Correct me, please if my observations are incorrect; Obama has the lead in delegates so far. Clintons win this past week has in fact not really gained her any ground in the race. It would take a large and improbable turnaround for her to even match Obama’s lead.
If this is correct, why the suggestion that Obama should accet the VP slot when he is in fact winning? Especially if the likelihood of him winning the nomination is greater than Clinton’s? Is there some giant coup I’m not aware of? Does Clinton have a bunch of superdelegates ready to swing her way despite what I’ve been hearing? Or is Clinton just trying to convince people that she’s inevitable despite what the signs are? It just seems presumptuous to me, especially since so far Obama has the lead. Its like they’re trying to convince him to stand down.
Well, that goes without saying. But so does Obama. But isn’t saying he should take the VP slot kind of like asking him to stand down and let her win, when Obama is, well, winning? I’m just trying to understand the strategy here.
Hillary can still win, it’s up to the superdelegates to decide. Since their decision is based on a) What’s best for the Dem party, and b) Who is more likely to win a general election, they could give it to Hillary, who might be more likely to win a general since she’s more central politically than Obama.
Asking him to be a VP gives him a solid shot at winning the next election- since VPs are typically favored unless things go completely FUBAR- while asking him to merge his support with hers and thereby increase their overall chances of winning.
She is hoping she can gets votes by saying a vote for me is also a vote for Obama. I hope she fails. In any case Obama should not accept. He’d be 3rd in command after Hillary and Bill.
From a pure marketing point of view, having both a woman and a black on the ticket probably will pull in a ton of new/swing votes. Also it mirrors the seasoned pro with the kid. It doesn’t make nearly as much sense conceptually the other way around with Obama/Clinton. If the dems really want to win, this probably gives the greatest % versus McCain. IIRC, polls say Obama has an edge over McCain and Clinton a little behind. I have not seen what a Clinton Obama ticket looks like.
Suggesting SHE would take the VP spot would be conceding defeat, shes obviously not going to say anything of the sort even if she is open to the possibility.
I don’t know. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to politics, but even I thought “why would Obama accept the vP slot when he’s in the lead?”
You shouldn’t. All the evidence suggests this is less likely than it was some months ago. Sen. Clinton has now said that McCain is more fit to be C-in-C than Obama. You can’t say that and be Obama’s VP. As for Sen. Clinton on top, Hillary is floating this because, among other rhetorical reasons, its the only way she can win and look legitimate. If the superdelegates override the pledged delegates–which is totally their perogative–they know they’ll be pissing off a ton of Dems. If Obama is VP and OKs this, they won’t lose as many and it will seem more legitimate. But its never gonna happen.
Cite me a single example of a VP candidate suggesting that the opposing party’s candidate is more qualified than her running mate. Time can heal a lot of wounds, and often nasty things are said in the primaries. But not this. You don’t do general election-style slash-and-burn politics in a primary and then reconcile. It’s 3am, do you want an unprepared Muslim Ken Starr protecting your precious children?
Another thing that’s annoying is that if Obama gets the nod, and doesn’t choose her as a running mate (oh please, oh please, oh please…), he comes across as petty. And the way this campaign has been covered by the media so far, he might even be seen as a sore loser.
Back in the old days of backroom nominee selection, the party elders would soberly weigh the candidates on what’s best for the party and country. No rah rah emotional appeals would factor in their deliberations.
You will recall that Clinton was way ahead in super delegates prior to the primaries. There’s a good reason for that.
While a good part of the general public is only focused on the next four years, and swayed by the glib tongue of an expert speaker, anxious for immediate gratification, no thought is given for the future beyond.
The fact is the candidates are pretty well on the same side of all the issues.
The fact is both can win the general election.
The fact is Clinton does have more experience by virtue of her age if anything and by her tenure in the Senate.
If the party chose Obama, they have only to look forward to the next 8 years. I can’t see the American public voting for a 68 year old women after that. Democrats do not have a good record for submitting presidential candidates except for Bill Clinton.
If the party chose Clinton/Obama and Obama still has the bully pulpit as well, Democrats can look forward to the next 16 years to radically transform the country.
Several people here have it right - she’s saying “if you can’t choose, vote for me and you’ll have both!” Also, I think she’s trying to look Presidential and appeal to voters by suggesting she will end this drawn-out primary by graciously accepting Obama as her VP. It’s kind of haughty and a little sneaky, but that’s campaigning for you.