Tonight the Democratic nomination will be decided. Whether Hillary Clinton admits it or not, Barack Obama has won.
The best result for the Democrats - and some say their only chance of winning in November - is for Obama to offer Hillary the Vice Presidential nomination. This seems to be the only thing which could unite the Democratic Party and guarantee they are all pulling in the same direction. They would make a formidable campaigning duo. Without the Hillary campaign machine and campaign workers Obama would face an uphill task.
However, and it's a big however, Hillary will do very little to build the broader coalition which Obama needs to be sure of victory. There will be some Republicans who would consider voting for Obama, but would withdraw their support if Hillary is on the ticket.
how about an Obama-Edwards ticket? that would surely do as well to unite the party?
ReplyDeleteThe Clintons would have him shot - he'd be a loonie to accept her.
ReplyDelete"some say the only chance of winning" - you mean a very small group of heads-under-the-pillow conservative commentators. It is clear that the consensus across the political divide is that the presidency is Obama's to lose. He has money, he has increased Democratic party registration, he has broad appeal and most importantly he has the Zeitgeist. America is moving to blue.
ReplyDeleteHillary will not be VP. She is the antithesis to Obama. And who needs her machine. Her machine is the past. Obama has built his from nothing and a donor base that has never been matched in the history of presidential politics. It also beat Clinton.
The best way for the Democrats to be fully united is for Clinton to give a fulsome endorsement of Obama and in so doing to prove to the other half of the party that she is a member of the Democratic Party first and a Clinton second.
Hillary, doncha just love her???? Tore the party apart and now wants to be the veep. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteHillary, what a throw up number!!!! But only she can beat McCain. Isn't she great???
Byyeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one cares for the Democrats, Obama is a Liberal, period.
ReplyDeleteThought you'd got this blog mixed up with your West Ham blog there for a minute...
ReplyDeleteAnd there are a lot of working class Republicans who won't vote Democrat this year now that the smug pontificating East Coast liberal has trumped the "Old Labour" blue collar Hill.
ReplyDeleteSo it's swings and roundabouts.
An Obama/Clinton ticket would basically be the Scratchy/Itchy ticket. They fight, they fight, they fight they fight they fight, it's the Barry and Hilly Show!
ReplyDeleteHe'd soon find that she was only interested in building her own power base in order to take the nomination in 2012. Clinton would be an utterly disloyal and self-serving VP.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be even worse for Obama, as she'd make absolutely sure that he had no chance to build any sort of reputation that could threaten her lock on the nomination in 2012. He would be strictly relegated to ceremonial duties.
If Obama went for either option he'd end up regretting it for the rest of his life.
The Democrats seem to be determined to nominate the weaker candidate, Obama.
ReplyDeleteAll rather amusing, the primary dates were shuffled around to get Hillary nominated quickly but someone else showed up along the way !
I find it hard to believe that BO would be stupid enough to offer her the VP slot.
Unlike the UK press, there's millions of us here that view the prospect of an Obama presidency, with an unfettered congress run by Pelosi & Reid, with utter horror.
Geraldine Ferraro was 100% correct when she said that if BO was white he would never have got a second look.
It would be a disaster worse than the dreadful Mr Peanut.
You're wrong Iain.
ReplyDeleteObama doesn't need Hillary, she would bring little to the table but would saddle him with everything that is nasty about the Clintons.
While she could perhaps carry a few States, he's quite able to pick those up for himself as the sole Democratic nominee.
As for the campaign machine, most of it will transfer automatically to him. Same with voter registrations which both campaigns have been forwarding on to Democratic central as a matter of course.
Hillary is also bankrupt, so again, another traditional lever is left rusting.
Unfortunately, Obama suffers slightly because of his skin colour (a sad but true factor in American politics). He won't be helped by having a woman VP (almost but not quite as bad as being black to some in the US). He needs a hi-profile white male, someone perhaps older with experience or clout?
Hillary does have one upside, and that's some of her popular eye-catching policies (health reform etc)... but Obama has already agreed to work those into his Administration.
Hillary is now a dead duck. If she truly wants a Democratic President she'll campaign for it but Obama shouldn't entertain any deals with her.
According to news agencies from across the pond, exit polls suggest that Obama has crossed the finishing line and it's all over for Hillary.
ReplyDeleteTime for Americans to lock up their bunnies and make sure they're safe and sound.
Any one who has a shred of sanity can see that an Obama presidency will be better than the oaf who has been in for the last 7 years or the continuation of the same policies under McSame.
ReplyDeleteHillary is not tryig to get Obama elected. She is trying to make him look bad, so he fails to win and she gets the nomination next time. She would rather be a one term President than a two term Veep.
ReplyDeleteArgh! Don't be silly, Iain. If he wants to appeal to Hillary's core vote without pissing everybody else off, all he needs to do is appoint a suitably qualified female candidate.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what weaknesses Obama will turn out to have, but we certainly know Clinton is not fit for public office on the evidence of her blatant lies.
ReplyDeleteMcCain and Rodham Clinton are from different, rival wings of the same political ruling class. They might differ a bit on how much to tax, and how exactly the tax dollars should be pissed against the walls of either war or welfare, but they both agree on the fundamental Corporatist, Big Government, Milatrist agenda. Obama is flawed, even vacuous, and worst of all, maybe even a closet socialist, but there is a chance that war with Iran and/or Syria can be avoided if he is elected. That is good enough for me.
ReplyDeleteNice to see that Iain is returning to American politics after a number of distractions.
ReplyDeleteClinton and Obama obviously loathe each other. Given that, I am sure each would rather see McCain get elected than the other. Clinton's bid for VP is a clever move: Obama will say no, leaving Clinton the moral highground. On the principle that the Americans are easily misled and will opt for the more superficial candidate, Obama will win. Being totally unqualified for the position, he will be a disaster. After a one-term presidency, he will be replaced by a republican, younger than McCain, who will be neither half-black nor a woman. Cameron and Obama, for the two years that they are both in office together, will get on badly; but Cameron will get on excellently with the republican who will succeed, and enjoy a similar intimacy to that which Bush and Blair enjoyed.
Obama suffers slightly because of his skin colour (a sad but true factor in American politics).
ReplyDeleteColour of party leader wouldn't be a factor in a UK general election ?
Dream on.
I think it's more likely the US will have a black president before the UK has a black PM.
However Obama is not the one, a lightweight given a pass by the media and who has the most liberal voting record of any in the senate. No thanks.
Max must go. It wasn't the sex that got him, it was the alleged Nazi overtones. True or false, that's what got him, and it's what should have cost him his job.
ReplyDeleteOn another subject, I work in the media in the southeast and it took us literally all day to get an interview with Cameron on the day he's taking his Shadow Cabinet to the county for a series of...wait for it...media opportunities.
The women surrounding him were both useless and rude, even trying to stop a TV cameraman from filming Cameron as he walked down a road.
The net effect of this ground-breaking away-day in Kent was to piss off the local media as much as possible, not the wisest strategy in the country's number one electoral battleground.
As local hacks fumed, he did of course find time to dash across he road to be interviewed by The World at One. about his day in Kent.
But if getting on Radio 4 is what's important, why not stay in Westminster?
Oh and by the way, I haven't checked the latest listening fgures for the World at One - still less the viewing figures for Sky News, who were given special access to one part of his visit - but he would have been given a much vaster audience at 6pm if his minders had realised the value of regional news - ITV, BBC and BBC local radio, who were all there, and who were all, if you will excuse the language Iain, extremely pissed off with the shamblic nature of the whole thing.
But as you have reminded us on this blog, regional TV news is dying.
As some of us try to keep it afloat as best we can, we aren't helped by these morons at CCHQ.
I see that Mike Scott has died, a key figure in ITV's breathtaking decision to televise the Rochdale byelection 50 years ago...I fear regional news is dying right now,and the people surrounding Cameron - who should see it as an amazing vehicle for their leader, and should use it at every opportunity - are instead dancing on its grave.
Well, it's not new - it's been done before, though a slightly different way around: Frederick Douglass was on the ticket as Vice President with Victoria Woodhull for President in 1873, the first woman to run.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass
I think Hillary would prefer it that way around, but, when life hands you lemons... ;)
Now of course, the political race really revs up...
Well done Barack Obama!
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton is probably working hard behind the scenes to get the VP slot but I would be surprised if she got it.
Obama said in his speech last night that Hillary will work on healthcare for him - so read between the lines.
The Clintons are sore losers. I reckon she will concede by Friday. It's ashame that Hillary Clinton can't be gracious about her defeat.
John McCain doesn't stand a chance against Obama. The Republicans will be punished (just like Labour and Gordon Brown will be punished). It's going to be an interesting six months.
Go Obama!
Re: Hillary Clinton's motives: "Money. That's why she's staying in. To squeeze her hardest core supporters of the cash necessary to pay off her personal loans to her campaign."
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Re: McCain speech: "hope someone compares the acoustics of this event and Obama's. It sounds like McCain is in a high school auditorium, with bored parents watching a bad talent show. The applause is lackluster. The cheers and jeers weak. There is no excitement. Absolutely zero passion."
Agreed.
Re: Clinton speech:""No decisions tonight."
"She hasn't said one nice thing about Obama. It's all about her. Period. There is nothing else that matters."
Agreed.
The only reason to vote for princess obamarama is that he is not white. The idiot Democrats have done a Dukakis again. Hillary needs to display loyalty whilst keeping well clear of him. Then she can defeat President McCain in 2012.
ReplyDeleteBill Richardson is the best choice for me, he's witty, self effacing, will deliver Hispanic voters in droves, and has government experience without being an "old face" that would defeat Obama's message of change like Hillary arguably would. Plus he's one of the few Democrats that the Republicans have any respect for, so might be able to swing a few votes from those underwhelmed by McCain.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who thinks this would be a dreadful idea?
ReplyDeleteRead the latest offering from Dick Morris.
If Hilary's campaigning machine was as formidable as that Obama wouldn't have beaten her from a standing start.
ReplyDeleteHer choice is either to loyally support him, from a distance & hope he will crash & burn as Dukakis did, leaving her the the only man standing in 2012 or to tie her wagon to him as Vice or Health Secretary & hope for the main job in 2016. However there will be a lot of water under the bridge by 2016, as gordo can testify & she will be a bit old.
Oh here goes dear little Canvas again getting his knickers wet about Obama.
ReplyDeleteObama is all image and no substance. I realise the same thing was said about David Cameron - however, DC has had the time to grow into the job and this he has done admirably. Obama does not have that luxury.
It is very naive to think that his election (if it happens) will bring a new world order.
Geraldine Ferraro is right - Obama wouldn't have a cat's chance in hell if he wasn't black and of course it isn't politically correct to attack a black man in the vitriolic manner in which Hilary Clinton was attacked. The press gave him a disgracefully easy ride and they are undoubtedly smugly congratulating themselves on their 'making' of him. Don't be surprised if they are also the breaking of him.
Having Clinton as his VP would negate Obama's message on opposing Iraq from before the war. He also wouldn't be able to run against the legacy of 1992 to 2000, as well as the Bush years. Obama could bring her on board by supporting her to be the next Senate majority leader, and listening to her, and Elizabeth Edwards, on healthcare. I think if Obama wants to keep the youth momentum going, the important Clinton to bring onside is Chelsea.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that Obama *needs* Hillary to win is a fallacy, rebutted by much U.S. political history and the current state of American politics.
ReplyDeleteTo the former, there is little in the historical record that shows that a presidential candidate gets a boost from putting his closest competitor on the ticket. Some might point to Kennedy-Johnson in 1960, but do not forget that Kennedy almost lost. In 1976, Gerald Ford did not put Ronald Reagan on the ballot and came within an ace of defeating Jimmy Carter. Mike Dukakis put Washington wise man, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, on his ticket in 1988--and was crushed.
In fact, the last time that two intense political rivals became president and vice president (albeit under different constitutional arrangements) was in 1800. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr almost promptly fell out, apparently over the many intrigues of the election process, which ended up in the House of Representatives.
There is little doubt as well that Obama win in November without Clinton and the likes of Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and Harold Ickes. Over the next few months, Obama will establish his own identity and his own agenda as a candidate. In this process--as during the convention and the general election campaign--he will have the full-throated support of much of the U.S. political press. During the same time, many of the Democratic leaders who were on Clinton's side will reconcile themselves to the fact that they lost and come to Obama's aid. I expect the same to occur with the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats as well.
What Obama needs in a vice president is what (brace yourselves) Dick Cheney brought to the office: a strong intellect, a close understanding of "how Washington works," and a solid reputation within the political class. Moreover, he'll want someone who, like Cheney, has scant interest in becoming President. That description might fit a lot of people in the American political class, but it doesn't fit Senator Clinton.
Obama would not be so stupid to but Clinton on his ticket. Who would want to have her a heartbeat away from the Presidency when it's your heart? Remember what happened to Vince Foster. Many enemies of the Clinton's have met with sticky ends.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, Obama would be an awful President. He is the most liberal member of the Senate, and I have no doubt at all that his colour is giving him a free pass. But it's one thing to win the Democrat nomination by being an uberliberal mouthing platitudes about change, quite another to win over the country. The war in Iraq is now going well, and that rather buggers his USP of having been against it. Gun owners won't vote for the gun grabbing creep. Anyone who writes McCain off now is making a big mistake.
Lady Finchley is showing her age.
ReplyDeleteLady Finchley is out of touch.
Most people under the age of 45 could care less about race, gender, religion or sexuality. Obama will get votes from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and most importantly - new voters, and young voters.
Say what you like - but I predict a landslide win for Barack Obama in November.
***Age DOES matter and McCain is too old and too feeble for the job. ***
McCain is a war monger and a fear monger. Four more years of Bush/McCain policies? Not a chance in hell.
By the way Lady Finch, I'm a woman - and you can leave my knickers out of it. Wake up and smell the coffee Finch - Obama will be President.
:)
First, Obama should undertake that, before and after election, he will meet weekly with representatives of the unions to discuss common interests: the protection of workers and consumers, fair trade and fair tax, universal health care, Social Security, environmental responsibility, Civil Rights, and foreign policy realism.
ReplyDeleteThese are all massively popular causes both among Evangelicals (who include most African-Americans and much of the white working class) and among traditional Catholics (who include very many working-class whites and far more African-Americans than is often realised).
Secondly, he should undertake that, before and after election, he will meet weekly with Pat Buchanan and nine others of Buchanan's choosing (let Obama just spring this on Buchanan and dare him to turn it down) to discuss common interests: family values, strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, constitutional checks and balances, national security, energy independence, Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, and America as an English-speaking country.
These are all massively popular causes both among African-Americans (most of whom are Evangelicals at least broadly defined, with many of the rest traditional Catholics) and among the white working class (very many of whom are traditional Catholics and very many of whom are Evangelicals).
Thirdly, he should undertake never to make any significant nomination without the consent of both of those bodies within their respective frames of reference.
And fourthly, he should have absolutely nothing to do with the white Al Sharpton, Mrs NAFTA, Mrs GATT, Mrs Bomb Yugoslavia To Smithereens, Ms (in her own right) Botched Health Care Reform, Senator Invade Iraq, Senator Bomb Iran To "Protect" The Viciously Misogynistic And Jew-Hating Gulf Monarchies.
The defeat of this ghastly person is news rather better the victory of Obama. He needs to do the sort of things set out above. Whereas his vanquishing of her is an unalloyed joy simply in itself.
Robert Novak did a state by state analysis and came up with McCain winning 270 to 268.
ReplyDeleteWhile I make no claims about his analysis, it does show that the election could plausibly be very close and that to write it off for either candidate would be courageous.
Are you mad? The only party the old hag would help by being on the ticket is the Republicans. How does she fit in with 'change'? And do you really thing it would be a good idea to have Bill rattling around like a loose cannon? And how do you think Michelle Obama would accept another alpha-female? Hillary would get the Republican core vote out for McCain like nothing else- they might not like him but they hate the Clintons. You really didn't think that one through.
ReplyDeleteObama + Clinton = Blair + Brown = Disaster of Global proportions
ReplyDeleteIain, Hilary Clinton is interested in one thing - political power. She doesn't want to be the one who goes to open supermarkets, or chair meaningless commitees.
ReplyDeleteTherefore she should forget being VP, and go for Democrat Chair in the Senate - here she would have real power as she can have real influence on the political agenda.
As VP, she will have little influence and less power.
Old Dominion Tory said...
ReplyDelete"Mike Dukakis put Washington wise man, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, on his ticket in 1988--and was crushed"
Not least because Lloyd Bentsen was so obviously the choice that the Democrats should have made. Instead they chose the glib loser; and now they've done it again. Bentsen might have subsequently become president had he not been tarred by Dukakis. Hillary needs to stay well clear.
Iain, you're talking out of your arse. Hilary brings nothing to the ticket that he couldn't find somewhere else. Having Hilary on his ticket will distort the contrast between Obama as the man of change and McCain as more of the same Bush rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAlso, she could create the same kind of problems that Bill Clinton created for her by overshadowing him.
Maybe he should offer her a job but not this one.
Hillary will not be the VP. He won't offer it. The only demographic she would bring to the table are white women and once they have had a reminder of McCain's likely stance on Supreme Court nominations and the potential consequences for Roe v Wade, they will run to Obama with open arms.
ReplyDeleteHillary cannot deliver her other supposed demographic, blue collar Reagan democrats. There are those who would vote for McCain against any Democrat and there are those who are looking for change but want reassurance that Obama is not a psycho Muslim.
For Obama to secure those voters, he should choose someone like Sen Jim Webb of Virginia (an Iraq vet from the conservative wing of the party) who could well deliver his home state and neighbouring North Carolina and Pennsylvania or Gov Ted Strickland of Ohio who could deliver states in the rustbelt. Someone else mentioned Bill Richardson who his half Hispanic and who would be immensely helpful in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. But I wonder if that might be a little too exotic for middle America.