Saturday, March 08, 2008
The Donks: Prospects for a "grand compromise"
Princeton reader and occasional TigerHawk commenter Paul Budline sent around an email this morning with his prediction for the resolution of the Democratic presidential nomination race:
Not that anyone asked, but here is a prediction I have not read elsewhere:
There will be no bloody convention in Denver, no days of rage, no train wreck, not even do-overs in Florida and Michigan.
Sometime within the next few weeks, Senators Obama and Clinton will announce a fusion ticket, with Obama at the top spot, Hillary as his running mate. They'll call it "Hope AND Experience," or something like that. The Democratic Party will save many millions of dollars, it will avoid racial acrimony, and Howard Dean will gleefully announce that all is right with the world.
Some obvious questions:
1. Why Obama on top? Simple math, for starters - there's no way she can win the nomination without the superdelegates and all the accompanying chaos. Hillary will also come under far less scrutiny in the second spot. There aren't just the tax returns, pardons to terrorists, and the Clinton Library donations; don't forget the cattle futures windfall, the missing documents, even her tax deduction for donating Bill's used underwear to the Salvation Army (seriously.) HRC's closet has more skeletons than Imelda's had shoes.
2. Why will he accept Hillary, who is loathed by nearly half the nation? That's her price of admission - either she gets the second spot or she fights for every last delegate in Denver, probably giving the election to McCain. For her, it's better to be the first female VP than just another senator.
3. Don't they hate one another? Sure, but it's nothing compared to the mutual loathing between the Kennedys and LBJ. Those guys needed one another in '60, just as O & C need each other now.
This scenario will be terribly disappointing to Republicans, but even more so to the media, which want a bare-knuckles brawl for ratings, circulation & excitement. I find it kind of disappointing myself, as I would relish the drama in Denver. But the Democrats are neither stupid nor venal enough to allow the fratricide everyone is predicting.
If this comes to pass, remember where you read it first. If not, remember those words of Emily Latilla. Never mind.
Paul B.
Since I the first value of politics is entertainment, I certainly hope that Paul is wrong. I expect, though, that he is correct, at least insofar as the nomination will not remain unresolved all the way to Denver. However, my guess is that no deal will be possible until after the Pennsylvania primary on April 22; the activists on both sides will want to see the results through that date before they will tolerate the concessions necessary for one of the candidates to give up the pole position. The question then will be whether there is any scenario under which Barack Obama would offer and Hillary Clinton would accept the vice presidential nomination. Could he trust her in that position? Even if he were to conclude that were an expedient path to the nomination and the White House, he would have to wonder whether she would not undermine him at every opportunity once in office.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 08, 08:03:00 PM:
Obama ruled out accepting a VP slot, and I don't think Clinton will take it either. She's better off poisoning Obama as unelectable and being the restoration candidate four years later.
Moreover, the conflict between the ultra-hard-left Black Racialists and post-American progressives on Obama's camp (Rev. Wright, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Samantha Power, Bill Ayers) and the old pros in Clinton's camp (Albright, Holbrooke, etc) is not going away. Either we have a Dem Party filled with hard left rage and "start from zero" remaking of America into a debased PC/Multiculti volk marxist Cuba-light, or the usual pro party politicking.
Of course Denver will be another 1968, there's already recreate68.org urging riots in the streets and convention center if Obama is not the nominee. Sharpton is threatening violence.
And the reality is, Obama is unelectable and will drag down the Blue Dogs with his hard left positions and Black Racial history. Hillary will limit the damage.
Dems think it's 2006 all over again, that's as bad as thinking it's 2004 again for Reps.
By , at
Sat Mar 08, 08:27:00 PM:
Unless Hillary is out after PA, they'll have to have MI and FL vote again. Just can't decide on the fusion ticket until that occurs.
Would you, by the way, want a Veep that brought along Bill as luggage?
By , at
Sat Mar 08, 09:28:00 PM:
Wow. Someone finally proposes a scenarion which makes an Obama assassination theory plausible...
By 
Miss Ladybug, at
Sat Mar 08, 09:50:00 PM:
Obama would be a fool to offer her the VP slot. I agree with the sentiments that he'd have be to looking over his shoulder all the time about what she'd be doing to undermine him...
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Mar 08, 10:23:00 PM:
Anonymous--David Duke wants his sheets back (even the ones you stained when you wet the bed). Have the scrote to give me you real name (and address hahaha...and work address/number) so we can "talk." Even GOP blacks like Colin Powell would find your statements vomit-inducing. By the way, Colin's supporting Barack, so goes the scuttlebutt...
As for the issue at hand, even a tool like Al Gore can (and likely will very soon) attest to the Clinton idea of "having one's back," circa 2000.
By , at
Sat Mar 08, 10:30:00 PM:
So, Chris, instead of addressing any of anonymous' points, you unfairly slime him as a coward and a racist. Nicely done.
I'd thought for a while that your postings were more performance art than your actual opinions. At this point you'd have to be Andy Kaufman level good to still be pulling this off.
By Elijah, at
Sat Mar 08, 10:57:00 PM:
some cannot enter into debate, but dwell in the domain of intellectual sloth
Can Obama or his supporters not answer simple questions?
1
Who PRECISELY are the captors, captive, and subjugated discussed in concept 8 of Obama's race-based religious value sytem?
2
Are the captor's, captive, and subjugated from Obama's race-based value system the same groups as the weak and the strong, the powerful and the powerless from Mr. Obama's political/judicial perspective?
3
How can an individual be a uniter if his religious, political, and judicial perspective separates individuals into groups?
4
Concerning Mr. Obama's race-based value system - What is an ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE of a race-based religious value system?
5
Does Mr. Obama, his wife, his minister, and his church judge individuals by the content of their character, or the color of their skin?
By , at
Sat Mar 08, 11:21:00 PM:
Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.
This is what "Elijah" keeps asking about. It is so out of character with the rest of the statements of "black policy" of the Trinity Church, that one wonders what they were thinking of when they put this up. But there is is. It seems to be some sort of statement regarding "class struggle", which might be the dead give-away that it seems, but it is truly weird.
-David
By Elijah, at
Sat Mar 08, 11:52:00 PM:
It seems to be some sort of statement regarding "class struggle"
-David
..........................
"the captors, captive, and subjugated"
"the weak and the strong, the powerful and the powerless"
......................
"It is the brotherhood of the oppressors against the oppressed, of the exploiters against the exploited."
- December 9, 1847
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 12:26:00 AM:
I mentioned to my wife long time ago that such scenario (B on top and H in sec. pos.) would be highly entertaining in a "Saturday Night Live" sence. Just imagine the quantity (and possibly quality) of dirty jokes. For this reason alone I think the scenario will (unfortunately) never happen.
By rickl, at
Sun Mar 09, 12:56:00 AM:
Heh. I wouldn't give a nickel for his chances of living out his term with Hillary as VP.
/More popcorn, please!
By jj mollo, at
Sun Mar 09, 01:13:00 AM:
Obama is probably going to get elected and burn out in one term after doing a lot of damage, very like Jimmy Carter. I can't believe that Clinton wants to be his Mondale. I also can't believe she'll give up prematurely.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 01:23:00 AM:
Obama would not survive his term with Clinton as VP.
Obama is young enough to risk running without Clinton on the ticket - He can wait for 2012 or 2016.
And yes, please pass the popcorn
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Mar 09, 01:30:00 AM:
Chrissy, David Duke wants his semen back, you got it from him in one of your Jew-baiting fests.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Mar 09, 05:52:00 PM:
Well THAT stirred the pot...
I am no authority on the horse-race and inside baseball side of politics. It's not so much that I disapprove, I'm just not good at it. This scenario seems impossible to me. Will pigs fly? Perhaps.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 09:30:00 PM:
Who is going to watch Obama's back,
if Hillary is his VP? Maybe Bill?
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Maggie
By , at
Mon Mar 10, 08:43:00 PM:
I don't think they could win a general election. Not because they wouldn't motivate people to vote for them, but because the two of them together would motivate others against them. Some centrists can swallow one or the other, but both? They'll run to McCain.
