaries in Florida, Ohio, Texas and California.

Which are the four key states in a Presidential election?

You've got this one wrong Iain, the super delegates will see Clinton as the stronger candidate. Most are whily enough to see through Obama's flimsy rhetoric and short-term popularity. His support is currently very vocal but based on nothing concrete. It could disappear over night if something big were to come out.

Anonymous said...

American politics


Anonymous said...

A Texan friend comments that Clinton and Obama will be unable to reach agreement and that Gore will be brought in as the unification nominee by the party elders


Yak40 said...

"NAFTAgate", what twaddle, storm in a teacup anyway. If damage has been done, it's to Obama's campaign's claims to transparency and forthrightness as they have been seen to wriggle, giving the impression of something to hide.

As for Pelosi getting legislation passed, she's not done much of that since taking over, not that I'm complaining mind you !

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that highly educated people tend to support Obama while the uneducated tend to vote for Clinton.

Wise up America and get behind Obama.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that highly educated people tend to support Obama while the uneducated tend to vote for Clinton.

Wise up America and get behind Obama.

Also, Clinton is a bit of a 'monster' who would do and say anything to get elected.

Anonymous said...

Strange you say Obama's more likely to win. A poll I just saw said they are both equally likely to beat McCain... Surely the candidate who has the best chance in the major states should be selected? Florida, Ohio, California etc etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but are you a fan of Obama Iain?

Anonymous said...

But this would require an amendment to the US constitution

Paul Burgin said...

The very thing that occurs to me when things look bleak over here. The reason I think the Super Delegates will back Barack Obama is because of the grassroots support, particually with the volunteers. I have not seen anything like it first, or second hand!

Anonymous said...

3:51 - I was the first one here to posit the notion that the Dems would try to draft Gore as a compromise candidate, but a friend in Texas (Republican) tells me no, Al Gore is very pleased with his life just now and would not return to politics. (How my friend comes by this information, I have no idea as he doesn't know Gore or anyone who knows him, but that seems to be the general impression. Gore is busy swanking about with his new Hollywood "friends" and is enjoying his non-stressed life.)

Also, realitistically speaking, I don't think he is regarded as much of a winner, given that he lost the presidency - yes, in the Electoral College, but he still lost - and then made such a childish display of the hanging chads. For months.

Anonymous said...

To me Obama still looks as if he is competing in Pop Idol. No experience, no CV, no background, no policies. Yet women faint at his rallies. Unknown, untested. How can the American people be so taken in?

Yak40 said...

Oh boy, it's going to be a long summer, now someone wants Obama and The Goracle.

Anonymous said...

Dozzy - You tell me. The British voted Tony Blair in under identical circumstances. (And as thin as Obama's cv is, Blair's was even thinner. He'd never actually succeeded at anything.)

Anonymous said...

The ongoing trial regarding Clinton campaign finance fraud (the biggest fraud in American history) could become very damaging to her if the mass media picks it up - I suspect they will once the trial has developed further and prominent figures (Al Gore) have given testimony.

And then of course there is the issue of her tax returns - though I can't see her releasing them. What would be interesting is if she picks up the nomination and then breaks her promise of releasing them.

Her tactic now is clearly to smear Obama to the extent that Super Delegates would think he is unelectable against McCain and so therefore choose her instead.

She'll destroy the DNC, but her descent into madness is enthralling.

M. Hristov said...

I am surprised that Mohammed ‘Al’ Fayed isn’t standing as a U.S. presidential candidate. His innate grasp on reality seems to equal that of most of the current candidates and Hillary, in particular, does not seem averse to employing his methods. I suppose Mo’s birthplace counts him out but I am sure he will be claiming to be born in Washington DC before long.

Anonymous said...

Canvas aka Anonymous - Save yourself the agony of cutting and pasting. No one reads these streams of aspirational drivel.

Obama's already gone off the boil. People can only hear "Change you can believe in!" expressed with Messianic fervous before they start scratching their heads and asking, "What change? What's he going to change, actually?"

Anonymous said...

verity aka nutter - time for your medication dear.

Third term for Bush via McCain? I don't think so. :)

Go Obama.

Anonymous said...

Verity, you are right about the parallel with Blair, but Blair was at least the leader of a political party. I am worried that Obama as President might suddenly do something completely irrational, like pressing the nuclear button. How do we know he is not a megalomaniac or insane?