|
vajent -> RE: The Dream Team (6/3/2008 12:41:57 PM)
|
This issue has become tougher than I once thought. A couple months ago, I said that if Clinton won the nomination, it would make a lot of sense to put Obama on the ticket as VP. But I also said that if Obama's the top guy, it wouldn't make sense for him to put Clinton on the ticket as VP. On balance, I still think this is right, but it's not as clear-cut to me as it was when I first wrote it.
I think it's true that having Clinton on the ticket really amps up the soap opera angle on a number of fronts. We'll all be obsessed with how the two of them are getting along, whether the primary season wounds have healed, and who will really be in charge - especially when the male Clinton is tossed into the mix. Instead of watching All My Children, soap opera addicts will be able to get their fill in primetime by watching daily episodes of All My Egos. I continue to be a bit puzzled about why Obama would want to sign on for this when he doesn't have to. It's hard to believe that the soap opera stuff, whether real or imagined, won't negatively impact Obama's ability to talk about issues and do what he wants to do as a matter of governance. BTW, the idear that Clinton would turn down the VP slot because she thinks she can have greater clout in the Senate is a bit problematic. She's a junior senator in her own home state, and she is years away from ever gaining committee chairmanships, which is where the power is. She would have to make a rather lengthy commitment to serving in the Senate to really see the fruits of power. John Kerry had been in the Senate for much longer than Hillary when he ran in 2004 and had a lot more seniority. But when he went back to the Senate, he became just as uninfluential as he was prior to running for president.
On the other hand, I have been a bit surprised at the degree of loyalty that's been shown by Clinton's core voters. Unlike Obama, Clinton doesn't really trance people into having the kind of routine Messiah moments that can build passionate (blind) loyalty. So I had always thought that while Clinton's voters would be disappointed if she didn't come out on top, it wouldn't take long for them to get swept up in Obamaism thanks to a strong assist from the press. I figured that the primary season wounds would be fairly temporary and would largely be forgotten and smoothed over in plenty of time. I'm not as sure of this today as I was 2 months ago. Loyalty to Clinton has remained quite strong and has even intensified in the last month.
A palpable belief is emerging that Clinton has been treated unfairly by both the press and the Democratic Party establishment. There's a bitterness here that goes beyond disappointment over someone losing, because it's being fueled by the belief that she's gotten the shaft. Whether this is true or not is not the issue. If large segments of Clinton's voting base feel disenfranchised, that's not a minor issue for Obama. And if he or his people think they NEED Clinton on the ticket as the only real way to bring the various factions of the Democratic Party together, they may feel like they don't have much choice but to do it. Obama can't afford for even a fifth of likely Democratic voters to stay home because they feel disenfranchised by the nomination process.
In the end, I'm still marginally inclined to think that Obama will go with someone else as a running mate. But for me, it's a much closer call than it was a month ago, and if he decides to put Clinton on the ticket, I won't be altogether surprised.
|
|
|
|