A ticket to defeat
James Forsyth 2:59pm
Picking Hillary Clinton as his VP would be fatal to Obama’s chances. It is hard to imagine a move that could cause him more damage. First, it would make him look weak—as if Hillary had forced him into making a concession to her. Secondly, it would undercut his message that his candidacy represents change and the future. If this wasn’t enough, it would also motivate the Republican base like nothing else.
NBC are reporting that Hillary does want to be his running mate. (Personally, I expect she must just be running through the gamut of emotions and we won’t know what she really thinks for at least 24 hours or so). But Obama should offer her whatever it takes, within reason, to get her to drop the idea. If she wants her campaign debts paid off, he should just write the cheque and move on. If she wants him to come up to New York and help her mend fences with the black community, he should. Even if what she wants is Obama to pick one of her top supporters as his VP, he should acquiesce. From his perspective, there is almost no price that is too high for keeping her off the ticket.
Previous
David Lindsay
June 4th, 2008 3:56pm Report this commentFirst, Obama should undertake that, before and after election, he will meet weekly with representatives of the unions to discuss common interests: the protection of workers and consumers, fair trade and fair tax, universal health care, Social Security, environmental responsibility, Civil Rights, and foreign policy realism.
These are all massively popular causes both among Evangelicals (who include most African-Americans and much of the white working class) and among traditional Catholics (who include very many working-class whites and far more African-Americans than is often realised).
Secondly, he should undertake that, before and after election, he will meet weekly with Pat Buchanan and nine others of Buchanan's choosing (let Obama just spring this on Buchanan and dare him to turn it down) to discuss common interests: family values, strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, constitutional checks and balances, national security, energy independence, Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, and America as an English-speaking country.
These are all massively popular causes both among African-Americans (most of whom are Evangelicals at least broadly defined, with many of the rest traditional Catholics) and among the white working class (very many of whom are traditional Catholics and very many of whom are Evangelicals).
Thirdly, he should undertake never to make any significant nomination without the consent of both of those bodies within their respective frames of reference.
And fourthly, he should have absolutely nothing to do with the white Al Sharpton, Mrs NAFTA, Mrs GATT, Mrs Bomb Yugoslavia To Smithereens, Ms (in her own right) Botched Health Care Reform, Senator Invade Iraq, Senator Bomb Iran To "Protect" The Viciously Misogynistic And Jew-Hating Gulf Monarchies.
The defeat of this ghastly person is news rather better the victory of Obama. He needs to do the sort of things set out above. Whereas his vanquishing of her is an unalloyed joy simply in itself.
Tiberius
June 4th, 2008 5:01pm Report this commentDL: you seem pretty confident he's going to beat McCain.
I would prefer a man in the White House who has firm foreign policy and defence credentials in the face of the threats to Western security.
Sen Obama is not that man.
salieri
June 4th, 2008 5:16pm Report this commentSome might fear that the choice would be literally fatal.
David Lindsay
June 4th, 2008 5:31pm Report this commentIf he picks the right running mate, then I want him to win. And if he did the things that I set out, then he would win.
As for McCain, you will have noticed that he is running as, if anything, an even more anti-Bush candidate than Obama. Nobody in the Republican Party seems to mind.
Jolly good, but who are the Bush supporters on here backing, in that case? Could it be, just maybe, that absolutely everyone now says that you were wrong? Could it be that you actually are?
I am not convinced at all that MCain is a warmonger. Like the decorated Jacques Chirac, men of his experience leave that sort of thing to draft dodgers like Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Kevyn Bodman
June 4th, 2008 6:10pm Report this commentThere are reasons that Obama shouldn't pick Clinton as his running mate, but that it would make him look weak is not one of them.
Reagan picked Bush. Reagan was strong and didn't mind picking a former strong rival.
Bush picked Quayle.Bush wasn't strong and couldn't bear the thought of a strong VP.
Hillary will be giving full-throated, but not full-hearted support.She's already thinking of 2012.
She will now be experiencing extreme emotional ups and downs, but she did OK at AIPAC.
Obama was again much better than her as an orator.
But he'll get hammered in the general election.
Whoever is the Republican VP nominee will be the attack dog,and there's a lot to attack Obama on.
Liz Brown
June 4th, 2008 7:28pm Report this commentHillary would try to upstage and undermine him at every possible opportunity and Bill would be giving her full support - nor should Bill be allowed anywhere near interns........
Ian C
June 4th, 2008 8:47pm Report this commentBut he cannot win the white blue collar vote without her. And standing as his VP means she may have to wait until she is McCain's age.
Just not a relevant conversation here.
Hysteria
June 4th, 2008 9:01pm Report this commentOnce McCain picks a black veep the GOP will be tough to beat....
David Lindsay
June 5th, 2008 12:30am Report this commentHysteria, that depends who it is. McCain is far too anti-Bush for it to be Rice. And it can't possible be Alan Keyes, the man Obama beat for the Senate. So who?
Ganpat Ram
June 5th, 2008 5:03pm Report this commentClintonite will vote McCain in large numbers.
That will be very helpful to Obama.
Back to top