Last night, between pledged and declared superdelegates, Obama got enough delegates to clinch the nomination. But still Clinton has conceded. I heard a call-in to NPR say that duperdelegates aren't pledged so they can change their minds up until they vote at the convention. This is delusional, particularly since Obama is so far 40 delegates above the needed 2118. According to CNN he currently has a 232 delegate lead over Clinton.
Her talk about having more primary votes than anyone in history is perhaps technically true, but irrelevant in choosing a nominee. First the rules (which she agreed to) say to count delegates. Second her counting ignores 14 caucus states (which don't report individual vote totals) of which Obama won 12. By one estimate that's 1,241,132 additional votes for Obama and 837,937 votes for Clinton. Third she's counting a primary in FL that at the time didn't count so isn't a true representation of the voters' opinion and one in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot, because the vote didn't count.
Now I hear that Obama should choose her as his VP. I think this would be a mistake and doubt he will. First, given how this campaign went I don't think the two of them get along. Second, I think Bill Clinton has become a liability that Obama shouldn't take on. Third, Obama's campaign has been about change in Washington and about bringing the party and the GOP together; Clinton in her campaign and refusal to concede can only be called divisive. For Obama to choose her would be to turn his back on the principles he ran on and got him his votes in the first place. I also think Clinton in the last month has shown the same stubbornness as Bush and Obama choosing her would undermine his consistent message of change. If she wanted to be VP she should have worked towards it two months ago. Not doing so shows a lack of forethought.
I don't know who Obama should pick. The most interesting name I've heard is Gen Wesley Clark.
4 comments:
I think Hillary staying in has helped Obama for the general election. He was better off with negative stuff coming in early in the election cycle. The tough fight in the primaries has exposed a number of his weaknesses that he needs to fix if he is to win the general election.
Given how close it actually turned out to be in popular votes and delegates I don't think Hillary would have been well advised to quit two months earlier. There has always been a core part of the Democratic party that hate the Clintons.
Gore in 2000 could have used a pit bull as a VP candidate. Edwards was too nice a guy and was probably one of the reasons Gore lost. If Obama doesn't pick Hillary I hope he picks someone as tough (and mean) as she can be.
While I agree that negative Obama stuff coming out against a Democrat is probably better, it might be offset by the huge amount of money Obama spent, particularly as he seemed to handle it relatively well, he probably would have (and will) handle it well from McCain. It also let McCain have a free ride for a couple of extra months. I'm not sure it balances.
I don't think it turned out that close in delegates.
Gore ran with Lieberman, Edwards with Kerry. Both times Bush had the better bulldog VP. Who knows, Lieberman could be McCain's VP pick. :)
I agree a tough VP can be useful. I did hear on NPR today about Reagan picking a moderate VP in '76 again Ford and that alienated his conservative base so that Ford won the nomination.
I think Hillary's general obstinacy, particularly in not admitting her AUMF vote was a mistake, makes her a tough match with Obama's change and uniting message.
Then again, the Democrats have my vote this election regardless.
oops silly mistake on my part about Edwards. Especially, after recently watching Recount and seeing Lieberman's comments during the Florida recount hurt Gore's chances there.
And then there's this
Post a Comment