« On "Closing the Deal" | Joe Pettit's Blog | Pride Means Never Apologizing For Victory »

Winning or Losing with the Full Strength of the Democratic Party


Barack Obama will soon need to decide: would he have more negatives to overcome in the general election with Hillary Clinton on his ticket or without her on the ticket?  I am currently persuaded that the latter is true.  However much baggage Clinton would bring to an Obama/Clinton ticket, I now think this baggage is outweighed by the negatives that Obama would face with angry Clinton Democrats.  I should also note that I consider Obama's place at the head of the Democratic ticket is already secure.  Whatever electability issues Obama might have, they a nothing compared to the damage Clinton would have to overcome if the SDs overrode Obama's victory in pledged delegates.

This problem is getting worse for Obama with every passing primary.  Every time Clinton comes into a state an gears up her supporters, she creates more Democrats who invest their time, money, energy, hopes, etc. into her campaign.  These Democrats are far more likely to be among the disgruntled Dems when Obama runs in the fall with Clinton on the sidelines.

While choosing among negatives is an important calculation, I also think Obama can look at the situation in a more positive light.  He can campaign for the general election in a way that makes use of the full (or at least fullest) strength of the Democratic party behind him.  The way he does this is to offer the Vice-Presidency to Sen. Clinton.  Assuming that Clinton accepts (perhaps not a safe assumption), Obama will be able to say that his commitment to coalition building began in his own party.  If he wins, he wins for all of these Democrats.  If he loses, he will at least not be vulnerable to charges that failed to draw on his party's strengths.

Yes, the Republicans will delight in having a chance to go after both Obama and Clinton's public relations difficulties.  But McCain and his running mate will have more than their fair share of such problems.  I think goofy issues will be a wash in the general election and it will indeed come down to matters of policy and new beginnings.  Here, Obama/Clinton would be a very strong ticket.

Yes, having Bill Clinton hanging around will create difficulties, but hardly insurmountable ones.  His presence would be novel, but this is perhaps appropriate for a ticket that would be far more than novel in U.S. history.

It is a mistake to analyze this primary campaign in terms of most past primary campaigns where it was a safe assumption that Democrats would rally around the winner of the primary.  Supporters for both candidates are energized by a sense of history making opportunities, and I think they will be demoralized by a loss in the primary in far greater numbers than in the past for similar reasons.  Additionally, a far greater number of Democrats perceive, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), that this primary has had more than a normal share of legitimacy issues.

So, until someone gives me a good reason to change my mind, I am now an advocate of Obama/Clinton 08.

12 Comments

| Leave a comment

Apologies for the typos in the above. Blogging before noon is dangerous.

user-pic

Angry Clinton Democrats?

Really?


Just nominate her and found out just how angry some Democrats can get.

She cannot win because there are a lot of voters who turned out to vote for Obama who will not turn out for her.

Perhaps. But Obama would still be at the head of the ticket. Refusing to vote for Clinton out of anger would also mean not voting of Obama, and I just don't think many of his supporters would do that.

Forget Bill just hanging out, Hhow would she reconcile Bill's lobbying? I have no problem with the man earning a buck, but accepting money from people who are directly opposed to what your wife is campaigning on it troublesome to me (and would probably be a problem in the general). It isn't like he is just any old husband, he is Bill Clinton, popular former president, enemy of the right, and would be co-vice-president/lobbyist.

Ive said this amongst friends, but ill throw it out here.

It would be interesting if Clinton was heading to be President, I think her handling of Bill would become a real issue and they would get a divorce. That would be a first for a President right?

According to the pieces I read prior to the Primary kick off, CNN was saying that they spent little time actually together after Lewinsky and have created seperate lives.
Whenever I see them together, they just dont look like they are in love anymore. Its more or less Bill is cheering her on and everything he does for her is like a "sorry I cheated".
Or really....."sorry I was getting bj's in the oval office for 2 yrs behind your back."

"Remember that brunch we had after that middle east trip I took? Yeah, I got head right before that.....". Its terrible and funny at the sametime...least to me.

user-pic

Nope.

I don't think it's a valid argument for either one of them.

But this I know - this voter turnout we've seen? It will evaporate like the morning dew if Clinton is nominated.

You know how I know? I've seen it. I'm in Dallas, Texas. My precinct had total turnout in '04 of under 300. It's a white precinct and affluent but on primary night here, 1200 people showed up - 2/3s were there for Obama. In Oak Cliff, which is predominantly African American, 4000 people showed up in one precinct where in '04 58 voted total.

If the Democrats want to alienate all the young, progressive, and African American voters who have swelled the voter rolls like no one expected, then nominate Hillary-Joe.

jdw: I think Bill Clinton would have to accept restrictions on his lobbying. This does not seem to be too much to ask.

HusseinTenaX: Again, your logic seems plausible if Clinton were at the top of the ticket, but I was wondering if you could provide some reason to believe that all of these Obama supporters will refuse to vote for him as President just because it would also mean voting for Clinton as Vice-President.

user-pic

Well Joe if you want to discuss total hypotheticals, ok.

But it's all hypothetical cause it's not going to happen.

1. she will not be at the head of the ticket

2. Obama will not agree to be her running mate

3. Obama is already the nominee.

What the hell are we talking about?

It isn't about preventing him from taking money in the future, it is about the responsiblities he already accepted by taking the money he already has.

Excellent observations, Joe.

OK I buy your argument.... sort of. Looking at exit polls from PA and reading posts and comment over on MyDD. ( it's sometimes hard, but I do it trying for understanding) Senator Clinton's supporters appear much more entrenched in their position that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination they either don't vote top of ticket or move to McCain. I know November is a long way off and time heals, but I worry. So the argument for putting her on the ticket certainly could sooth some of the hurt. My concern though would she try and over shadow him? Would she be Obama's Cheney? Would we loose the Independents and Republican cross overs because they don't want her any where near the WH? Would Bill really turn out to be a liability? As we have seen, Bill just doesn't seem to be the smart politician he once was.

user-pic

And Clinton will not agree to run as Obama's running mate.

That is just not going to happen.


Leave a comment

Joe Pettit

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 1

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs dotCommonweal

Bio

Assistant Professor, Morgan State University, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address