There is no offer to take back. She said that “may be where this is headed,” which is a far cry from offering him the job. At most it’s a statement that she would consider him if she managed to win. Bill’s comment, I think we can agree, is clearly hyperbole. So yes, it’s a ploy for votes.
Would she actually ask him to join the ticket? I don’t know. I suppose she might if she thinks it’d help her win, but I still think she is more likely to reward a longtime supporter, not an opponent.
I think that she’s looking at it strategically - if she does pull it out and get the nomination, there are rumblings in the progressive blogoshpere that there are many people who will stay home rather than vote for her, only vote for the down-ticket elections, or write in Obama. Having him on the ticket might bring back those votes to her.
Say what? You said:
“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.”
Obama accepting the VP slot or not would have nothing to do with that and everything to do with whether being VP furthers his ambitions.
Of course Obama turns it down now. And it’s naive to think that Obama would turn it down based on Al Gore’s experience.
That’s sound a lot like opinion to me.
The problem is that you think the two are disconnected. They’re not. The slash-and-burn politics are what makes a joint ticket unfeasible because of its diminished electability.
No kidding. Opinion supported by reasoning. That’s what all of this is.
I’m not going to lie, I think this is actually the smartest and least damaging strategy Clinton can take at this point. It’s sneaky, sure, but it’s a good idea for her campaign. She’ll have to be careful with the negative campaigning if she’s going to pretend that she’d ask Obama to be her VP (let’s be honest, she wouldn’t), but still.
The only plausible paths to a Clinton victory at this point are 1)change the rules after the fact to get the Florida and Michigan delegations seated, and/or 2)convince enough superdelegates to vote against the majority of the elected delegates. For obvious reasons, a victory obtained by either of those means is likely to be seen as illegitimate by many of Obama’s supporters.
She is hoping (rather desperately, IMO) that this trial balloon will defuse that trap.
Why is this such a huge story lately? Of course she’s going to imply that she might consider him a running mate. That’s just being civil to an worthy opponent. A few weeks ago someone asked Obama if he might consider Hillary, and he said his usual “It’s premature to start thinking about a running mate now…” and then he was asked if Hillary was on his short list, and he said something like “Yes, I’m sure she’d be on anyone’s short list”.
The latest comments from Hillary don’t seem to be substantially different, or meaningful, either.
The so-called “dream ticket” would be a nightmare for Obama. Even with Hillary at VP. Her presence on the ticket in either spot will motivate Republican voters.
Once again, the media are mindlessly, endlessly repeating all the spin that comes out of the Clinton campaign.
Gosh, I just don’t understand this at all. Maybe we just tend to always think of the current political contest as the Big One, but this has NOT been an especially nasty campaign.
There’s this prevailing assumption on the SDMB that the Clinton-Obama battle is some kind of haymaker-landing Mother of All Nomination Campaigns that’s been as nasty as a bag of bugs. It’s been nothing of the sort, it’s not hurting the Democratic Party at all, and by the standards of political campaigns it’s reasonably tame and all the differences will be forgotten by most people about thirty-two seconds after the DNC selects a candidate and the campaign versus McCain begins. It’s been an interesting campaign, a close campaign, but it’s not an especially mean one.
Two things. First, I think we’re living in a different era with regard to communication. In the same way a macaca moment can now destroy a campaign, I think nasty things said in a primary can resonate longer because of blogs, the 24-hour cycle, internet video, etc. So to the extent that this kind of nastiness if typical, it might have a different impact now.
Second, I’m no expert on U.S. primary politics. I can speak about primaries going back to, maybe, 1992 (and only because I’ve seen “The War Room.”) So I’m willing to believe that what you say is true, if you provide a little evidence. Can you show me a time when a primary opponent has said his party-mate is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief in a time of war? Can you show me an example of a campaign deliberately flaming racial and religious bigotry to win in a primary? And remember, my point is not that those things have never happened. But that when they do it is significant in the choosing of a VP and if the subject of those attacks wins the primary. The example that comes to mind is Bush’s treatment of McCain in 2000. But of course McCain did not win the nomination, so we don’t know how it would have affected him in the general. And McCain certainly was not discussed as a potential VP.
Uhuh…
After the primaries, the candidates will come together and be tighter than a drum. The way it has always been…
Maybe so, but there’s a difference between coming together and sharing a ticket. A big difference.
Apparently Clinton’s campaign received the memo of who becomes president if the current one departs and why their arguments that Clinton/Obama would be unbeatable but Obama alone is unqualified was completely asinine.
And yet, somehow, they said he could somehow become qualified by this summer, at the nominating convention. This is the Clintons being the Clintons at their goofiest.
This is so stupid that I’m almost glad it’s being overshadowed by Spitzer’s new problems.
Is Obama the last hope for Democrats for the next decade and a half? Do you really think the Dems, or either party for that matter, can win four elections in a row? It’s happened what, four times in US history? The last fifty years ago.
The Clinton’s audacity is bullsh*t. Asking the person who has won twice as many states as she has, the person with more popular support than she has, and more delegates than she has really takes some balls. Hillary’s balls must be made of steel for her to do that.
Gall is her most defining characteristic.
Several reasons:
(1) He appeals to the factions that she doesn’t (young, minority, etc.); it would (theoretically) form an unbeatable coalition against McCain;
(2) It’s a (feeble) attempt to once again try to soften her image, by offering him imput into the Clinton dynasty (only if he plays their game);
(3) The political reality of (2), however, is that Bill would be acting V-P; Osama would be little more than a figurehead for photo-ops:
(4) It looks like a peace offering to the undiscerning, when it’s actually a slap in O’s face.
Notice that Hil hasn’t offered herself to be O’s V-P.
Probably so but Obama is likely to do so by a wider margin.
Obama is likely to sweep into office with a greater majority in the senate and congress than Clinton.
There are not a lot of federal Democratic candidate west of the Mississippi that prefers Hillary at the top of the ticket over Barack.
Or south of the Ohio, for that matter.