Now that I've given the bad news about Burma and how to help (see the post below), some good news is in order: John Edwards has endorsed Barack Obama. This is not entirely surprising, given the combination of Obama's delegate lead, Hillary's poor performance in Indiana, and pressure from the DNC for remaining superdelegates to choose sides.
However, it does mean that Obama has gained the support of three former rivals: Chris Dodd (senator from Connecticut), Bill Richardson (the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico), and John Edwards (former Senator from North Carolina and John Kerry's running-mate in 2004). Other than the two front-runners, Edwards and Richardson were the largest vote-getters (indeed, Edwards still managed to get 7% of the vote in West Virginia, even though he has dropped out of the race). It is also worth noting that Governor Richardson is a longtime Clinton supporter, yet endorsed Obama a while ago for ideological reasons.
Given Edwards and Richardson's expertise (trial lawyer and former diplomat, respectively), it seems likely that Edwards may be Attorney General and Richardson Secretary of State, should Obama be elected and they desire the positions. I know there has been a lot of speculation about whether either of these candidates should be VP - but my gut feeling is that they won't be. Here's why:
(1) Edwards has been the VP candidate before, and my guess is that he has some inkling how informal a role the VP plays. His skills point to AG, and there was some discussion right after he dropped out that Obama offered the AG position to him. Plus, while Edwards definitely wants change and appeals to blue-collar whites, he's also a very liberal candidate and may be less willing to compromise with business than Obama. Remember that his specialty as a trial lawyer is labor rights. One other issue to consider, though it may be seen as a minor factor, is that selecting a southern white male could increase the chances that Obama is the target of an assassination plot - after all, the VP succeeds him. We have come far since the 1960s in terms of racism - but there are still a lot of crazies out there. The assassination thing is probably an issue no matter who Obama picks as VP, so this may be minor, but it's still a factor to consider.
(2) Richardson, aside from being a skilled diplomat (was ambassador to the UN) and former cabinet official (he was Secretary of Energy), might be a slightly better option - in part because he could help Latino turnout for the Democrats, and prevent Republican inroads on "values" issues. However, he may also serve to alienate the voters Obama has trouble with - blue-collar whites, especially in swing states like PA, OH, and IN. Combine immigration attacks with the still-present misunderstandings about Obama's religion (many think he's a Muslim, despite the well-publicized scandals from Rev. Wright at Trinity) and racism... many voters might not be ready for that much "change".
My guess is that the best pick for him would be a moderate white woman, if one exists, whose name is not Hillary Clinton (can you say intra-administration stress?). Interesting note on that: such a choice, assuming Richardson is Secretary of State, would mean that the top four constitutional officials would all NOT be white men:
Obama - President
Moderate White Woman - VP
Nancy Pelosi - Speaker
Richardson - Sec. of State
Wouldn't that be something!
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Hillary: Out for the Count
It's not over until the fat lady sings - well, ladies and gentlemen, the fat lady has finally sung. In this case, the fat lady has a name: superdelegates.
That's right, as of earlier today, Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton in every category relevant to the democratic nomination: he has won more states, more delegates determined by the vote, a greater percentage of the popular vote, and now has gained even more superdelegates than the former first lady. Hillary's last hope - that of convincing enough superdelegates to her cause - appears to have abandoned her. For the full details of this latest development, see CNN.
This is not quite the landmark that the media makes it out to be, but it does represent the final nail in Hillary's electoral coffin. After being soundly defeated in North Carolina and barely squeaking by with an Indiana victory (demographics favored her, Chicago suburbs favored Obama), most papers were willing to ask Mrs. Clinton to take a reality check. Indeed, even the Economist, normally a paper to hedge its bets on political calculus, has called on Mrs. Clinton to give way to Obamamania.
The real question here is this: should any of us, after the first few contests following Super Tuesday, have been surprised? Of course not. The states have split almost exactly as they should have following Super Tuesday. Perhaps the only surprise has been that Obama performed as well as he did in large, white, working-class states (PA, OH, IN) while Clinton seemed unable to close within a 15-20% margin in most of Obama's states. Media commentary aside, any cold look at the numbers revealed this picture at the end of February - especially to those who watched John Fox's touch-screen presentations. The only thing that could have changed this picture would have been a major scandal and, contrary to what the media seems to think, one bombastic preacher does not a scandal make.
There are probably multiple reasons for Obama's victories - his obvious charisma and speaking ability; the fact that, by and large, he has remained graceful even under extreme pressure; and the "Clinton Dynasty" effect - most 18-30s are sick of having presidents in the same two families. I, for one, was born during Regan - but cannot remember a president not named Bush or Clinton. Lastly, and this may be contentious although the numbers support it, many Democrats are keenly aware that Mrs. Clinton probably would not carry the independent vote, especially against Mr. McCain. Indeed, Clinton might do the one thing McCain has trouble with: force the Republican base to vote in November. The name Clinton is still a loaded and often divisive one for the majority of Americans.
Obama, by contrast, is fresh and new - and also relatively young. He smacks of a cross between JFK and Woodrow Wilson, with an important caveat. While the idealism of JFK and Wilson led them to be a bit uncompromising (less noticeable for JFK, because LBJ was wheeling and dealing for him), Obama genuinely speaks of compromise and healing the rift in American politics. He wants us to talk to each other in a civilized fashion - and he leads by example. He is not only the best chance the Democrat's have of regaining the White House, but I - for one - will be glad to see him do it.
That's right, as of earlier today, Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton in every category relevant to the democratic nomination: he has won more states, more delegates determined by the vote, a greater percentage of the popular vote, and now has gained even more superdelegates than the former first lady. Hillary's last hope - that of convincing enough superdelegates to her cause - appears to have abandoned her. For the full details of this latest development, see CNN.
This is not quite the landmark that the media makes it out to be, but it does represent the final nail in Hillary's electoral coffin. After being soundly defeated in North Carolina and barely squeaking by with an Indiana victory (demographics favored her, Chicago suburbs favored Obama), most papers were willing to ask Mrs. Clinton to take a reality check. Indeed, even the Economist, normally a paper to hedge its bets on political calculus, has called on Mrs. Clinton to give way to Obamamania.
The real question here is this: should any of us, after the first few contests following Super Tuesday, have been surprised? Of course not. The states have split almost exactly as they should have following Super Tuesday. Perhaps the only surprise has been that Obama performed as well as he did in large, white, working-class states (PA, OH, IN) while Clinton seemed unable to close within a 15-20% margin in most of Obama's states. Media commentary aside, any cold look at the numbers revealed this picture at the end of February - especially to those who watched John Fox's touch-screen presentations. The only thing that could have changed this picture would have been a major scandal and, contrary to what the media seems to think, one bombastic preacher does not a scandal make.
There are probably multiple reasons for Obama's victories - his obvious charisma and speaking ability; the fact that, by and large, he has remained graceful even under extreme pressure; and the "Clinton Dynasty" effect - most 18-30s are sick of having presidents in the same two families. I, for one, was born during Regan - but cannot remember a president not named Bush or Clinton. Lastly, and this may be contentious although the numbers support it, many Democrats are keenly aware that Mrs. Clinton probably would not carry the independent vote, especially against Mr. McCain. Indeed, Clinton might do the one thing McCain has trouble with: force the Republican base to vote in November. The name Clinton is still a loaded and often divisive one for the majority of Americans.
Obama, by contrast, is fresh and new - and also relatively young. He smacks of a cross between JFK and Woodrow Wilson, with an important caveat. While the idealism of JFK and Wilson led them to be a bit uncompromising (less noticeable for JFK, because LBJ was wheeling and dealing for him), Obama genuinely speaks of compromise and healing the rift in American politics. He wants us to talk to each other in a civilized fashion - and he leads by example. He is not only the best chance the Democrat's have of regaining the White House, but I - for one - will be glad to see him do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
