![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well isn't that interesting. She's still in the race.
After (barely) winning Ohio & Texas last night, Hillary Clinton managed to stay in the game, and is still competing against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Obama still has a slight delegate lead (he won Vermont yesterday), and if she hadn't won Ohio & Texas last night, he'd be the clear choice. But she managed to hang in there, and isn't conceding.
What's most interesting now is how close these two candidates actually are. The Democratic party appears to be almost evenly split between them.
I've said for months now that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be the ideal campaign for the Democrats to run this year, in the wake of eight years of George W. Bush. The American people are ready for fresh faces, and a fresh approach. They want change. A black man as president and a woman as vice president would be almost unstoppable. Old white guy vs. young black guy and groundbreaking woman: That's a contest that people will care about. That's a campaign that speaks of change.
Hillary supporters keep telling me that there's no way she'd accept the VP position -- she doesn't want to be a woman in second place to a president again -- but I think she might. Here's why:
Obama has the charisma that would make him ideal for "Cheerleader-in-chief." She, honestly, is less of a charismatic leader and more of a capable manager. He inspires. She directs. After 8 years of Bush, someone inspirational is more needed than a capable manager. If she and her advisers can get past her ego, they would see that, at this point in time, she's not the ideal candidate. It's not a slam against her capabilities, just a statement of where the people are.
Large swaths of the American people want to follow someone like Obama right now. She shouldn't fight that.
A woman as VP is still groundbreaking and history-making.
After 8 years as VP, she'll be well-positioned to go for the Presidency in '16. She's young enough, and if she does a bang-up job as VP, she'd be well-proven to the people as capable of filling the leadership slot.
If Obama were assassinated (c'mon, you know you've worried about it, admit it), she'd be in place to assume command, and prove herself.
An Obama/Clinton ticket would unite the Democrats.
Obama/Clinton vs McCain/(whoever) would be almost unstoppable.
Obama vs. McCain can credibly be framed as "pro war vs. anti-war." Clinton vs. McCain cannot.
But the MOST important reason I can see Clinton accepting the VP position:
Cheney has shown us that the office of the VP can wield a lot more power these days. She could make the changes she wants to make, more quietly, and from behind-the-scenes, if she takes the #2 position.
So, I've been mulling these points in my head the past couple of months, and then, today, we have this:
Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama.
Yep. She'll consider it.
I's just a matter of time.
After (barely) winning Ohio & Texas last night, Hillary Clinton managed to stay in the game, and is still competing against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Obama still has a slight delegate lead (he won Vermont yesterday), and if she hadn't won Ohio & Texas last night, he'd be the clear choice. But she managed to hang in there, and isn't conceding.
What's most interesting now is how close these two candidates actually are. The Democratic party appears to be almost evenly split between them.
I've said for months now that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be the ideal campaign for the Democrats to run this year, in the wake of eight years of George W. Bush. The American people are ready for fresh faces, and a fresh approach. They want change. A black man as president and a woman as vice president would be almost unstoppable. Old white guy vs. young black guy and groundbreaking woman: That's a contest that people will care about. That's a campaign that speaks of change.
Hillary supporters keep telling me that there's no way she'd accept the VP position -- she doesn't want to be a woman in second place to a president again -- but I think she might. Here's why:
But the MOST important reason I can see Clinton accepting the VP position:
So, I've been mulling these points in my head the past couple of months, and then, today, we have this:
Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama.
Yep. She'll consider it.
I's just a matter of time.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I think this comment is like saying that since so many American's supported invading Iraq in the beginning that anti-war people, shouldn't protest it.
From:
no subject
As someone who protested the war before it even started, even though I knew the war would go ahead despite the anti-war movement's efforts, I'm a bit bothered by that implication.
No, she's completely within her rights to keep running. It's not wrong for her to do it, either.
All I am saying is that, a wise leader knows when to get out of the way. Some things are inevitable, and there certainly is a sense of inevitability with Obama. No guarantees, but I think she's got to come to a point where she realizes she's hurting the Democratic Party by standing in the way.
Let me rephrase that: At some point, if she doesn't want to keep hurting the Democrats, she's going to have to step aside. I think that point is sooner rather than later.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Perhaps, but with differences: A Democrat (or republican), running a competing campaign within the party carries a risk of splitting the party, which would be bad. An independent (like Green) candidate doesn't split the party.
From:
Voting by emotions or issues?
In my humble opinion, for many voters, emotions will always trump issues. And when emotions cloud a voter's choices, unfortunately, status quo tends to be the norm. In addition, the people who choose not to vote are usually the ones who complain the loudest.
From:
Re: Voting by emotions or issues?
For me, it all boils down to one thing:
She voted for the war.
The blood of ONE MILLION dead Iraqis are on her hands. That blood is also on the hands of we, the American people. And that kind of stain can't be easily forgiven.
Hillary Clinton cannot -- and must not -- be trusted with the reigns of power.
So, yes, I understand the vehement opposition to her.
Me, if she is the nominee, I will vote Green Party again (as I did in 1996, 2000 & 2004). I am willing to come back to the Democratic Party for Obama, but not for her.
As for the issue of emotions or issues, Newsweek did a really good story on this very issue a few weeks ago:
When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins. We are emotional beings, and it's so easy for us to chuck issues when emotions are involved.
From:
Re: Voting by emotions or issues?
I can tell them "Fuck off and die!"
;-)
From:
Late, but....
I know a bunch of USAians on-line that wouldn't vote for Hillary unless the alternative were Fred Phelps. And for a whole bunch of people, their perceptions of McCain and Clinton are too close to each other for it to be a big choice, regardless of their actual differences. Obama is different enough to influence those in the middle ground that everyone is after.
From:
Re: Late, but....
Isn't it, though?
>I know a bunch of USAians on-line that wouldn't vote for Hillary unless the alternative were Fred Phelps.
Count me in that group.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
>kucinich as homeland security and ron paul as sacrificial lamb? Now you're just getting into fantasy...
From:
OK, I was wrong.
But, I'm not surprised to see her get the Secretary of State nod -- though I object to it on anti-imperial grounds. I'd rather see her as Secretary of Health and Human Services, so she could push through Universal Health Care. It's is a shrewd move for Obama. He mollifies her supporters and brings her machine on board with this appointment. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. I knew she couldn't keep her hands off the levers of power.