Split decision?

05.6.2008 | 4:04 pm | Game-Time Decisions, Keys to Victory, Obama for Prez

Dream Team?

It looks like Hillary and Barak may end up splitting Indiana and North Carolina. Kinda’ the way they’ve been splitting the Democratic votes for months. But why must it be only one?

Now, I’ve been on board with Mr. Obama from the beginning, but I think it may be time to start thinking about how we unite this party. Divided we fall, and all that. So, would we consider the “super ticket”? The Dream Team. For you ice cream lovers, the “chocolate-vanilla swirl” (always a crowd pleaser).

Of course, this kind of mash-up is nothing new in Berkeley. It’s a source of great pride in fact. But, for this country, that would be some real change right thar.

Don? Baron? Who’s with me?

Gd.

Update:

With Obama’s gains last night (dominating in N. Carolina, while Clinton eked out Indiana), Obama should take top billing. If such a combination was considered. As intriguing as it may be, Hillary as VP seems very unlikely to me.

7 Comments »

  1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that combo won’t be considered because of the “red-state” views toward the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. Barack will still win California in November, but there’s no way the Hillary show will play well against McCain in, say, Nebraska. Obama on the other hand has already cobbled together a surprisingly strong coalition of disenchanted former Bush-Chaney farmhands. I imagine that some posse of superdelegates is trying to communicate this to a stubborn and disgruntled Hill right about, uhm, now…

    Comment by admin | 05.7.2008 | 11:21 am

  2. It’s pretty interesting that Obama seems to do well with well-educated liberals and the independent voters. Those two groups can seem pretty disparate. Perhaps there are some clues in his basketball game…

    Fake right, go left.

    Comment by Gd. | 05.7.2008 | 11:41 am

  3. I honestly believe that it’s equal parts his charisma and some folks’ disdain for Hillary in the primary. I’m not sure how a general election might alter the landscape. But think about it. You’re tired of Bush and realized that you screwed up in voting for him. Twice. So you’re trying something different. But as a red-blooded fence sitter, ain’t no way your voting for Hillary. I will not get into why, but you just won’t. You’re too, well, too much of a lot of things to go that route.

    And yes, this person aligning with moneyed, educated urbanites is a strange (but surprisingly optimism-generating) pairing. I kind of like it.

    Comment by admin | 05.7.2008 | 2:36 pm

  4. The Daily Kos has mused on this topic too:

    As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn’t a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won’t outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let’s face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama’s core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He’s been a disgrace.

    Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There’s no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

    What about her positives? She doesn’t deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn’t add “experience” to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There’s the “unify the party” thing, but that’s overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn’t support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain’s enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they’d never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.

    And then there’s demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let’s not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women’s movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, “In our lifetimes”. It’s inspiring for African Americans as Clinton’s chances were for women.

    Personally, I like Gov. Bill Richardson or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Solid.

    Comment by Gd. | 05.7.2008 | 4:21 pm

  5. Don’t rule out Edwards either.

    Comment by admin | 05.7.2008 | 6:16 pm

  6. Kristoff from NY TIMES today;

    “One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.”
    ————-

    Note, I usually have multiple bones to pick w/ Kristof, but I think he makes an interesting point here. I’ve had this discussion with several groups of friends, and I think there might be some truth to this.

    I’m not talking about sexism against Hillary, in particular, but rather that the bar might be higher for a “generic” woman than a African-American candidate.

    I think it’s especially hard to prove this w/ Hillary, because most people have already made their minds up about her, and I don’t think that has much to do with her gender.

    Some might point to Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. as proof to the contrary, that race trumps gender in this country. However, I’m not certain that might just be chalked up to the Clinton machine.

    I’m not dismissing that racism is still very much alive, but I think it often comes down to this: the men will typically vote for the male candidate, but not all women will vote for the female candidate.

    Please note this is obviously a dramatic over-simplification of things.

    Anyways, I’m rambling.

    Comment by Nelliesliver | 05.8.2008 | 3:03 pm

  7. Thanks for bringing that topic to the floor. To my moms credit, she’s making that point from the get. With that said, she’s backing Obama.

    Comment by Gd. | 05.8.2008 | 8:54 pm

Comments RSS | TrackBack URI

 

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.